For Chrome sue, means Google on the right track
The manufacturer of mobile software Red Bend Software has filed a claim against Google for violating its patent 6,546,552 (issued in 2003), which describes the “algorithm for calculating differences between two versions of tables with data containing internal links”. The plaintiff is confident that this patent is violated by Chrome browser, namely the Courgette open algorithm built into the browser for delivering compressed updates.
The Israeli firm Red Bend Software, though little known, but controls 53% of the US software market for remote update of mobile phone firmware. They have only three patents registered in the USA, including this one.
Claims to Google speak out very loudly. In the sense that, using this lawsuit as an example, Google’s opponents accuse the company not just of patent infringement, but of discrediting the entire open source concept, they say, Google’s programs are not so Open Source: both Chrome and Android’s "Not quite open source". These are the usual theses of the so-called “guglofobov”.
It is known that hundreds of companies are doing the same thing: they deliver updates to their products in the same way, approximately according to the same algorithm, when only the difference between the two distributions is sent as an update. Such technologies have been used for many years and it is strange that they are suitable for patenting (by the way, Google was notified of the existence of a patent only on September 7). There is nothing surprising in this patent litigation, they are quite common for the software industry in the west, and it was possible to file the same lawsuit against hundreds of other companies. It doesn't even matter who wins the patent litigation, because Google wo n't pay anything anyway.
')
Surprisingly another - what conclusions do some journalists from the very fact of filing such a claim. Firstly, they write about a regular patent dispute using the terms “copy”, “steal”, etc. Secondly, they literally write the following: “Chrome's browser may not be such an open source.” How patent litigation can change the type of license for the browser is unknown, but such delusional assumptions by Western journalists even leak into the Russian press.
Thus, people who read this mess do not know much about the essence of the patent dispute, but they remember that Google “stole” something from someone, and also that Chrome browser may be “not so Open Source”. So guglofoby trying to brainwash the general public.
But for understanding people, one thing is clear: new patent claims against Google mean that this company is on the right track. History shows that only the most successful companies become targets for patent trolls. Against the same Microsoft filed hundreds of claims for patent infringement, and almost all of them were successfully repulsed in court. Now and Google will have to drink from the same bowl, and the litigation with Red Bend Software will obviously not be the last.
By the way, not only patent trolls are attacking Google lately. For example, recently people from Symbian called Google the “evil” for the fact that Android collects user data. Is this not evidence that Symbian simply does not stand up to the competition and, along with the rest of Google Play, it only needs to force FUD?
The Israeli firm Red Bend Software, though little known, but controls 53% of the US software market for remote update of mobile phone firmware. They have only three patents registered in the USA, including this one.
Claims to Google speak out very loudly. In the sense that, using this lawsuit as an example, Google’s opponents accuse the company not just of patent infringement, but of discrediting the entire open source concept, they say, Google’s programs are not so Open Source: both Chrome and Android’s "Not quite open source". These are the usual theses of the so-called “guglofobov”.
It is known that hundreds of companies are doing the same thing: they deliver updates to their products in the same way, approximately according to the same algorithm, when only the difference between the two distributions is sent as an update. Such technologies have been used for many years and it is strange that they are suitable for patenting (by the way, Google was notified of the existence of a patent only on September 7). There is nothing surprising in this patent litigation, they are quite common for the software industry in the west, and it was possible to file the same lawsuit against hundreds of other companies. It doesn't even matter who wins the patent litigation, because Google wo n't pay anything anyway.
')
Surprisingly another - what conclusions do some journalists from the very fact of filing such a claim. Firstly, they write about a regular patent dispute using the terms “copy”, “steal”, etc. Secondly, they literally write the following: “Chrome's browser may not be such an open source.” How patent litigation can change the type of license for the browser is unknown, but such delusional assumptions by Western journalists even leak into the Russian press.
Thus, people who read this mess do not know much about the essence of the patent dispute, but they remember that Google “stole” something from someone, and also that Chrome browser may be “not so Open Source”. So guglofoby trying to brainwash the general public.
But for understanding people, one thing is clear: new patent claims against Google mean that this company is on the right track. History shows that only the most successful companies become targets for patent trolls. Against the same Microsoft filed hundreds of claims for patent infringement, and almost all of them were successfully repulsed in court. Now and Google will have to drink from the same bowl, and the litigation with Red Bend Software will obviously not be the last.
By the way, not only patent trolls are attacking Google lately. For example, recently people from Symbian called Google the “evil” for the fact that Android collects user data. Is this not evidence that Symbian simply does not stand up to the competition and, along with the rest of Google Play, it only needs to force FUD?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/73819/
All Articles