Apple has again submitted what the blogosphere is calling “inaccurate evidence” in its case against Samsung. A photo found on page 77 of Apple’s complaint to the Hague district court in the Netherlands shows the Samsung Galaxy S next to the iPhone 3G. And guess what! Apple screwed with the dimensions once again.

But don’t freak out. This may not be as big of a deal as everyone’s making it out to be.

Here’s what’s up: The battle has migrated to the Netherlands, the only EU country as-yet untouched by the brawl. Within Apple’s newly filed complaint (which is only available for inspection at the Hague court, but has been seen by Weberwerld.nl) the company asks for an EU-wide ban on almost all Galaxy devices, including the Galaxy S, Galaxy S II, Galaxy Tab 7 and Galaxy Tab 10.1. Apple also asks that all remaining inventory be pulled from retailer shelves.

This time around, it’s not just about appearances, and that makes all the difference. When Apple first submitted that screwy picture of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany, the lawsuit was entirely concerned with design, so there’s really no obvious reason to mess with the images. That’s not to say that it was some crazy under-handed move by Apple, but it does make it a bit harder to justify a tampered-with aspect ratio. However, the BBC reports that the German judge inspected the devices hands-on and did not base his decision solely on images provided by Apple.

In the Dutch case, Apple’s complaint is far more reaching, and cites patent infringement not only regarding the same EU Community Design (iPad), but other functional European patents concerned with mobile photo management, interpretation of touch events, and Apple’s swipe-to-unlock. In other words, we’ve moved on to software, which makes things 100 percent more complex.

In the image (Weberwerld’s rendering of the picture is above), the Samsung Galaxy S is scaled to the same proportions as the iPhone 3G. In reality, the Galaxy S is both longer and wider than the iPhone 3G. Specifically, the Samsung Galaxy S measures in at 122.4mm x 64.2mm, whereas the iPhone 3G sports dimensions of 115.5mm x 62.1mm. But in the image provided by Apple, the Galaxy S has been resized by about 6 percent, making it appear identical in size to the iPhone. Unlike the situation with the GalTab, the aspect ratio has not been measurably tampered with.

Since we can’t actually get our hands on the court documents, it’s hard to tell the context of the side-by-side comparison, but weberwerld.nl reports that Apple did mention the Galaxy S’s “non-identical elements, such as the slightly larger size” (also on page 77). Chances are if Apple is actually stating on the same page that the Galaxy S is bigger, there is probably a good reason for scaling the photo.

Granted, the Galaxy S design is under scrutiny due to its similarity to the iPhone 3G, but there are other facets of the device in question, as well. It’s entirely possible that the image of the Galaxy S was resized so that the judge could investigate something unrelated to design. Then again, this is the only side-by-side comparison photo of the Galaxy S with the iPhone 3G, which makes me wonder why a more realistic comparison wasn’t presented, too.

To add to the confusion, Samsung’s lawyers claim that Apple did manipulate evidence, since this time Samsung actually got to be a part of the court proceedings. “[Apple has been] manipulating visual evidence, making Samsung’s devices appear more similar to Apple’s,” said Bas Berghuis of Simmons and Simmons law firm. Because we’re going off of translations it’s hard to be sure, but it looks like Mr. Berghuis evidence was not substantial enough to convince the judge. Google translates weberwerld.nl’s reporting as follows: “But this claim was by Samsung at the meeting was not substantiated by evidence.”

I can’t imagine Mr. Berghuis would make a claim that Apple is tampering with evidence without presenting said false evidence to the court. Therefore, Apple’s imagery in the filing is probably resized for good reason. Plus, if Apple was trying to purposefully deceive the court systems with this false evidence, the company probably would have abandoned that plan as soon as the original GalTab photo was discovered.

RELATED POSTS:

• Apple Releases iOS 5 Beta 6 To Developers 

• Apple, China Mobile In Talks To Bring The iPhone To Its 600m Users

• Apple Patents Hint At Multi-Part Gestures, Touchable OS X

• Apple Patent Filing Could Put Plan and Carrier Changes In Your Pocket

Western Europe is a tough place to be for PC manufacturers right now. According to a report from technology research firm Gartner, sales are down nearly across the board, with just a single exception: Apple.

In fairness, even though Apple was the only manufacturer to experience positive growth, the figure aren’t anything to write home about. Apple only picked up half of a percentage point — a very modest gain to say the least — but nearly all of Apple’s competitors ended up in the negative. Acer took the brunt of the damage with a 44.6% drop in units sold, but Asus (-22.9%), Dell (-12.7%), and runner-up HP (-6.1%) didn’t fare much better.

Netbooks reportedly accounted for much of the losses, with tablets eating up much of the demand for mobile computing tools. Asus and Acer’s sharp declines in sales is at least partially being blamed on their over-reliance on netbook performance. Both companies have made inroads into the tablet segment, but this could mark the beginning of a more concerted effort to win back some market space from the iPad.

So, for the second quarter in a row, Apple has taken the crown. Still, while growth is growth, I’m not sure anyone at Cupertino is terrible pleased with their performance: in Q1, they managed a 10% jump in growth. HP is slowly improving, and with their money behind the TouchPad, we may see them rally next quarter.

Asus and Acer, frankly, should be a bit worried. Both have dropped substantially since Q1 last year, and unless they get their game on, they’ve got more red ink in their future. Like I mentioned, I think their tablet efforts are going to be key in coming months. Acer in particular has always been a fan of the low cost PC, and if they start to eschew netbooks (at least for now) in favor of tablets, they may be able to pick up some much needed ground. It looks bad, but some solid steps over the next few months could turn everything around for Asus, Dell, Acer, and HP. All the companies listed here are going to have to tweak their strategies and hustle, because western Europe is beginning to look like the Wild West.

Designing a user interface for touch isn’t an easy thing to do. At least, it isn’t easy to do well. The great number and variety of gestures possible when four fingers and a thumb hit a touchscreen may well cause development and design paralysis. Yet the gestures we see implemented often seem so simple and intuitive that as soon as we perform them once, we wonder how anyone would have trouble coming up with it.

Apple’s early success with the simple and intuitive gestures on the iPhone has actually worked against it in a way, as adding gestures over-complicates a UI known for accessibility. On the other hand, it has prevented them from providing richer gestures like drawing shapes, creating spontaneous UI items, and so on. But I doubt they ever stopped looking into it. Some newly published patent applications, while questionable as far as patentable ideas go, is chock-full of interesting ideas and promising new UI concepts.

Patent 20110197153 was found by IP sniffers Patently Apple. The patent, filed in February 2011, covers a number of multi-part gestures in which a gesture is done to create or invoke a certain UI element, and then a second action using that element is enabled.

For instance, “digging a hole.” In this case, you’d tap or “scratch” the screen a few times to create a “hole,” which you could then drag files into, either to delete, hide, or what have you. The hole would presumably fill itself in, or a second gesture could be used to do this.

Another example: opening a portal, trap door, or window by drawing a rectangle. This is a similar “drag and drop” concept, but as the gesture and the graphic would be different, it can fulfill a different purpose: creating a folder or archive, or adding an attachment to an email.

A more involved gesture described in a second patent application (20110193788) has the user drawing a circle or blob around a set of files, which would then be enclosed in a graphical bubble. The device could then be physically tipped and the bubbled data “poured” into a second device.

I know what you’re thinking. How can Apple expect to patent gestures that have been used in games, applications, and other UIs (using a mouse, for instance), in similar fashions, for years? I have to imagine that somewhere in the hundred thousand games there are for iOS, there’s one where you have to dig a hole by scratching the screen. If not on iOS, then on the 3DS, a platform saturated with interesting touch-based UIs. And we even had a demo of data being “poured” from one device to another at Disrupt in New York.

To be honest, I really don’t know. The patent really does claim the “digging a hole and then dragging an item over it to be processed” method, as well as the others, and it doesn’t restrict it to anything as specific as managing file representations or app icons. Apple seems to want a patent on digging virtual holes and putting things in them.

There are examples of these UI elements going back a long, long time, and even with the permissive patent system we have in place, I can’t imagine Apple’s approach will be deemed sufficiently different just because it’s done on a touchscreen. Drawing an X on something to delete it? Is it even possible that they could let that fly? I certainly hope not.

---

Patent worries aside, the gestures are very interesting from a user point of view. I’ve always advocated rich touch interaction in tablets, and have been disappointed by the refusal of tablet OS makers to implement things that are only possible with a touch interface. Games have done a much better job of exploring the possibilities than OS developers. It’s nice to see someone going beyond clicking and dragging. Given Apple’s focus on the trackpad and touchscreen, it was always a good bet that they’d be among the first to integrate rich gestures, even if they aren’t even close to the first to create them.

Interestingly, the patent application uses very OS X-esque images in its tablet illustrations. This doesn’t have to mean anything; the patent writer might have just felt the explanation worked better with a more traditional desktop interface. But there’s more to it than that. Lassoing files, transferring them to nearby devices, hiding and deleting files and windows — these aren’t things you do on Apple tablets. They’re things you do in OS X.

The portal? Sending a window to your other desktop — on the other “side” of the tablet, perhaps, where iOS lives? The “trap door” is a great metaphor for passing things between two distinct areas. Or is it for saving things for later — like the reading list in Safari?

What about X-ing out items? There isn’t room for that in many places on iOS — you delete listed items by swiping, and icons by long-pressing and bringing up their little x boxes. Besides, how would you make an X without swiping over to another screen? A quick flick is interpreted as a directional swipe, not a stroke on a touch canvas. The X gesture itself demands a single-screen desktop, where there is dead space that isn’t interacted with. The same can be said for the “pinch” gesture, which requires negative space on all sides of an item. There is very little such space on iOS — but your OS X desktop is covered with it.

Sharing files from one device to another close by? Sounds familiar — oh right, it’s a marquee feature of Lion. Creating a bubble on an unlocked device is a tacit approval for a file transfer, without going into any menus or selecting a network. Bubble up some files on the other device, the devices pair, and when you pour, it transfers.

These are desktop concepts, not iOS concepts. Or are they both? Lion brought iOS-like interface elements to OS X, and half the world thought we’d have convertible, touchscreen MacBooks right now. No — Apple is bringing OS X to the tablet, though not completely, of course. But I can imagine a second “face” to the iPad, for file management and sharing, with a more familiar desktop metaphor, updated with gestures like these. Apple seems to be imagining something along these lines as well, and while there’s still a good chance this patent is more a “just to be safe” collection of interesting ideas not actually being implemented, you have to admit it’s compelling to think about how they might apply if they were actually executed.

RELATED POSTS:

• Apple Patent Filing Could Put Plan and Carrier Changes In Your Pocket

• Bevy Of Apple Patents Granted, From Visual Voicemail To PCI Card Brackets

• Apple expands recycle program, receive gift cards for iPhone, iPad and even PC trade-ins

• Boxee rolls out iPad app, announces firmware update for Boxee Box

As is befitting a global technology empire, Apple seems to always have a great number of patents in moderation. The latest batch is an interesting mix, with the standout patents hailing from as far back as 2007 or as recently as 2010. The current ruckus surrounding the patent system isn’t going to die down any time soon, so I’ll try not to editorialize too much here, but some of these do seem a bit more legitimate than others.

The biggest win for Apple is probably the visual voicemail interface patent. Opponents of software patents in general, gird yourselves for battle.

Patent 7,996,792 was submitted on June 28, 2007, the day before the iPhone was made available. It covers “A computer-implemented method for management of voicemail messages” and associated playback controls. While the visual playback and selection of voice messages certainly predates the iPhone, this patent is much more closely allied to the rest of Apple’s multi-touch and initial iPhone patents, the conceptual legitimacy of which as unique inventions may be a matter for discussion, but the legal legitimacy of which is not worth disputing at this time. The UI is very minutely described in this patent, making it nearly impossible to abuse and mooting any patent-war criticisms directly solely at 7,996,792. Steve Jobs and Scott Forstall are given prime billing for credit on this item.

More troubling is the method for affecting boot item order, which is not very specific at all, and amounts to a patent on real-time prioritizing of boot items. During startup, if a user selects iTunes or Photos before other things are finished loading in the background, it then loads the associated libraries and data for that item first on the next boot. Startup and BIOS managers have allowed for this kind of reordering for a long time, and although I don’t know the specifics of how it’s handled, I have to guess that starting an application before Windows has finished loading all its background services (for example) changes the immediate priority in real time, though it doesn’t save that information for later.

On a far less contentious note, Apple also was granted two fairly substantial hardware patents. The first is a manufacturing method that could result in a thinner touchscreen-display sandwich, the details of which are quite technical. The second is part of a component mounting system for a desktop PC — a minor item for making the locking and unlocking of PCI and other components easier. It was filed for way back in 2008, though, so it seems about as likely now as then that they have a new desktop enclosure in the works. Still, it’s nice to think about.

RELATED POSTS:

• Apple expands recycle program, receive gift cards for iPhone, iPad and even PC trade-ins

• Apple to open five new stores this weekend, including Alaska’s first

Apple has expanded its Reuse and Recycle program to include gift cards for trade-ins of iPhones, iPads and even non-Mac computers

Got some old tech taking up space? Apple has recently revised the company’s Reuse and Recycling Program, extending it to include the iPhone and iPad as well as giving consumers more incentive to recycle.

Alongside the Apple devices, the Cupertino-based company is allowing people to bring in Macs of all sorts, as well as non-Apple computers and even displays. All recycled for free, regardless of manufacturer. On top of that, if your tech has any trade-in value you could score a modicum of monetary return in the form of an Apple Gift card.

The gift card is good for the “fair market value” of your trade-in; so it’s possible to obtain a $170 gift card for a perfect 16GB 3G iPad worth, or $80 for a blameless 8GB 3G iPhone. Simply head over to the Reuse and Recycle site and input the defining characteristics of your device. You’ll get free packaging and shipping for the run-down tech, and you’ll be able to use the trade-in gift card at any Apple retail store or the online store.

The previous recycling program rules cost consumers $30 for shipping to trade-in an old PC, unless you were upgrading from a PC to an Apple computer. The company is continuing with the free by-mail iPod and mobile phones (all manufacturers) recycling, and if you bring in an old iPod you’ll still get 10 percent off the purchase of a new one.

Apple uses PowerOn for all trade-ins, and the company sends valueless items over to WeRecyle. PowerOn will contact you if there are any discrepancies between actual value and the quoted value. If you decide you want to keep your old iPhone after the fact, PowerOn will ship it right back to you for no charge.

In the past few years, Apple has been in berzerker mode. Not even 15 years ago, they were on the verge of collapse when Michael Dell famously said that if he were CEO of Apple he would, “shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders”. Apple now has a market cap well over ten times that of Dell’s. And in the past year or so, Apple has even managed to far surpass their old nemesis, Microsoft, in terms of market cap, revenue, and profit.

Today, Apple’s stock closed above $400 a share for the first time. This has pushed their market cap up to roughly $375 billion, making my prediction that they have a shot at catching Exxon to become the most valuable public company in the world this fall, look pretty good (they’re now “just” $45 billion away).

But what’s next? What other mountain can Apple scale? Well, there’s still a pretty big one in the tech sphere.

It’s easy to forget that despite all of the financial success Apple has had in recent years, they’ve still been far behind a couple rivals in one key metric: revenue. In the previous full financial years, both IBM and HP have towered over Apple in this category. IBM’s last fiscal year saw them report $99.87 billion in revenue. Meanwhile, HP reported an astounding $126 billion. Apple? They reported roughly $65 billion. Yes, HP was still nearly double Apple in revenue.

But that was last fiscal year — which ended almost a year ago for all the companies. Things are changing quickly when you look at the more recent numbers. And they very much point to Apple taking this crown as well.

In the last four quarters, Apple has reported $100.32 billion in revenue. In the same timeframe, IBM reported $104.6 billion. Given these numbers, it wouldn’t be surprising at all if Apple surpasses IBM in yearly revenue next quarter.

But what about HP?  In the past four quarters, they’ve reported $127.9 billion in revenue. So they’re still quite a bit ahead of Apple. But not far enough ahead that Apple can’t catch them in the next year or so.

HP’s reporting timetable is a bit odd. While many tech companies reported earnings in the past few weeks or will do so this week, HP doesn’t report their Q3 2011 numbers until August 18. So the most recent numbers we have for them are Q2, which ended in May. In that quarter, HP reported $31.6 billion in revenue. In Apple’s last quarter just ended, they reported $28.57 billion. So Apple is clearly closing the gap — and fast — but there’s still some ground to make up on a quarter-to-quarter basis. That could change next quarter, or it could take until Apple’s next holiday quarter (in two quarters). But it seems almost a foregone conclusion at this point that Apple will surpass HP in revenue on a quarterly basis soon.

Is it fair to compare HP and Apple in this regard? Yes. While some complain that comparing Microsoft to Apple is comparing a software company to a hardware company (even though both do both), HP and Apple are much more akin.

HP is the largest PC-maker in the world. With the recent launches of devices like the TouchPad and the Pre, they’re clearly going right after Apple. They also now make their own software, webOS, thanks to the Palm acquisition. And while HP won’t admit it, insiders suggest that their strategy the past year or so has been to  become more like Apple.

When I wrote that a year ago, some were up in arms, citing the fact that HP brings in so much more revenue than Apple does. But again, that was then. Things looks very different now. And the trends should be clear to all.

Further, while HP still holds the revenue crown, Apple has far surpassed HP in the one metric more important: profit. You know, the money you actually get to keep.

In the last four quarters, HP did $11.4 billion in profit. Apple? $23.61 billion. Yes, Apple pulls in more than double the profit despite trailing in revenue.

As we enter the “post-PC” world, where iPhone and iPad sales far outpace Mac sales for Apple  (a chart by asymco today illustrates this nicely), HP will have their work cut out for them in order to maintain their revenue crown. Unless the Pre or the TouchPad take off, I’m not sure that HP will be able to hold off Apple for long. I give them a year.

“It’s not like Android’s free. Android has a patent fee. You do have to license patents.”

That was Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer in an interview last year with The Wall Street Journal. At the time, Microsoft was on the verge of releasing their first Windows Phone 7 devices, and knew their best hope in the market would be to go after Android — the same OS which quickly ran Windows Mobile into extinction. In the months that have followed, right or wrong, it looks like Microsoft is slowly but surely forcing Google’s OEM partners for Android to agree with this stance.

The reality is that for an increasing number of these partners now, Android is not free. It doesn’t require the licensing fees that Windows Phone does, but it does require a patent fee. A fee paid to Microsoft, not Google, mind you.

If Microsoft is able to convince (or force) Samsung to pay this fee as well, it’s likely lights out for Android as a free OS, as Tom Krazit rightly points out on paidContent today. And with Microsoft and now HP offering their own rival mobile OSes backed by a vast array of patent protection, some of these OEM partners may begin to think twice about their firm Android commitments. At least, that’s undoubtedly Microsoft’s hope. Android as a free mobile OS that rivals iOS in terms of functionality is an unbelievable value proposition. But Android as an OS that requires you to pay Microsoft for each unit shipped is less so.

Google’s last great chance to save Android in this regard may have been the Nortel patent purse — 6,000+ patents spanning mobile and wireless innovation. Unfortunately, the search giant lost the rights to those patents in a bidding war with their rivals. As a result — pending government inquiries surrounding the antitrust implications of all of this — Android remains very vulnerable. Perhaps more so than ever.

But the story of just how Google failed to secure these patents — which many had assumed they’d win — may be even more fascinating.

This Canadian court document (PDF), made public on Wednesday and linked to by Krazit in his piece, details exactly how Google lost the Nortel patents. The entire document is extremely long, but most of the good parts are in the earlier parts — aside from the documents later on in which Google’s name as the winner of the bidding is crossed off in favor of “Rockstar Bidco”, the name of the consortium made up of Google’s rivals that won.

As everyone knows, Google kicked things off by putting down the “stalking horse” bid on April 4. This bid of $900 million ensured that the auction would take place, and put Google in the driver’s seat for it. This bid led many to believe that Google would eventually prevail as the winner of the Nortel patents. In fact, many inside of Google believed they would win as well, we’re told. The company even did a blog post outlining why they were bidding.

As Kent Walker, a Google Senior Vice President and General Counsel, wrote in a post entitled “Patents and innovation“:

Today, Nortel selected our bid as the “stalking-horse bid,” which is the starting point against which others will bid prior to the auction. If successful, we hope this portfolio will not only create a disincentive for others to sue Google, but also help us, our partners and the open source community—which is integrally involved in projects like Android and Chrome—continue to innovate.

Google chose to use the name “Ranger” for their bidding.

Meanwhile, others interested in the patents began to organize themselves for the auction which would take place at the end of June. At the same time, the U.S. government began looking into the bidding to determine how the outcomes might affect the mobile and patent ecosystem. The DoJ quickly determined that a Google win would be okay, but they weren’t as sure about Apple, apparently.

At the same time, Microsoft began to complain that the auction could result in a termination of the existing licensing agreements they had on the Nortel patents. And while they never specifically mentioned Google, it was pretty clear that they did not want Google winning — such a victory would eliminate at least some of Microsoft’s patent leverage over Android.

But this complaining was odd since we had heard that the existing licensing agreement on the Nortel patents would have to be honored by any winning bidder. So what was Microsoft complaining about? At least some believe Microsoft was just playing mind games at this point — mind games which would later come into play.

Ultimately, four different parties were chosen by Nortel to be allowed to make bids on the patents, in addition to Ranger (Google), the stalking horse winner: Apple, Rockstar Bidco (a consortium — more on that in a bit), Intel, and Norpax (an affiliate of RPX Corporation).

The auction commenced on June 27 at 9:15 AM in New York. Intel made the starting bid — it’s not clear what that bid was, except that it was over the $900 million initial Google bid. After Intel, everyone was told that the minimum bid increments would be $5 million. All of the remaining bidders made bids.

The Nortel group looked them over and determined to raise the threshold for the bid increments to $50 million from $5 million — thus beginning round two of the auction. This time, only three bids were received. Norpax did not bid. A new leading bid was declared (unknown) and Nortel decided to up the increments to $100 million. Because Norpax had not bid, they were removed from the auction and the number of participants fell to four: Ranger (Google), Apple, Intel, and Rockstar Bidco.

It was around this time that Google began making odd bids, based around mathematical constants. The Nortel group was apparently confused by the seemingly random numbers Google was bidding. Reports have stated that they weren’t sure if Google was “extremely confident or bored”. Others believed Google was trying to confuse their rival bidders.

Still, while Nortel may have not known what to think, Google remained in the race.

By the fifth round of bidding, it was Rockstar Bidco that decided not to submit a bid. This brought the group of bidders down to three: Google, Apple, and Intel.

Then something really interesting happened.

Following Rockstar’s seeming exit, Apple asked Nortel for permission to talk to the group about a possible partnership. This request was granted. Following these discussions, Apple decided they wanted to partner with Rockstar and adopt their name and transaction structure.

Essentially, Apple decided to stake the Rockstar group in this high-stakes poker game.

If you’ve seen Casino Royale (the remake, not the original campy version), you’ll recall the scene where James Bond loses all his money attempting to call what he believes to be a Le Chiffre bluff. He is forced to exit the game, but then Felix Leiter, the CIA operative also in the game, tells Bond he’ll stake him since he’s clearly the stronger player. Again, that’s more or less what Apple did with this maneuver to Google’s Le Chiffre.

After the sixth round of bidding, Intel indicated it too was withdrawing. At this point, the two remaning groups were allowed to discuss partnership opportunities with all of those who had withdrawn. By the end of the eight round, Ranger (Google) partnered with Intel.

It was now down to Ranger (Google + Intel) versus Apple (staking Rockstar). For the next 10 rounds, the two sides traded bids in $100 million increments.

By the 19th round, Apple (Rockstar) presented a $4.5 billion bid. Ranger (Google) asked for permission to take some time to think about making another bid, this was granted. They ultimately decided not to continue. Apple (in partnership with Rockstar) was declared the winner.

While much of the press after the auction focused on the Rockstar group’s win, the court documents make it very clear that it was actually Apple that won in partnership with Rockstar. Apple was the only group that had not dropped out. Again, they staked the Rockstar group to ensure a victory for the stronger player. Why was Rockstar the stronger player? Because of the other companies involved. RIM, EMC, Ericsson, Sony, and yes, Microsoft.

All of those groups together had the cash and clout to break Google’s will. And with Microsoft, there was clearly the desire.

But why on Earth was Microsoft doing bidding on patents they already had licensing rights to? That’s not yet clear. But one has to assume that they simply did not want Google winning them — at all.

Even if Microsoft maintained licensing rights to the patents, a Google win would ensure that it would be a lot harder to sue Android and its OEM partners for other patent infringements. So it sure looks like Microsoft teamed up with longtime enemy Apple to ensure victory.

And if the U.S. and/or Canadian governments don’t now either block this result (which seems unlikely given that they approved the bidders beforehand) or force fairly drastic changes (such as they did in the Novell patent case) — which Google will have to lobby heavily for — Android seems to be in some very serious trouble.

Things didn’t ultimately end well for Le Chiffre, remember.

RELATED POSTS:

• Google+ Added $20 Billion To Google’s Market Cap

• Apple’s App Store Crosses 15B App Downloads, Adds 1B Downloads In Past Month

• Apple Obtains U.S. Trademark For ’280′. Wait, What?

• Google resumes sending out Google+ invites

• Apple’s iPhone OS surpasses BlackBerry in popularity contest