SimpleAir said that the agreement was confidential and did not announce terms of the deal.

The Marshall, Texas-based company sued Apple back in September 2009. A trial had been set for April, but the two companies reached a tentative deal at the courthouse just before the case began, SimpleAir said.

The firm has also sued a number of other companies in the mobile space, including Microsoft, Nokia, Sony Ericsson (now a part of Sony), Samsung, LG, Huawei and HTC.

SimpleAir bills itself as “an inventor-owned technology licensing company with interests and intellectual property in the wireless content delivery, mobile application, and push notification market spaces.”

That said, one thing has clearly shifted. Microsoft is now taking on Google directly, given that the Motorola deal closed on Tuesday. So a German court decision Thursday that certain Motorola Android products infringe on Microsoft patents can officially be chalked up as Microsoft’s first direct hit to Google.

The ruling was actually a split one, as the court ruled that Motorola does infringe on a patent related to text messaging but does not infringe on another patent related to localization.

“We’re pleased the court agreed today that Motorola has infringed Microsoft’s intellectual property, and we hope Motorola will be willing to join other Android device makers by taking a license to our patents,” Microsoft deputy general counsel David Howard said in a statement.

Motorola, meanwhile, was pleased that the court ruled in its favor on the other patent. As for the one it was found to infringe on, Motorola told AllThingsD that it “will explore all options, including appeal.”

“This is one element of a global dispute initiated by Microsoft,” Motorola said.

Image by Joy of Tech

Samsung officials tell the Korea Times that the two companies were unable to come to a clear agreement resolving their differences. Sources close to Samsung confirmed to AllThingsD that this was indeed the case.

Evidently the talks — which ran for about 16 hours over Monday and Tuesday — began and ended at an impasse, with Apple continuing to insist that Samsung “slavishly” copied the design of its iPhone and iPad, and Samsung demanding that Apple pay royalties on the wireless patents it believes the company infringed.

Given the level of animosity between the two companies at this point, it was really hard to imagine any other outcome. Locking Apple CEO Tim Cook and Samsung CEO Choi Gee-sung into a room for two days and hoping they’d emerge bosom buddies brandishing a settlement was always a bit of a pipe dream. Note that Apple last Friday filed a motion for injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1, angling to have the device yanked from U.S. shelves as soon as early June. And the week before that, it accused Samsung of destroying email evidence.

Not really the behavior of a company that’s looking for two days of easygoing mediation talks and an amicable resolution to the legal issues at hand.

As FOSS Patents’ Florian Mueller recently told Reuters, “This dispute isn’t ripe for settlement. Under the present circumstances, the two companies’ delegations should spend a couple of fun days in Yosemite Park or Napa Valley, rather than meet in court only to pretend they’re being constructive.”

Apple declined comment on the outcome of the talks.

The case heads to trial on July 30.

(Image courtesy of Joy of Tech)

On Monday, a U.S. International Trade Commission judge ruled one of Kodak’s key patents invalid, undermining the photography pioneer’s efforts to assert it against Apple and Research In Motion. In his decision, ITC Judge Thomas Pender wrote that while some Apple and RIM products did indeed violate some claims of Kodak’s 6,292,218 patent, the patent itself, which covers the ability for a digital camera to preview images on an LCD screen, is invalid.

The ’218 patent is referred to by some as the “crown jewel” of Kodak’s portfolio, so Pender’s ruling is potentially a major blow to the company, which is looking to maximize the value of its IP ahead of a bankruptcy auction. Indeed, just last week Kodak accused Apple of attempting to undermine its efforts by asserting ownership claims over the ’218 patent.

“Apple’s decision to press its ownership claims now … should be seen for what it is, namely, a ploy calculated to prevent the debtors from using the [bankruptcy] sale process to obtain a fair price for Kodak’s digital capture portfolio (or to enable Apple to buy it on the cheap and extinguish its infringement exposure),” Kodak said in court documents filed last week.

It seems now that the ploy was a wasted effort. There are few better ways of extinguishing a company’s infringement exposure than having the patent asserted against it ruled invalid. And, as RIM noted in a statement issued Monday afternoon, Pender is the second ITC judge to rule the ’218 patent invalid.

That said, Apple and RIM aren’t entirely out of the woods yet. Kodak plans to appeal Pender’s ruling to the full commission. And it says it’s confident it will prevail in the end, since the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office confirmed ’218’s validity in 2010.

Regardless, Pender’s ruling couldn’t come at a worse time. Sources say that Kodak has been looking to attract a stalking-horse bidder who would put down an initial offer for its patent portfolio as it gears up for its bankruptcy auction. Having the patent that’s at the center of its high-profile battle with Apple and RIM tossed aside by the ITC isn’t going to aid that effort.

The deal was a surprise when announced eight months ago but has been a looming reality in recent weeks as the companies received the regulatory nod in one jurisdiction after another.

Motorola said in a regulatory filing Monday that it expects the deal to close by Wednesday, but it looks like it will be sooner than that. S&P’s stock index unit said Monday afternoon that it expects the deal to close before the start of regular trading on Tuesday morning. S&P needs to know these things, of course, because Motorola is part of the S&P 500, at least until Thursday when it will be replaced by Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Google was not immediately available for comment.

The deal’s closure was all but inevitable after Chinese antitrust authorities cleared it over the weekend. China was the last roadblock on Google’s eight-month road to regulatory approval, with the deal having already been approved by regulators in the European Union and the U.S. in February.

It’s a deal that has raised some hackles in the process, as Google could potentially play favorites with Motorola by giving early data on the Android operating system to Motorola, one of Google’s many licensed Android handset manufacturing partners. Ostensibly, companies like HTC, Samsung and LG could lose their competitive edge if Google were to give Moto the inside track.

But Google has vehemently denied any notions of favoritism since first announcing the acquisition, stressing that Motorola will continue to be run as a separate business.

That may be more likely after China’s blessing of the deal, considering that it was contingent upon Google keeping Android open to all partner manufacturers for the next five years. That’s especially helpful for Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE, both of which have placed big bets on Android.

At the initial acquisition announcement, Google said — and continues to maintain — that the buy was strictly a patent play, a move that in CEO Larry Page’s words would “enable [Google] to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies.”

This patent dispute, one of several between the companies, centers on Microsoft’s ActiveSync technology. Ultimately, the ruling could lead to the ban of imports of Motorola products that infringe on the patent in question.

“Microsoft sued Motorola in the ITC only after Motorola chose to refuse Microsoft’s efforts to renew a patent license for well over a year,” Microsoft deputy general counsel David Howard said in a statement. “We’re pleased the full Commission agreed that Motorola has infringed Microsoft’s intellectual property, and we hope that now Motorola will be willing to join the vast majority of Android device makers selling phones in the U.S. by taking a license to our patents.”

The ITC issued an initial finding of infringement in this case back in December.

Motorola, for its part, notes that it can continue shipping products during a 60-day presidential review process and said it will ponder its options. It also noted that Microsoft had originally sought a ruling that Motorola had infringed on nine patents.

“Although we are disappointed by the Commission’s ruling that certain Motorola Mobility products violated one patent, we look forward to reading the full opinion to understand its reasoning,” Motorola said in a statement. “We will explore all options including appeal.”

Motorola said it will be required to post a 33-cents-per-unit bond for products it ships during the 60-day review period.

This dispute is separate from other conflicts between the two companies, including one related to Microsoft’s Xbox. Motorola has won an initial ruling it its favor from the ITC in that case.

At issue here is a patent covering the ability for a digital camera to preview images on an LCD screen. Apple sued Kodak over the technology, claiming that Kodak “misappropriated” it when the two companies were working together years ago. Kodak — which filed for bankruptcy in January and is looking to sell off this patent, along with a host of others, to pay off its creditors — insists that Apple’s ownership claim is “baseless.” And now it’s arguing that Apple’s intent, by alleging misappropriation, is simply to avoid paying royalty payments on it, or to drive the patent’s value down so it can purchase it at a lower price.

“Apple’s decision to press its ownership claims now … should be seen for what it is, namely, a ploy calculated to prevent the debtors from using the [bankruptcy] sale process to obtain a fair price for Kodak’s digital capture portfolio (or to enable Apple to buy it on the cheap and extinguish its infringement exposure),” Kodak said in court documents filed earlier this week, adding that Apple’s ownership claim has already been “squarely rejected” by an International Trade Commission judge.

And, to some extent, it does have a point. Apple didn’t file suit against Kodak until nine years after the patent was first issued, and decades after the two companies worked together on exploring how best to commercialize Apple’s digital camera technologies.

But then, Kodak didn’t sue Apple until 2010, amid the collapse of its finances and a looming Chapter 11 filing. So if Apple’s decision to press ownership claims nine years after the fact is a ploy, then what is Kodak’s decision to assert this patent against Apple a year ealier? A ploy to drive up the patent’s price in advance of a sale?

Just another business negotiation being carried out in the courts …

“The US availability of the HTC One X and HTC EVO 4G LTE has been delayed due to a standard U.S. Customs review of shipments that is required after an ITC exclusion order,” HTC said in a statement to AllThingsD. “We believe we are in compliance with the ruling and HTC is working closely with Customs to secure approval. The HTC One X and HTC EVO 4G LTE have been received enthusiastically by customers and we appreciate their patience as we work to get these products into their hands as soon as possible.”

HTC has been in a patent battle with Apple, which won an exclusion order late last year for certain HTC phones.

The HTC One X is bound for AT&T, while the HTC Evo 4G LTE is headed to Sprint and was due to go on sale on Friday.

Sprint declined to comment beyond HTC’s statement. An AT&T spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

HTC has been counting on its One line (along with the Evo for Sprint and a new Droid Incredible model for Verizon) to help it regain its footing.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled a California trial judge was too quick to deny Apple’s request to temporarily block the sales of Samsung tablets while Apple’s patent-infringement claims against its rival proceed in court.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The latest evidence came Monday, as Nathan Myhrvold’s Intellectual Ventures teamed with chipmaker Nvidia to buy approximately 500 patents from IPWireless.

The patents include some related to 3G and 4G technologies, including LTE, the companies said. Terms of the deal, which closed at the end of last month, were not disclosed.

Ownership of the patents will be split between Nvidia and Intellectual Ventures, with Nvidia getting license to all of the patents it didn’t get to purchase.

Intellectual Ventures has already sued several major carriers over patents. In Febuary, it sued Sprint, T-Mobile and AT&T, and last week it added U.S. Cellular to the proceedings. (Verizon Wireless, not named in the suit, is a licensee of Intellectual Ventures.)

In January, as the freshly crowned CEO of Yahoo, Scott Thompson initiated a series of dramatic acts to get the company back on track. The most notable was to make the boldest — or most boneheaded — move the head of Yahoo could make: Filing a patent infringement lawsuit against Facebook.

The controversial move was wildly unpopular in Silicon Valley, and even among many Yahoo employees.

But after a drawn-out weeklong controversy over a fake computer science degree on Thompson’s resume, he is reportedly headed out, and global media head Ross Levinsohn is in the driver’s seat as interim CEO.

Now one of the big questions is: Will Levinsohn take steps to repair Yahoo’s relationship with Facebook, especially since it has proved to be one of the most fruitful the ailing Silicon Valley Internet giant has seen in years?

Sources say that some members of Yahoo’s board, as well as the top exec, would welcome a settlement with Facebook on the litigation. Thompson was the main advocate of the in-your-face strategy against the social networking giant, levying a barrage of legal claims at a critical time — the quiet period before Facebook’s public offering this month.

So, if Yahoo wanted to turn back the tide of rancor toward Facebook, now is the time it could happen.

The lawsuit essentially deemed Facebook a thief of Yahoo’s social innovation, claiming that were it not for Yahoo’s many years of research and development, products such as Facebook’s News Feed, privacy settings, advertising models and more would never have come into existence.

“Facebook’s entire social network model, which allows users to create profiles for and connect with, among other things, persons and businesses, is based on Yahoo’s patented social networking technology,” one line from Yahoo’s lawsuit reads.

It’s unclear how much Levinsohn, acting as temporary CEO, will be able to change, in terms of the progress of the lawsuit. But if he’s looking to dial things back, his first call could be to Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, who would be instrumental in reaching some sort of detente in the case.

The initial act of aggression from Yahoo caught many in technology — including Yahoo’s employees — by surprise.

That’s because the various partnerships that the pair have struck in recent years have been hugely successful.

Yahoo’s Facebook-integrated Social Bar application, for example, has essentially been a traffic funnel from Facebook to Yahoo, with nearly 40 million monthly active users accessing the application, according to AppData statistics, and it is now one of the top Facebook apps.

It’s what Director of Product Development Jonathan Katzman called, in an interview last year, “the future of social for Yahoo.”

Finding a middle ground in some sort of settlement with Facebook could win back Yahoo detractors, a culture that praises innovation and largely rebuffs the practice of patent litigation as an act of trolling.

Facebook declined to comment, as did Yahoo, but several sources said to expect some movement sooner than later.

The earnings beat is nice for AOL. Not nice: Domestic display sales, a key metric, shrank 1 percent after climbing for several quarters. That’s going to be fresh meat for AOL critics like Starboard Value.

So what happened to domestic? “Domestic display advertising revenue declined primarily reflecting a decline in reserved impressions sold, partially offset by growth in reserved inventory pricing and Patch revenue,” AOL’s release says.

Later on in the release, we get a better sense of what may have happened: AOL’s audience is melting away. Traffic to AOL’s own properties is down 4 percent over the last year.

I imagine that Tim Armstrong will tell analysts that the decline isn’t wholly unexpected, because AOL’s dial-up unit, which still powers the whole operation, continues to shrink — that archaic business lost 14 percent of its subscribers in the last year.

On the other hand, this is a full year since AOL paid $315 million for the Huffington Post (and another $30+ million for TechCrunch, a few months before). I guess Armstrong could argue that things would be worse if he hadn’t bought the new sites, but that’s not very inspiring.

Update: A quick skim through the archives reminds me that shrinkage has been a recurring problem for AOL. The company also posted a 4 percent traffic drop in Q4 2011. And in Q3, traffic was flat. When I asked Armstrong about the issue then, he did indeed argue that the new sites were fighting off the decrease from dial-up users, and also argued that the company was still integrating Arianna and company (work in progress, apparently). He also predicted that traffic would tick up over time, and it has, just a bit — AOL is up to 108 million uniques versus 107 million six months ago. Key question: Does he expect more progress? Should shareholders?

AOL’s call starts at 8 am ET. We’ll see what Armstrong has to say then.

Update: AOL blames the Q1 drop on a number of things, including a specific but unnamed advertiser that stopped spending during the quarter. But Armstrong also tells analysts that his sales team’s pitch wasn’t resonating with advertisers. “A lot of it was because we have had a display strategy that was probably off-tune,” he says, adding “I was not happy with the domestic display.”

AOL says its display problems won’t be fixed this quarter, either, and predicts another drop. But it says domestic display will start moving up again in the second half of the year.

Meanwhile, AOL defends its much-maligned Patch unit, by noting that revenues are up and expenses are down at the local-news play this year. Armstrong tells investors that Patch will hit “run rate profitability” by the end of 2013. If they give him that much time.

Dutifully following judge’s orders, Apple on Monday said it will narrow its claims against Samsung, essentially cutting them in half. Meanwhile, Samsung agreed to pull from its case five of the 12 patents it has asserted against Apple.

By cutting their claims down like this, the companies hope to retain a proposed July 30 trial date.

The moves significantly reduce the scope of the case. For example, by paring its claims from 75 to 15, Samsung has reduced its total claims by 80 percent. Which should make the case much more manageable for judge and jury both. This time around, anyway. Because while Apple is dropping some of its claims against Samsung, it doesn’t want to do so “with prejudice.” In other words, it wants to reserve the right to assert those claims at a later bench trial, or roll them into a new lawsuit.

“Obviously, Apple is not willing and should not be required to waive any right to a jury trial on claims and defenses that arise from Samsung’s continued assertion of patents that Samsung contends are essential to practice the UMTS telecommunication standard, including Apple’s Twenty-Fifth through Twenty-Ninth Counterclaims in Reply,” the company wrote in its filing.

[Image credit: Wikimedia Commons]

Asked to decide whether Google had infringed upon Oracle’s copyrights to certain parts of the Java programming language, the jury agreed that it had. But then, when asked to decide on four specific examples of that infringement, jurors could agree on only one: The rangeCheck method in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.java. Don’t ask me to explain exactly what it is, but it is being described widely as “nine lines of code.” And, unfortunately for Oracle, the damages it can collect are limited to somewhere in the neighborhood of $150,000 to $200,000, or less than pocket change for either company, not the $1 billion or more Oracle had said it wanted.

Jurors were also unable to decide if the portions of Java code that it copied could be protected by the long-established doctrine of Fair Use, under which certain infringements can be excused. Google lawyers pounced on this, and said they would move for a mistrial.

The conclusion is that Oracle proved at least part of its argument, but failed to prove the dramatic injury it said it had suffered. It also proved that Google knew that it needed a license to Java in order to use the portions of Java that it did use. The complication there was the fact that one flavor of Java is compatible with other flavors of Java: It still operates under the old “write once, run anywhere” principle that Sun Microsystems envisioned when it created Java. Oracle still wants Google to take out a commercial license that would require Google to maintain Java compatibility with other platforms.

Still undecided — and this is the big issue that has the eyes of the software industry watching this case closely — is whether Oracle can prevail on the issue of protecting software APIs using a copyright in the first place. Jurors were instructed to proceed under the assumption that this was a matter of settled law, when in fact it is not. Judge William Alsup will decide on this issue later, and it is unclear exactly how the jury verdict in the first phase of this case will affect his decision.

Had Oracle won a more ringing endorsement from the jury, that portion of the argument might seem to be stronger. It’s an important point that Google argued against, saying APIs shouldn’t be subject to copyright protection, because they’re more like tools and techniques that programmers use to build software. You can copyright a given program because it’s unique, but you can’t copyright the language it’s written in. The possibly strained analogy I came up with before is this: You can copyright a musical composition like Miles Davis’s “So What,” but you can’t copyright the form of music known as jazz.

Oracle argued at trial that copyright law offers the only proper protection for original expression in software, mainly because software advances are incremental, building upon previous advances and innovations. Laws governing trade secrets and patents don’t get the job done. Oracle lawyers contended that copyright law, while still imperfect, protects innovations and advances at a more granular level, but mainly against copying.

Also still ahead is the patent phase of the trial, where Oracle will assert that Google violated Java patents in building Android. After that, there will be a third phase, where the two parties will wrangle over damages. So far, it seems — unless Oracle prevails in the patent portion — that there won’t be much to wrangle over.

At least for now, it appears that Google has escaped the worst of Oracle’s accusations. That was the conclusion of shareholders of both companies. Google shares rose by more than 2 percent on the news of the verdict yesterday, closing at $607.55 a share. Oracle shares fell by more than 1 percent to close at $27.92 a share. The case isn’t over, and Google hasn’t exactly come out of it looking virtuous. But if the point of defending against a lawsuit is to escape paying huge monetary damages, Google won the day.

Embedded below is the filled-out jury questionnaire:

Verdict

“The court is well aware that it is being played as a pawn in a global industry-wide business negotiation,” Robart lamented after reserving judgment on the motions of Microsoft and Motorola for a later date. “The conduct of both Motorola and Microsoft has been driven by an attempt to secure commercial advantage, and to an outsider looking in, it has been arbitrary, it has been arrogant and frankly it appears to be based on hubris.”

Which, if you’ve been following these cases, is a reasonably accurate assessment. Using litigation to squeeze exorbitant licensing fees out of a rival for intellectual property is becoming par for the course in negotiations like those between Microsoft and Motorola, and as Robart points out, not only is that a drag, it’s often a waste of everyone else’s time.

The Associated Press reported that a note to Judge William Alsup asked what would happen if jurors were unable to come to a conclusion, and indicated that some jurors are not budging from their positions.

Alsup called jurors into the courtroom for a talk, then sent them home so they could “start fresh” today. Bloomberg Businessweek reported that Alsup told lawyers that it’s possible the jury is deadlocked. If that’s what happens, Alsup said, the parties would move immediately into the second phase of the trial, which covers patents.

Jurors have been asked to decide if Google’s use of 37 sections of Oracle-owned Java source code constitutes a copyright infringement, or if, as Google has argued, the copied sections are so insignificant as to amount to “no big deal.”

Oracle sued Google in 2010, after acquiring Sun Microsystems and becoming the owner of the Java programming language. Google stands accused of using some parts of Java to create Android without having first obtained the relevant licenses — first from Sun, then from Oracle — that, among other things, required compatibility with other flavors of Java.

The jury has been deliberating since lawyers for Google and Oracle wound up their arguments on Monday.

(Image courtesy of Icanhascheezburger)

Jury Blog

Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California this week ordered both companies to reduce the size of the sprawling case to make it more manageable for the jury. Understandable, considering the case involves 16 patents, six trademarks, five “trade dress” claims and antitrust allegations spread across 37 products.

“I think that’s cruel and unusual punishment to a jury, so I’m not willing to do it,” Judge Koh told Apple and Samsung. “If you’re going to trial in July, this is not going to be acceptable.”

The companies have until Monday to reduce their claims to a manageable level. If they’re unable to do so, Koh may push the trial date back to 2013.

(Image Credit: Jury Blog)

The jury has had the case since Monday, and as yet there’s no indication of when its deliberations will be complete.

The basic questions jurors are wrestling with concern whether and how it is or isn’t okay for a company to copy portions of software code that would otherwise require a commercial license. Also looming large over the proceedings is whether or not a programming language can by itself by protected by copyright. Oracle lawyers argued at trial that it can, but this is by no means a legal slam dunk.

Google lawyers, for their part, argued that the copying was insignificant, or “no big deal whatsoever.”

Oracle sued Google in 2010, after acquiring Sun Microsystems and becoming the owner of the Java programming language. Google stands accused of using some parts of Java to create Android without having first obtained the relevant licenses, first from Sun, then from Oracle, a license that among other things required compatibility with other flavors of Java.

Once the jury comes back, which could be as soon as today (but we thought that earlier this week), the trial will shift to a second phase over patents. After that, assuming Oracle prevails in one or both of the first two phases, a third phase will determine the amount of damages, if any. The full trial is expected to last two months.

Lots of people are waiting on the outcome of this first phase, however. To all of them, I dedicate Tom Petty’s “The Waiting.”

All day today, the top 120 execs at Yahoo are meeting at an offsite at the Marriott in San Jose, Calif., the first such gathering of the new world order at the Silicon Valley Internet giant in the wake of 2,000 layoffs last month.

It’ll be the first time that new CEO Scott Thompson starts to more specifically explain his vision of how he’s going to drag Yahoo out of its perpetual turnaround and into a brighter future.

The main message: Focus on where Yahoo is winning and dumping everything else — and actually doing it this time.

(For those just tuning in, previous Yahoo management has talked this talk before and, well, not walked this walk very much at all.)

Thompson thinks he’s the clean-up guy, though. And, since the layoffs, he has been one busy dude, flying to and fro, working on a variety of things.

That includes everything from figuring out how to sell a part of Yahoo’s lucrative Asian assets to working on the company’s fraught search advertising partnership with Microsoft, to chatting with Google about a new one, to planning more patent attacks against Facebook and others, to — perhaps most important of all — deciding what needs to stay and what needs to go in terms of products and properties at the company.

In Yahoo’s recent earnings call, Thompson noted that he would be “consolidating technology platforms and shutting down or transitioning roughly 50 properties that don’t contribute meaningfully to engagement or revenue.”

What precisely he was talking about has been the buzz inside the company since, because Yahoo has collected a lot of stuff over the years that is has shoved into its corporate closet and forgotten about, but that keeps on chugging away with little promise.

Ever heard of Korea Kids? It’s a site in Asia that attracts decent traffic and millions of dollars in revenue, but which many sources said costs much more to operate. Or another site called Sex Tips in the U.K. or Moments on Motherhood on its U.S. Shine women’s site.

There are lots of micro-sites like this all over Yahoo, which have been created over the years for a variety of reasons that seemed sensible at the time. In addition, there is much more — from scads of useless mobile apps to much bigger but troubled projects such as Connected TV and Livestand — all of which suck up staff, resources, attention, ad impressions and more.

It’s like a never-ending episode of “Hoarders,” but grosser in many way for Yahoo shareholders.

So, presumably, if you are not in the top three in any category, that means a spring cleaning all over the company to either toss these properties out or move them to one of Yahoo’s big publishing platforms, such as sports, finance or news.

This is not an easy task, as you might imagine, since each and every property on the potential chopping block has staunch defenders inside the company and ferreting them out and killing them is, as one person inside Yahoo noted, “like hunting gophers in the dark.”

The benefit to doing so? Cost savings, focus on many fewer things that Yahoo does best and a deployment of talent to where it will pay off.

That’s the idea anyway, but it is more complex than that, since simply having massive properties to sell to advertisers is not the game anymore, as both Google and Facebook sell a range of other attributes to advertisers from better engagement to direct sales conversions to social hooks.

Thus, it’s not simply enough to kill properties — Yahoo has to transform the ones it keeps, too, to meet a vastly different consumer mentality.

That is one of the main reasons that Thompson is also stressing new business arenas, most especially commerce, an area he knows well as the former president of eBay’s PayPal unit. Thompson has told his staff that by 2014, one-third of Yahoo’s revenues should come from e-commerce.

Besides hiring away some of his staff from PayPal, sources said he has also been eying payments technology to buy and even leveraging current Yahoo properties to grow the nascent business.

Recently, for example, he has been pushing an effort to get the accidental visitors to Yahoo’s still powerful home page — those that sign in an out of its email, for example — to engage in an e-commerce transaction.

Whether moves like this will work is still an open question, but I guess you have to start cleaning up the mess somewhere.

Nokia on Wednesday filed patent infringement lawsuits against HTC, Research In Motion and ViewSonic in the U.S. and Germany. All told, there are 45 patents at issue, covering everything from dual-function antennas and multimode radios to application stores and data encryption.

“Many of these inventions are fundamental to Nokia products,” Nokia’s chief legal officer Louise Pentland said today in a statement. “We’d rather that other companies respect our intellectual property and compete using their own innovations, but as these actions show, we will not tolerate the unauthorized use of our inventions.”

Presumably, the company would be quite happy to tolerate authorized ones for licensing fees that would boost its flagging quarterly numbers. Which, for Nokia, is really what this is all about: establishing a new revenue stream while awaiting broader adoption of its new Lumia Windows Phones.

Reached for comment, RIM declined to offer one.

HTC had only this to say: “HTC has been a licensee of Nokia on wireless essential patents since 2003. We are waiting to receive a complaint and won’t have any comments until our legal team has received and reviewed it.”

ViewSonic has not yet replied.

A Microsoft spokesperson, however, said Motorola is prohibited from acting on the court’s decision because a U.S. court granted Microsoft a restraining order on April 11 to prevent Motorola Mobility from taking action based on the Mannheim court’s ruling.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

My personal wake-up call happened in November 2008. The financial crisis was exploding, the hot start-up computer company I worked for, OQO, was in the process of shutting down, and my 19-month-old son had just been diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes. Unlike when someone is laid off and can receive ongoing benefits, when a company shutters and jobs are disappearing everywhere, there is no Cobra coverage.

At the time, I was responsible for building and growing OQO’s patent portfolio. It was staffed with some of the smartest and most talented people I have ever met. OQO pioneered innovations in computer miniaturization, antenna design and power management. Unfortunately, due to delays in getting patents processed, OQO had 13 patents granted but over 90 pending, and without further collateral, the company was out of time and options.

Instead of helping the company though a critical time, the complexity and inefficiencies in the patent system contributed to the entire 100+ employee company being lost.

Since that time, I have worked to make sure things like this don’t happen again. As a former U.S. patent examiner and advisor to the Obama-Biden transition team, I was appointed by the Obama Administration to help fundamentally reform the quality and speed with which patents are issued. Today, there is a fast track for small businesses to build large patent portfolios quickly, and expanded work-sharing programs with patent offices all over the world. Last year, the Small Business Administration Office of Capital Access supported over $30 billion in financing and is now working with the USPTO to better ensure that lenders can feel more confident that patents are able to be used much like equipment, machinery, or real estate to secure financing.

Since leaving the Administration, I’ve joined MDB Capital, an investment bank which looks to capitalize early stage companies with disruptive technology. MDB has invested millions in building internal tools which we use to more deeply understand patent portfolios and better assess companies with potentially disruptive innovation.

Late last year, a number of Yahoo investors approached me to better understand the value of Yahoo’s patent portfolio. One of those investors was Eric Jackson, who published a portion of my analysis under the seemingly prophetic headline “The Owner of Yahoo!’s Patents Could Cripple Facebook’s IPO Aspirations.”

When major companies like Yahoo and Facebook go to war over patents, the company with the strongest assets is going to win.

Patents are technical and legal documents, each one costing about the price of a new Fiat 500 to draft. There is a very small community of IP professionals who write, prosecute and sell these assets. Of the over 1,000,000 attorneys in the United States, only 30,000 or so have passed the Patent Bar. So few, in fact, that the USPTO allows scientists and engineers to take the exam, adding about 10,000 more “Patent Agents” admitted to practice patent law before the USPTO.

This means that at any given time, depending on the technology area, there are only a few thousand people who really have any idea what a given patent likely covers, or what it’s potentially worth.

And that is at the core of all these IP wars.

The entire reason the patent system exists is that the Government wants to buy something from inventors: Disclosure. Society benefits when inventors disclose their ideas so that later innovators can learn from, reproduce and build upon or around those ideas. What the Government gives the inventor is exclusivity — it grants the right to exclude others from making, using or selling those new innovations.

But remember — in certain industries, almost no one really knows what a patent covers. And nowhere is this issue worse than in IT and Software.

So many companies in these industries launch products without even bothering to check whether or not a new feature or function would be covered by granted patents or pending applications. What many of them do instead is enter into broad cross-licensing agreements with their customers, competitors and suppliers, ensuring a relatively stable, peaceful existence with respect to IP. When they overlap a small patent portfolio of a company or inventor unable to commercialize, they typically litigate or purchase the assets, however with far lower stakes.

Going public with roughly 60 granted patents, Facebook clearly did not see the portfolios or players in its space as presenting an IP risk. Yahoo owns over 1,200 patents from over 2,700 different inventors. Its top 10 patents alone have been cited over 2,200 times by later inventions.

More broadly, the top patent holders in the world are all hardware or software companies, all have over 20,000 granted U.S. patents, and together average a three year compound annual growth rate of over 10 percent — Facebook ally Microsoft among them.

These IP dynamics are not going away. The large players have spent billions over decades to use IP and strategically position themselves within their markets. Google learned this the hard way in the mobile space, watching large established players prevent it from buying the Nortel patents, extracting royalties from its customers, and eventually compelling the purchase of Motorola Mobility and its thousands of patents for over $12 billion. Today, the OQO patent portfolio is owned by Google.

Facebook is having the same growing pains with Yahoo, but is following the same roadmap in rapidly acquiring assets applicable to its ecosystem, and ultimately, given its applicability to Google, Apple, and Amazon among others, it is still possible that Yahoo could be Facebook’s Motorola Mobility.

Twitter seems to be in the worst position of all. Having secured little IP for itself, despite developing a significant and important communications platform, Twitter recently decided to needlessly encumber any future patent portfolio it may develop with its recently announced Intellectual Property Agreement, making that portfolio nearly impossible to value or transact. If Facebook is acquiring arms, and Yahoo is building them, then Twitter is playing Russian roulette.

I only wish I could communicate the feeling of watching the business tide rapidly turn, and having everything riding on a valuation of your IP.

Erin-Michael Gill is Managing Director and Chief Intellectual Property Officer of MDB Capital. He is a registered patent agent and licensed securities broker. He has no individual holdings in any of the companies discussed above. The opinions presented are his alone and are not intended to be nor should they be construed as legal or investment advice.

And so, on May 21 and 22, Samsung Vice Chairman Gee-Sung Choi, Apple CEO Tim Cook and their respective legal counsel will meet in San Francisco to discuss possible settlements to their metastasizing IP spat, and to draw up for the judge presiding over it “a candid evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses.”

While the talks are a welcome development in what is fast becoming the Hundred Years’ War of intellectual property battles, it would be naive to believe that they’ll actually result in a settlement at this point. The stakes are too high and the fronts in the battle too numerous; FOSS Patents’ Florian Mueller observes that Apple and Samsung are suing one another in 10 countries, with more than 50 lawsuits pending. Hard to imagine Cook and Choi hugging it out after two days of chats.

And as much as Cook dislikes litigation, it’s clear that he’s even less fond of the of the sort of “slavish” design copying of which Apple has accused Samsung.

“I’ve always hated litigation, and I continue to hate it,” Cook said during Apple’s last earnings call. “We just want people to invent their own stuff. And so if we could get to some kind of arrangement where we could be assured that’s the case and a fair settlement on the stuff that’s occurred, I would highly prefer to settle versus battle. But the key thing is that it’s very important that Apple not become the developer for the world. We need people to invent their own stuff.”

If Samsung is willing to concede to that, then these two days of court-ordered settlement talks ought to go quite smoothly. But that seems unlikely, which means this battle will probably roll on for a good long time.

(Image The Joy of Tech)