[NOTE: for a diagram of some of the mess that follows, please see http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2011/08/mobilepatents.jpg although it's not much easier to follow ::-(

early 2005'ish: Google begins writing Android (the OS they are currently licencing for smart phones and tablets) and Chrome (the OS not the browser) to be used as a stand-alone OS on a computer instead of Microsoft Windows, Apple OS X, Linux, UNIX, etc. Part of this development is done using the JAVA programming language which was owned by SUN Microsystems.

October, 2005: Google's Android "boss" says that Google should use JAVA for Android and seems to imply, use it even without and agreement with SUN Microsystems for the use of JAVA.

......Google faces the problem that the judge [Judge Alsup] appears increasingly suspicious (if not already convinced) of Google having committed willful infringement because of a problematic attitude toward other companies' intellectual property rights.

Judge [Alsup] suspects Google of having preferred "to roll the dice on possible litigation rather than to pay a fair price".

In connection with the theories Google presented, the judge refers to one (even in a headline) as "Google's Soviet-style negotiation", defined as "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable". In that context, the judge suspects the following attitude:

"Google may have simply been brazen, preferring to roll the dice on possible litigation rather than to pay a fair price."

That kind of statement reflects extremely unfavorably on Google. It's exactly the kind of basis on which the judge might consider an injunction [of Android] a highly appropriate remedy, and a tripling of the base damages amount, too.

One of the most interesting passages in today's order quotes from an October 2005 email by Google's Android boss Andy Rubin:

"If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt [Microsoft] CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way"

2006: Canadian company Wi-Lan wades in by suing Apple, HTC, Hewlett-Packard, HTC, Kyocera, Novatel Wireless, Alcatel-Lucent, Dell, and Sierra Wireless.

[NOTE: you can see their 3 offerings - INVESTOR & COMPANIES, LICENSEES, and INVESTORS - on their web site: http://www.wi-lan.com/ It appears as though they do not manufacture any "products" anymore.]

April 20, 2009: "Oracle buys Sun Microsystems"

After which, Oracle owns JAVA.

early 2010'ish:

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/oracle-and-google-keep-wrangling-over.html

Court documents show that Google was again investigating doing away with the need for JAVA within Android and Chrome. It was determined that could not be done. Licencing JAVA is again discussed.

"What we've actually been asked to do (by Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin]) is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome. We've been over a bunch of these, and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need."

Apple filed complaint alleging that many of the Taiwanese company HTC's Andriod products had violated 10 Apple-owned patents. A loss carries the threat that HTC's products would be banned from coming into the U.S.A.

Oracle is seeking as much as $6.1 billion in damages in a patent- and copyright-infringement lawsuit against Google that claims the search-engine company’s Android software uses technology related to the Java programming language, according to court papers.

Sun Microsystems
Oracle, based in Redwood City, California, got Java when it bought Sun Microsystems in January 2010. The company sued Google [in] August, seeking a court ruling that would ban further use of its intellectual property and force the destruction of all products that violate Java-related copyrights on the code, documentation and specifications.

Google, based in Mountain View, California, said in court filings that the patents are invalid and not infringed and that users of the Android platform have a license to any patents in the case. It said Oracle made general copyright-infringement claims with nothing to back them up.

The tech industry loves a good vendor slugfest, and the upcoming legal battle between Google and Oracle has all the makings of a truly spectacular one.

At issue is Dalvik, the unique, Java-based runtime at the heart of Google's Android smartphone OS. Oracle, which gained stewardship of the Java platform when it bought Sun Microsystems in 2009, claims Dalvik knowingly, willfully, and deliberately infringes on Java intellectual property.

Bloggers, pundits, and developers wasted no time decrying [Oracle's] suit. Farata Systems' Anatole Tartakovsky wrote, "Oracle managers are clearly out of their minds." PC World's Tony Bradley described Oracle as a patent troll, while others made unflattering comparisons to the SCO Group. InfoWorld's own editor in chief, Eric Knorr, compared Oracle to Darth Vader and to Batman's nemesis the Joker in the same column. Such knee-jerk reactions are misguided. Google is no Luke Skywalker, and its handling of Java has been questionable at best.

Ironically, few companies have been as outspoken on the issue of Sun's failed leadership as Google. Speaking at the Red Hat Middleware 2020 virtual conference in April [of 2010], Google chief Java architect Josh Bloch described the platform as "rudderless" and called on Oracle to take a lead role in steering its future direction. "Technical and licensing disputes over the last few years have been highly detrimental. They've sapped the energy of the community and caused plenty of bad press," Bloch said.

...

And the Android development platform is [...] a hodgepodge of classes drawn from stock Java, the Apache Foundation, and Google's own contributions.

This was no accident. In a blog post, Java creator James Gosling recalls Sun's early talks with Google and how the search giant was more interested in "disrupting Apple's trajectory" with Android than in upholding Java's core principle of interoperability -- despite Sun's strong objections. How would Sun benefit from Android? It wouldn't: "Google did have a financial model that benefited themselves," Gosling writes, noting "they weren't about to share."

...

The greatest challenge to [JAVA originally] came in the late 1990s, when Microsoft tried to splinter the Java community by offering a Windows-only version of the language. Sun took the issue to the courts, arguing that Microsoft's implementation violated the Java license agreement. When the dust finally cleared in 2001, Microsoft had agreed to scupper its Java work and pay Sun $20 million in damages.

"Now if Microsoft wants to use Java, they will have to use the same Java everyone else does," Sun vice president Rich Green said at the time. Should not Google be held to the same standard? Oracle thinks so, and like Sun of old, it has chosen a legal remedy.

...

What happens next?
Google claims Oracle's actions are "an attack on the Java community," but that would only be true if Google were promoting Java.

...

(emphasis added)

The tech world has recently seen an explosion in patent litigation, often involving low-quality software patents, which threatens to stifle innovation. Some of these lawsuits have been filed by people or companies that have never actually created anything; others are motivated by a desire to block competing products or profit from the success of a rival’s new technology. The patent system should reward those who create the most useful innovations for society, not those who stake bogus claims or file dubious lawsuits. It's for these reasons that Google haslong argued in favor of real patent reform, which we believe will benefit users and the U.S. economy as a whole.

But as things stand today, one of a company’s best defenses against this kind of litigation is (ironically) to have a formidable patent portfolio, as this helps maintain your freedom to develop new products and services. Google is a relatively young company, and although we have a growing number of patents, many of our competitors have larger portfolios given their longer histories.

So after a lot of thought, we’ve decided to bid for Nortel’s patent portfolio in the company’s bankruptcy auction. Today, Nortel selected our bid as the “stalking-horse bid," which is the starting point against which others will bid prior to the auction. If successful, we hope this portfolio will not only create a disincentive for others to sue Google, but also help us, our partners and the open source community—which is integrally involved in projects like Android and Chrome—continue to innovate. In the absence of meaningful reform, we believe it's the best long-term solution for Google, our users and our partners.

April 15, 2011:

(http://www.apple.com/pr/pdf/110415samsungcomplaint.pdf)

Apple brings a complaint against the Korean company Samsung saying it's Andriod products violate 16 Apple-owned utility, design, and trade-dress patents which include things like the Multi-Touch™ gestures for scrolling, pinch-zoom, and the like including the way documents "bounce back" when a user scrolls too far; the design of the iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc. for things like the design and layout of the screen and case; as well as the distinctive user interface and packing for which Apple describes the shape and appearance of these devices (and their packaging) as being "radically different from the devices that preceded it."

- See some examples at the end of this message -

Apr 22, 2011: "Why Samsung Took the Apple Patent Battle International" (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/226027/why_samsung_took_the_apple_patent_battle_international.html):

"It is no surprise that Samsung retaliated against Apple's claims of patent infringement with some patent accusations of its own, but the fact that Samsung chose to file lawsuits internationally against Apple in three different countries (The Netherlands, Germany, South Korea) seems a bit perplexing.... Why wouldn't Samsung simply countersue Apple in the US District Court of Northern California where Apple filed its lawsuit against Samsung in the first place?

...

[According to] Florian Mueller, a technology patent and intellectual property expert, "...recent cases before the ITC don't seem to be going the way the litigants intended, so Samsung might see the ITC as being too risky. Rather than bog things down in US federal courts, though, Samsung opted to take the battle international. Some courts may also afford a political or psychological advantage for an "underdog" competitor being oppressed by an American tech giant like Apple. Mueller notes that an international, multi-jurisdictional legal battle can be a logistical nightmare, and consume considerable resources, but global players like Apple and Samsung have the skills, resources, and lawyers on retainer to take the challenge on."

...

[BTW, for those keeping score, there are now 19 ongoing lawsuits at this stage taking place in 12 courts in 9 countries on 4 continents; it seems evenly distributed with 10 originating at Apple and 9 originating at Samsung:

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/apple-vs-samsung-list-of-all-19.html

June 31, 2011: "Apple, EMC, Ericsson, Microsoft, Research In Motion, Sony consortium beats Google for Nortel patents" (http://www.macworld.com/article/160911/2011/07/nortel_patents.html)

"Google, which offered $900 million for the patents in April, was not among the winning bidders.... In a blog post in April, [Kent Walker, Google’s senior vice president and general counsel] said Google was bidding for the Nortel patents as it hoped the portfolio would create a disincentive for others to sue Google, and also help the company, its partners and the open source community, which is integrally involved in projects like Android and Chrome, continue to innovate. Having a formidable patent portfolio is one of a company’s best defences against an explosion in patent litigation that threatens to stifle innovation, he added.

"We believe the consortium is in the best position to utilize the patents in a manner that will be favorable to the industry long term", Ericsson said.

July 1, 2011: "Google bid "pi" for Nortel patents and lost"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/02/us-dealtalk-nortel-google-idUSTRE76104L20110702

(Reuters) - At the auction for Nortel Networks' wireless patents this week, Google's bids were mystifying, such as $1,902,160,540 and $2,614,972,128.

Math whizzes might recognize these numbers as Brun's constant and Meissel-Mertens constant, but it puzzled many of the people involved in the auction, according to three people with direct knowledge of the situation on Friday.

"Google was bidding with numbers that were not even numbers," one of the sources said.

"It became clear that they were bidding with the distance between the earth and the sun. One was the sum of a famous mathematical constant, and then when it got to $3 billion, they bid pi," the source said, adding the bid was $3.14159 billion.

"Either they were supremely confident or they were bored."

It was not clear what strategy Google was employing, whether it wanted to confuse rival bidders, intimidate them, or simply express the irreverence that is part and parcel of its corporate persona. Whatever its reasons, Google's shenanigans did not work.

A group of six companies -- Apple, Microsoft, RIM, EMC, Ericsson and Sony -- won the auction of 6,000 Nortel patents and patent applications with a $4.5 billion bid.

The final figure was three times the amount expected by some analysts -- a sign of the lengths to which Google's rivals were willing to go to get their hands on the treasure trove of wireless technology, and thwart the Internet powerhouse's mobile ambitions.

Google had been expected to emerge victorious after it set a $900 million stalking horse bid in April. But the auction that started on Monday and saw 20 rounds of bids over four long days ultimately hit a price that became too much even for Google, the sources said.

The Internet company might have had $36.7 billion in cash as of March 31, but it was only willing to go up to $4 billion for these patents, one person said.

July 15, 2011: "[The U.S. International Trade Commission says HTC's Android-based Galaxy devices are violating two of Apple's patents"

(http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20079905-94/itc-says-htc-violating-two-of-apples-patents/)

...in judgement of the March 10, 2010 complaint by Apple.

July 21, 2011: Tim Lindholm, a Google engineer involved with Android and Chrome development using JAVA (and a former Sun employee) was deposed at the Oracle/Google trial testifying that he sent the above email where he states, 'We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java". His testimony becomes part of the court records in this case and a printed copy of the email was shown to the court and to Oracle's lawyers.

July 26, 2011: "An Apple/HTC patent deal could signal big trouble for Android"

(http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/an-applehtc-patent-deal-could-signal-big-trouble-for-android/13927):

"Earlier this month the ITC (International Trade Commission) ruled that HTC['s Android-based Galaxy devices were] infringing on two of Apple’s patents. That’s a big deal for Apple, but it’s also a big deal for the Android platform as a whole since it is likely that these patents apply to every Android device out there. That’s a very big deal.

"...HTC isn’t defenceless ... given that HTC has something that Apple wants (at least it’ll be HTC’s when its buyout of [patents belonging to the company] S3 is complete) then a settlement seems far more likely.

"If Apple and HTC can reach a deal through both having technology that the other side wants to license, where does that leave all the other OEMs out there? Also, where does that leave Android? In trouble, that’s where it leaves [Android]... remember that Android is at the center of 49 federal and ITC infringement suits, so it’s likely that things are going to get worse before they get better.

starting in July, 2011 - August 15, 2011: Authorities Find Another 22 Fake Apple Stores in China

(http://www.tomsguide.com/us/fake-chinese-apple-stores-china,news-12165.html)

When more than 20 fake Apple stores are discovered in various cities in mainland China, Apple China complained to China's Administration for Industry and Commerce for unfair competition and violating its registered trademark. "...even the employees thought they were working for Cupertino."

August 3, 2011: Google complains of patent attacks upon Android from Apple, Microsoft

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/03/google_complains_of_patent_attacks_upon_android_from_apple_microsoft.html

Google's chief legal officer has posted a public blog entry complaining that Apple, Microsoft, Oracle and others are waging an "organized campaign" against its Android operating system "waged through bogus patents."

The complaint, entitled "When patents attack Android," accuses Apple and Microsoft of "banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents to make sure Google didn’t get them."

It also describes the $15 per phone patent royalties that Android licensee HTC agreed to pay Microsoft as a conspiracy to "make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android (which we provide free of charge) than Windows Mobile."

August 4, 2011: Microsoft says Google refused to join the Novell patent consortium

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/04/microsoft_says_google_refused_to_join_the_novell_patent_consortium.html

In response to a public complaint by Google accusing Apple and Microsoft of a patent-wielding conspiracy to hold back its Android platform, Microsoft's general counsel has pointed out that Google rebuffed an invitation to join the consortium, apparently with the hope of obtaining all of the Novell patents for itself.

However, the CPTN consortium of companies (including Apple and Microsoft) that bid for the Novell patents are themselves competitors in the mobile space, but have stated that they jointly bid on the patents to prevent the portfolio of intellectual property from falling into the hands of a patent troll that could work to derail the entire industry with years of lawsuits.

Additionally, according to Brad Smith, the general counsel of Microsoft, Google refused to join the group bidding on the Novell patents, instead bidding separately for the collection of patents in hopes that it could win them all for itself, just as had earlier done on a portfolio of around 1,000 patents from IBM.

In a tweet, Smith stated, "Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no."

Google's chief legal officer David Drummond took the similar Rockstar consortium to task for "escalating the cost of patents way beyond what they’re really worth," complaining that "Microsoft and Apple’s winning $4.5 billion for Nortel’s patent portfolio was nearly five times larger than the pre-auction estimate of $1 billion," without also noting that Google itself had been involved in raising the ultimate price of the patents far higher than any patent troll could ever pay, after refusing to join the consortium in the first place.

August 5, 2011: in the period since Tim Lindholm's testimony on July 21, Google withdrew the evidence of the email in which Mr. Lindholm says, "What we've actually been asked to do (by Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin]) is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome. We've been over a bunch of these, and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need." So, Oracle files a motion about to obtain that email. The motion can be read at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61754518/11-08-05-Oracle-Google-Joint-Letter-Re-Lindholm but, basically, Oracle is asking Judge D. M. Ryu to compel Google to produce the documents testified to by Mr. Lindholm. Google claims lawyer/client confidentiality.

August 6, 2011:

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/oracle-and-google-keep-wrangling-over.html

Judge Alsup -- the federal judge presiding over the main Oracle/Google litigation -- attaches a great deal of importance to that particular document - [the Lindholm document]. At a recent hearing, he essentially said that a good trial lawyer would just need that document "and the Magna Carta" to win this case on Oracle's behalf and have Google found to infringe Oracle's rights willfully. The judge told Google that "you are going to be on the losing end of this document" with "profound implications for a permanent injunction". Let me add that a finding of willful infringement would not only make an injunction much more likely than otherwise. It can also result in a tripling of whatever damages will be awarded.

August 16, 2011: "HTC sues Apple over everything"

(http://gigaom.com/apple/htc-sues-apple-over-everything/):

"HTC has asked the U.S. District Court in Delaware to ban the import and sale of [Macs, iPads, iPhones, iPods, AirPort, Time Capsule and Apple TV because they infringe on three patents it owns] and has asked for compensatory damages as well. Because it has accused Apple of willfully infringing on its patents, it wants three times the compensatory damages. This type of lawsuit has lately become standard operating procedure in the mobile world, but now even products that are not mobile devices are getting swept up in the ongoing mobile patent wars."

August 26, 2011: Google denied in latest attempt to bar controversial [Lindholm] e-mail

http://itgovernment.computerworld.com/patent/36162/google-denied-latest-attempt-bar-controversial-e-mail

August 31, 2011:

(http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hqVJQWeYFLBTE4Q_qQywiuHlNZAw?docId=CNG.53500a5d880436b437f3a6ac68dae4b5.411)

(http://www.ipe.org.cn/ and http://www.ipe.org.cn/En/)

The mainland Chinese environment watch-dog group "Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs" (IPE) says "factories it believes are contracted to make Apple products are engaging in rampant pollution, and accused the US technology giant of turning a blind eye." IPE confirm it has "received an email from Apple on Wednesday[, August 31, 2011] asking for direct talks, an unusual move for the technology giant and an indication of how damaging the allegations could be."

Last week of August/First week of September, 2011: "Google provides to HTC ammo in Apple patent fight"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hkwamtz8UbUK0NSEXDWDlE5pJpSg?docId=CNG.8da7524161341a630734bbb6cf9ce6e4.3c1

"Google last week transferred to HTC a set of patents that the Taiwan-based company used to amend intellectual property infringement complaints against iPhone maker Apple in the United States. [Google] confirmed selling the patents to HTC but referred additional questions to the smartphone maker - [HTC].

"In a lawsuit filed in US District Court in the state of Delaware, the Taiwanese smartphone maker charged that Apple violated three HTC-held patents in its Macintosh computers, iPods, iPhones, iPads and other products. HTC asked the court for damages and to bar Apple from importing into the United States any devices found to be infringing the patents.

"We are taking this action against Apple to protect our intellectual property, our industry partners, and most importantly our customers that use HTC phones," HTC general counsel Grace Lei said. "This is the third case before the ITC in which Apple is infringing our intellectual property," Lei said. "Apple needs to stop its infringement of our patented inventions in its products."

"Some of the nine patents that HTC reportedly bought from Google had belonged to Motorola Mobility, which Google last month said that it is buying for $12.5 billion in cash.

"Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google's patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies," Google chief executive Larry Page said when the Motorola Mobility buy was announced

September 6, 2011: ClassCo sues Apple, HP, Huawei, LG, ZTE, HTC, RIM and Samsung over patents relating to handling "caller ID". - [NOTE: they *do* appear to manufacture at least one product: http://www.classco.com/]

September 9, 2011:

(http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-09/apple-wins-ruling-for-german-samsung-galaxy-tablet-10-1-ban.html)

Apple Wins Court Ruling to Ban German Sales of Samsung Galaxy Tablet 10.1 "Apple won a ruling over sales of Samsung’s Galaxy S, S II and Ace smartphones in the Netherlands last month. Samsung filed a lawsuit in London against Apple on Sept. 7"..... "“The crucial issue was whether the Galaxy tablet looked like the drawings registered as a design right,” said [Presiding Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann]. “Also, our case had nothing to do with trademarks or patents for technology. The court is of the opinion that Apple’s minimalistic design isn’t the only technical solution to make a tablet computer, other designs are possible. For the informed customer there remains the predominant overall impression that the device looks like the design Apple has protected in Europe."

...and more to come...

September 9, 2011: Intel Said to Weigh InterDigital [Patent] Bid

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-09/intel-said-to-weigh-interdigital-bid.html

"Intel Corp. (INTC) is among companies considering submitting bids for InterDigital Inc.’s patent portfolio this month, while Google Inc. (GOOG)is losing interest in the assets, said people with knowledge of the matter.

"Intel, Samsung Electronics Co., Ericsson AB and HTC Corp. (2498), are reviewing confidential InterDigital data as they weigh offers for the company’s assets, said the people, who declined to be identified because talks are private. Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) and Apple Inc. (AAPL) have also looked, one person said. First-round bids are due in two weeks, and bidders have been asked to indicate initial interest in the coming days, the person said.

"Some buyers may team up on proposals, the person said. Google is backing away from an offer after agreeing to buy Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. for $12.5 billion last month to gain patents and a hardware business, the people said."

	iOS (mainly iPhone)	Galaxy family (mainly Galaxy S II)
Box
Screen	…from: http://images.apple.com/au/education/ipodtouch-iphone/images/glance_iphone3gs_20100409.png	…from: http://androidcommunity.com/t-mobile-vibrant-aka-galaxy-s-images-leak-20100622/ A Google search shows this picture used to also be at http://www.samsung.com/hk/ htmlnews/2010_jun/galaxys_2.jpg … this is the new image at that link now: Sometimes the following is the picture that shows up on the ‘net for a Galaxy S II:
Icons	Phone calls: Music: Notes: EMail: Camera: Settings: Contacts: Maps:	Or or .. or .. Maps: