Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Google Patents The Courts Your Rights Online

BT Sues Google Over Android 214

Posted by samzenpus
from the sue-cycle dept.
phonewebcam writes "British Telecom is claiming billions of dollars of damages from Google in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. which says that the Android mobile operating system infringes a number of the telecoms company's key patents. The lawsuit, filed in the state of Delaware in the U.S., relates to six patents which BT says are infringed by the Google Maps, Google Music, location-based advertising and Android Market products on Android. If successful, the suit could mean that Google or mobile handset makers will have to pay BT royalties on each Android handset in use and which they produce."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BT Sues Google Over Android

Comments Filter:
  • by msobkow (48369) on Monday December 19, 2011 @10:03AM (#38423362) Homepage Journal

    There's one big reason I'll pay attention to this one:

    filed in the state of Delaware in the US

    Patent trolls file in Texas; serious patent holders file in Delaware.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I don't think they are patent trolls, somehow.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_Group

      • by JonahsDad (1332091) on Monday December 19, 2011 @10:30AM (#38423476)

        I don't think they are patent trolls, somehow.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_Group

        Depends on your point of view. This is the company that sued (and lost) claiming a patent on the hyperlink.
        http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/networking/2000/12/18/bt-sues-over-hyperlink-claim-2083266/ [zdnet.co.uk]

        • by goombah99 (560566) on Monday December 19, 2011 @10:46AM (#38423542)

          I don't think they are patent trolls, somehow.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_Group

          Depends on your point of view. This is the company that sued (and lost) claiming a patent on the hyperlink.

          http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/networking/2000/12/18/bt-sues-over-hyperlink-claim-2083266/ [zdnet.co.uk]

          I was wondering the same thing. But the article said most of these patents were filed in the 1990s and were products of it's research department. This lends some credibility that these are not rushes to patent the obvious in a new context but rather very early research that perhaps deservedly should be rewarded for pushing technology forward.

          But it does remain to be seen. A patent on deciding if you have enough bandwidth to stream or download a file sure doesn't sound like much of an innovation.

          • This lawsuit smacks of "Holy crap, our patents are about to expire and we've done nothing with them! Let's see if there's someone we can sue over them."
        • by chrb (1083577) on Monday December 19, 2011 @11:55AM (#38423798)

          It is also a company that has had an Research wing for the past 91 years: BT Research [wikipedia.org]. And even before that, their (Post Office) engineers conducted research into fundamental technology advances during the 19th century.

          BT may still be considered a patent troll (depending on your point of view) but understand that they are very different from the usual trolls - this is a company that has historically sold products developed from its own research, and which has a history of conducting research into communications technology that spans the better part of a century.

          Before it became BT, the research wing was part of the Post Office. They carried out research with Marconi in developing fundamental wireless communications technology in the 1890s. One of their researchers went on to develop Colossus, which was arguably the world's first programmable computer, and pivotal in the war effort. In the 1940s and 50s they developed designs for the first all-electric telephone exchanges.

          So no, not a typical patent troll.

        • by mjwalshe (1680392) on Monday December 19, 2011 @02:16PM (#38424904)
          As a BT employee at the time - they where on very shaky ground on this one. - The claim was based off of some arcane functionality used in PRESTEL ( a video text system) and totally ignored the prior art from 1947/48 Vadavar Bushes description of memex was a far better description of a hyper link.

          Internally all the techies thought this was a stupid idea.

          I used to work for PRESTEL and had not come across this supposed hyperlink functionality.
      • by sjames (1099)

        They're not professional patent trolls, but they do like to dabble. They also rattled the sabre in the '90s when they blew the dust off of some vague patents of theirs about an information retrieval system and attempted a desperate contortion to try to get royalties from the entire www.

      • by roc97007 (608802)

        Perhaps not patent trolls, just really REALLY optimistic.

    • by Kamiza Ikioi (893310) on Monday December 19, 2011 @10:14AM (#38423414) Homepage

      Why doesn't British Telecom file suit in their own country? Serious patent holders would, at least in my guess, have a home turf advantage.

      • by bhunachchicken (834243) on Monday December 19, 2011 @10:21AM (#38423436) Homepage

        "Why doesn't British Telecom file suit in their own country? Serious patent holders would, at least in my guess, have a home turf advantage."

        Probably because it would eventually be referred to a court in the EU, and the judge would simply tell BT to fuck off.

      • Because they would have got their asses handed to them here in the UK.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by maroberts (15852)

          Also probably because the patents are registered in the US, and Delaware happens to be where most companies are registered (incl Google, according to the action).

          Its probably easier to win a patent case in the UK than in the US, but a US judgement will allow them to knock on the doors of other companies (hello Apple) and get royalties.

          On the other hand, the lasttime BT tried to pull this off they crashed and burned rather ignominiously,

          • It's actually very hard to win a case like this in the UK. I was looking for the stat, but couldn't find it. Anyway, AFAIR, a high percentage of defendants win in the UK

          • by Splab (574204)

            Since the patents are software related and the EU does not recognize software patents, I'd say it would be extremely unlikely that BT would even get a court date in UK.

          • by poetmatt (793785)

            Courts are also not known to favor companies that are based out of other countries, when they're trying to litigate us companies. Not to mention when the patent wouldn't be valid in their own country makes quite a statement here.

      • by FyRE666 (263011) *

        As others have said, they'd have little to no chance of success in the UK.

        They tried something similar back in 2000, when they claimed they owned the patent to the hyperlink. The judge wouldn't have any of it and they were told to go away.

      • because they're US patents...
      • by a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) on Monday December 19, 2011 @10:48AM (#38423550) Homepage Journal

        They can only sue where the patents are valid. If it's US patents - they have to sue in the US.

        Britain har been much more restrictive in allowing software patents. So I doubt they got british patent
        for those 'inventions'.

         

      • You can ask that once the US quits taking domain names away from citizens of other countries or spying on them or having much different expectations on countries when it asks them to extrasite their citizens compared to when other countries want the US to send someone to them.
    • by poetmatt (793785)

      not when they quote Florian Mueller in the first few paragraphs of the article, they don't. Questionable patents should have told you that outright - this is driven by pure greed.

  • by d3ac0n (715594) on Monday December 19, 2011 @10:03AM (#38423364)

    Why allowing Software Patents is foolish. It destroys innovation and rewards established players and those with deep pockets. (It also allows the established players to pick the pockets of others, whether they are deep or not.)

    Abolish software patents. Software should be covered under copyright as it is written material. Patents are for physical objects. Not the written word (or code).

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Theaetetus (590071)

      Why allowing Software Patents is foolish. It destroys innovation and rewards established players and those with deep pockets. (It also allows the established players to pick the pockets of others, whether they are deep or not.)

      Software patents have been around for almost 30 years. You say they've destroyed innovation - do you have any evidence? I think computers have advanced pretty far since the 80s.

      Patents are for physical objects.

      The very first patent category mentioned under 35 USC 101 is "process". Are "processes" physical objects? That line has been in the statute since the mid-1800s, so patents clearly are not just for physical objects.

      • by d3ac0n (715594) on Monday December 19, 2011 @10:23AM (#38423446)

        Except that "process" in the patent system refers to manufacturing processes. Still tied intrinsically to the physical world. Modern lawyers have shoehorned written software into the patent world by calling it "A system or method or process".

        I'm saying we should disallow this and eliminate all software patents.

        You say the software world has done pretty well under patents, I say that so few companies were writing software until the last 10 years that almost nobody ran into issues with it. Back in the '60's when software was first allowed to be patentable they were still using PUNCH CARDS and computers filled whole rooms! Maybe 100 people on the PLANET could write software, and most of them knew each other, so patents weren't an issue.

        Now that software is everywhere we are running into the hard limits of the patent system and innovation by anyone other than the giants is suffering.

        I'm a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, so believe me, my opinion is not formed from some communistic desire to eliminate profit. My desire is to unlock the potential of software and software writers to bring us new and innovative ideas and allow the little guy some room to join in without the big guys monopolizing the market.

        I want everyone to have a chance to maximize their profit through honest marketplace competition, and to stop the minimizing of that marketplace by the artifice of patents.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Theaetetus (590071)

          Except that "process" in the patent system refers to manufacturing processes.

          [Citation needed]. The statute doesn't say "manufacturing process," it says "process". If Congress wanted to restrict it only to manufacturing processes, they could have at any point in the past 150 years.

          Still tied intrinsically to the physical world. Modern lawyers have shoehorned written software into the patent world by calling it "A system or method or process".

          No, we haven't (and yes, I am a patent attorney). There are no patents that claim "A system or method or process." A claim has to be directed to a single statutory category, by definition.

          I'm saying we should disallow this and eliminate all software patents.

          Yes, but you haven't said why. I understand you hate software patents, but you haven't come up with any good reasons to

          • by oxdas (2447598)

            I will take a crack at why software patents are bad.

            #1 - Purpose. Patents, at least according to the U.S. Constitution, exist to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Traditional patents achieve this by requiring enough information in the patents application to allow a person skilled in the art to replicate the invention. Most modern software patents don't include code or other information that would allow someone to replicate their efforts. Therefore, they are not fulfilling the purpose of

          • by Rob Y. (110975)

            This has become a much bigger problem recently, because the patent office has been rubber-stamping patents of the form 'do this thing that's always been done, but do it on a mobile device'. Or '...do it with a gesture on a touch screen'. I agree that the mobile device (i.e. the method of supporting TCP/IP over a cellular system) may well be patentable. Likewise the physical multi-touch screen should be patentable. But email over cellular IP is not even an innovation - it's email (there have been 'push'

          • by hrimhari (1241292)

            Yes, and patents have existed this entire time. And look at where we are now. IF we were still using punch cards, then you'd have a good argument that software patents stifled innovation. But we aren't. You're agreeing with my point - software has advanced incredibly far over the past 40 years, so any claim that software patents stifle innovation has a really high bar to jump.

            If I understand your argument well, you're saying that because software advanced so much in 40 years with patents, then patents must be great for innovation of software.

            If that's the case, how come other patentable things like car parts didn't advance as much? WHERE IS MY FLYING CAR?

            Seriously though (wait, was I joking? Anyway...), I can't help but imagine two situations:

            First, if we were still using punch cards and/or software had not advanced as much as it did but still advanced, how would we be able to t

      • by 0xdeadbeef (28836)

        do you have any evidence? I think computers have advanced pretty far since the 80s.

        You pathetic humans are still using computers with your fingers.

      • by JWW (79176)

        Yes, that's true, computers do processes.

        But, if there had been a patent on a Turing Machine, it would be expired by now.....

        So, yeah, software patents are stupid.

      • by vadim_t (324782)

        Software patents have been around for almost 30 years. You say they've destroyed innovation - do you have any evidence? I think computers have advanced pretty far since the 80s.

        Destroys, not destroyed. As in, it's happening right now, and is an ongoing process.

        In other words, it heavily limits it. Look at the mess in the industry right now: everybody is suing everybody else. Huge amounts of money are going on that. That money is going on lawyers and paper pushing, instead of research, development, and manuf

        • That money is going on lawyers and paper pushing, instead of research, development, and manufacturing something new.

          It's not a zero sum game. If that money weren't spent on lawyers it might be spent on marketing. Or executive salaries. I mean, look at Apple; they're sitting on billions in cash. It's not like they're not investing in more in R&D because they're busy suing everyone. They invest as much as they need to and no more.

          To enter the market at all and survive you need to be Google sized, and even then it's troublesome to say the least.

          It's not like eliminating software patents would change this. Entering the cellphone market is still a giant task. You need supplier relations, distributors, manufacturing, high cost of R&

          • by vadim_t (324782)

            It's not a zero sum game. If that money weren't spent on lawyers it might be spent on marketing. Or executive salaries. I mean, look at Apple; they're sitting on billions in cash. It's not like they're not investing in more in R&D because they're busy suing everyone. They invest as much as they need to and no more.

            Broken window fallacy.

            Lawyers are only needed to patch a problem in the system. The ideal case would be no lawyers and no lawsuits, with the money going on something more useful.

            Apple is an ex

            • The ideal case would be no lawyers and no lawsuits

              ... and no laws. And everyone just magically works together and gets along.

              While lawyers do exist in a system that in many respects is broken, they still nonetheless provide a valuable service. Fact is, people are going to take advantage of you and your business, lawyers or no lawyers. If your company gets ravaged by wolves it doesn't matter how much you spend on R&D. Like most people on here you probably feel that making the product is the only important part of doing business, but that's not even clo

      • by DM9290 (797337) on Monday December 19, 2011 @02:06PM (#38424766) Journal

        Software patents have been around for almost 30 years. You say they've destroyed innovation - do you have any evidence? I think computers have advanced pretty far since the 80s.

        Straw man. The issue is whether 'software' has advanced, not "computers".

        Computer hardware is not protected by software patents. Computer hardware is protected by patents on physical devices and physical processes.

        The majority of profound changes to computing over the past 30 years have been in HARDWARE and in public software that is not covered by patents.

        Your argument that "computers have advanced pretty far" is misleading and irrelevant.

        I would not claim software patents have "destroyed innovation" but the onus for proving that software patents are justified is on the party who is making that claim. If you are merely claiming that software patents are LAWFUL, then perhaps you are correct, but if you are claiming software patents actually ENCOURAGE software inventions, you have no evidence and you need to provide it.

        Patents are a limitation to freedom of expression and thus every single patent must be justifiable and every single law granting patents must be justifiable on the basis that it actually truly encourages the advancement of the art and knowledge into the public sphere and not merely the enrichment of private pockets.

        You could probably find many software developers, myself included, who would say that software patents have done absolutely NOTHING to encourage us in this art.

        The best evidence in favor of software patents would be if the vast majority of software writers (the people who actually practice the art), come forward and ask the state to grant us such monopoly rights. But it was not us who asked. Who are the famous computer scientists who made the most significant contributions to this field who have claimed it was patent law that encouraged them to invent software?

        To lay people it hardly matters whether or not there are patents on certain technology. Patents are intended to encourage the CREATORS by giving us incentives. But software patents are shackles on us as well. The creators who are the ones who are advancing the art, are the ones who should be asked, not patent trolls, not patent lawyers. The purpose of patents is NOT so that anybody can make money. The purpose is to advance the art. The artists are the ones who know best what assistance the government can give (if any) to this objective.

        PS: for the record, I'm in favor of copyright over software. (but limited to 14 years or something like that -- not the current absurd term of 70 years after death).

      • I'd say it's more in line with "destroying innovation now" than the past tense.

        Or do you really think patent's like the famous Amazon One-Click patent are worth a damn?

        You do realize you don't even have to show a working copy any more...
    • Why allowing Software Patents is foolish. It destroys innovation and rewards established players and those with deep pockets. (It also allows the established players to pick the pockets of others, whether they are deep or not.)

      Abolish software patents. Software should be covered under copyright as it is written material. Patents are for physical objects. Not the written word (or code).

      Do you think the same bullshit dynamics don't play out every day in the non-software world?

  • What the fuck? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19, 2011 @10:05AM (#38423372)

    The patent cited in the article as an example of BT's amazingly valuable innovations:

    Deciding whether to stream music based on whether the phone is using a wifi or cellular connection.

    Why the fuck is that patentable? Seriously, I just looked up "obvious" in the dictionary and it gave that idea as an example. That's not an invention or a technology. What the fuck, America?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by icebraining (1313345)

      Sigh. You need to look at the actual claims. That line just describes what the patent accomplishes, not how.

      • Re:What the fuck? (Score:5, Informative)

        by icebraining (1313345) on Monday December 19, 2011 @10:26AM (#38423460) Homepage

        U.S. Patent No. 6151309

        Claims
        What is claimed is:

        1. A service provision system for use with a communications network to provide a plurality of services to a network user, wherein data relevant to the plurality of services can be made available to the user dependent upon the location of the user within the network, and the user can select one or more services to be provided, said system including

        control means comprising a plurality of software agents, individual agents of said plurality comprising data relevant to service provision the network,
        updating means for updating data held by at least some of said software agents on a point-by-point continuous basis as the user changes location within the network,
        the control means maintaining and communicating the updated data made available to the user and responsive to selection of a service by the user to trigger a process for providing the selected service to the user.

        2. A system according to claim 1 wherein said communications network comprises at least in part a mobile communications network and the user has access to said mobile network.

        3. A system according to claim 2 wherein the control means is responsive to transfer of the user between cells of the mobile network, said cells having different resources to offer in respect of services to the user, to update data made available to the user which is affected by said transfer.

        4. A system according to claim 3 wherein at least one of the services potentially available to the user is affected by bandwidth availability in the cell in which the user has access to the mobile network, and the control means may update the data available to the user in terms of either availability of such service or the price at which it would be available.

        5. A system according to either of claim 3 or 4 wherein at least one of the services potentially available to the user involves the downloading of data to the user, which downloading is affected by bandwidth availability in cells of the mobile network, said system further comprising means to store data requested by the user as a consequence of selecting a service, the control means controlling downloading of said data to the user such that it is stored at times that bandwidth is not available for said downloading, and downloaded subsequently when bandwidth becomes available.

        6. A system according to claim 5 wherein the control means includes means for tracking the location of the user with respect to the mobile network for the purpose of downloading the data to the user by means of appropriate routing through the communications network or networks.

        7. A system according to claim 1 wherein the data relevant to the plurality of services includes real-time pricing data such that the user can take the real-time pricing data into account prior to selecting a service.

        8. A system according to claim 1 wherein:

        a plurality of said individual agents are each allocated a facility for offering a common service,
        each of said plurality of individual agents holding real-time data in respect of its allocated facility's capacity to offer the service, and
        the system selects one of the allocated facilities on which to base notification to the user of current conditions under which a service might be provided.

        9. A system according to claim 1 wherein at least one of said agents comprises means for storing an updatable business strategy, and the system accesses said business strategy prior to making cost-related service data available to a user, such that said business strategy can be applied to said cost-related service data to modify the data appropriately.

        10. A service provision system for use with a communications network including a mobile communications sub-network to provide a plurality of services to a network user having access to the

        • when I see the word "plurality", I begin to question my sanity...
          • by duguk (589689)
            When I see "What the fuck, America?" about British Telecom...

            I begin to question why I'm on this site in the first place.
        • http://www.patents.com/us-6151309.html [patents.com]

          Earliest date on the patent filing is April 1994, and it was issued in 2000. It appears to be describing Digital PCS, and sending data over the cellular network.

          Everything it's describing can be done (and indeed has been done) on a TDMA network. TDMA was accepted as a standard in 1991, and I know for a fact (because I had the service) that Bell Canada was selling Digital PCS in 1993. While it didn't include some of the later claims (like real-time pricing information),

      • Re:What the fuck? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Raenex (947668) on Monday December 19, 2011 @03:20PM (#38425688)

        Sigh. You need to look at the actual claims. That line just describes what the patent accomplishes, not how.

        Yes, this is said in nearly every Slashdot story about patents. Yet in almost all cases, the how is obvious once you know what the idea is, and the only things the claims do is describe it in an obscure fashion.

  • The OP points out that it covers other Google products, and it could also cover other mobile phone environments. We expect it will also be followed up very quickly by similar patent claims in Europe, where the German courts have been fast, and friendly towards patent holders. http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/bt-sues-google-claiming-android-patent-infringements-50431 [techweekeurope.co.uk]
    • According to Fosspatents on blogspot.com, one of BT's claims includes: "Following a login or the transmission of an authentication token, Google "offers the list of items that the user is entitled to access", and retrieves any such items at the user's request." Doesn't that pretty much cover *any* web server where you login to gain access to whatever your account entitles you?
    • Your quote is completely out of context.
      In germany (and most of EU) we don't have pure software patents (yet).
      So going to court in Germany would lead to a dismissed case ...

    • You aren't looking forward to the next wave of "Everybody Sues Everybody" in the cellular world?

  • by vlm (69642) on Monday December 19, 2011 @10:25AM (#38423452)

    Here's my poor non-lawyer summary of the patents for those too lazy to look them up.

    Busioc granted in 2000 seems to be a troll patent on anything that reacts to detected network characteristics. TCP window size control since the 80s seems to be prior art, although anycast root DNS servers from the 90s would appear to be a close second.

    Mannings1 granted in 1994 seems to be a troll patent on anything navigational that relies on a base and mobile part. Like LORAN from the 60s, or any of the moon shots from the 60s where the capsule relied on the IBM 7094 mainframe to run the calcs back home.

    Titmuss1 granted in 2002 seems to be a troll patent where the the contents of a list depend on the location of the user. Like my Garmin GPS-12XL "nearest waypoint list" from the 90s, or any brick and mortar website with a "find the closest store" functionality.

    Gittins granted 2003 seems to be a troll patent where you have a database server accessed over the network that has user based permissions. Like any mysql installation. It seems to be a pretty good description of the DB2 IBM mainframe server I was tangentially involved with about 20 years ago (%^&# source route bridging SDLC by mac addresses still gives me nightmares)

    Mannings2 granted 2003 seems to be a troll patent where you have a Mannings1 system plus the result depends on the type of vehicle. Apparently providing different "walk" vs "drive" route results is safe because my shoes are not a vehicle, but providing "car" vs "boat" results would be a direct violation of this patent.

    Titmuss2 granted 2004 seems to be a troll patent where a distributed architecture and network is used to store location information. Basically, any computing infrastructure storing location information that does not have an obvious single point of failure; The CLR/DLR circuit layout system from my previous telecom employer would seem to be a pretty good example of an infringing product; of course that was from the 1980s, and Ma Bell had much older networked location aware systems. Remember ma bell's weird V+H coordinate system? I do.

    I believe this is a pretty accurate non-lawyer summary of the patents involved.

    • by citizenr (871508)

      I believe this is a pretty accurate non-lawyer summary of the patents involved.

      you forgot the most important aspect of all of those patents, they all include a phrase "on a mobile network"!

      • by sjames (1099)

        That sort of thing in patents has always reminded me of the era of cartoons where they thought anything old could be made new again by adding a baby.

      • by ebunga (95613)

        "on a mobile network" is the new equation plus "a computing device"

  • by dell623 (2021586) on Monday December 19, 2011 @10:29AM (#38423468)

    These are such broad patents that there is no way Google are the only ones infringing, and there is no sound reason to only sue Google. This sounds suspiciously like someone is suing Google through proxy. Unfortunately with all the big media companies having nothing more to say apart from regurgitating whatever Florian Muller puts out, and he is too exultant about Google getting sued again to care about anything else, I don't see much hope of someone digging deeper.

    • by Xest (935314) on Monday December 19, 2011 @11:17AM (#38423644)

      Try e-mailing BT's chief exec, Ian Livingston directly and ask him:

      ian.livingston@bt.com

      Perhaps he'll just fob you off to the PR or legal department, but he's responded to me before when I've had issues with his company and has actually been really good in helping me out. I e-mailed him on a Saturday morning when I wanted a second phone line reenabling and their sales Team told me there'd be no engineer cost, and then they sent me a £120 engineer bill and their support folks insisted I'd have to pay it. Within an hour, despite it being a Saturday he'd replied personally via his Blackberry and CC'd his PA telling her to get someone to sort it for me and they did. He also got things moving when their engineers were dicking around unable to fix a line at my old house for months.

      I can't promise anything, but of all the CEOs I've attempted to contact he's been the most helpful and willing to respond personally which is more than can be said for the likes of Amazon's UK boss such that I had to get the office of fair trading to rule against them on a complaint to sort out the problems I had with them (Guaranteed next day deliveries turning up 2 weeks later, twice, and not willing to refund delivery). Might be worth a go to express your concerns, but be polite, be reasonable in expressing your concerns and write your e-mail well.

    • Florian Muler is a bought and paid for MS shill. Instead of shouting down MS hate, instead he simply points out the absurd and bogus patents that Google, and other non-MS companies allegedly infringe. In fact, has he ever mentioned Microsoft Infringing anything? I mean, not mentioning the fact that Apple's iPhones, and phones with WP7 on them are also infringing is clear evidence he's a troll.

      That said: In order to infringe a patent you must be using or selling a combined hardware + software system.

  • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Monday December 19, 2011 @10:47AM (#38423546)

    This seems like the new business model:

    1. Find a large volume successful product.
    2. Convince a court that it infringes on "your" patent.
    3. Settle for "a few cents" per item sold, as the Mafia say, "a piece of the action." Like a "tax."
    4. Profit, for someone else's work.

    I do not like these developments. Soon the royalty fees on an Android will cost more than the device itself.

  • And I thought their tower made them look like dicks

  • by BlackSupra (742450) on Monday December 19, 2011 @10:58AM (#38423586)

    >The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it
    >with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally
    >used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years
    >ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.
    >
    > On software patents, Quoted in "John Carmack: Knee Deep in the Voodoo" Voodo Extreme(2000-09-20)
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_D._Carmack [wikiquote.org]

  • Since when has BT produced anything of actual value? Whereas Android is a great alternative to the iApple hegemony.

  • Can BT show that they've been damaged in any way at all by Android? I think that legally you have to show how you've been damaged.

For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out. -- Andy Capp

Working...