Googles argues why software patents are irrelevant -
Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site July 30, 2015, 10:06:11 PM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?

Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.

You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
The N.A.N.Y. Challenge 2013! Download dozens of custom programs!
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Googles argues why software patents are irrelevant  (Read 751 times)
Friend of the Site
Charter Member
Posts: 3,292

Linux captive

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« on: September 12, 2011, 05:50:04 AM »

Interesting argument if it sticks:

Google said its workers made Android binary and source codes available for download to foreign manufacturers, and neither code is available in any physical medium. The manufacturers then downloaded the codes, which "necessarily involves copying it - otherwise the code would disappear from the website after the first download," according to the brief. "Thus, foreign device manufacturers have to copy Android code before loading it onto their devices."

Google stressed the similarities between its case and Microsoft v. AT&T. The Supreme Court had reasoned that, because Microsoft "does not export from the United States the copies actually installed, it does not 'suppl[y] ... from the United States' 'components' of the relevant computers, and therefore is not liable" for patent infringement, the brief states. Van Nest, a partner with Keker & Van Nest in San Francisco, further argued that Android software remains an "idea without physical embodiment" and not a "combinable" component of a device until it is "expressed as a computer-readable copy."

- zaine (on Google+)
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
Jump to:  
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register | About Us Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.035s | Server load: 0.25 ]

Share on Facebook
submit to reddit