publicly published acknowledgement of a UK court ruling that Samsung did not copy the iPad, though there's a sting in the tail. The statement - which is linked from the Apple UK homepage, but you may have to hunt a little to find it since it's buried right down at the footer - sticks to the court-mandated minimum font size, but also takes the opportunity to remind readers that courts elsewhere in the world thought differently.
Oracle this week. After completely losing the legal battle with Google over Android and their Java code it looks like they've now been ordered to shell out some serious cash and pay back Google for all those pesky legal fees. Double win for Android!
ported to Android, and tons of progress not to mention playable levels from the developers it has apparently been canceled. This was being ported by a few genius developers out of Russia but after some legal threats all bets are off.
Oracle was looking into a suit against Google for its perceived infringement of their Java code, and we've finally come to a point where it appears that both parties are willing to reach, maybe, perhaps, a settlement. This settlement may well come in this newest announced move for a mediation meeting between representatives from Google and representatives from Oracle, this newest move sparking talk about how serious Google is taking the case and questions over whether or not they're prepared to defend themselves in a case that could, ultimately, believe it or not, end up in the destruction of Android as we know it today.
is on hold in Australia, clarifying that the company's agreement with Apple only covers the US version of the tablet. According to Samsung's official statement, given to AusDroid, the original Apple complaint covered "a Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 variant that Samsung Electronics had no plans of selling in Australia." The Korean company says that, as indicated in reports yesterday, the settlement between it and Apple was "a mutual agreement" rather than a court injunction. That agreement only concerns the contentious US version of the slate, whereas the Australian variant is presumably different so as to avoid infringing Apple patents. Samsung, therefore, will push ahead with its Galaxy Tab 10.1 launch schedule, saying that the 10-inch model will be released soon. A hearing in Australia has been scheduled for August 29 to review the status of the localized suit.
Apple Inc. filed a complaint with the Federal Court of Australia involving a Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 variant that Samsung Electronics had no plans of selling in Australia. No injunction was issued by the court and the parties in the case reached a mutual agreement which stipulates that the variant in question will not be sold in Australia. A Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 for the Australian market will be released in the near future. This undertaking does not affect any other Samsung smartphone or tablet available in the Australian market or other countries. Samsung will continue to actively defend and protect our intellectual property to ensure our continued innovation and growth in the mobile communication business.[Thanks Dy4me!]
Eric Schmidt says that he's not too worried about the litigation, but at least one person on the Google legal team seems to be bothered by the litigation. At the same time Larry Page, Google CEO, insists that the patent situation isn't critical.
Reuters reports, she nonetheless felt that Apple had failed to establish the necessary "likelihood of confusion" required for an injunction to be the appropriate response. The decision falls in line with predictions late last month, where Judge Hamilton warned Apple that their case had likely been insufficient. She had said she was "troubled" by what Apple had brought before her, however, with the Cupertino company's approach being that Amazon's use of "app store" could "confuse and mislead customers." With a quick fix no longer possible, it now looks like Apple and Amazon's legal battle will end up going through the courts properly. A trial date of October 2012 has been set.
General Dynamics Itronix has agreed a patent licensing deal with Microsoft, the latest company to cough up cash despite many assuming that Android, being open-source, liberates them from patent concerns. According to the rather smug Horacio Gutierrez, corporate vice president and deputy general counsel of Intellectual Property and Licensing at Microsoft, the deal "is an example of how industry leaders address intellectual property." That certainly seems a snub to other Android OEMs yet to ink patent contracts with Microsoft. It's unclear what exact patents the agreement covers, at this stage, though Microsoft has been vocal in the past about the misconception that Android is a "free" OS because Google made it open-source. "Android has a patent fee" CEO Steve Ballmer said back in 2010, "it's not like Android’s free. You do have to license patents. HTC’s signed a license with us and you’re going to see license fees clearly for Android as well as for Windows." Earlier this year it was suggested that HTC pays Microsoft $5 for every Android device the company sells. In fact, Citi analyst Walter Pritchard suggested, Microsoft made more from indirect Android handset sales that it did from licensing Windows Phone to its own OEMs.
claiming to have received a legal threat over their software. Lodsys grabbed headlines after issuing independent App Store developers with demands for patent licensing over some of the technologies used in in-app purchasing systems, despite Apple having already licensed those patents. "We recently implemented in-app purchases for our Android application" Android developer markusn82 writes, "and several weeks later we received a letter from Lodsys, claiming that we infringed on their patents." So far we're yet to hear from any other developers similarly targeted. Apple has announced its intent to support iOS developers, arguing that it licenses the Lodsys patents under an agreement that allows it to offer the resulting technologies to its business partners and customers. The expectation is that Google will take a similar stance. [via MacRumors]