October 30, 2009 at 10:38 For Chrome sue, then Google is on the right track
Mobile phone software maker Red Bend Software has filed a lawsuit against Google for violating its patent 6,546,552 (issued in 2003), which describes the “algorithm for calculating the differences between two versions of tables containing data containing internal links”. The plaintiff is confident that this patent is violated by the Chrome browser, namely, the Courgette open algorithm for delivering compressed updates integrated into the browser.
Although the Israeli company Red Bend Software is little known, it controls 53% of the US software market for the remote update of mobile phone firmware. They have only three patents registered in the United States, including this one.
Claims to Google are expressed very loudly. In the sense that, by the example of this lawsuit, Google’s opponents accuse the company not just of infringing a patent, but of discrediting the whole concept of open software, they say, Google programs are not so Open Source: both the Chrome browser and the Android operating system, they say, "Not quite Open Source." These are the usual theses of the so-called "google phobes."
It is known that hundreds of companies are doing the same thing: they deliver updates to their products in the same form using approximately the same algorithm when, in the form of an update, only the difference between the two distributions is sent de facto. Such technologies have been used for many years and it is strange that they are suitable for patenting (by the way, Google was notified about the existence of the 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 you could file the same lawsuit with hundreds of other companies. It doesn’t even matter who wins this patent lawsuit, because Google will pay nothing anyway .
Another thing is surprising - what conclusions some journalists draw from the very fact of filing such a lawsuit. First, they write about a common patent dispute using the terms “copy,” “steal,” etc. Secondly, they write literally the following: "Chrome browser may not be so Open Source." How a patent lawsuit can change the type of license for a browser is unknown, but such delusional assumptions of Western journalists leak even into the Russian press.
Thus, people reading this mess learn little about the essence of the patent dispute, but remember that Google “stole” something from someone, and also that the Chrome browser may be “not so Open Source”. So googlofoby try to brainwash the general public.
But for understanding people, one thing is clear: new patent lawsuits against Google mean that this company is on the right track. History shows that only the most successful companies are targeted by patent trolls. Hundreds of lawsuits were filed against Microsoft for patent infringement, and almost all of them were successfully recaptured in court. Now Google will have to drink from the same bowl, and the lawsuit with Red Bend Software will clearly not be the last.
By the way, not only patent trolls attack Google recently. For example, recently people from Symbian called Google “evil” because Android collects user data. Is this not evidence that Symbian simply can not stand the competition and it, along with the rest of the google phobes, can only escalate FUD?
Although the Israeli company Red Bend Software is little known, it controls 53% of the US software market for the remote update of mobile phone firmware. They have only three patents registered in the United States, including this one.
Claims to Google are expressed very loudly. In the sense that, by the example of this lawsuit, Google’s opponents accuse the company not just of infringing a patent, but of discrediting the whole concept of open software, they say, Google programs are not so Open Source: both the Chrome browser and the Android operating system, they say, "Not quite Open Source." These are the usual theses of the so-called "google phobes."
It is known that hundreds of companies are doing the same thing: they deliver updates to their products in the same form using approximately the same algorithm when, in the form of an update, only the difference between the two distributions is sent de facto. Such technologies have been used for many years and it is strange that they are suitable for patenting (by the way, Google was notified about the existence of the 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 you could file the same lawsuit with hundreds of other companies. It doesn’t even matter who wins this patent lawsuit, because Google will pay nothing anyway .
Another thing is surprising - what conclusions some journalists draw from the very fact of filing such a lawsuit. First, they write about a common patent dispute using the terms “copy,” “steal,” etc. Secondly, they write literally the following: "Chrome browser may not be so Open Source." How a patent lawsuit can change the type of license for a browser is unknown, but such delusional assumptions of Western journalists leak even into the Russian press.
Thus, people reading this mess learn little about the essence of the patent dispute, but remember that Google “stole” something from someone, and also that the Chrome browser may be “not so Open Source”. So googlofoby try to brainwash the general public.
But for understanding people, one thing is clear: new patent lawsuits against Google mean that this company is on the right track. History shows that only the most successful companies are targeted by patent trolls. Hundreds of lawsuits were filed against Microsoft for patent infringement, and almost all of them were successfully recaptured in court. Now Google will have to drink from the same bowl, and the lawsuit with Red Bend Software will clearly not be the last.
By the way, not only patent trolls attack Google recently. For example, recently people from Symbian called Google “evil” because Android collects user data. Is this not evidence that Symbian simply can not stand the competition and it, along with the rest of the google phobes, can only escalate FUD?