 | | bias'd article much? if you push someone long enough they fight back that is how i and many view this.
IF BT had not sued google then i doubt google would be suing BT.
and as to the motorolla stuff , um ya they were already suing google BEFORE they were bought buy google....so VERY bias'd article. | |
|
 | | | article headline fail This isn't a change of anything for google. They've shown that if they are sued, they will retaliate. They also win an extremely large number of cases when it comes to patents, too. So I'd expect BT to back down quite quickly. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·MegaPath
| Re: article headline fail Google may have their hand in everything in the US but this is England/the UK where the suit would be heard. Good luck on Google winning there. If Google tries to have the cause heard here- BT could just never reply to the claim as not an American company nor do they do business here. | |
|
| | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: article headline fail said by TBusiness:Google may have their hand in everything in the US but this is England/the UK where the suit would be heard. Good luck on Google winning there. If Google tries to have the cause heard here- BT could just never reply to the claim as not an American company nor do they do business here.
They're suing American companies. Maybe you should learn how to read a little better. | |
|
| | |  japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | said by TBusiness:If Google tries to have the cause heard here- BT could just never reply to the claim as not an American company nor do they do business here. Rubbish. BT Group is a multinational with multiple divisions. Three of their entities based or functioning in the US are named in the US suit. Read the article linked in OP. | |
|
|  LightSPremium
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX | Re: bias'd article much? While it may be biased... they've been viewed as the "good guys" until very recently, even often being supported by Karl.
They may just be retorting, however, it may also be a shift in policy. Only time will tell. Can't be blinded forever.. | |
|
| | | | Re: bias'd article much? Karl is just quoting Florian, a man paid for by Microsoft and Oracle to make google look bad.
Fairly sure if you look at facts anywhere you will not hear people trying to proclaim that a google countersuit (which they have done before) is somehow magically "google is changing". They have said before they will respond with countersuits when they are sued, and BT is a notorious patent troll. Remember, they own Tmobile and were trying to sell tmobile off to a convicted monopolist!
It's pot meet kettle situation with Florian, always. He is not reputable. | |
|
| | |
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: bias'd article much? If you attack Google, you better expect them to return fire.
Co-exist amicably, and there won't be any problems. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: bias'd article much? right so we should allow Google to do what ever they want??? | |
|
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: bias'd article much? Don't file BS patent lawsuits vs Google and they won't file them vs you. | |
|
| | | | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by TBusiness:right so we should allow Google to do what ever they want???
They are not doing whatever they want. | |
|
| | also, WTF? quoting FOSSpatents as the source of how google has somehow changed, when they haven't?
Why doesn't Karl do a little research? He should know by now not to quote them. | |
|
| | | Re: also, WTF? Yeah, Florian Muller is not exactly the greatest source in the world. He's been wrong frequently.
Plus he's paid by Microsoft as a consultant, and has a very pronounced anti-Google bias.
He's traded verbal jabs with Pamela Jones of Groklaw on frequent occasions. PJ spends a lot of time correcting his mistakes, :P.
If you want a source, I'd go with PJ over FM any day of the week. | |
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | They'll say whatever they need to say... If the CEO was found to have a dead kid in the trunk the PR department would say he was just giving him a ride.
Business is business. | |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
 ·Comcast
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| Lack of Authority I don't think a court in California has authority over British Telecom. British Telecom is in Britain and I don't think they have any operations in the states.
It would be like a creditor suing someone who lives in Nevada in a Florida court who has never been to Florida. One of the principles of due process is to have the case heard in a court where the incident occurred. In the states, if a court case involves parties in different states, then the case generally can be removed to US District Court (which corporations usually do when they are sued over a Slip n Fall, as Walmart is based in Bentonville, Arkansas and the alleged incident occurred in Massachusetts). But I don't think the federal court system has jurisdiction over foreign corporations that do not have a business interest in the United States. As for Apple v Samsung, Samsung does currently market their products in the US so the US Courts DO have jurisdiction.
I bet the case will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If Scroogle wants to sue British Telecom, they'll have to sue in Britain.
And if Google does win in California, they'll have a hard time enforcing the judgement.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner. They are much better than broadcast TV.
I have not and will not cut the cord. | |
|
| | | Re: Lack of Authority They sued them in a California FEDERAL court. Also, If you read the article, you'll see that they filed a separate lawsuit in the U.K. Google knows what they are doing. Patent law isn't as simple as you think it is. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
| Re: Lack of Authority They can file in the US all they want. Federal court or not. BT is NOT an American Company and does NOT own anything here nor conduct business as a registered business in the US. Which would give them full rights not to even reply to the suit in American Court. If they were smart, they would NOT reply here. Make Google to to the UK and go in front of their people who already have issues with them on some grounds or another. Especially with the whole spying on open wireless networks. | |
|
| | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: Lack of Authority said by TBusiness:They can file in the US all they want. Federal court or not. BT is NOT an American Company and does NOT own anything here nor conduct business as a registered business in the US. Which would give them full rights not to even reply to the suit in American Court. If they were smart, they would NOT reply here. Make Google to to the UK and go in front of their people who already have issues with them on some grounds or another. Especially with the whole spying on open wireless networks.
Except the companies they are suing ARE American companies. Learn how to read. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| When it comes to patent law, I think things are a bit different. Patents are territorial - meaning that it is conceivable that one could hold a patent in the United States but not hold it in Europe. That, of course, means that it's also possible to have someone violate a patent in the United States while not violating it elsewhere. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but am currently involved with development of a few processes that I and my partners plan to patent if possible... so we started taking a cursory look at what might need to be done. Hence I discovered the above.)
Assuming the above to be accurate, it is possible for BT to be sued for violating a patent in the United States if they are somehow tangentially involved with violative activities here. They could be involved in a joint business venture, provide financial backing for a business venture, or be planning a business venture here - that's probably all that's required to file a suit in a US court.
Edit: Apparently Google did file lawsuits in the US and UK simultaneously. Thanks negritude.
I do have to wonder why Google didn't decide to simultaneously file a lawsuit in the European courts as well. If BT is somehow involved with infringing activities in the US, I'd suspect they're also infringing in the UK. I suppose it's always possible that they aren't, or that Google doesn't own the appropriate patents in Europe.
--
The only difference between Bush and Obama is the group they're wasting our taxpayer money on. It's time to elect responsible legislators. | |
|
| | | | Re: Lack of Authority Read the article. They did file a lawsuit in the U.K. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
| You are correct with it being territorial. Unless of course the patent is international and registered in all countries you wish to own it in. BT could in fact own the patent in the UK and use it there, legally. Google could own it in the US and own use it legally but it does not give Goog the right to go to the UK and sue BT over it if they own it there, especially if BT filed and received the patent well before Google even thought about it. | |
|
| | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: Lack of Authority said by TBusiness:You are correct with it being territorial. Unless of course the patent is international and registered in all countries you wish to own it in. BT could in fact own the patent in the UK and use it there, legally. Google could own it in the US and own use it legally but it does not give Goog the right to go to the UK and sue BT over it if they own it there, especially if BT filed and received the patent well before Google even thought about it.
They're suing American companies. Learn how to read. | |
|
|
|
|
Really?? foss patents??? REALLY?!