For use by students enrolled in LWN117, Cyberlaw and Policy (QUT).
In reference to the Oracle v Google Patent case I consider the approach adopted of "culling" them disappointing. As a lawyer it your job to only present reasonably arguable points. If there truly are that many claims infringed or that many prior art documents then why not approach it on a 'separate question' basis. Ie. have validity of the patents as a first separate question. Or have a hearing to determine which documents are prior are and which aren't.
It only took a few hours for the new Google Wallet idea to provoke a new 'google-lawsuit':http://www.itnews.com.au/News/258911,paypal-sues-google-over-trade-secrets.aspx
Concerning the Google ads report, I have to agree with the critics (very last paragraph). Google’s revenue comes to 99 per cent from advertisement. On the face of it, Google’s attempt to stop illegal promotion of drugs on the internet appears to be real. However, they still earn a lot of money from that. Only when it starts to damage Google’s reputation, they will really start fighting against those illegal doings. Until then they will continue doing nothing or at least not much.
Google Wallet sounds like a convenient idea, but it could also be too convenient, especially if the device is stolen. Perhaps the tracking system could then be used to locate it, though.
Post a Comment