Linked by David Adams on Mon 21st Mar 2011 20:08 UTC
Legal Microsoft is claiming that Android infringes its patents, and has chosen Barnes and Noble, which is using Android for its e-reader, as a target for its ire: "The Android platform infringes a number of Microsoft’s patents, and companies manufacturing and shipping Android devices must respect our intellectual property rights."
Thread beginning with comment 467174
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Strategic lawsuit
by Praxis on Mon 21st Mar 2011 21:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Strategic lawsuit"
Praxis
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.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: Strategic lawsuit
by phoenix on Mon 21st Mar 2011 23:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Strategic lawsuit"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

• Enable display of a webpage’s content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster;


What's the date on that patent? My 3+ year old Sony Ericsson w580i phone's built-in web browser has that feature.

• Allow apps to superimpose download status on top of the downloading content;


Same for this one.

• Permit users to easily select text in a document and adjust that selection; and


Would need to see how this works, as my w580i has a very simple to use mark, cut/copy, paste mechanism, using the arrow keys.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Strategic lawsuit
by mistersoft on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 00:22 in reply to "RE[3]: Strategic lawsuit"
mistersoft Member since:
2011-01-05

...My 3+ year old Sony Ericsson w580i phone's built-in web browser has that feature.


:-) ....I initially read that as... "My 3 year old son[could have dreamt up..]has that feature.." and was immediately preparing to agree with or at least be happy to think someone else considers similar UI concepts to be ridiculously unpatentable.

Regarding the parent post:
• 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.


...correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the core of patents was that they had to be NOVEL and INVENTIVE or does these requirements not apply to the rightly maligned software patents!? Surely this automatically exclude every and any interface and usability implementation that is *obvious* such as all those above. leaving only novel mathematical algorithms(for whatever..) and REALLY NOVEL or DISTINCTIVE UIs??? ....Oh my God! what is the world coming to?! ...see you've got me invoking similarly ridiculous notional deities now

Reply Parent Score: 2