Linked by David Adams on Mon 21st Mar 2011 20:08 UTC
Permalink for comment 467174
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-09-17
They like to sue people unlikely to fight back, Google would fight a suit to the bitter end, because if they give it would seriously undermine confidence in their product, and they generally have the legal and technical knowledge of their stuff needed to fight back, buy suing the hardware manufacturers one at a time, they reduce the chance anyone fights back.
The patents they are asserting right now seem to cover:
• Give people easy ways to navigate through information provided by their device apps via a separate control window with tabs;
• Enable display of a webpage’s content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster;
• Allow apps to superimpose download status on top of the downloading content;
• Permit users to easily select text in a document and adjust that selection; and
• Provide users the ability to annotate text without changing the underlying document.
Is it just me or do these feel kinda weak, there has to be prior art somewhere or the full patent has to be ridiculously narrow. I can see why they don't take this directly to Google, Oracles case seems much more fundamental and dangerous.