Google seems like it is having a tough battle against Microsoft's Xbox. In this battle, it involved the actions of Motorola, which Google had bought over previously. It is mentioned that Motorola had not anticipated the ruling outcome of another lawsuit between S3 Graphics and Apple, which was the fundamental reason why it is unable to win the case against Microsoft. It failed to realize the difference between a method claim and product claim. It also failed to form a case around indirect infringement and focused too heavily on direct infringement.
Has Google made a wrong move by buying Motorola, which it could not leverage on with its patents in this area? It seems like Google's position is not very favorable for winning this battle for an import ban, but it still has other options apart from the ITC. This case might be looked upon as a learning experience for all of us, including Google, in its next company buyout. I had never knew about how focusing on method claim or product claim could make or break the litigation. In addition, I never knew about what indirect infringement is, and it is even more surprising to me that Microsoft could even use its marketing campaign as a way to support its case of not inducing infringement. Marketing and infringement of patents seem to not overlap in my mind, but apparently it does so by marketing Kinect as a way to control the Xbox without using a game pad.
No comments:
Post a Comment