The first piece of search results, as I understand a large company would do, is to run automated searches over all company documents. The tricky part in this is that in order to identify the relevant documents, you need to use the appropriate search terms.
In this case, Apple is even proposing that they work with Google in this process to procure more relevant documents at a faster speed. This entails that Google provide a list of the search terms they planned to use. And part of Apple's suspicion here is that Google might be intentionally using search terms that aren't optimal. Foss Patents gave an example of this as being what Apple might call 'slick to unlock,' whereas on Google's side, they would have used a different term internally. All the while, Google says it is an unnecessary burden to be required to have full disclosure of its search terms. Google is actually a third party in this case but it is possible that the search is used in favor of its position with Samsung given the entire case dispute.
This article just brought some thoughts full circle to realizing that the patent litigation cases we see in the news all the time are indeed substantiated by the right data, the right documents, and are supplemented by the research tools of each company. As a result, the different companies to get involved in litigation cases with boast varying levels of research and technology capabilities, which might also have an impact in the duration and outcome of the case. If, for instance, a suing company cannot procure the necessary documentation, then their litigation efforts will be futile.
I think a bigger question is whether Google's flawed search methodology on its potential patent infringement cases is legal or not. In my opinion, it's Google's right to protect itself from disclosing adverse documents that may against Google regard to patent litigation. Note that Apple are free to use Bing as their source. Not to mention the real sources regard to patent documents Apple should rely on, are their lawyers.
ReplyDelete@Tisk Kei Dicky Woo: If they are ordered by the courts to disclose evidence that might be incriminating, I don't think it's Google right to filter documents that are not in their interest to disclose - seems like obstruction of justice to me... or maybe legal constructs like that don't apply here?
ReplyDelete