Posts Tagged: "android"

In two months, the Supreme Court will hear the oral argument in the long-running Google v. Oracle software copyright case. At issue is the availability of copyright protection for computer programs and in particular the copyright protection of code in Oracle’s Java platform, which Google admits it copied for its Android operating system without obtaining a license. Google also claims its commercial use of that code in competition with Oracle is protected under copyright law’s fair use doctrine, but that is a subject for another day. If adopted by the Supreme Court, Google’s arguments would undermine the Constitutional purposes and specific Congressional intent in enacting the Copyright Act, and along with them the fundamental incentives for new creative expression in software, a building block of so many consumer and industrial products. To better understand how, it helps to start at the beginning: Apple’s groundbreaking release of the iPhone.

As Jaime Siegel, OIN’s Global Director of Licensing, notes, OIN is able to grant free membership to companies joining the consortium thanks to the efforts of eight full-funding member companies which have each funded $20 million to support OIN’s operations through an endowment. These companies include the first six companies to form OIN: Sony, Phillips, IBM, Red Hat, NEC and SUSE; joining those companies are Google and Toyota. OIN’s board consists of representatives from each of these full funding members. Every new member of OIN signs the same licensing agreement as the full-funding members, giving all members in the organization equal standing in terms of the cross-license agreement.

The Federal Circuit recently decided the case of Oracle America v. Google Inc. To “attract Java developers to build apps for Android,” Google copied the declaring code, but wrote its own implementing code for the 37 Java API packages. Id at 1187.  Previously, the Federal Circuit held that “[the] declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization (‘SSO’) of the Java API packages are entitled to copyright protection.” .  On the other hand, the Federal Circuit also recognized that a reasonable jury could find that “the functional aspects of the packages” are “relevant to Google’s fair use defense.” In this key decision that has the potential to rock the software industry, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the jury verdict and found that “Google’s use of the 37 Java API packages was not fair as a matter of law.

Canadian intellectual property owner BlackBerry Limited filed a suit alleging patent infringement claims against Menlo Park, CA-based social media giant Facebook Inc. in the Central District of California. BlackBerry alleges that Facebook, along with its subsidiaries WhatsApp and Instagram, violate patents held by BlackBerry in the field of mobile messaging communications.

Finjan asserts four patents in the case and alleges that Bitdefender’s marketing of antivirus, cloud and sandboxing technologies infringes upon the patents-in-suit. The case has been filed in the Northern District of California… Finjan’s suit against Bitdefender alleges that Bitdefender was presented with written notice of the alleged infringement of Finjan’s patents as early as February 2015. In October 2015, Finjan alleged that it discussed the ‘844, ‘154 and ‘494 patents with Bitdefender and how those patents read on technology practiced by Bitdefender. Despite numerous in-person and telephone meetings, Finjan alleges that that Bitdefender has continued to engage in willful and deliberate infringement of Finjan’s IP.

Given the growth of efficient infringement, Google can operate in an open innovation way, applying open source principles to patented technologies from outside of the company as well as from those inside the company and partners… If it were not for efficient infringement it would be impossible for one company to be involved in as many different areas of endeavor as Google/Alphabet have attempted. The only feasible way for them to hunt for the next revenue stream seems to be to scatter-shot innovation by going in numerous different directions without any real focus. Of course, that requires them to ignore the rights of others and pretend we live in an open source world without any patent rights. Ironically, it is this disparate and uncoordinated approach to innovating that is also preventing Google from developing any kind of mastery outside of their core search competency and revenue generating model.

On January 7th, 2007, legendary CEO of Apple Inc. and master of the product demo Steve Jobs announced the introduction of three revolutionary new products: a widescreen iPod with touch controls, a revolutionary mobile phone and a breakthrough Internet communicator. Soon, it became clear to everyone attending the Macworld 2007 keynote address, these three products would be incorporated into a single device known as the iPhone. This was Apple’s first foray into the nascent smartphone sector and it marked the beginning of a sea change in the consumer electronics industry.

Getting around may get a little bit easier for some drivers as Google (NASDAQ:GOOGL) adds on new features to the 9.34 beta-release of Google Maps… Some of the methods protecting the technology behind the parking notification feature can be found in U.S. Patent No. 8484151. Predicting Parking Availability protects a method that, by first predicting the population density in an area and then applying it to a parking availability model, can estimate whether parking will be easy or hard. Because the parking availability model makes use of a function that predicts parking based on population density, the computer-stored information can then relate the parking availability to the user of the technology. This transfer of information was first envisioned as a layer over the map showing parking availability according to the patent’s abstract.

The model for implementing digital wallets has largely relied upon what is known as the four-corner payment model by incorporating the use of payment cards, such as debit cards. Market research firm Research and Markets has reported that nearly three-quarters of all mobile digital wallets are funded by payment cards. By the end of 2013, 22 percent of the world’s population owned a smartphone, so it’s not inconceivable to think of a time in the future where credit and debit cards will become obviated by near-field communications (NFC) payment systems on smartphones entirely, despite the major rollout of payment cards with EMV computer chips by financial institutions. Today, we’ll take a look at the top three contenders in the mobile payment world to see what we can expect from each in the coming months.

It’s impossible to actually support the idea that patents harm smartphone innovation because there is no consumer product that has changed so much over the past decade thanks to innovation. And if patents would get in the way of anything, it would definitely get in the way of an industry which accounted for one out of every six active patents. But more smartphones are being sold than ever before and new improvements continue to be developed, from curved touchscreens to waterproof phones to dual-screen phones.

Softcard’s patents and their ability to protect Google Wallet against any potential legal challenges from Apple may be a much more important aspect of the acquisition than Softcard itself, which had struggled financially and laid off workers in the weeks leading up to Google’s purchase. There are many reasons for Softcard’s woes, including a need to rebrand the company after its original name, Isis, was co-opted by the Middle Eastern terrorist organization.