Google seeks to distance itself from $1bn Apple patent verdict

View more from Google »

Google, which provides the Android operating system that Samsung devices use, issued a statement yesterday that sought to distance itself from the case, saying that most of the patents in question "don't relate to the core Android operating system".

(Credit: CNET)

Days after Apple's lopsided patent victory over Samsung, the Korean electronics giant's pseudo silent partner is breaking its silence.

The statement, provided to The Verge, also points out that an appeals court will review the verdict, and that the US Patent Office is re-examining "several" of the patents in the case:

The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don't relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the US Patent Office. The mobile industry is moving fast, and all players — including newcomers — are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don't want anything to limit that.

Although not specifically named as a defendant in assorted Apple patent lawsuits, Google has quietly supported the equipment manufacturers that use its mobile OS without getting directly involved. Last year, the company loaned HTC five patents in the Taiwanese handset maker's patent fight with Apple. However, an administrative judge later dismissed those patents.

Google's statement comes after a jury in a San Jose, California, courtroom on Friday ruled overwhelmingly in favour of Apple's patent claims against Samsung, awarding US$1.05 billion in damages.

While Google steered clear of strong language, the two parties in the lawsuit showed no such restraint. Samsung called the verdict "a loss for the American consumer", and vowed that "this is not the final word in this case".

Meanwhile, Apple CEO Tim Cook told employees in a companywide email that the trial was about "values" — "something much more important than patents or money".

Via CNET.com

Previous Story

LG Optimus L7

Mobile Phones
Next Story

Apple targets 8 Samsung phones for sales ban



Add Your Comment 3


Post comment as
 

ras0406 posted a comment   
Australia

Amidst the Apple vs Samsung debates raging on the internet, people have lost sight of what patents are meant to do: protect new innovative inventions. Unfortunately, it seems the US Patent Office forgot this too when it began issuing patents for things that should not be patentable because they are not new innovative inventions.

One need only look to the view adopted by the UK and Germany:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=apple+uk&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-au:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&redir_esc=&ei=sgQ8ULDKOM6ziQfK5oGADA#hl=en&safe=active&rls=com.microsoft:en-au%3AIE-Address&sclient=psy-ab&q=apple+uk+judge&oq=apple+uk+judge&gs_l=serp.3..0l3j0i8.3354.4267.0.4346.6.6.0.0.0.0.221.641.2-3.3.0...0.0...1c.f9Tjt_0cjk0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=e2aed7b0584e5d53&biw=709&bih=298

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203889904577198261204521908.html

 

tech_guy posted a reply   
Australia

They seem new and innovative as far as smartphones go. Before the iphone there were no other (finger) touch based smartphones that worked the way the iphone did.. and obviously they didnt bother patenting it (if there were some) because they didnt think their products would actually sell. Apple believed in their products and patented it.
For the rest of the other guys out there- Blackberry and Microsoft show how long it takes to come up with something original rather than a quick copy-paste process (looking at Google here) and then giving a product for free. No wonder its hard to keep up with the speed of android releases.

 

ras0406 posted a reply   
Australia

Ah but you see, whether it was innovative for a smartphone or not doesn't matter. What matters is whether the technology existed previously and whether someone with the same skills and a reasonable mind would have come to the same conclusion/invention anyway. The rubber banding is a perfect example - the UK and German courts recognised it as something that is common sense, has been done before in other media/devices (e.g. video games) and is not worthy of a patent. Patents are there to provide protection for *new* technologies that have not been done before. Copyright is what covers the design elements that you are referring to. The European courts have recognised this and have thrown both Apple's and Samsung's infringement claims out because upon review it was recognised the patents were not legitimate innovations. A similar analogy would be taking someone to court because the TV they manugacture is the same shape as yours; it's utter nonsense.




Sponsored Links

Recently Viewed Products