Well, the irony here is what part of the software they're being sued for:
The DRM.
I'm not sorry for them.
Well, the irony here is what part of the software they're being sued for:
The DRM.
I'm not sorry for them.
Well, from their own statement it seems they were not forced to use the DRM, it was only suggested to them. It's less "we couldn't help it" and more "everyone was doing it", which is a much less compelling defense (to me, as well as a court, I suspect).Well, the irony here is what part of the software they're being sued for:
The DRM.
I'm not sorry for them.
The DRM that comes built-in to almost every Android app there is.
The specifics of this case are largely irrelevant to the petition.
Now my question is, how would they legally define "patent troll"?
Another would be to look at the history of the claim, is it for example on something which has been in use since before the patent was filed?You can't patent something what is already in use.
I'm going to patent patent trolling. Anyone patent trolling will have to pay me money. Which I'll then give to the original victim and keep the rest for my trouble. :p:yes: time to fight fire with fire :drevil:
I'm going to patent patent trolling. Anyone patent trolling will have to pay me money. Which I'll then give to the original victim and keep the rest for my trouble. :p
What gets me is why Google themselves haven't stepped in. Saying "If our development advice ****s you over, tough titty!" Sounds like the quickest way to create a bunch of new iPhone developers.
I'm going to patent patent trolling. Anyone patent trolling will have to pay me money. Which I'll then give to the original victim and keep the rest for my trouble. :p