backtop


Print 35 comment(s) - last by zerobug.. on Sep 28 at 1:07 PM


Mr. Mueller implies that he'd be happy to see Samsung's products banned, stating, "From a short-term perspective, it would certainly be great if every device maker could steal every original innovator's intellectual property. I'd rather live in a world in which some wireless devices get banned from time time than in a dictatorship with a weak rule of law."  (Source: PDF Devices)
Mr. Mueller says Google giving early Android builds to Verizon may prove wrong-doing

One person certainly wasn't happy about Verizon Communications Inc.'s (VZamicus curiae brief ("friend of the court petition") on behalf of Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd.'s (SEO 005930) in its case against Apple, Inc. (AAPL) -- Florian Mueller.  The FOSS Patents writer fired off a long critical blog/editorial he implies that Verizon may be illegally conspiring with Google, Inc. (GOOG) to support Android at the expense of Apple.

He writes, "I'm sure that Apple will view this move as a self-serving attempt to game the system in Android's and Samsung's favor, as another sign of Verizon being staunchly Android-aligned in exchange for market-distorting favors from Google, and as an attack on the intellectual property-centric business model of Apple and other innovators."

He links to a document he believes supports this bold suggestion of Google and Verizon's conspiring to exchange "market-distorting favors".  He writes that court filings contain "... a document that shows Verizon and Google promised each other unspecified favors, potentially anti-competitive ones since they did not document them in writing."

The document in question comes from Oracle Corp.'s (ORCL) court case against Google and states:
Lead device concept: Give early access to the software to partners who build and distribute devices to our specification (ie, Motorola and Verizon). They get a non-contractual time to market advantage and in return they align to our standard.
In other words Google says that it rewards partners that honor its device specification with early releases of its source code.  This appears no different than Apple's early releases of iOS/OS X to trusted developers, Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) early releases of Windows code to businesses, or countless other examples.  But Mr. Mueller appears convinced that it's actually evidence of a possibly illegal conspiracy.

He goes on to accuse Verizon of intellectual property incompetence for its decision to support Google.  He writes, "I seriously wonder whether Verizon's top-level management is completely incompetent with respect to intellectual property issues and perhaps being a bit irrational, or whether it's just doing all of this in exchange for whatever Google may have promised them."

It's unclear whether Mr. Mueller supports Apple's claims to own exclusive rights to produce minimalist tablet designs.  He does qualify, "I've been highly critical of the German injunctions based on an excessively broad design-related right."

But he goes one to write, "I'd rather live in a world in which some wireless devices get banned from time time than in a dictatorship with a weak rule of law," and, "From a short-term perspective, it would certainly be great if every device maker could steal every original innovator's intellectual property."

Both comments seem to suggest he believes that Samsung stole Apple's iPad design, as Apple claims.  His commentary clearly seems to imply Apple is an "innovator" in his eyes, and Samsung a thief.

Mr. Mueller has drawn a great deal of attention for his strong opinions on the case, even getting quoted in The Wall Street Journal.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

tight fit of OS to hardware
By mattclary on 9/26/2011 8:54:34 AM , Rating: 5
One of Apple's advantages is it owns hardware and software so it is a tight fit. God forbid Google and Verizon work together to make their stuff work better together.

Ass clowns.




RE: tight fit of OS to hardware
By drycrust3 on 9/26/2011 11:14:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
God forbid Google and Verizon work together to make their stuff work better together.

I can't understand what this guy at FOSS is on about. If Google was going to develop some sort of new computer system for cars, it is logical they would talk to a company in that line of business, e.g. Ford, of if they were going to make a new type of camera, then they would talk to a company in that area of business, e.g. Canon; so what is wrong with Google wanting to talk to a mobile network provider? Without knowing the intricacies of a mobile network, I can't imagine Google, on their own, could get their tablet and mobile phone software working even close to being good enough for a commercial product if they didn't have the input from a mobile network provider, so who would this guy from FOSS like them to talk to?
Since Google is the number 1 search engine company in the world, then it is natural that they would seek the input of a mobile network company that holds some sort of similar status. According to Wikipedia Verizon (45% owned by Vodafone) has the most mobile subscribers in the USA, so it is natural that Google would talk them first. Since they are partly owned by Vodafone then it is logical they would have had some input as well, so that the software will work all around the world with a minimum of problems.
Obviously that isn't good enough for FOSS, so who is next? AT&T? They have a contract with Apple, and since Apple is a competitor of Google, then it is understandable that Google wouldn't be happy dealing with them unless they had to.
Ok, so who is next? Who?
I'm sorry FOSS, but I think your comments are unrealistic.


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki