Richard Waters
The Financial Times. (May 10, 2012): News: p11

Chrysler: No. The world of hotels had not one, but two options. They could change the design of the way they were hung, yes, but they could also cheapen the hangers. They could very easily have given guests inexpensive plastic or metal hangers they would never have missed when they were stolen. But that would have lowered the tone of the hotel. Hotels, even hotels in a chain, like to have a touch of class. They like giving guests high-class solid wood hangers. It makes them feel good about themselves. It also makes them worth stealing.

The second part of this bizarre court trial. The whole thing feels slightly surreal, but also hilarious.

So there you have it. A darn-near perfect explanation of the GSIII design. Sure, it’s butt ugly, but it’s also 100% (well maybe 90%) lawyer approved. An amorphous, unsymmetrical blob that doesn’t come in black, with a non-permanent dock and non-square icons. There’s no way Apple can add this design to their Samsung lawsuit.

Interesting suggestion; the new Galaxy certainly looks less like an iPhone than any previous model. It could set a dangerous precedent, if Apple abuses this power, or it could force some real innovation from Android device makers. What a novel idea.

It would be nice if Google could either come clean and admit that it's not really open or (ideally) honor its open-source promise. But if Google buys Motorola, I’m afraid we’ll see more “trade secret” claims than ever.

Florian Mueller looks at some of Google’s recent court cases, and why their claims of being “open” are dodgy by Google’s own admission.

Even if the dismissal with prejudice with respect to Google was not challenged (or was affirmed), Google needs a license that benefits the Android ecosystem at large. If Google didn't take a license, Oracle would still have the right to assert this patent against Android device makers

I wonder if this could be an opportunity for Microsoft: if Oracle seriously threatens Android device makers, then could Microsoft woo them with the promise of no litigation?

Crucially, the contents of the code were endorsed by Lord Justice Jackson at its launch. The judge is an advocate of TPF, which he believes can be ‘beneficial’ to access to justice, provided safeguards are in place. Jackson had called for a voluntary code of conduct for funders in his final report on civil justice reform, suggesting that the heavier tool of statutory regulation should not be considered until this nascent market matures. In the House of Lords in February, justice minister Lord McNally rejected Thomas’s call for the government to regulate TPF, saying that it preferred to see how the voluntary code developed first. So the code has successfully shielded the industry from government regulation that might have stifled its development, and it seems unlikely that government will revisit this approach for a few years. But while ALF has now issued applications for membership, it has yet to appoint its first member; this development is expected soon.

An extraordinary legal battle is shaping up in the Federal Court, with a multinational software company suing NSW Police for wide-scale copyright piracy.

UK software company Micro Focus is demanding at least $10 million in damages from NSW Police.

It claims NSW Police has been using pirated copies of their computer software for more than a decade to run their COPS (Computerised Operational Police System) - the largest criminal intelligence database in the country.

It was a routine request from the NSW Ombudsman's office back in August 2010 that first set off alarm bells for Bruce Craig, the Australasian managing director of Micro Focus.

"Our team was out at the Ombudsman's and in a conversation they said they were accessing the COPS database using our software," he told 7.30.

"And we said what software - you don't own our software?"

"Gone are the days of the scrappy underdog, throwing a hammer through the window of conformity, and what has emerged is … well, it’s far worse than what it was rebelling against."

In a nutshell, Google absolutely admits that Android makes substantial use of those 37 Java APIs. It admits that every Android device out there, including any new one that is shipping as we speak, comes with 37 Oracle APIs.

At this point, I just can’t see any way that Google is making it out of this unscathed. Surely, this is the nail in their coffin (if it’s not already sealed shut).

“Please don’t demonstrate to any Sun employees or lawyers,” Rubin warned an engineer in 2008, as he prepared to take Android on the road.

Android is open.

Florian Muelle reports on testimony from Lindholm, a key witness, sender of the eponymous email:

In short, Lindholm’s denial of his most famous email having referred to any particular licensor comes down to this: Google needed (and still needs) to negotiate a license with Oracle or with Oracle.

I don’t think there’s any way that Google can get out of this unscathed.

Oracle's first slide right after the title page showed the famous Lindholm email, which Google had failed seven times to get excluded from this trial. It constitutes an admission that Google felt, shortly before this lawsuit, that it needed a license.

It really isn’t looking good for Google in the Oracle case.

So, there we were. Not more than 2 minutes into the trial, and Apple conceded to trying to hoodwink the judge.

Clearly, a little guy can take on Apple in the court, and win. I think the article is biased: this probably reflects badly on a very low-level decision, not something endemic in Apple’s culture. It still seems like a very odd case though.

30 March 2012
Consequences of not taking 'genuine steps' to settle disputes: application of the new Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011 (Cth)