ReadWriteWeb

If all goes according to plan, the same company which last year asserted that patents were essentially legal weapons in an unfair war against the Android operating system, will find itself the owner of one of the largest technology portfolios anywhere in the world. Today, Google took steps to assure many of Motorola Mobility's (MMI) existing licensees that it would adhere to that company's existing reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) licensing practices for mobile technologies.

This after Apple sent a letter to a European Telecommunications Standards Institute last November 11 - as first reported by Dow Jones this morning - complaining that Google had not been forthcoming about what constitutes "reasonable" with respect to royalties.

Microsoft announced enhancements to its Bing Maps, including a change to the algorithm that allows the service to process directions requests twice as fast and help drivers avoid traffic.

Those changes, along with a newly-awarded patent for a feature that allows Bing Maps to route pedestrians away from unsafe neighborhoods, suggest Mcirosoft is driving to surpass Google Maps, which has dominated the space since surpassing MapQuest in site traffic and queries in 2008.

Imagine sitting down at your desk in the morning and having your computer automatically power up, recognize you and log into your desktop. From there, you can swipe from app to app using your hands - not on a touchscreen, but by moving your hands naturally through the air. Unlike the mouse of yesteryear, your machine recognizes gestures in 3D space and you can manipulate things on the screen using your fingers, selecting photos from a 3D gallery or even browsing the Web.

None of the technology described above is new, but it could be coming to personal computers over the next few years, if a recent patent filing from Apple is any indication.

According to the Patent Examiner, a company called Innovatio IP Ventures is suing individual branches of hotel chains for use of Wi-Fi. Though I'm staunchly against software patents – and by extension software patent lawsuits – I think this is a good thing.

The company is launching a "systematic campaign" according to Matthew McAndrews, the lead litigator for Innovatio. The company is trying to shake down "several hundred" defendants for $2,300 to $5,000. Says McAndrews, "We want you to continue to use this technology, we just want our client to get his due share. This is not a seat-of-the-pants, fly-by-night shakedown."

Patents are all the rage right now. More precisely, applying for, purchasing and suing the nearest competitor over patents is causing a craze in the mobile business environment. Did Google ever actually want the Nortel patents? Or did they just bet crazy sums (like Pi, the distance from the sun, etc.) because they knew they were going to acquire Motorola and its patent portfolio anyway? Next on line are the InterDigital patents, which are supposedly more in-depth and numerous than the Nortel or Novell patents. Some say we are in serious need of patent reform because the current ecosystem has become anti-innovation and toxic.

Thomson Reuters came out with a great chart yesterday that shows the current legal battleground for mobile patents. It is interesting to note who is getting sued and who is doing the suing. For instance, as much legal hot water that Google has been in, they are technically only being sued by Oracle over Java in the mobile realm. Microsoft has multiple suits going against Barnes & Noble, Foxconn (Apple's primary factory where iOS devices are made), Motorola and Inventec. Yet, Apple takes the crown. It is being sued, is suing, or has settled suits with five different corporations.

If the proposed acquisition of Motorola Mobility (MMI) by Google announced on Monday truly is about the value of MMI's patent portfolio, then mitigating circumstances over just the past few days may make the $12.5 billion bid seem a bit steep. The problem stems from an ongoing U.S. International Trade Commission investigation brought by Microsoft against MMI, which - up until Monday - had only incidentally involved Google.

At issue is an expert witness for Microsoft, Dr. Robert Stevenson. On August 10, Google filed a non-party motion with the USITC claiming Microsoft disclosed highly confidential source code to Dr. Stevenson without his having been cleared with Google first - which Google claimed was a violation of protocol. That disclosure was played to the press as a "leak," for which Google sought sanctions against Microsoft, but more importantly, to bar Dr. Stevenson from testifying before the Commission.

Over the past week, there have been stirrings in the Android community about the Linux GNU General Public License (GPLv2) and whether or not original equipment manufacturers have violated the license, thus making them vulnerable to lawsuits from thousands of Linux users. The argument is that OEMs have broken the Linux license terms and so have automatically lost their rights to distribute Linux on their devices. If that were the case, it would be a big problem for Android and the OEMs since Linux is the very foundation that Android is built upon.

But the GPL situation is not so black and white. Can the Linux GPL issue be a problem for the OEMs? Certainly. Is it actually a problem right now? No, and there is no indication that it ever will be. What the argument amounts to is a miniature battle of "he said, she said" between Linux experts against intellectual property attorney and patent experts. While the IP experts make a compelling argument, the Linux and open source community brings reason to the argument.

Google's lashing out at competitors over patent claims has set off another round of discussion about the role and value of software patents (be sure to read Microsoft's response). It's an issue that lawyers and technologists have been discussing for a long time.

The nuances of such a debate are beyond the capabilities of a simple poll such as this one, but just to gauge the community's response to the issue, we're asking you: is it time to end software patents?

Wireless Ink Corp has won the first round of a patent lawsuit against both Google and Facebook. The search and social companies failed to get Wireless Ink's infringement tossed and now Wireless Ink can pursue charges pertaining to user participation in social networks on mobile devices against the tech giants .

Wireless Ink is the creator behind Winksite, described by us in 2007 as a "mobile conversion and community site" that allows users to create mobile sites to engage users. According to Reuters, Winksite has 75,000 registered users versus millions of Facebook mobile users and potential millions of users for Google Buzz, which was also mentioned in the suit.

Apple is defending its iOS application makers from alleged patent infringements by Lodsys LLC saying that it has already licensed patents from the company, hence the applications makers have full right to use the technology.

Lodsys sent a letter to application makers on May 13 saying they must pay the company for use of such technology as in-app payments. Today, Apple sent a letter to Lodsys saying the company has a "fundamental misapprehension regarding Apple's license and the way Apple's products work." Lodsys likens Apple to a landowner that a hotel is built on and the services provided are the responsibility of the hotel, not the landowner. Is Lodsys trying to sell the same bill of goods twice or are application developers liable to pay Lodsys for the patents outside of the services that Apple provides to them?