Law suit against Google

Coolcaesar. “Googleplex welcome sign“ Photograph. Wikimedia commons, Sept. 2006 web. 24 Jan. 2014

Google has been proven guilty of infringing on  their push notification  patents! This was brought up when a company the goes by the name of Patent Troll went after Google. This group basically "trolls" other companies to see if they went against any of their patents. Patent Troll is seeking $125 million in damages. They have been after: Apple, Motorola, Samsung, and Microsoft. The plaintiff is SimpleAir.
 We have learned a lot about infringing on things in English. We have learned that it can be very serious like in this article where they are seeking $125 million against Google.
I believe Google is wrong for doing this. $125 million may be a little much but Google did use someone else idea to make money. In reality if someone used something of mine to make money I would be mad if i did not get a cut.

What is the central idea of the passage and how is it developed and refined throughout the selection? Use evidence from the selection to support your answer.

The central idea of this passage is is that Google has been proven guilty of infringement. Google has been proven guilty  of infringing on their push notification patents and the author develops this idea by telling us about the other company that they were steeling from and their background."Google has been hit by a patent troll. A company that's gone after Apple, Microsoft, Motorola, and Samsung — among other tech companies — has proven in court that Android's push notification services infringe on one of its patents, and it's now seeking damages of $125 million or more (Jacob Kastrenakes ). The author uses this this so the reader can understand what is going on better instead of just saying they are being sued by a company. Now the reader knows that it is by a company whose main intentions was to find something wrong.

Kastrenakes, Jacob. “Google loses case to patent troll seeking $125 million in damages.” 22 Jan. 2014: The Verge. Web. 24 Jan. 2014. <http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/22/5335966/google-loses-simpleair-patent-suit-seeking-125-million-damages>

current event 1

Ghose, tia. “Ancient nursery of bizarre spoon-billed sharks discovered” 10 Jan. 2014. Fox News. web. 10 Jan. 2014. <http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/01/10/ancient-nursery-bizarre-spoon-billed-sharks-discovered/>

This article talks about how they have proof of a ancient shark nursery. Also they have found a different species of sharks.  Also it talks about the living areas and about fossilized shark eggs

I find this so interesting because we were talking about extinct sharks in biology. I also think that sharks are very interesting. Also the information suggest ancient sharks spent their lives in distinct locations which is the complete opposite of what I thought.

These sharks have long snouts. They also amazingly they found the shark eggs and shark babies all in one place. It is crazy how scientist can find extinct species and learn so much about it.

What is the author’s point of view, and how does it impact the overall effect of the text?

The authors point of view is just to inform the reader. Since the point it to just inform the reader it makes the text a little boring. Even though the text is boring it still is interesting. The author says things like “The eggs and hatchlings were found only in the Mazon Creek site” (Tia Ghose) which proves that the point of view is very informative and factual. Therefore the text is very informative but kinda boring.

William Buelow Gould. “Sketchbook of fishes” photograph. Flicker. Yahoo, Nd. web. 10 Jan. 2014. <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sketchbook_of_fishes_-_25._(Longnose)_Saw_shark_-_William_Buelow_Gould,_c1832.jpg>