[color=red]The commission action by no means spells the end of the smartphone patent wars, a global conflict in which major corporations including Apple, Samsung and Google have spent billions amassing patent portfolios and then suing and countersuing one another in courts around the world. But legal experts say Google’s settlement with the F.T.C. signals progress in clarifying the rules of engagement in high-tech patent battles, and thus could ease them.
Does the red part mean “The commission action don’t spell the end”?
Yet even as Google made only a few voluntary promises on search, it agreed to a legal settlement on patents that Jon Leibowitz, the commission chairman, called a “landmark enforcement action” that applies to huge high-tech markets like smartphones and tablet computers.
The issue arose from Google’s $12.5 billion purchase of Motorola Mobility, announced in 2011 and completed last year. Google acquired Motorola partly to defend itself and the smartphone makers that use its Android software after rivals had already loaded up on patents.
Yet even as Google made only a few voluntary promises on search, it agreed to a legal settlement on patents that Jon Leibowitz, the commission chairman, called a “landmark enforcement action” that applies to huge high-tech markets like smartphones and tablet computers.
It’s obscure to me that what does the bold part actually suggest?
“Google’s $12.5 billion purchase of Motorola Mobility, announced in 2011 and completed last year” means “Google’s $12.5 billion purchase of Motorola Mobility, which was announced in 2011 and completed last year.”
In other words, the purchase was announced in 2011 and completed last year.
“legal settlement” refers to an agreement reached about a legal dispute. In this case dispute was related to patents (legal instruments that give inventors ownership of their inventions).
Thanks Dozy, Your explanation is clear to me. Your explanation makes me clear about the Beeesneees’s reply.
I request to revise the above two sentences that I use to acknowledge the usefulness of the reply now.
=====================================================================================================
The commission’s settlement with Google, announced on Thursday, focused on patents covering communications and data transmission technologies that are crucial for the basic operation of smartphones and tablets — what are known as standard-essential patents. (There are many other patents in mobile devices, covering physical design and software features.) The legal gamesmanship of the epic smartphone patent battles, according to economists and technology experts, consumes time and investment that could be better used to develop new products. In his comments on Thursday, Mr. Leibowitz pointed to those concerns. “Today’s commission action,” he said, “will also relieve companies of some of the costly and inefficient burden of hoarding patents for purely defensive purposes, savings that we hope can be invested in job-creating research and development.”
What kind of “defensive purpose”?
======================================================================
Under the settlement, Google agreed to license its standard-essential patents to other companies on “fair and reasonable” terms. It also agreed not to seek court injunctions to halt the shipment of smartphones, tablets and other devices that use its standard patents.
I believe this refers to companies owning patents on technologies that they are not actually using, just in case they may want to use them in the future, or simply to prevent other companies from using them.
Google owns some “standard-essential patents” (as explained earlier in the text). They are going to license these patents to other companies, which means let other companies use the patented technologies on payment of a suitable fee.
The issue arose from Google’s $12.5 billion purchase of Motorola Mobility, announced in 2011 and completed last year. Google acquired Motorola partly to defend itself and the smartphone makers that use its Android software after rivals had already loaded up on patents.
It obscure to me that what does the bold part suggest as I know “load up” means “fill up”? The meaning of “load up” sense me that “with” is fit here instead of “on”. What about my sense?
“Load up on” is a phrasal verb here, meaning ‘to buy a lot of something so that it is available when you need it’. Compare: “Why are you loading up on canned food/liquors/detergents etc?”
But, I am really failing to feel what does the following sentence suggest?
Google acquired Motorola partly to defend itself and the smartphone makers that use its Android software after rivals had already loaded up on patents.
Over the years, according to Mr. Leibowitz, companies took Motorola at its word and developed products assuming they could routinely license Motorola’s patents. But Motorola later refused to license its standard-essential patents and sought court injunctions to stop shipment of rival products.
Google’s rivals had acquired many patents regarding smartphone technology.
Google saw that this was happening and so one of the reasons it decided to buy Motorola was to get Motorola’s patents before their rivals could do so.
By this action they safeguarded their android software as otherwise their rivals would have rights to it.
Because they safeguarded the android software, the mobile phone makers who used their software were also more secure.