Technology StocksApple Tankwatch

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: FUBHO who wrote (16260)2/20/2012 4:57:48 AM
From: elmatador
   of 32238
Pressure, Chinese and Foreign, Drives Changes at Foxconn

Looks like manufacturing in Brazil more appealing by the day...
Pressure, Chinese and Foreign, Drives Changes at Foxconn
BEIJING — The announcement Saturday that Foxconn Technology — one of the world’s largest electronics manufacturers — will sharply raise salaries and reduce overtime at its Chinese factories signals that pressure from workers, international markets and concerns among Western consumers about working conditions is driving a fundamental shift that could accelerate an already rapidly changing Chinese economy.

But the true meaning of Foxconn’s reforms, analysts say, will depend in part on how effectively the company can remake an economic system that has relied for much of the last decade on luring migrants to work cheaply for long hours in mammoth factories building smartphones, computers and other electronics.

Plants depend on workers’ being at assembly lines six or seven days a week, often for as long as 14 hours a day. Such facilities have made it possible for devices to be turned out almost as quickly as they are dreamed up.

For that system to genuinely change, Foxconn, its competitors and their clients — which include Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Dell and the world’s other large electronics firms — must convince consumers in America and elsewhere that improving factories to benefit workers is worth the higher prices of goods.

“This is the way capitalism is supposed to work,” said David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “As nations develop, wages rise and life theoretically gets better for everyone.

“But in China, for that change to be permanent, consumers have to be willing to bear the consequences. When people read about bad Chinese factories in the paper, they might have a moment of outrage. But then they go to Amazon and are as ruthless as ever about paying the lowest prices.”

Foxconn, with 1.2 million Chinese employees, is one of China’s largest employers. It assembles an estimated 40 percent of the smartphones, computers and other electronic gadgets sold around the world. Foxconn’s decisions set standards other manufacturers must compete with.

The announcement by Foxconn, which said that it would raise salaries as much as 25 percent, to about $400 a month, came after an outcry over working conditions at its factories. In recent weeks, labor rights groups have staged coordinated protests in various countries after reports that some of Apple’s Chinese suppliers operate harsh, abusive and dangerous facilities. To stem criticism, Apple hired a nonprofit labor group to inspect the plants it uses.

Workers welcomed the announced raises and overtime limits, though some were skeptical they would cause much real change. “When I was in Foxconn, there were rumors about pay raises every now and then, but I’ve never seen that day happen until I left,” said Gan Lunqun, 23, a former Foxconn worker. “This time it sounds more credible.”

By bowing to such demands, Foxconn has conceded that employees and consumers have gained a sway once possessed only by Chinese bureaucrats and executives at the global electronics firms that hire Foxconn to build their products.

Foxconn’s announcement also reflects how quickly China’s economy is shifting. Many of the country’s employers are facing labor shortages, which also puts upward pressure on wages, as do inflation and government demands to raise minimum wages.

Over 100 million migrant workers returned to their village homes this month to celebrate China’s Spring Festival, otherwise known as the New Year. Traditionally, factories have had no problem luring those workers back. But many Chinese cities are still confronting serious labor shortages, even though the holiday ended weeks ago. A recent Chinese government report said this year’s labor shortage was more pronounced than those in previous years.

And just as China’s exporters are struggling to cope with labor shortages in coastal regions, they are also confronting higher raw material costs and a strengthening Chinese currency, which makes Chinese goods more expensive in other nations.

“China can’t guarantee the low wages and costs they once did,” said Ron Turi of Element 3 Battery Venture, a consulting firm in the battery industry. “And companies like Foxconn have developed international profiles, and so they have to worry about how they’re seen by people living in places with very different standards.”

No other company in the world has quite the manufacturing scale of Foxconn. Nearly every global electronics company has some tie to the manufacturing giant, and while much of its work can be done cheaply, with low-skilled workers, the sheer volume of goods and scale of its operations make it China’s single biggest exporter.

Some of its campuses are considered small cities, with as many as 200,000 workers. Many are housed in dormitories near the assembly lines and are expected to be ready to rush into work should new orders flow in.

The Foxconn model, though, is under pressure. While most companies operate with similar dormitories, wage structures and work schedules, staffing Foxconn’s large sites has grown increasingly difficult. A new generation of young people in China are more reluctant to migrate to coastal cities, live in factory dorms and toil long hours. Many are staying closer to home, because of new opportunities in inland provinces. That has created labor shortages on the coast.

Social scientists say young people here are also less willing to accept factory jobs for long periods. Meanwhile, demographic changes have meant China has fewer young people to join the work force.

If the workers will not move to the coast, the logic is that the coastal factories ought to move to where the workers are living. Big manufacturers like Foxconn have responded to such challenges by moving factories inland.

And worried that the old model is dying, Foxconn has announced plans to invest in millions of robots and automate aspects of production.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Heywood40 who wrote (16808)2/20/2012 7:04:38 AM
From: sylvester80
   of 32238
Lower China court rules against Apple in iPad trademark row, says shops should pull tablets
By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, February 20, 4:07 AM

SHANGHAI — Apple’s dispute over the iPad trademark deepened Monday after the Chinese company that claims ownership of the name said it won a court ruling against sales of the popular tablet computer in China.

Xie Xianghui, a lawyer for Shenzhen Proview Technology, said the Intermediate People’s Court in Huizhou, a city in southern China’s Guangdong province, had ruled on Friday that distributors should stop selling iPads in China.

The ruling, which was also reported widely in China’s state media, may not have a far-reaching effect. In its battle with Apple, Proview is utilizing lawsuits in several places and also requesting commercial authorities in 40 cities to block iPad sales.

Apple Inc. said in a statement Monday that its case is still pending in mainland China. The company has appealed to Guangdong’s High Court against an earlier ruling in Proview’s favor.

Apple insists it holds the trademark rights to the iPad in China.

“We bought Proview’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago. Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple in China and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter,” said Apple spokeswoman Carolyn Wu.

Calls to the court in Huizhou rang unanswered.

A letter to Proview’s chairman Rowell Yang from the Beijing office of the law firm King & Wood, which is representing Apple, accused Proview of breaching “principles of good faith and fair dealing” and of making “false and misleading” statements.

Proview, a maker of LCD screens which is based in Guangdong, has asked regulators to seize iPads in China in a possible prelude to demanding a payout from Apple. A Shanghai court is due to hear a similar case on Wednesday.

So far, iPads have been pulled from shelves in some Chinese cities but there has been no sign of action at the national level.

Shenzhen Proview Technology is a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based Proview International Holdings. It registered the iPad trademark in China in 2001 and says the name was used for a computer described as an “Internet Personal Access Device” that employed touch panel technology.

The company says it plans to ask China’s customs agency to block imports and exports of iPads.

Apple contends that it acquired the iPad name when it bought rights in various countries from a Proview affiliate in Taiwan in 2009 for 35,000 British pounds ($55,000). Proview won a ruling from a mainland Chinese court in December that it was not bound by that sale.

Proview International’s shares have been suspended from trading on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange since August 2010 and reports say it is deep in debt. It will be delisted in June if it cannot show it has sufficient assets, business operations and working capital.

Proview has filed a trademark-violation lawsuit that goes to court Wednesday in Shanghai. In the meantime, China’s mass media is abuzz with speculation over the case.

“The iPad trademark case: Who cheated who?” quizzed a story in Monday’s edition of the 21st Century Business Herald.

Apple, based in Cupertino, California, points to a Hong Kong court ruling in July that said Proview had acted with the intention of “injuring Apple.”

According to that ruling, Apple set up a company in Britain to buy the iPad trademark from owners in various markets without revealing Apple was the purchaser.

Proview has accused Apple of acting dishonestly when it bought rights to the iPad name from Proview’s Taiwan affiliate. A Hong Kong court document shows that once the dispute arose, Proview demanded $10 million for the iPad name in China. But Hong Kong’s legal system is separate from the mainland’s.
Researcher Fu Ting contributed to this report.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Heywood40 who wrote (16808)2/20/2012 7:06:13 AM
From: sylvester80
   of 32238
Apple’s Trademark Problems Mount in China
Posted Monday, February 20th, 2012 at 2:30 am

A potentially costly dispute over the name of the iPad computer tablet may not be the only trademark problem facing Apple Incorporated in China.

The China Daily newspaper reports Monday that at least 39 Chinese companies and individuals have attempted to register the names iPhone or iPad as trademarks for products as varied as hiking shoes, veterinary drugs and diapers.

The newspaper says six manufacturers, including a flashlight manufacturer, got as far as preliminary approval before their applications were challenged.

The disclosure comes as a dispute over the iPad name has led authorities in several cities to seize the hand-held computers from Chinese retailers, threatening iPad sales in the world's largest computer market and, potentially, Apple's ability to export the tablets from the country where they are made.

A financially troubled Chinese company, Proview Technology, says it registered the iPad trademark in China in 2001, but Apple says it bought rights to the trademark in 10 countries from a Proview affiliate in Taiwan.

Apple has won a court judgment in its favor in Hong Kong, but Proview has won a favorable ruling from a court in the southern Chinese manufacturing hub of Shenzhen.

The dispute has captured the attention of China's massive Internet audience, becoming the most-searched topic last week on the nation's top search engine, Baidu.

An article in the Yangzi Evening News lists a number of suggestions from Chinese web users in the event that Apple loses its rights to the iPad name in China.

Many suggest putting another letter or number in front of the word “Pad,” including the numeral “1? which looks like the letter “i.”

Other suggestions included myPad, trueipad and JobsPad in reference to the late Apple chief executive, Steve Jobs.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: elmatador who wrote (16815)2/20/2012 7:34:46 AM
From: zax
   of 32238
Welcome to the board, elmatador. :)

Poor Foxconn. Can you imagine having to pay an employee nearly $360 a month? Did you notice how the Foxconn raises went into effect virtually the day before the FLA inspectors arrived?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: zax who wrote (16818)2/20/2012 7:48:02 AM
From: elmatador
   of 32238
Brazil Grants Foxconn Fiscal Incentives To Produce iPads
Message 27918039

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: sylvester80 who wrote (16817)2/20/2012 7:51:51 AM
From: zax
   of 32238
Fujitsu Plans European Presence With Android and Windows Phones
By: Anton D. Nagy |5:16 AM 20-Feb-12

According to a recent Financial Times report, Fujitsu is planning on entering the European market this year with a number of Android-powered smartphones and tablets to go with its Windows Phones.

The hardware maker is allegedly already in talks with network operators but it is yet unknown whether its line-up will be unveiled at the upcoming MWC or not. Following the same market policy as Panasonic -- which is planning on entering the European market this March -- Fujitsu will bring its devices to Europe while maintaining some of the features specific to the Japanese market.

According to the report, NFC, LTE mobile broadband technology, and fingerprint security will be featured on upcoming devices. Fujitsu (at that time, part of the Fujitsu-Toshiba joint venture) was the first to release a Windows Phone to the market running the Mango iteration. We will hopefully see the IS12T alongside some great Android phones and tablets soon in Europe.

Source: Financial Times
Via: TNW

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: zax2/20/2012 7:59:56 AM
   of 32238
If someone recognizes the source of the soundtrack in the second video, please let me know... love it. :)

Nokia "Amazing Everyday" for Madrid and Barcelona show off giant Windows Phone
Posted on Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:52 am EST by Daniel Rubino


Not a week goes by without Nokia getting some exposure via their "Amazing Everyday" campaign. This week we get two new videos, one from Madrid (Marquesinas Autobus) and Barcelona (Marquesinas Metro) with the latter being especially pertinent as we're on the cusp of Mobile World Congress 2012 which occurs in that very city starting in one week.


In these new videos we see a four-foot interactive Windows Phone that allows passerbys to take a few minutes to try the amazing UI. Come to think of it, this is a great idea as many of you will agree that the Metro UI is one of the key selling points of Windows Phone (and by extension Nokia). So allowing users to play with a giant phone while waiting for the subway or bus seems like a great way to get folks to experience the new design.

We've said it a million times already and we'll say it again, it's great to have Nokia out there pushing Windows Phone.

Source: BensonSenoraProd (YouTube); Thanks, Ellis B., for the tip!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: sylvester802/20/2012 8:44:07 AM
   of 32238
Oracle’s case against Google rapidly deteriorating
by Raveesh Bhalla on February 19th, 2012 at 1:43 pm

Finally, some really good news from the lawsuit front. Oracle’s case against Google has been touted by many as the lawsuit that could effectively put an end to the platform. I hated that talk, but any point I’d raise would more often than not be brushed aside in any debate because of my "fanboyism".

I’ve got to admit, though, that the case did worry me a bit. The amount Oracle first demanded, a huge $6.1 billion, did make me nervy. But fortunately enough one by one Oracle’s claims are being brushed aside and the company’s demands now stand at under a quarter of a billion.

If you’ve got the time, do read the post over at Groklaw detailing the entire episode. What really stood out for me, and this is what most of the cynics of the value Oracle put on the case in the first place, is that Oracle’s damages expert Dr. Ian Cockburn has repeatedly overstated the value of these patents. Oracle bought Sun, outright with all of their assets, for $7.4 billion. So that means they valued 5 out of some 500 Java patents plus everything else Sun owned at over 80% of the Sun’s value.

As we’ve grown so accustomed to, the tech "journalists" absolutely loved the opportunity to show Android as possibly meeting its doom. Had they put the slightest of thought into the episode, they’d know Oracle never stood a chance to get as much. Heck, Dr. Cockburn’s third revision of the value (yes, third, strange an expert gets it wrong so often) stands in the $110-225 million range, and Google still claims they’re asking for too much.

Dr. Cockburn’s third report begins, as his second report did, with the negotiations Google and Sun conducted in early 2006 for a technology partnership to develop a mobile smartphone platform. As before, Dr. Cockburn uses as his monetary starting point Sun’s initial February 2006 demand, which he calculates at $98.7 million, rather than Sun’s final demand in April 2006 of $28 million.”

Groklaw tends to agree with Google’s stance, and again I’d suggest you to read their post if you’ve got the time.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: sylvester802/20/2012 8:46:05 AM
   of 32238
Oracle Drops Final Claim in Patent '476 and Google Moves to Strike Portions of 3rd Oracle Damages Report
Saturday, February 18 2012 @ 07:06 AM EST

Oracle has told the court it wishes to withdraw its last claim of the '476 patent, claim 14, no doubt having read Google's letter to the judge asking for permission to file a motion for summary judgment of invalidity of claim 14. This is the last claim of that patent still in the case. The USPTO in December issued a final rejection of 17 of the 21 claims of this '476 patent, anyway, including all seven of the patent's independent claims, and while Oracle has until February 20 to appeal, the handwriting is on the wall. Whatever it decides about an appeal, claim 14, and hence patent '476, is no longer in this litigation.The value of this case to Oracle keeps getting smaller and smaller.

Google pointed out that one can't patent "transitory electrical and electromagnetic signals propagating through some medium, such as wires, air, or a vacuum” and asserted that claim 14 fell into that category of unpatentable subject matter. So, it's buh-bye '476 patent.Google has filed a motion to strike portions of the third -- yes third -- attempt by Oracle's damages expert, Dr. Iain Cockburn, to come up with an acceptable report. This third effort is also flawed, Google maintains, and "riddled with fatal errors". Like guesswork. And inflated and unjustifiable numbers. "Yet again, he has violated the Court's express instructions and overstated Oracle's damages as a result."

Yet, in the end, even calculating that way, he comes up with a proposed number that is nothing near the multiple billions that made headlines when this case was first announced, the expert now valuing the patents at $57.1 million as the highest proposed figure. He values the copyrights at the highest end at between $52.4 million and $169 million, which is ridiculous anyway, but remember the headlines when Oracle first announced this litigation? That Google could lose up to $6.1 billion if it lost this case? That was never realistic.

I mean, Oracle bought Sun, everything Sun had, for what Oracle said was a transaction valued at "approximately $7.4 billion, or $5.6 billion net of Sun’s cash and debt". That's hardware, MySQL, Solaris, many things beyond just Java. So how could just six, now five, Java patents out of Sun's more than 500 Java patents alone, add up to $6 billion? Why did anyone ever think this was a realistic figure instead of just hype? The same thing happened with SCO, when it sued IBM for billions. Hardy har.

Sometimes, folks, people put such figures in complaints to try to embarrass or scare defendants into quickly settling to make the litigation, and the publicity, go away. When that doesn't happen, reality begins to bite, and that is what is happening to Oracle now.

Here are the filings:

02/17/2012 - 716 - Letter from Plaintiff Oracle America Re Google Precis Letter Re Claim 14 of the '476 Patent. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 2/17/2012) (Entered: 02/17/2012)

02/17/2012 - 717 - Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Google Inc.. (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 2/17/2012) (Entered: 02/17/2012)

02/17/2012 - 718 - MOTION to Strike Portions of Third Expert Report by Iain Cockburn and Expert Report by Steven Shugan; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Google Inc.. Responses due by 3/2/2012. Replies due by 3/9/2012. (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 2/17/2012) (Entered: 02/17/2012)

02/17/2012 - 719 - Declaration of DAVID ZIMMER in Support of 718 MOTION to Strike Portions of Third Expert Report by Iain Cockburn and Expert Report by Steven Shugan; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Related document(s) 718 ) (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 2/17/2012) (Entered: 02/17/2012)

02/17/2012 - 720 - Proposed Order re 718 MOTION to Strike Portions of Third Expert Report by Iain Cockburn and Expert Report by Steven Shugan; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof by Google Inc.. (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 2/17/2012) (Entered: 02/17/2012)

Here's why Oracle says it is withdrawing the claim, to "streamline the case":As part of its continuing effort to streamline the case for trial and make best use of the Court’s and parties’ resources, Oracle has today by separate letter to Google withdrawn the assertion of Claim 14 of the ’476 patent, the only claim that is the subject of Google’s précis letter (and the only remaining asserted claim of the ’476 patent). Accordingly, Oracle requests that the Court deny Google’s request for leave as moot.I hate to make fun of Michael Jacobs, who sent the letter, because I like him a lot and I admire him too. But seriously, since when has Oracle been making a "continuing effort" to streamline the case? If that is their goal, I suggest talking to Oracle's damages expert. And drop the API nonsense Oracle tacked on to the litigation. It's actually worse than nonsense. It threatens the health, in my view, of the entire software industry, should Oracle be successful. A good name is worth a lot, you know, and once it's gone, it's mighty hard to get it back. Just a suggestion. It's not good for Oracle to look like SCO. And, because of the API claim, it does. Reread the transcript from the September 15th hearing if you wonder why I say this. A sample:THE COURT: Could a reasonable jury looking at everything and seeing this identity here and the other 8 files, could they say that even comparative works as a whole that there's been an infringement?MR. BABER (for Google): I don't believe so, Your Honor. And as a matter of law they could not because these eight files are eight out of a thousand files in Android. These are several hundred lines of code out of 11 million lines of code in Android.

THE COURT: But if there are others, why didn't you just change these two?

MR. BABER: We did. That's the point, Your Honor. As soon as Oracle said: "Hey, wait. There's these eight files in there. Did you know about that?" we looked at them, Your Honor. Frankly, it's not in record. We don't need them for summary judgment. It was a mistake. Somebody thought these were Apache Harmony files from the indepenent implementation of the API's, and they made their way in there. But as soon as they identified them, we took them out. We haven't replaced them. There's no sense in which they could be important to Android.

THE COURT: These don't even exist any more?

MR. BABER: They are gone. They are out. Not only are they out now, but the evidence will show and does show that these would never have even been shipped on any devices. They were test files. In order for a very, very small amount of copying to be actionable, and the courts have recognized for hundreds of years that not all identical things give rise to a copyright infringement claim. It has to be quantitatively and qualitatively important....

THE COURT: What damages are being sought for this infringement that doesn't exist any more? ... By the way, that would have been a nice thing for Mr. Jacobs to point out, that this was long gone. I didn't realize that it was long gone. What do they say in terms of how they have been damaged?

MR. BABER: Your Honor, they say they have been damaged. They say that this -- they highlight this literal copying. We have these eight files. We have some comments in two other files which we also took out right away. And then there's the nine lines of code that Mr. Swoopes just showed you with the so-called "range check function". That's still in there. It's nine lines out of 11 million. And it is a very simple code that simply does some sanity check on sorting things. That's what they are copying. And they use that, of course, in an inflammatory way to say, "This shows copying," when, in fact, Your Honor, it is so de minimis -- it's less than one-tenth of one percent.

THE COURT: Why wouldn't you be thrilled to have them waste their time at trial on this so that the patent issues fall to one side?

MR. BABER: Your Honor, we would be more than delighted.

Yet, the new expert damages report attributes a higher figure for this pitiful collection of alleged infringements of copyrights than for the patents.The Greatly Reduced Damages Claimed Are Still Too High, Google Says

Google once again claims that Oracle's expert, Dr. Cockburn, is inflating calculations. For example:

Dr. Cockburn's third report begins, as his second report did, with the negotiations Google and Sun conducted in early 2006 for a technology partnership to develop a mobile smartphone platform. As before, Dr. Cockburn uses as his monetary starting point Sun's initial February 2006 demand, which he calculates at $98.7 million, rather than Sun's final demand in April 2006 of $28 million."Think what that means. It means Sun valued the entire development deal at $28 million after negotiating with Google and coming down from its initial suggested price. This wasn't for patents, by the way, to remind you. It was for a joint development deal. Yet Dr. Cockburn chooses the initial demand figure instead of the one that reality caused Sun to end with as a figure. And that isn't the end of his inflationary calculations:He then performs the following adjustments:
  • He adjusts the starting point upward by $557.2 million to account for convoyed sales Sun projected to make as part of its partnership with Google, resulting in a subtotal of $655.9 million....

  • Although Sun's initial demand contained a cap on Sun's ability to share in Google's revenue from the partnership, he removes that cap to adjust for Sun's loss of compatibility and control caused by Google's development of an independent platform. This adjustment adds a further $27.8 million, leaving the subtotal at $683.7 million. ...

  • He then apportions the value of the patents and copyrights at issue in the suit as a percentage of the total. He uses two alternative apportionment methodologies -- the "group and value" and the "independent significance" approaches....
    • Under the group and value approach, Dr. Cockburn first adjusts downward by $86.15 million to account for projected engineering expenses Sun would have incurred as part of a partnership with Google.... He assumes that this $86.15 million would have captured the value of (1) all copyrighted materials other than the APIs at issue, including source code and Java mobile class libraries; and (2) all Sun engineering know-how and trade secrets.... Next, he concludes that the JAVA trademark and Java brand was worth nothing to Google, and performs no further downward adjustment for that intellectual property. He similarly assigns no value to the fact that a partnership with Sun would have given Google access to relationships with OEMs and other Sun partners....

    • This leaves him with a total of $597.5 million, which he contends accounts for the value of (1) Sun's Java mobile patent portfolio; and (2) the asserted copyrighted APIs.... Based on the qualitative analysis by Oracle engineers, and three studies regarding the distribution of value among patents generally, he concludes that the six patents-in-suit are worth somewhere between 10.2% and 32.7% of the total, or between $69.5 million and $223.7 million.... Based on Dr. Shugan's conjoint analysis, which suggests that consumers value the availability of applications (the Android feature allegedly enabled by the asserted patents), he sets the value of the copyrights at exactly half the value of the patents -- between 5.1% and 16.4% of the total, or between $34.8 million and $111.9 million.

    • Under the independent significance approach, Dr. Cockburn evaluates the totality of the evidence as to the importance of certain performance features to Google and to consumers, and concludes that the patents are worth "at least" 25% of the total, or at least $170.9 million.... Again relying on Dr. Shugan, Dr. Cockburn values the copyrights at exactly half the value of the patents, or "at least" 12.5% of the total, or at least $85.5 million....
  • Dr. Cockburn then performs further downward adjustments to his alternative patent calculations to exclude damages for extraterritorial infringement, past damages for Sun's and Oracle's failure to mark its products, and damages for non-accused devices. The results are final patent-damages figures of $17.7 million to $57.1 million under the group and value approach and at least $43.7 million under the independent significance approach.

  • Accordingly, Dr. Cockburn's alternative total damages figures for both patent and copyright infringement are (1) between $52.4 million and $169 million under the group and value approach (assuming the Court requires all the deductions described above for extraterritorial infringement, marking, and non-accused devices); and (2) at least $129.2 million under the independent significance approach.
In short, the expert, Google is saying, looked for any and all ways to inflate the numbers, and yet look at the final totals -- nothing like the billions that made headlines when this case was first announced. And considering that patent '476 is completely out of the litigation, even these figures are presumably going to have to be adjusted downward, even if the report is left in the case.Believe it or not, Cockburn, Google says, indicates he might ask for higher numbers when he goes before the jury, which is incredible, but worse, he claims that "the copyrighted APIs could constitute 100% of the value of the 2006 partnership". Are Oracle's lawyers reading what this expert is writing?

Remember the engineer who had a blog he quickly censored when Groklaw pointed out something he wrote about the case matched Google's position more than Oracle's? We learn a great deal more about the engineers Dr. Cockburn is relying on. They've been deposed, thanks to an order from the judge requiring Oracle to let them answer Google's questions. First, all five of them, it turns out, were used by Oracle to figure out what to sue over. That's who picked which patents to use in the litigation, I gather. Sun has 569 mobile Java-related patents, so these engineers were asked to analyze the patents and pick the ones to use against Google. They had 2 days to finish. Google's position is that they should have recused themselves, therefore, from later evaluating the value of the patents in this case:

The Oracle engineers themselves confirm that they had no technical basis for translating their qualitative judgment into quantitative valuations. Dr. Reinhold confirmed that the engineers did no quantitative assessment, and that such an assessment would require significant and repeated performance testing of each patent's functionality.Wow. So, according to Google, they just guessed. The copyright evaluation was also odd, Google writes:In addition to using two unreliable patent apportionment methodologies, Dr. Cockburn failed to make any attempt to value all of the copyrights that would have been part of the 2006 intellectual property package. Indeed, Dr. Cockburn had no idea what Java-related copyrights Sun owned at the time of the hypothetical negotiation, let alone what they were worth....Without knowing what copyrighted material was at issue, it was of course impossible for Dr. Cockburn to apportion all of that copyrighted material between the 37 APIs at issue and the rest of the material.... Yet there is no reason to think that there were not other copyrights being considered. Most obviously, the source code underlying Sun's implementation of the Java virtual machine is copyrighted, and at least would have been a basis of any new virtual machine jointly developed by Sun and Google.... Because he made no effort to consider the scope of the copyrights at issue in the 2006 negotiations, Dr. Cockburn's analysis does not account for these or other copyrights that Google would have obtained through the hypothetical negotiation.

Dr. Cockburn also made no systematic effort to measure the value of the millions of lines of code in the API libraries that would have been part of the 2006 bundle. Unlike in the patent context, Dr. Cockburn never had anyone from Oracle examine the code libraries to determine their value in relation to the API specifications. Instead, he simply assumed that, whatever other copyrights were on the table in the Sun-Google negotiations, their value would have been subsumed in the operating and research-and-development expenses Sun projected it would incur as part of its partnership with Google. Accordingly, Dr. Cockburn avoids any specific valuation of those copyrighted materials at all. But Dr. Cockburn has no logical basis for using Sun's projected future R&D costs (in developing new intellectual property in a mobile smartphone platform partnership with Google) as a proxy for the value of Sun's then-existing intellectual property (the copyrighted class libraries and source code). This analysis falls apart for at least two reasons. First, Dr. Cockburn confuses cost with value. Consider the patents-in-suit -- it would have cost Sun nothing in terms of R&D costs to license those patents to Google in 2006, because those inventions were already developed and patented. But Dr. Cockburn would contend that the patents have significant value to Google. Second, Dr. Cockburn is again mixing apples and oranges, by comparing two entirely distinct classes of intellectual property -- Sun's existing copyrighted materials that were the subject of the licensing negotiation, on the one hand, and material that Sun might have developed during a partnership with Google, on the other.

Dr. Cockburn's conflation of projected cost with actual value, and his equal treatment of past copyrighted works and different, future copyrighted works are both efforts to cover up the fact that he has engaged in no rigorous evaluation of the individual values of the copyrights in the 2006 licensing bundle. Indeed, as already discussed, he cannot even identify the components of that bundle. His copyright apportionment analysis is unreliable and should be excluded.

Honestly, is this a joke? Is this really the best Oracle can do on a *third* try? Can you imagine, if this expert were allowed to say such things to a jury, what Google could do with his testimony? Imagine yourself on that jury. What would you be thinking right about now? That Oracle sued before it thought things through? That it has a very small case, if any? That it thought it could bully Google with scary headlines into a quick settlement and when that failed simply doesn't know what to do now to justify the litigation? And it's not like the court hasn't made it clear what the expert was to do, as Google points out:The court has repeatedly emphasized that Dr. Cockburn is required to calculate Oracle's purported damages on a claim-by-claim basis. Jan. 9, 2012 Order [Dkt. No. 685] at 9-10. Yet Dr. Cockburn has still failed to do so... Thus, as the Court ordered before, Dr. Cockburn should be "precluded from apportioning an asserted patent's value among its claims at trial." Jan. 9, 2012 Order [Dkt. No. 685] at 9.We'll see if the judge means what he said. But this isn't even the worst:More problematic, however, is that Dr. Cockburn fails to attribute any value to any of the unasserted claims of the patents-in-suit. In his deposition, Dr. Cockburn [redacted].... This raises the distinct possibility that a portion of the value of some of the patents-in-suit may be located in claims that Google has not infringed. As the Court noted in its January 9 Order: "An infringer of one claim is compelled by law to pay for a license, via the hypothetical negotiation, for the specific invention represented by that claim but it is not required to pay for a license for the other specific inventions not infringed. Therefore, the hypothetical negotiation must be focused only on negotiating a compulsory license for each claim infringed, not for the entire patent." ... Indeed the idea that the unasserted claims had no value is belied by Oracle's actions in this case. At one time, Oracle claimed that Google infringed 132 claims from 7 patents.... Oracle has now limited its patent case to 26 claims from 6 patents. But Oracle must have had a Rule 11 basis for asserting infringement of the now-abandoned claims by Google, so it cannot be heard to argue that those claims have no value to Google. Yet Dr. Cockburn has never tried to isolate the value of those claims -- or the claims that Oracle never asserted -- and deduct the value of the unasserted claims from the remaining value of the patents-in-suit. Yet again, he has violated the Court's express instructions and overstated Oracle's damages as a result.All I can conclude is that one should not sue Google for patent infringement unless you have your ducks in a neat little row in advance, because Google's lawyers notice every detail, know the law, and they will fight until their last breath. Robert A. Van Nest, of Keker & Van Nest, the firm that submitted this document, is impressive. I often heard tales of how effective he is, and now I believe it, and I can't wait to watch these lawyers on both sides in action at the trial.I have only covered part of this document. You can read the rest yourselves, and perhaps Mark will comment further when he is back. He's traveling again, which is why I'm telling you about the latest filings in the case. He will likely have more to add (or subtract) from my impressions. If anyone has the time to do an OCR for him, that'd be great, so he can post the document in full.

Finally, most of the exhibits listed above for entry #719 are actually sealed, including Exhibits A, B, D, F, G, H, I, J and K. The documents listed are just statements that this is the case. But you might find Exhibit E of real interest. It's a transcript from the Apple v. Motorola litigation, and the judge, Judge Richard Posner, tells Apple's lawyer he doesn't see how any kind of significant damages can result from a vertical swiping patent, even if it can prove infringement and validity.

I feel very much the same about Oracle's patents, and I have from the start wondered if any of them are valid, let alone worth millions in damages. So, to me, the risk has been very much on Oracle's side, that it might lose all its patents in this case. But then, I'm just a geeky paralegal, so we'll have to just wait and see how it all plays out. Anyone thinking of attending this trial? It's too soon to plan in detail, but if any of you can make arrangements to get to California to be our eyes and ears, that'd be great. Email me if you are thinking about it, please.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: sylvester80 who wrote (16823)2/20/2012 8:59:54 AM
From: zax
   of 32238
Apple's legal woes in China offer hope to rivals
By Lee Chyen Yee and Huang Yuntao

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Apple Inc's legal row over its iPad trademark in China creates a window of opportunity for rivals such as Lenovo Group Ltd and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd as they try to chip away at the U.S. firm's dominance of the potentially vast Chinese tablet market.

Apple, the world's most valuable technology company, is fighting lawsuits brought by debt-laden Chinese electronics maker Proview Technology (Shenzhen), causing retailers and resellers in more than 10 Chinese cities to take iPads off their shelves, according to media reports.

Apple's iPad enjoys a huge lead over rival tablet PCs in China with a 76 percent share. Lenovo and Samsung trail a distant second and third with about 7 percent and 3 percent respectively, data from research firm IDC showed.

"Apple's loss could be Lenovo and Samsung's gains," said Jonathan Ng, an analyst with CIMB in Singapore.

Samsung likely has most to gain, because its Galaxy tablet competes in the same price segment as the iPad.

"Samsung will probably benefit more from Apple's ongoing lawsuit because both of them are after the same higher-end consumers given their price points," said Dickie Chang, an analyst from IDC in Hong Kong.

"The impact on Lenovo may be less because Lepads are lower priced and are aimed more at entry-level users."

A basic iPad 2 typically costs 3,688 yuan ($585), roughly the same price as 7-inch Samsung Galaxy Tab, while some models of Lenovo's Lepad were selling at roughly half that price on online retail sites.

IDC said in the third quarter Apple sold about 1.3 million iPads in China, while Lenovo, the world's second largest PC maker, sold around 120,000 Lepads in its home market and South Korea's Samsung sold 58,000 Galaxy Tabs.

The Lepad and Galaxy Tab both run on Google Inc's Android operating system.


China has 505 million Internet users now, with the number of microbloggers exceeding 300 million -- more than that of active Twitter users.

Tablet PC makers are clamoring for more market share in a country where consumers are increasingly tech-savvy and prefer to play online games, tweet and email while on the road. Apple has said it is so far only scratching the surface in China.

While demand for Apple's iPhones and iPads is strong in China, the lawsuit with Proview Technology, the Chinese unit of Hong Kong-listed Proview International Holdings Ltd, has taken some toll in the sale of its products.

Last Friday, Proview won a ruling on Friday at the Huizhou court in Guangzhou to prohibit an electronics appliance chain from selling iPads, just days after authorities in Shijiazhuang city near Beijing banned sales of the tablet PCs.

Proview has since asked commerce departments of some 40 cities to do the same, said the company's lawyer Roger Xie, from law firm Grandall.

In the meantime, Apple's legion of fans in China are resorting to other means of getting hold of an iPad.

"With Apple iPads banned in some places, it's going to create more opportunity for Lenovo and Samsung to increase their market share," said Sun Peilin, an analyst with Analysys International in Beijing.

"All the more so since the prices of iPads smuggled into China will rise more," Sun said.

Apple says it bought Proview's worldwide rights to the trademark in 10 different countries several years ago, including rights to the iPad name from a Taiwan subsidiary of Proview International.

However, Proview Technology (Shenzhen) says the sale did not cover the trademark's use in China.

In Shijiazhuang, where authorities have told resellers to take iPads off their shelves, potential buyers were being told to ask for it clandestinely.

"You have to come back between 5 and 6 p.m. If you come during the day we'll have to tell you we don't stock any iPads," said one salesman, adding that authorities would confiscate any iPads on display. in China and electronics retailer Suning have also stopped selling iPads, but the companies said that had nothing to do with the Apple lawsuits.

Another major online retailer,, has also stopped iPad sales, but it did not say why.

But buyers can still log on to Alibaba Group's Taobao mall and to get an iPad.

IDC said currently around 12 percent of iPads are sold online, while the rest of the sales come from retailers.

With some official purchase channels cut off, more people are likely to resort to iPads smuggled from neighboring Hong Kong, where prices are lower due to a weaker Hong Kong dollar and virtually zero tariffs.

"Smuggling might continue to be the main source of iPad sales in China, especially if the iPad 3 launch in China is delayed due to the lawsuits," Sun said.

(Additional reporting by Lucy Horby and Langi Chiang in SHIJIAZHUANG; Editing by Alex Richardson)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.