Ok, where's your evidence? I see internal documents from Google from the time that Google implemented the allegedly infringing features. Those documents say that Google believed they needed a license.
A fact again adressed during the trial. Maybe you should read the final ruling Judge Alsup rendered ?
My evidence is all over
Groklaw. They have all the documents, testimonies, rulings, judgements, decisions, motions. All intact and with no spin (you seem to take your info from FOSSpatents, Florian is a Oracle consultant, admitted it himself. He has a ton of bias that's anti-Google and he's not afraid to spin things and make them say what they don't. Do yourself a favor, avoid his site).
Honestly, I'd give those documents a much higher level of reliability than Andy Rubin's testimony. Of course he's going to deny willful infringement in court; it's what he said to his team at the time that is more revealing
And again, those documents don't even contradict Andy Rubin's testimony. He testified that those documents were legit and written by him and others did the same. They were authenticated. His testimony does not change that.
My agenda here is that I believe that human creativity is valuable. I don't like companies like Google who wilfully steal from others because they want a slice of the success that others have earned for themselves. That approach devalues human creativity across the board.
And Google does not wilfully steal from others. The problem with patents is that you don't even have to wilfully infringe them, someone can come to you years later and say "BTW, we have a patent for your product. Pony up the cash".
Software ideas are protected by copyright and trademarks. The creativity you're "protecting" is already protected. No one can up and take iOS for themselves. They can however write their own OS. It's just now the OS is protected by patents and sometimes, there's just so many ways you can make something.
Patents have become too broad, too obvious and the prior arts check too lenient. Courts are invalidating them for a reason.
Apple are bold enough to do new things. When people first saw the iPhone, they weren't thinking "oh, seen that before", they were thinking "wow! This looks totally new and refreshing, full of great ideas! I want one of these!". That's the difference some creativity and care can make. We must all be careful to preserve the value of that if we want to keep new and beautiful things in the world.
Apple also take a lot from others to reach their goals. KHTML for Safari, the whole concept of WIMP from Xerox PARC, iAd, Maps, OTA updates, Notifications, wireless syncing. The list is endless. Apple does not invent nor should they invent everything that ends up in a product.
The iPod itself wasn't truely original. Apple doesn't make great products because they have great ideas, Apple makes great products because they know how to take existing ideas and package them up.
For someone who says he values human creativity, you sure are quick to undermine both Apple's and Google's creativity. Again I ask, what is your purpose that you would do such a thing ?
----------
hmm isn't Oracle most like going to have to pay Google for wasting their time and court fees
Yes, indeed, Google has asked for court costs.
----------
You can't get that from a patent though. That's the whole point. A patent is an idea. Ideas are a dime a dozen. It's getting that idea from the paper to a finished, polished and great product that is a lot of work.
