Google says “most” Samsung infringement is not related to Android

Samsung and Apple had their say on Friday about the Apple v Samsung verdict but Mountain View was seemingly silent. No longer. Google issued a statement on Sunday (what the hell Google, who issues official statements on a Sunday) saying “most” of the infringement Samsung was found guilty of is not related to “core” Android functionality.

In Google’s own words:

The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don’t relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the US Patent Office.

In addition to basically throwing Samsung to the Cupertino wolves, Google wants people to know it feels everyone in the industry “builds” upon the work of others, Google and its partners are working to build “innovative and affordable” products, and it doesn’t want “anything” to stop them:

The mobile industry is moving fast and all players – including newcomers – are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We continue to work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don’t want anything to limit that

Interestingly enough, it should be noted Samsung Nexus S was not found guilty of violating Apple’s pinch-to-zoom patent but was found guilty of violating Apple’s bounce-back scrolling patent. Seeing as the Nexus S is a vanilla Android device who’s software is managed purely by Google and Google alone, I’m not so sure how Google is so certain Apple’s patent claims don’t relate to core Android features. Maybe the bounce-back scrolling patent is the exception to Google’s “most”. Or maybe the bounce-back scrolling patent is one of those patents the US Patent Office is reviewing. Now that would make my day. How about yours?

[via BBC | Image via Kham Tran]

Related Posts

  • Ashraf

    @Luis Perez: I don’t think any Apple code is GPL so my answer to your question is a big fat “no”.

  • Currious if the pinch-zoom and bounce-back are covered by the GPL. If it does, then one has to consider the possibility of GPL code becoming tainted with patented or copyright code. At that point the question becomes whether that code which is patented and/or copyrighted automatically becomes (or should become) part of the GPL?

    Now who’s going to get these WORMS back in the can?