PDA

View Full Version : Apple Has Outright Ownership of Nortel's LTE (4G) Patents?




MacRumors
Jul 3, 2011, 08:42 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/03/apple-has-outright-ownership-of-nortels-lte-4g-patents/)


Robert Cringely claims (http://www.cringely.com/2011/07/the-enemy-of-my-enemy/) to have some details of the deals that were in place for the $4.5 billion (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/01/nortel-patents-sold-to-consortium-which-includes-apple/) acquisition of Nortel's patent portfolio. The patents were ultimately won by a consortium that included Apple. The auction drew interest of many of the major players in mobile today due to Nortel's large portfolio of Long Term Evolution (LTE, also known as "4G") related patents.

http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/nortel_logo1.jpg


Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/02/us-dealtalk-nortel-google-idUSTRE76104L20110702) recapped some of the behind the scenes maneuvering amongst the players. The bidding began with 5 different parties: Apple, Intel, Google, a consortium of Ericsson, RIM, Microsoft and EMC, and a consortium led by RPX. As the bidding increased, partnerships formed and Apple joined up with the Ericsson/RIM/Microsoft/EMC consortium. Meanwhile, Intel partnered with Google whose bidding "tapped out" over $4 billion. The patents were ultimately won for $4.5 billion.

Cringely claims (http://www.cringely.com/2011/07/the-enemy-of-my-enemy/) that within the consortium were different arrangements for each party. RIM and Ericsson reportedly put up $1.1 billion together and includes "fully paid up" license rights to the portfolio. Microsoft and Sony also put up another $1 billion with unspecified terms, while EMC contributed $400 million for a subset of patents.

Meanwhile, the largest contributor of the consortium was said to be Apple who put up $2 billion "for outright ownership of Nortel's Long Term Evolution (4G) patents as well as another package of patents supposedly intended to hobble Android." Apple obviously has a large interest in LTE/4G for future iPhones and iPads. Apple recently settled (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/14/nokia-enters-into-patent-license-agreement-with-apple/) with Nokia and agreed to a license of their patents for use in Apple's mobile devices. Nokia is also said to have a significant number of LTE related patents. Ownership of such patents could give Apple leverage and/or provide licensing fees from other mobile manufacturers that offer LTE technology.

Article Link: Apple Has Outright Ownership of Nortel's LTE (4G) Patents? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/03/apple-has-outright-ownership-of-nortels-lte-4g-patents/)



res1233
Jul 3, 2011, 08:47 PM
How strange.

neilw
Jul 3, 2011, 08:47 PM
Wow, titanic legal battles loom. I wonder how much the Apple legal staff has grown since getting into the phone business....

wordoflife
Jul 3, 2011, 08:47 PM
I wonder if Apple would actually make other manufacturers license LTE. I'm not sure how good that would be.

soco
Jul 3, 2011, 08:48 PM
Am I the only one who got immediately sick of hearing the word consortium? It's like the sports stations overusing the term platoon lately.

iRobby
Jul 3, 2011, 08:48 PM
4G/LTE on iPhone or no 4G/LTE on iPhone which one is it now?

xxBURT0Nxx
Jul 3, 2011, 08:55 PM
4G/LTE on iPhone or no 4G/LTE on iPhone which one is it now?

at some point it will obviously support 4G/LTE, probably won't happen with this generation.

I'm personally hoping that they are delaying the iPhone 5 until september so that they can add LTE support and att has time to roll out the service.

Either way, I'll probably be switching to vzw when 4g is supported on the iPhone because their rollout is much faster and more ambitious than what att has planned by the end of the year. too little, too late imo.

*LTD*
Jul 3, 2011, 08:56 PM
Talk about a power position. Wow.

rman726
Jul 3, 2011, 09:00 PM
I'm a fan of Apple, but I think it's pathetic that Apple (or Google) would buy patents to "hobble" their biggest competitor. The iPhone is a better phone because of the competition with Android. I have no problems with them protecting their own intellectual property like they are doing with Samsung and their blatant ripoff of the iPhone. But to buy patents for the sole purpose of hurting the competition is anti-competitive, and wrong IMO.

I do realize that in the end, it's not really Apple's fault and that they are just playing by the rules of the game. If they hadn't ponied up the $2B, then Google would have done the same to "hobble" Apple. So I don't blame Apple entirely, and instead blame the entire environment created by the awful existing system. But in the end, the consumers lose, which sucks.

Worksafe
Jul 3, 2011, 09:05 PM
If it was'nt already, the wireless industry is now becoming extremely convoluted and trying to figure out who has the clear advantage at any given moment is a moving signal, but if Apple does have "outright ownership" of Nortel's Long Term Evolution (4G) patent the next two years will see a major player crowned king.

xxBURT0Nxx
Jul 3, 2011, 09:05 PM
^^ so you think companies should sit back and let their competitors buy the patent set????

That would be a terrible business decision. All of their competitors were bidding on them for the same reasons, would have been stupid to pass on trying to obtain these patents.

Winni
Jul 3, 2011, 09:11 PM
I have no problems with them protecting their own intellectual property like they are doing with Samsung and their blatant ripoff of the iPhone.

Have you ever used a Samsung Galaxy S2? In case you do, don't be surprised when you sell your iPhone and switch to the Galaxy -- I did. Not only the hardware of the Galaxy is superior to Apple's hardware, the software is also better in every aspect - and unlike iOS, Android does NOT try to restrict the user whenever and wherever possible.

Apple has lost the leadership and no longer has the better products; iOS 5 and iCloud are "me too" designs that basically only implement features that Android has had for a long time now. Since being good is not sufficient when somebody else is better, Apple is now trying pathetic legal games to regain the pole position.

NebulaClash
Jul 3, 2011, 09:13 PM
I wonder if Apple would actually make other manufacturers license LTE. I'm not sure how good that would be.

Not Apple's style to do that. This strikes me as a defensive purchase. This is how it would go:

Competitor: "Aha! Pay up, Apple. We own these patents that cover the iPhone!"

Apple: "Don't think so. We own the LTE patents. Nice LTE phone you have there, shame if anything were to happen to it."

Competitor: "Never mind."

Rodimus Prime
Jul 3, 2011, 09:15 PM
Of all the companies on the list and going after the patents the one that I wanted to own them the least was Apple. Reason being is Apple has a long history of not licencing out patents and doing damage long term but it could be after talks with the DOJ Apple could easily already be required to licence them out at a set rate and my guess what it is currently before they were sold and required to do it for who ever request them at that same rate.

Not Apple's style to do that. This strikes me as a defensive purchase. This is how it would go:

Competitor: "Aha! Pay up, Apple. We own these patents that cover the iPhone!"

Apple: "Don't think so. We own the LTE patents. Nice LTE phone you have there, shame if anything were to happen to it."

Competitor: "Never mind."

Chances are legally Apple can not do it. I would not be surpised if Apple has some pretty stick guide lines it agree to with the DOJ. Going against it would mean some pretty heavy fines.

840quadra
Jul 3, 2011, 09:22 PM
Are we talking true 4G (LTE-Advanced), or the much slower current system Marketed as 4G (LTE)?

NebulaClash
Jul 3, 2011, 09:23 PM
Chances are legally Apple can not do it. I would not be surpised if Apple has some pretty stick guide lines it agree to with the DOJ. Going against it would mean some pretty heavy fines.

You may well be right. They did have a chat with the government about this, I recall, so maybe the government will require Apple to license the LTE patents. It's not their style, but when you have such a key patent I guess it has to be shared.

xxBURT0Nxx
Jul 3, 2011, 09:26 PM
Have you ever used a Samsung Galaxy S2? In case you do, don't be surprised when you sell your iPhone and switch to the Galaxy -- I did. Not only the hardware of the Galaxy is superior to Apple's hardware, the software is also better in every aspect - and unlike iOS, Android does NOT try to restrict the user whenever and wherever possible.

Apple has lost the leadership and no longer has the better products; iOS 5 and iCloud are "me too" designs that basically only implement features that Android has had for a long time now. Since being good is not sufficient when somebody else is better, Apple is now trying pathetic legal games to regain the pole position.
I actually do enjoy android, but the galaxy phones are very similar spec wise to iphones, typically using the same cpu, just different branding.

Jailbreaking also unrestircts apples walls which makes iOS actually usable.... but android is just as hampered. phones are still being released with fryo when there has already been two other versions of android released and ice cream announced.

MattInOz
Jul 3, 2011, 09:31 PM
Not Apple's style to do that. This strikes me as a defensive purchase. This is how it would go:

Competitor: "Aha! Pay up, Apple. We own these patents that cover the iPhone!"

Apple: "Don't think so. We own the LTE patents. Nice LTE phone you have there, shame if anything were to happen to it."

Competitor: "Never mind."

Wouldn't be surprised if Apple had control on the grounds that they add these to the patent pool for LTE and get themselves and all the players of the consortium better terms for use of the overall pool. (even maybe better terms on the 3G pool to boot).

Take some of the sting out of Nokia's tail in defining Fair and Reasonable terms to the industry.

Yep it seems like a defensive/negotiation tactic.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 3, 2011, 09:31 PM
I actually do enjoy android, but the galaxy phones are very similar spec wise to iphones, typically using the same cpu, just different branding.

Jailbreaking also unrestircts apples walls which makes iOS actually usable.... but android is just as hampered. phones are still being released with fryo when there has already been two other versions of android released and ice cream announced.

As far as I know only 1 more version of Android for phones. Honeycomb is not for phones.

I agree releasing with Fryo at this point is not really acceptable. A reasonable time frame from release of Android to it being updated for the phones in my book is 3 months. That is enough time for the manufactures to get all there crap installed on the phone. They do not have to change the radio stuff so it not like AT&T and others should have any real say in it.

SandynJosh
Jul 3, 2011, 09:34 PM
It's interesting to me how rapidly Apple has advanced in the phone business.

Four years ago it entered what was called the upper part of the phone market with aspirations of capturing 5%. They had no patents relating to phones per sec. just some UI patents.

Within that first year Apple became the phone to own, and they were only on one network in one country. Now, Apple is greater then 5% worldwide, and a third of the USA market for smart phones. The iPhone 4 and 3GS are the number one and two selling phones, and now Apple owns a portfolio of important communications patents other manufacturers would love to have.

I cannot think of a similar market that has been so rapidly transformed by a new player as the smart phone market. Maybe the tablet market, but nothing else comes to mind.

CommodityFetish
Jul 3, 2011, 09:37 PM
Why does it make sense for them to have patents for LTE/4G? They aren't a carrier. Are they going to build a 4G network that only Apple devices can use? (That would be in character for them, wouldn't it...?) Or are they just going to sit on them and extract fees for their use, just because they can, and it increases their power in the business? (Oh, right, that's how business works...)

I know I'm skeptical that having these patents in Apple's hands will be a good thing for consumers. Especially given their track record in terms of working with other companies, or the rates they offer their developers and content providers.

I'm still not convinced that our patent system does more good than harm.

Swift
Jul 3, 2011, 09:41 PM
Am I the only one who got immediately sick of hearing the word consortium? It's like the sports stations overusing the term platoon lately.

Only a group of companies bidding on property? A consortium.

ThisIsNotMe
Jul 3, 2011, 09:43 PM
Why does it make sense for them to have patents for LTE/4G? They aren't a carrier. Are they going to build a 4G network that only Apple devices can use? (That would be in character for them, wouldn't it...?) Or are they just going to sit on them and extract fees for their use, just because they can, and it increases their power in the business? (Oh, right, that's how business works...)

I know I'm skeptical that having these patents in Apple's hands will be a good thing for consumers. Especially given their track record in terms of working with other companies, or the rates they offer their developers and content providers.

Apparently you didn't read the article.
The point was not because they wanted the underlying technology the patents protect rather they wanted to keep the patents away from Google so Google wouldn't have leverage over them.

I'm still not convinced that our patent system does more good than harm.

Ya.....being the most innovative culture this planet has ever seen is a real negative.

(Hint: Out patent system is why America is the most innovative culture this planet has ever seen)

840quadra
Jul 3, 2011, 09:45 PM
Why does it make sense for them to have patents for LTE/4G? They aren't a carrier. Are they going to build a 4G network that only Apple devices can use? (That would be in character for them, wouldn't it...?) Or are they just going to sit on them and extract fees for their use, just because they can, and it increases their power in the business? (Oh, right, that's how business works...)

I know I'm skeptical that having these patents in Apple's hands will be a good thing for consumers. Especially given their track record in terms of working with other companies, or the rates they offer their developers and content providers.

Remember the phones themselves need to have radios in them to work on whatever network they are attaching to. If broad patents are issued for those radios in both the phones and towers, than the phone manufacturers would need to have a license, or own the patents to avoid a lawsuit.

I'm still not convinced that our patent system does more good than harm.

I fully agree. IMHO the fact that there are so many lawsuits, judgments, and violations is an indication the system is more broken, than it is useful.

xxBURT0Nxx
Jul 3, 2011, 09:52 PM
It's interesting to me how rapidly Apple has advanced in the phone business.

Four years ago it entered what was called the upper part of the phone market with aspirations of capturing 5%. They had no patents relating to phones per sec. just some UI patents.

Within that first year Apple became the phone to own, and they were only on one network in one country. Now, Apple is greater then 5% worldwide, and a third of the USA market for smart phones. The iPhone 4 and 3GS are the number one and two selling phones, and now Apple owns a portfolio of important communications patents other manufacturers would love to have.

I cannot think of a similar market that has been so rapidly transformed by a new player as the smart phone market. Maybe the tablet market, but nothing else comes to mind.
the iPod was really the first successful and well known portable media player. There were a lot of mp3 players before it, but for whatever reasons the iPod was and still is by far the most successful.

Quite interesting how it became so popular, I remember my first iPod and I had to upgrade my OS to win xp and buy a fw card to put in it because they didn't have usb cables in the beginning. oh how times have changed, can't even use firewire with iPods anymore!

Constable Odo
Jul 3, 2011, 10:08 PM
I'm a fan of Apple, but I think it's pathetic that Apple (or Google) would buy patents to "hobble" their biggest competitor. The iPhone is a better phone because of the competition with Android. I have no problems with them protecting their own intellectual property like they are doing with Samsung and their blatant ripoff of the iPhone. But to buy patents for the sole purpose of hurting the competition is anti-competitive, and wrong IMO.

I do realize that in the end, it's not really Apple's fault and that they are just playing by the rules of the game. If they hadn't ponied up the $2B, then Google would have done the same to "hobble" Apple. So I don't blame Apple entirely, and instead blame the entire environment created by the awful existing system. But in the end, the consumers lose, which sucks.

Aw, don't buy into the crap this dude is spouting. His opinion of Apple trying to deliberately hobble only Android is mere speculation. There is the assumption that anyone that holds a patent could "hobble" competitors. Most patents still allow for competitors to pay a fair amount of money for licensing, so if Google paid licensing fees, it could in fact use what's covered in those LTE 4G patents. Otherwise, what would be the point of paying for patents if you can't use them for anything. Why do you think Google bid so high? Just to grab them and not use them as leverage against other companies?

Seriously, though. If you designed something yourself, you honestly wouldn't try to protect your product from copycats? Man, you'd be ripped off terribly and that sort of stuff happens all the time. This world is a brutal place when it comes to good businesses and the money that goes with it.

*LTD*
Jul 3, 2011, 10:19 PM
I'm a fan of Apple, but I think it's pathetic that Apple (or Google) would buy patents to "hobble" their biggest competitor.

I don't. That's what you want if you're in business and you're in that position. They're called "competitors" for reason. Ideally, you don't want any, or you don't want them able to challenge you substantially. Duh.

You'd want to become the sole supplier, or get as close to it via legal means as possible. This is basic stuff.

PCClone
Jul 3, 2011, 10:28 PM
Have you ever used a Samsung Galaxy S2? In case you do, don't be surprised when you sell your iPhone and switch to the Galaxy -- I did. Not only the hardware of the Galaxy is superior to Apple's hardware, the software is also better in every aspect - and unlike iOS, Android does NOT try to restrict the user whenever and wherever possible.

Apple has lost the leadership and no longer has the better products; iOS 5 and iCloud are "me too" designs that basically only implement features that Android has had for a long time now. Since being good is not sufficient when somebody else is better, Apple is now trying pathetic legal games to regain the pole position.

Samsung makes cheap crap. The vibrant was the worst phone ever. Al they do is copy apple and then make a POS.

*LTD*
Jul 3, 2011, 10:31 PM
Apple has lost the leadership and no longer has the better products; iOS 5 and iCloud are "me too" designs that basically only implement features that Android has had for a long time now. Since being good is not sufficient when somebody else is better, Apple is now trying pathetic legal games to regain the pole position.

Are you kidding? even the lowly 3GS outsells most Android handsets.

Android is a complete mess. It can't be "better" anything until its fundamental problems are ironed out.

Perhaps Google should have tried harder at these "pathetic legal games" instead of blowing the bidding the way they did. Now they face possible legal action themselves. A mountain of it.

They bid numbers like Pi and the distance to the sun and other retarded nonsense. Were they bored? Did they just not care? Considering what it means to *not* have these patents, the folks over at Google need their heads checked. Too much geek, not enough common sense.

Now you can add "stupidity" to the Android mess.

8CoreWhore
Jul 3, 2011, 10:44 PM
I'm a fan of Apple, but I think it's pathetic that Apple (or Google) would buy patents to "hobble" their biggest competitor. The iPhone is a better phone because of the competition with Android. I have no problems with them protecting their own intellectual property like they are doing with Samsung and their blatant ripoff of the iPhone. But to buy patents for the sole purpose of hurting the competition is anti-competitive, and wrong IMO.

I do realize that in the end, it's not really Apple's fault and that they are just playing by the rules of the game. If they hadn't ponied up the $2B, then Google would have done the same to "hobble" Apple. So I don't blame Apple entirely, and instead blame the entire environment created by the awful existing system. But in the end, the consumers lose, which sucks.

The "hobble" quote is quoting Cringley, not Apple or anyone else that speaks for Apple. Cringely, MacRumors, etc - do not actually know what patents Apple received, nor do they know what purpose Apple purchased them for yet.

So, to say it was purchased to "hobble" is just an attempt at trolling the internet, link bating, and doesn't contribute positively to the discussion.

cmaier
Jul 3, 2011, 10:46 PM
Wow, titanic legal battles loom. I wonder how much the Apple legal staff has grown since getting into the phone business....

The "hobble" quote is quoting Cringley, not Apple or anyone else that speaks for Apple. Cringely, MacRumors, etc - do not actually know what patents Apple received, nor do they know what purpose Apple purchased them for yet.

So, to say it was purchased to "hobble" is just an attempt at trolling the internet, link bating, and doesn't contribute positively to the discussion.

The Cringely article lost whatever limited credibility it might have when he babbled something about "restraint of trade." He doesn't know what he's talking about.

8CoreWhore
Jul 3, 2011, 10:48 PM
Let's not forget, if Apple hadn't developed the iPhone - for years in secrecy, this form factor phone wouldn't exist. If Apple hadn't done the same with the iPad, tablets wouldn't exist.

Samsung, etc, wouldn't know what to do. There'd be nothing to copy.

8CoreWhore
Jul 3, 2011, 11:00 PM
So, let's see - Cringely has also said Apple will buy Adobe, Intel will buy Apple, Jobs wants to be CEO of Disney..

And, he recently said Apple's North Carolina Data Center was mostly empty. This was after the keynote when Jobs showed photos of the inside and said it was complete.

Should we really be looking to Cringely on this or any other subject? Even on a Sunday night?

rjohnstone
Jul 3, 2011, 11:01 PM
Let's not forget, if Apple hadn't developed the iPhone - for years in secrecy, this form factor phone wouldn't exist. If Apple hadn't done the same with the iPad, tablets wouldn't exist.

Samsung, etc, wouldn't know what to do. There'd be nothing to copy.
I can't believe you actually typed this drivel.
The "form factor" existed already.

As for the LTE patents, if they are part of an industry standard, Apple has to license them to everyone who requests it.
Ask Nokia about their GSM patents. ;)


EDIT: Nice down votes.... guess the truth hurts. :rolleyes:

MattInOz
Jul 3, 2011, 11:10 PM
I don't. That's what you want if you're in business and you're in that position. They're called "competitors" for reason. Ideally, you don't want any, or you don't want them able to challenge you substantially. Duh.

You'd want to become the sole supplier, or get as close to it via legal means as possible. This is basic stuff.

Ummm... that only works if you can charge ever customers as much as they are willing to pay. If you have a fixed price for all customers then you have to set the price so low they you might not even cover costs.

Better only targeting the segment of the market a nice margin above break even.

8CoreWhore
Jul 3, 2011, 11:19 PM
I can't believe you actually typed this drivel.
The "form factor" existed already.

As for the LTE patents, if they are part of an industry standard, Apple has to license them to everyone who requests it.
Ask Nokia about their GSM patents. ;)


EDIT: Nice down votes.... guess the truth hurts. :rolleyes:

What multi-touch phone existed before iPhone?

rman726
Jul 3, 2011, 11:28 PM
^^ so you think companies should sit back and let their competitors buy the patent set????

That would be a terrible business decision. All of their competitors were bidding on them for the same reasons, would have been stupid to pass on trying to obtain these patents.

As I said, in the end, I don't really blame Apple; because I know exactly what you said would happen. I just think it's a ****** system where nobody but the patent companies win.


I don't. That's what you want if you're in business and you're in that position. They're called "competitors" for reason. Ideally, you don't want any, or you don't want them able to challenge you substantially. Duh.

You'd want to become the sole supplier, or get as close to it via legal means as possible. This is basic stuff.

As stated above, I do understand how the business world works. The mobile phone business is a cutthroat business, and as such I completely understand why Apple did what they did. The thing that gets me is that while I'm fine with a company protecting what is theirs; I just don't like the idea of buying off patents for the sole purpose of hobbling the competition. I just think the consumers would be better off if Nortel wasn't able to sell off their patents to companies like Google, Verizon, AT&T, Apple, etc...

It's nothing against Apple, because as I stated, I like Apple. My target really is an indictment on the entire system, and not any company in particular.

MorphingDragon
Jul 3, 2011, 11:31 PM
As I said, in the end, I don't really blame Apple; because I know exactly what you said would happen. I just think it's a ****** system where nobody but the patent companies win.

So move to a country were patents are culturally irrelevant?

Meandmunch
Jul 3, 2011, 11:38 PM
I'm a fan of Apple, but I think it's pathetic that Apple (or Google) would buy patents to "hobble" their biggest competitor. The iPhone is a better phone because of the competition with Android. I have no problems with them protecting their own intellectual property like they are doing with Samsung and their blatant ripoff of the iPhone. But to buy patents for the sole purpose of hurting the competition is anti-competitive, and wrong IMO.

I do realize that in the end, it's not really Apple's fault and that they are just playing by the rules of the game. If they hadn't ponied up the $2B, then Google would have done the same to "hobble" Apple. So I don't blame Apple entirely, and instead blame the entire environment created by the awful existing system. But in the end, the consumers lose, which sucks.


Apple hobble Android?... What do you think Google was trying to do to Apple with a bid of there own? As sad as it seems this is a form competition.

kiljoy616
Jul 3, 2011, 11:40 PM
So forget about how good your product is, in today's business world makes sure you have patents galore.
Sad to see this is what competition has come down to, but that the world we have built.

As I said, in the end, I don't really blame Apple; because I know exactly what you said would happen. I just think it's a ****** system where nobody but the patent companies win.




As stated above, I do understand how the business world works. The mobile phone business is a cutthroat business, and as such I completely understand why Apple did what they did. The thing that gets me is that while I'm fine with a company protecting what is theirs; I just don't like the idea of buying off patents for the sole purpose of hobbling the competition. I just think the consumers would be better off if Nortel wasn't able to sell off their patents to companies like Google, Verizon, AT&T, Apple, etc...

It's nothing against Apple, because as I stated, I like Apple. My target really is an indictment on the entire system, and not any company in particular.

And who would you have liked them to sell it to, and what do you think they would have done. A patent is an asset and it can be sold off just like any other asset, I know lots of people don't like it but this is the now and future of international and domestic business, so take a class or two if your getting your MBA you will see plenty of it if you want to be top dog. :rolleyes:

rman726
Jul 3, 2011, 11:58 PM
And who would you have liked them to sell it to, and what do you think they would have done. A patent is an asset and it can be sold off just like any other asset, I know lots of people don't like it but this is the now and future of international and domestic business, so take a class or two if your getting your MBA you will see plenty of it if you want to be top dog. :rolleyes:

I'm well aware of how the system works. I just think it sucks for the consumers and does nothing but drive up prices. Why? I'll tell you a little secret: Steve Jobs' name might be on the signature line for that $2B wire transfer, but it might as well be your name and mine, because it's the consumers paying for it in the end.

bassboat
Jul 3, 2011, 11:58 PM
The part of the article that infuriated me was the government sticking its nose into the bidding. The government has no business telling a company whether or not it can buy something. For them to allow Google and Apple to bid is a joke. The government trying to protect us from Apple and Google is the height of stupidity. What happens when a technology is forced to be shared is a higher price and less innovation for the customer. If either of the companies win the bid, and Apple did in this case, it will give them a momentary lead but by losing the bid Google will take the money that they did not spend on the bid, plow it into R&D and will probably come out with a better product than Apple bought. That is how the free market works when allowed to work freely. The anti-trust is nothing more than socialism and feel good politics rolled into one. That is another part of the federal budget that needs to be eliminated.

840quadra
Jul 4, 2011, 12:31 AM
I can't believe you actually typed this drivel.
The "form factor" existed already.

As for the LTE patents, if they are part of an industry standard, Apple has to license them to everyone who requests it.
Ask Nokia about their GSM patents. ;)



If it is plain old (currently implemented) LTE, it is not industry standard (per-say). If it is LTE-Advanced (http://www.4gamericas.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page&sectionid=352), it is then falling into the true ratified ITU 4G specification.

LTE-Advance wasn't even ratified as being 4G by the ITU until late 2010, and I don't know of any phone or service provider that has this technology in the US. Most consumers are ignorant to this, as phone companies / telco providers have been marketing their standard LTE "faster than 3G" networks as 4G. The networks are faster, but, a far cry from true 4G which can peek at 1 Gbit/s .

inkswamp
Jul 4, 2011, 12:34 AM
I don't think Apple will be able to use these patents to "hobble Android," nor do I think that was the intent in buying them regardless of whatever Reuter's source claims. I consider this to be more of a defensive thing, to protect Apple and this new market of mobile phones and tablets from the ever-increasing number of patent trolls out there. Besides, I think there would be an obvious case of anti-competitive behavior were Apple to wield these things against Android. At best, Apple will be able to turn a few bucks of every Android phone sold due to licensing.

IOW, this is a lot of news about something that basically adds up to not much.

a.gomez
Jul 4, 2011, 12:39 AM
more nonsense - first - everyone was interviewed by the government before they could bid to determine their intentions and they had a simple statement after the bidding to everyone involved.

"US Government Antitrust Division will continue to review any anticompetitive issues that could arise once an agreement is made"

Nothing will come of this against Android - Sony Ericsson has every Smartphone running Android right now and SONY has 2 Android tablets on bat - and they part of the group.

the8thark
Jul 4, 2011, 12:50 AM
Ya.....being the most innovative culture this planet has ever seen is a real negative.

(Hint: Out patent system is why America is the most innovative culture this planet has ever seen)
I want to see proof that "America is the most innovative culture this planet has ever seen". Otherwise I call that total BS. I'm sure per capita countries like Australia and the UK are just as innovative. If not more so.

So provide some facts before you blurt out stuff like that.

AwakenedLands
Jul 4, 2011, 12:55 AM
All this crap about patents and lawsuits over these smartphones makes me want to do one thing...

Go back to a normal cell phone.

cmaier
Jul 4, 2011, 12:56 AM
I want to see proof that "America is the most innovative culture this planet has ever seen". Otherwise I call that total BS. I'm sure per capita countries like Australia and the UK are just as innovative. If not more so.

So provide some facts before you blurt out stuff like that.

Per capita? He didn't say per capita. And I doubt your assertion in any case.

the8thark
Jul 4, 2011, 12:57 AM
Per capita? He didn't say per capita. And I doubt your assertion in any case.
Ok prove it. Lets see the evidence to back up your claim.

cmaier
Jul 4, 2011, 01:06 AM
Ok prove it. Lets see the evidence to back up your claim.

Where did I make a claim, big guy? All I did was doubt your claim.

Edit: here - I'll back up the other guy's claim: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_inn-economy-innovation

US is #1. UK is 4 and Australia 5.

dethmaShine
Jul 4, 2011, 01:10 AM
Have you ever used a Samsung Galaxy S2? In case you do, don't be surprised when you sell your iPhone and switch to the Galaxy -- I did. Not only the hardware of the Galaxy is superior to Apple's hardware, the software is also better in every aspect - and unlike iOS, Android does NOT try to restrict the user whenever and wherever possible.

Apple has lost the leadership and no longer has the better products; iOS 5 and iCloud are "me too" designs that basically only implement features that Android has had for a long time now. Since being good is not sufficient when somebody else is better, Apple is now trying pathetic legal games to regain the pole position.

Tell me when you can swipe a screen without a lag and I'll read your comment again.

MattInOz
Jul 4, 2011, 01:26 AM
Where did I make a claim, big guy? All I did was doubt your claim.

Edit: here - I'll back up the other guy's claim: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_inn-economy-innovation

US is #1. UK is 4 and Australia 5.

Nice stats but what does Unitless scale even mean?
They do look pretty but not sure they show much of substance.
At best they show "most recent" although the base report is 2001-2002 and a lot has happen economically since then.

They seem to ignore Countries with a vast history of innovation as well. I'm assuming Japan would move much much higher than 12 if it was expended to 100+ year time frame.

cmaier
Jul 4, 2011, 01:35 AM
Nice stats but what does Unitless scale even mean?
They do look pretty but not sure they show much of substance.
At best they show "most recent" although the base report is 2001-2002 and a lot has happen economically since then.

They seem to ignore Countries with a vast history of innovation as well. I'm assuming Japan would move much much higher than 12 if it was expended to 100+ year time frame.

Yes since 2001-2002 apple and google and Twitter and Facebook and intel and AMD have done a lot of innovating. I guess England has ARM. And you guys have nice koalas. :)

Point is, I simply doubt that guy's claims about UK and Australia.

mathfantasia
Jul 4, 2011, 01:36 AM
Remember when Apple was still the "young fledgling," "underdog" company?

Fortune 500
:
:
Yadda Yadda
:
:
And now this?

lilo777
Jul 4, 2011, 01:41 AM
Samsung makes cheap crap. The vibrant was the worst phone ever. Al they do is copy apple and then make a POS.

How come Samsung's product are a cheap crap? They use the same components as iPhone (well, Samsung produces most of them anyways) the biggest difference being the display. And we all know that SAMOLED is more expensive than LCD.

It is somewhat amusing to see people gloating about Apple getting their hands on Nortel's patents. I doubt those are really that good for two reasons:
* have you ever heard about Nortel before? Probably not. Then why do you think that their innovations were that good?
* if their innovations were that good, why did they go bankrupt?

Most likely, this patent sale is not going to change that much in a grand scheme of things.

Tell me when you can swipe a screen without a lag and I'll read your comment again.
Well, I do not personally own S2 but by all accounts (anecdotal and official reviews) Galaxy S2 is the fastest phone on the planet right now (and definitely much faster than iPhone 4). And while it has some quirks (just like every other phone), lag is not one of them.

Hunabku
Jul 4, 2011, 01:46 AM
And, he [Cringely] recently said Apple's North Carolina Data Center was mostly empty. This was after the keynote when Jobs showed photos of the inside and said it was complete.

What Jobs actually said was something like "Now witness the firepower of this armed and fully operatonal battle station!"

Cringely hasn't witnessed the fire power since his home planet of ignoramus has not been blown up and unfortunately he continues to blog. :rolleyes:

MattInOz
Jul 4, 2011, 01:51 AM
Yes since 2001-2002 apple and google and Twitter and Facebook and intel and AMD have done a lot of innovating. I guess England has ARM. And you guys have nice koalas. :)

Point is, I simply doubt that guy's claims about UK and Australia.

Didn't you hear Wifi was ours to start with?
It's not all cute furry killer animals around here.

Oh worth noting some very interesting chunks of Google ie. the earth team are in oz. As well, as AMD and intel research teams. Then again there are lots of them all over the world.

Still doesn't answer the question of what your stats report?

RalfTheDog
Jul 4, 2011, 01:53 AM
As far as I know only 1 more version of Android for phones. Honeycomb is not for phones.

I agree releasing with Fryo at this point is not really acceptable. A reasonable time frame from release of Android to it being updated for the phones in my book is 3 months. That is enough time for the manufactures to get all there crap installed on the phone. They do not have to change the radio stuff so it not like AT&T and others should have any real say in it.

It should not matter what OS the phone is shipped with. The phone should upgrade to the latest OS the moment it is plugged into a computer connected to the internet.

It's interesting to me how rapidly Apple has advanced in the phone business.

Four years ago it entered what was called the upper part of the phone market with aspirations of capturing 5%. They had no patents relating to phones per sec. just some UI patents.

Within that first year Apple became the phone to own, and they were only on one network in one country. Now, Apple is greater then 5% worldwide, and a third of the USA market for smart phones. The iPhone 4 and 3GS are the number one and two selling phones, and now Apple owns a portfolio of important communications patents other manufacturers would love to have.

I cannot think of a similar market that has been so rapidly transformed by a new player as the smart phone market. Maybe the tablet market, but nothing else comes to mind.

iPod, iPad, Google search.

Why does it make sense for them to have patents for LTE/4G? They aren't a carrier. Are they going to build a 4G network that only Apple devices can use? (That would be in character for them, wouldn't it...?) Or are they just going to sit on them and extract fees for their use, just because they can, and it increases their power in the business? (Oh, right, that's how business works...)

I know I'm skeptical that having these patents in Apple's hands will be a good thing for consumers. Especially given their track record in terms of working with other companies, or the rates they offer their developers and content providers.

I'm still not convinced that our patent system does more good than harm.

If you don't have access to the patents, you can't make a phone.

lilo777
Jul 4, 2011, 01:58 AM
What Jobs actually said was something like "Now witness the firepower of this armed and fully operatonal battle station!"

Cringely hasn't witnessed the fire power since his home planet of ignoramus has not been blown up and unfortunately he continues to blog. :rolleyes:

Does it really matter whether this site is full or empty? With iCloud, Apple is probably doomed from the start anyways. It's just not their forte. To run this thing, they have to use somebody else's hardware (rumored to be HP) and software (rumored to be Microsoft). The problem is that Apple just can not cooperate with anybody on a large scale. I have an impression that they are actually universally hated in the industry and no, money can not buy everything.

MorphingDragon
Jul 4, 2011, 02:15 AM
Yes since 2001-2002 apple and google and Twitter and Facebook and intel and AMD have done a lot of innovating. I guess England has ARM. And you guys have nice koalas. :)

Point is, I simply doubt that guy's claims about UK and Australia.

Can't we just write this up as the pointless exaggeration that this is?

I just doubt any "innovation" statistics in general, especially if they're based around patent output. Culture around patents and laws will affect the statistics in a way the statistics wont show or account for.

EG: New Zealand now has a 0% output for software patents. Why? We banned them in 2010. Australia has well defined laws compared to the USA over what is patentable and what isn't. Most of the stuff that flies in America won't fly in Australia.

Truffy
Jul 4, 2011, 02:21 AM
Meanwhile, the largest contributor of the consortium was said to be Apple who put up $2 billion "for outright ownership of Nortel's Long Term Evolution (4G) patents as well as another package of patents supposedly intended to hobble Android."
Competition drives innovation, so this is not good news whether or not you buy into Android (I don't).

Ijustfarted
Jul 4, 2011, 02:39 AM
I hate reading about still this patent crap. it just ends up screwing the consumer

Ijustfarted
Jul 4, 2011, 02:41 AM
Tell me when you can swipe a screen without a lag and I'll read your comment again.

What? Lol such obvious bs

314631
Jul 4, 2011, 03:06 AM
This is great news for consumers. It was important our team kept those patents out of Google's hands. Well done :apple: for winning again!

Truffy
Jul 4, 2011, 04:19 AM
I'm personally hoping that they are delaying the iPhone four until september so that they can add LTE support & att has time to roll out the service.
Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted? iPhone4 has been out since last year.
This is great news for consumers. It was important our team kept those patents out of Google's hands. Well done :apple: for winning again!
You need to give your brain a rest, it's showing the strain of all that koolaid. :rolleyes:

daxomni
Jul 4, 2011, 04:41 AM
Hopefully these patents will allow Apple to drive a stake in Android's heart and put an end to their only real competition.

gnasher729
Jul 4, 2011, 05:06 AM
Of all the companies on the list and going after the patents the one that I wanted to own them the least was Apple. Reason being is Apple has a long history of not licencing out patents and doing damage long term but it could be after talks with the DOJ Apple could easily already be required to licence them out at a set rate and my guess what it is currently before they were sold and required to do it for who ever request them at that same rate.

Apple would be in exactly the same position as Nokia was in the Nokia vs. Apple case. All the time it was clear that Nokia had to license the patents, but there was disagreement over the terms, and later an agreement on terms that we don't know. The same thing would happen again.

Hopefully these patents will allow Apple to drive a stake in Android's heart and put an end to their only real competition.

Not going to happen. It would be against the law, it would be against reality, and it would be against Apple's company spirit to operate in this way. Obviously since Google bid $4 billion and Apple and others bid $4.5 billion, you can expect that Android manufacturers will be hundreds of millions in license fees. Just as Apple and RIM would have been paying hundreds of millions in license fees if they hadn't won.


Why does it make sense for them to have patents for LTE/4G? They aren't a carrier. Are they going to build a 4G network that only Apple devices can use? (That would be in character for them, wouldn't it...?) Or are they just going to sit on them and extract fees for their use, just because they can, and it increases their power in the business? (Oh, right, that's how business works...)

First, it keeps Apple (and RIM, and Microsoft, and Sony, and EMC) out of the position they found themselves in when Apple was sued by Nokia, only possibly worse. Second, obviously license fees will be paid by anyone using these patents, so a substantial amount of the money will come back. If it is correct that RIM and Ericcson paid $1.1 bn for their share, then it probably means that between them they expect to get about the same money back in saved license fees that they don't have to pay, plus whatever share they get out of license fees paid by others.

silentnite
Jul 4, 2011, 06:26 AM
By now one would think the prices of mobile phones & contracts would be down with all this competition. Yet prices continue to soar. Wake me when T-Mobile gets an iPhone.

*LTD*
Jul 4, 2011, 06:44 AM
Remember when Apple was still the "young fledgling," "underdog" company?

Fortune 500
:
:
Yadda Yadda
:
:
And now this?

"This"? "This" is when they're a) finally making money, b) expanding, c) consolidating their power.

This was the plan all along. That's the whole point. Except the difference with Apple is that they continue to run the operation like a startup. They aren't the biggest company by any means, but look at what they've done over the past decade. Pure efficiency. Apple is still small. But they're doing some amazing things. They aren't the big, lumbering, slow dinosaur that those other guys are.

They are so much better as a company, as an efficient corporate entity, as a mover-and-shaker, than they ever were in the past.

Yes, the Lisa and Macintosh (I'm using the older, longer name) days are over. At some point as the company grows they're going to move beyond them. You can't stay "fledgeling" forever. It's still a business, and a business that is right at the centre of a very volatile environment. Grow, make a ton of money, beat your rivals to the punch, or die.

squirrellydw
Jul 4, 2011, 06:52 AM
Have you ever used a Samsung Galaxy S2? In case you do, don't be surprised when you sell your iPhone and switch to the Galaxy -- I did. Not only the hardware of the Galaxy is superior to Apple's hardware, the software is also better in every aspect - and unlike iOS, Android does NOT try to restrict the user whenever and wherever possible.

Apple has lost the leadership and no longer has the better products; iOS 5 and iCloud are "me too" designs that basically only implement features that Android has had for a long time now. Since being good is not sufficient when somebody else is better, Apple is now trying pathetic legal games to regain the pole position.


This has to be the funniest thing I read today.

Hardware is about the same but the iPhone is metal not cheap plastic. LCD vs AMOLED has not proven to be better and I believe the iPhone 4 still has the best DPI, I could be wrong on that. Android restricts you just like IOS does unless you believe Android is open. Why do people "root" Android if it's so open?

IOS5 is a "me too" design, then what is Android? The iPhone was the first popular phone that used icons and a touch screen. Android was originally being built to compete with the Blackberry and then they changed it to work like the iPhone. This is one of the reasons why most original Android phones had a trackball.

iCloud is Apples new version of MobileMe. MobileMe worked fine with the iPhone to sync contacts, calendars, etc. Apple just made iCloud free and to compete better with Google. Apple is not playing a game that was Google who played games bidding like kids. Apple is doing what any other company would do with the patents. Also, Apple hasn't done anything with them yet so it's all speculation.

Before you start spewing crap learn your facts.

The Phazer
Jul 4, 2011, 07:02 AM
I find this rumour pretty unlikely to be honest. I don't think Microsoft would be willing to enter into a coalition that would give a significant collection of 4G patents to Apple... That would be... incredibly stupid of them.

Popeye206
Jul 4, 2011, 07:03 AM
I'm a fan of Apple, but I think it's pathetic that Apple (or Google) would buy patents to "hobble" their biggest competitor. The iPhone is a better phone because of the competition with Android. I have no problems with them protecting their own intellectual property like they are doing with Samsung and their blatant ripoff of the iPhone. But to buy patents for the sole purpose of hurting the competition is anti-competitive, and wrong IMO.

I do realize that in the end, it's not really Apple's fault and that they are just playing by the rules of the game. If they hadn't ponied up the $2B, then Google would have done the same to "hobble" Apple. So I don't blame Apple entirely, and instead blame the entire environment created by the awful existing system. But in the end, the consumers lose, which sucks.

You make the best point that totally negates your initial point. The patents were up for sale. Someone was going to buy them and it makes total sense for Apple to snag these while they can. If anything, to stop other companies from slowing them down. Now they can control their move to 4G and not be under the thumb of someone else. Obviously, they will have to license the tech too, so it's revenue and less hassle.

A good way to spend some of their extra cash and a smart move.

ChrisTX
Jul 4, 2011, 07:19 AM
Have you ever used a Samsung Galaxy S2? In case you do, don't be surprised when you sell your iPhone and switch to the Galaxy -- I did. Not only the hardware of the Galaxy is superior to Apple's hardware, the software is also better in every aspect - and unlike iOS, Android does NOT try to restrict the user whenever and wherever possible.

Only the dual core processor of the Galaxy S bests the Apple A4 in the iPhone 4. Otherwise, I would argue that the hardware is better in the iPhone 4. Keeping in mind that iOS runs just fine on the iPhone 4. Also stating that the software is better in every aspect is a matter of your opinion, and should not be stated as fact.

squirrellydw
Jul 4, 2011, 07:21 AM
I find this rumour pretty unlikely to be honest. I don't think Microsoft would be willing to enter into a coalition that would give a significant collection of 4G patents to Apple... That would be... incredibly stupid of them.


MS will probably have full rights to them. That was probably part of the deal.

squirrellydw
Jul 4, 2011, 07:30 AM
How come Samsung's product are a cheap crap? They use the same components as iPhone (well, Samsung produces most of them anyways) the biggest difference being the display. And we all know that SAMOLED is more expensive than LCD.

It is somewhat amusing to see people gloating about Apple getting their hands on Nortel's patents. I doubt those are really that good for two reasons:
* have you ever heard about Nortel before? Probably not. Then why do you think that their innovations were that good?
* if their innovations were that good, why did they go bankrupt?

Most likely, this patent sale is not going to change that much in a grand scheme of things.


Well, I do not personally own S2 but by all accounts (anecdotal and official reviews) Galaxy S2 is the fastest phone on the planet right now (and definitely much faster than iPhone 4). And while it has some quirks (just like every other phone), lag is not one of them.

First just because SAMOLED is more expensive than LCD does NOT make it better. What is the DPI on it? Last I knew the iPhone 4 still had the best display, am I wrong?

As for not knowing who NOTEL is, you must be 12 or very young. I'm not trying to be mean but Nortel used to be a very big company. They made a few big mistakes and thats all it took for them to go bellie up.

xxBURT0Nxx
Jul 4, 2011, 07:31 AM
I find this rumour pretty unlikely to be honest. I don't think Microsoft would be willing to enter into a coalition that would give a significant collection of 4G patents to Apple... That would be... incredibly stupid of them.
they join together as groups so that it costs each individual company less money and they still get the patents that they want.
MS will probably have full rights to them. That was probably part of the deal.guess you didn't read the article...

Meanwhile, the largest contributor of the consortium was said to be Apple who put up $2 billion "for outright ownership of Nortel's Long Term Evolution (4G) patents as well as another package of patents supposedly intended to hobble Android."

squirrellydw
Jul 4, 2011, 07:47 AM
Originally Posted by MacRumors
Meanwhile, the largest contributor of the consortium was said to be Apple who put up $2 billion "for outright ownership of Nortel's Long Term Evolution (4G) patents as well as another package of patents supposedly intended to hobble Android."

From my understanding this just means that Apple owns them and gets the license fees from them. This doesn't mean that MS, Sony and everyone else in the group can't use them free of charge. I think they can all use the patents, itís just some are owned by the different companies now. I think its cross license deal, maybe I wrong.

gkpm
Jul 4, 2011, 08:29 AM
Not sure I trust Cringely on this one. There's little actual fact out there we can use to check up on his claims.

After reading his other blog post on his opinion that Apple's data centre is empty - based on basic misinterpretations about data centres, data and even gets some known industry numbers wrong - I'll hold off until more is known.

Glideslope
Jul 4, 2011, 08:31 AM
Wouldn't be surprised if Apple had control on the grounds that they add these to the patent pool for LTE and get themselves and all the players of the consortium better terms for use of the overall pool. (even maybe better terms on the 3G pool to boot).

Take some of the sting out of Nokia's tail in defining Fair and Reasonable terms to the industry.

Yep it seems like a defensive/negotiation tactic.

Completely Defensive. Also ensures ANOTHER steady stream of revenue (big picture here people). Apple will not attempt to stop others products with this acquisition, and honestly can't.

Focus on the filing Friday against Samsung, and Samsung's response on Saturday. This is the fight. Not Nortel. :apple:

Plutonius
Jul 4, 2011, 08:43 AM
I'm a fan of Apple, but I think it's pathetic that Apple (or Google) would buy patents to "hobble" their biggest competitor.

They are not getting the patents to hobble their competitors. They need the patents as protection for their own products and will license the patents.

darkplanets
Jul 4, 2011, 09:14 AM
And this is what you do with a multi billion dollar war chest.

Good purchase, IMO. It gives them a very nice strategic position. That said, because it was done via a consortium, it's likely that Microsoft/RIM/Sony Ericsson, etc have licensing agreements-- at least that's the way I read it. In fact, it's almost certain. How it probably worked out is that each company has a patent chest that they are sole owners of, and since they all went in together, each company is cross licensing to each other at a reduced monetary rate in exchange for IP rights. It's only logical really-- these other companies would not allow Apple to control the 4G IP otherwise.

What this allows Apple to do is maintain a steady monetary stream, IP cross licensing, and a large negotiating factor for those not in the initial cross licensing patent pool. This means LG, HP, Google, and Nokia are in the targets, and likely this was also done to reduce the pull Nokia has on 4G phone IP.

To those stating that Apple will use this to stifle opponents (Android, etc)-- unlikely. They really aren't in a tenable position to cut off the IP, and it's likely that they'll freely cross license it for the reasons stated above. Keep in mind Apple also needs some of Nokia's 4G patents, among others.

afs_nj
Jul 4, 2011, 09:15 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

This is beautiful and ironic. The one who knows when and how to introduce products to market, is the one who has some control over related supporting patents.

Popeye206
Jul 4, 2011, 09:15 AM
Originally Posted by MacRumors
Meanwhile, the largest contributor of the consortium was said to be Apple who put up $2 billion "for outright ownership of Nortel's Long Term Evolution (4G) patents as well as another package of patents supposedly intended to hobble Android."

From my understanding this just means that Apple owns them and gets the license fees from them. This doesn't mean that MS, Sony and everyone else in the group can't use them free of charge. I think they can all use the patents, itís just some are owned by the different companies now. I think its cross license deal, maybe I wrong.

Nope... I think you're dead on right.

This is not about hobbling the competition, it's about patents being up for sale and Apple felt it was a good investment to own them. If anything, I would think Apple would be more worried about the reverse since they have been taking the rest of the industry to school for the past 5 years.

afs_nj
Jul 4, 2011, 09:18 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I have no problems with them protecting their own intellectual property like they are doing with Samsung and their blatant ripoff of the iPhone.

Have you ever used a Samsung Galaxy S2? In case you do, don't be surprised when you sell your iPhone and switch to the Galaxy -- I did. Not only the hardware of the Galaxy is superior to Apple's hardware, the software is also better in every aspect - and unlike iOS, Android does NOT try to restrict the user whenever and wherever possible.

Apple has lost the leadership and no longer has the better products; iOS 5 and iCloud are "me too" designs that basically only implement features that Android has had for a long time now. Since being good is not sufficient when somebody else is better, Apple is now trying pathetic legal games to regain the pole position.

This is almost TOO funny! You must be part of Google's target market--testosterone-driven males younger than 30 years.

*LTD*
Jul 4, 2011, 09:27 AM
I find this rumour pretty unlikely to be honest. I don't think Microsoft would be willing to enter into a coalition that would give a significant collection of 4G patents to Apple... That would be... incredibly stupid of them.

MS is known for doing "incredibly stupid" things. I wouldn't put anything past them as long as Ballmer is at the wheel.

lkrupp
Jul 4, 2011, 09:33 AM
You may well be right. They did have a chat with the government about this, I recall, so maybe the government will require Apple to license the LTE patents. It's not their style, but when you have such a key patent I guess it has to be shared.

Then why buy in the first place if required to share? Makes no common sense other than defense and carrying a big stick.

And do we need to remind the Apple haters and Android lovers that infest this forum that Google makes money by selling customer data to advertisers, not by selling Android or Android phones? With the government opening an anti-trust investigation and a little pressure from Apple over patents perhaps Google could be persuaded to spin off Android or even abandon it all together. I wonder how it would fair with every manufacturer doing its own thing with what's left. I also wonder what happens if Google decides to start charging OEMs a licensing fee to use Android, like Microsoft. IMHO the crystal ball is very cloudy when it comes to Android's future.

toddybody
Jul 4, 2011, 09:33 AM
Happy 4th all my MacRumors friends, stay well and God bless






(something something, Nortel LTE-Topical)

:)

tinman0
Jul 4, 2011, 09:44 AM
I find this rumour pretty unlikely to be honest. I don't think Microsoft would be willing to enter into a coalition that would give a significant collection of 4G patents to Apple... That would be... incredibly stupid of them.

Microsoft don't make phones. Nor does Google for that matter.

However, Samsung, Nokia, LG, HTC and the rest all make phones and will be ponying up some cash in the next few weeks.

Just remember, everytime you see 4G mentioned on tv, that's the Apple cash register ringing ;) This is a long way from 1999.

*LTD*
Jul 4, 2011, 10:01 AM
Happy 4th all my MacRumors friends, stay well and God bless






(something something, Nortel LTE-Topical)

:)

You too! :)

lilo777
Jul 4, 2011, 10:09 AM
First just because SAMOLED is more expensive than LCD does NOT make it better. What is the DPI on it? Last I knew the iPhone 4 still had the best display, am I wrong?

As for not knowing who NOTEL is, you must be 12 or very young. I'm not trying to be mean but Nortel used to be a very big company. They made a few big mistakes and thats all it took for them to go bellie up.

iPhone's display does have higher pixel density (330 vs 218) but it's disputable whether such high density even make sense (remember Apple had to double screen resolution in each dimension to make software transition easier). It appears that there is a benefit in increasing PD above 218 but it's less clear at which point this benefit ends. On the other hand, SAMOLED brings huge advantages in at least two aspects: true black colors and contrast ratio (100,000:1 vs 800:1 for iPhone). Another less obvious benefit of OLE display is that it is thinner than LCD (because it does not require backlit).

Being in USA I have not had a chance to compare the two displays by myself but here is a a verdict from one Indian publication: (http://gadgets.ndtv.com/shownews.aspx?id=GADEN20110179257&Sec=REVIEWS)

Verdict

If there is a smartphone out there which manages to provide the sheer speed of the iPhone then it has to be the Samsung Galaxy S2. There are no two ways about it - it is currently the fastest phone in the market and quite reasonable priced at Rs 32890, given the amount tech crammed into it. It even manages to eclipse the iPhone's Retina display, which is a feat in itself. While all this is good we still don't like Samsung's TouchWiz in-spite of all the improvements.

gkpm
Jul 4, 2011, 10:14 AM
With the government opening an anti-trust investigation and a little pressure from Apple over patents perhaps Google could be persuaded to spin off Android or even abandon it all together. I wonder how it would fair with every manufacturer doing its own thing with what's left. I also wonder what happens if Google decides to start charging OEMs a licensing fee to use Android, like Microsoft. IMHO the crystal ball is very cloudy when it comes to Android's future.

That's a good point. I was surprised by Google's bidding based on pointless (for the purpose) mathematical constants. Almost seems they were bored and just going through the motions.

Quite a change from all the initial PR and having been the ones casting the first bid.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 4, 2011, 10:29 AM
Microsoft don't make phones. Nor does Google for that matter.

However, Samsung, Nokia, LG, HTC and the rest all make phones and will be ponying up some cash in the next few weeks.

Just remember, everytime you see 4G mentioned on tv, that's the Apple cash register ringing ;) This is a long way from 1999.

That is assuming they did not already make an agreement with Nortel and I believe that part of the sell required the one who bought the patents to honor any agreements already in place by Nortel.


So in other words it is safe to say that it will not effect most of them as chances are really good they already had agreements in place before hand. Samsung and HTC both have LTE phones already out in the market so they have to already have an agreement in place.

gkpm
Jul 4, 2011, 10:32 AM
iPhone's display does have higher pixel density (330 vs 218) but it's disputable whether such high density even make sense

There's nothing disputable about it, side by side the iPhone is clearly sharper - if you can't see it you need new glasses.

The dual core Exymos is nice and fast but not very energy efficient, I used one for a week and never made it past 5-6pm on a typical workday. There's also not many apps to really give it a go, you only notice the performance in the web browser.

Having seen how the A5 chip performs on the iPad 2, Apple just needs to ship a phone with that and it'll be ahead even in the the performance curve.

Let's not even go to build quality and choice of materials on the two phones.

cmaier
Jul 4, 2011, 10:37 AM
Didn't you hear Wifi was ours to start with?
It's not all cute furry killer animals around here.

Oh worth noting some very interesting chunks of Google ie. the earth team are in oz. As well, as AMD and intel research teams. Then again there are lots of them all over the world.

Still doesn't answer the question of what your stats report?

I can say with absolutely certainty that there is no AMD research in oz. I can say with absolute certainty that to the extent Intel has research teams in oz (I don't know), most of their research is done in Washington state, Israel, Sunnyvale, and Austin.

As for the stats report, I have no idea. I don't vouch for it at all. That dude wanted evidence, so I pointed at it, but my point (made repeatedly) is that I never claimed the U.S. is #1 in innovation - I only dispute that Australia and the U.K. are higher in innovation.

Can't we just write this up as the pointless exaggeration that this is?

I just doubt any "innovation" statistics in general, especially if they're based around patent output. Culture around patents and laws will affect the statistics in a way the statistics wont show or account for.

EG: New Zealand now has a 0% output for software patents. Why? We banned them in 2010. Australia has well defined laws compared to the USA over what is patentable and what isn't. Most of the stuff that flies in America won't fly in Australia.

I'm tired of this statement. You cannot get a "software patent" in the U.S., either (at least not like everyone implies). You cannot patent a pure algorithm or abstract idea, same as Australia. You are patenting a machine that performs some series of steps; these steps may be directed by software (or cams, levers, and dancing squirrels) You do the same thing in Australia. In New Zealand there are guidelines permitting "embedded software" to be patented, same as the U.S. (which permits patenting of media containing instructions causing a machine to perform specific steps). In both Australia and the U.S. you can patent a business method if it is performed by a computer. The "well defined" laws in Australia are essentially the same as in the U.S. as far as what is patentable, but it is easier to get a patent in Australia than in the U.S. - most folks consider the USPTO to do a better job of finding prior art than other countries. People who complain about U.S. "software patents" are people who have not read the claims of the patent and/or who don't work as patent agents in the U.S. or other countries.

The simple reason you find less to object to in these two countries is there are fewer high-tech companies native to these locations, so far fewer patents filed in the computer-related industries, and foreign countries do not consider these markets (particularly New Zealand, but also Australia) to be important locations for bringing national stage patents. (Remember that inventors have to file patents in every country they want protection - this can get very expensive, so the U.S., Europe, Japan, and China, and to a lesser extent Canada, tend to be the priorities.)

farmboy
Jul 4, 2011, 10:57 AM
I'm well aware of how the system works. I just think it sucks for the consumers and does nothing but drive up prices. Why? I'll tell you a little secret: Steve Jobs' name might be on the signature line for that $2B wire transfer, but it might as well be your name and mine, because it's the consumers paying for it in the end.

That would be an incorrect conclusion. It would suck for consumers a lot more if companies could not receive time-limited protection and a fair ROI for all their R&D. It's the only way you're going to see innovation in products. Did you like rotary dial phones that much?

gkpm
Jul 4, 2011, 11:08 AM
That would be an incorrect conclusion. It would suck for consumers a lot more if companies could not receive time-limited protection and a fair ROI for all their R&D. It's the only way you're going to see innovation in products. Did you like rotary dial phones that much?

Exactly, what motivation would companies have to put effort and money into improving or developing anything, if it could just be copied by any fly-by-night company the week after and sold for cheaper?

We probably wouldn't even have phones let alone mobile ones, since that whole industry was built on the backs of patents (and patent lawsuits eg Graham Bell vs Western Union back in 1878!)

farmboy
Jul 4, 2011, 11:10 AM
All this crap about patents and lawsuits over these smartphones makes me want to do one thing...

Go back to a normal cell phone.

Which of course you wouldn't have without patents.

kdarling
Jul 4, 2011, 11:14 AM
And do we need to remind the Apple haters and Android lovers that infest this forum that Google makes money by selling customer data to advertisers, not by selling Android or Android phones?

Not sure why you felt the need to throw in "haters" and "lovers", since the fact that Google sells ad space by user info is well known by everyone.

Apple does the same with their own ad sales, using targeted info such as where we are, and what media and apps we've bought via iTunes.

However, neither Google nor Apple actually sell any personal info.

farmboy
Jul 4, 2011, 11:37 AM
The "well defined" laws in Australia are essentially the same as in the U.S. as far as what is patentable, but it is easier to get a patent in Australia than in the U.S. - most folks consider the USPTO to do a better job of finding prior art than other countries. People who complain about U.S. "software patents" are people who have not read the claims of the patent and/or who don't work as patent agents in the U.S. or other countries.

In my experience this is absolutely true. We had several office actions here, none in Australia, and much faster issue. Canada, on the other hand....12 years before it issued, with zero office actions. Talk about broken.

snebes
Jul 4, 2011, 11:42 AM
That's a good point. I was surprised by Google's bidding based on pointless (for the purpose) mathematical constants. Almost seems they were bored and just going through the motions.

Quite a change from all the initial PR and having been the ones casting the first bid.

When you bid on something on ebay, for instance, would you be the person bidding at $300, or the person bidding $301? Most people understand this concept of overbidding and even $1 over isn't enough anymore. That is why Google bid odd numbers; $314.15 compatible to this example. It was a [geeky] strategy, one that seems to be lost on a few of you.

cmaier
Jul 4, 2011, 11:45 AM
When you bid on something on ebay, for instance, would you be the person bidding at $300, or the person bidding $301? Most people understand this concept of overbidding and even $1 over isn't enough anymore. That is why Google bid odd numbers; $314.15 compatible to this example. It was a [geeky] strategy, one that seems to be lost on a few of you.

Since everyone knew everyone else's bids and was allowed to respond, your argument makes no sense. I bid $300. Google bids $314.15. I bid $315 and give Google a quizzical look. Google bids $391.14. I bid $400 and slap Google upside the head.

How, exactly, does bidding physical constants help them?

bassboat
Jul 4, 2011, 11:51 AM
Apple Bashers: Have you ever considered what your cell phone would be like today had it not been for Apple? ALL of the rest of the manufacturers were lazy and in bed with the carriers. Talk about control, you can thank Verizon for their heavy handed control of wanting a piece of every action on the cell phone, hence curtailing the many different apps that we would have been denied had it not been for Jobs. AT&T? All they want to do is sell crappy service at a premium price. Apple may not have the fastest phone or the absolute best display or some other perceived best but they make products that are easy to work, are sexy, and that people work. Go ahead and bash Apple but every time taht you bash them you simply look envious and stupid.

lilo777
Jul 4, 2011, 01:06 PM
Apple Bashers: Have you ever considered what your cell phone would be like today had it not been for Apple? ALL of the rest of the manufacturers were lazy and in bed with the carriers. Talk about control, you can thank Verizon for their heavy handed control of wanting a piece of every action on the cell phone, hence curtailing the many different apps that we would have been denied had it not been for Jobs. AT&T? All they want to do is sell crappy service at a premium price. Apple may not have the fastest phone or the absolute best display or some other perceived best but they make products that are easy to work, are sexy, and that people work. Go ahead and bash Apple but every time taht you bash them you simply look envious and stupid.

The irony is too thick here :)

ThisIsNotMe
Jul 4, 2011, 01:18 PM
Not going to happen. It would be against the law, it would be against reality, and it would be against Apple's company spirit to operate in this way. Obviously since Google bid $4 billion and Apple and others bid $4.5 billion, you can expect that Android manufacturers will be hundreds of millions in license fees. Just as Apple and RIM would have been paying hundreds of millions in license fees if they hadn't won.

Except for the fact that Android manufacturers don't have the margins to pay hundreds of millions in licensing fees.

FakeWozniak
Jul 4, 2011, 01:40 PM
All this crap about patents and lawsuits over these smartphones makes me want to do one thing...

Go back to a normal cell phone.

I don't care for the patents/lawsuit stuff either, but I don't want to go back to just a telephone.

I am sure there are many that would agree this is a big industry game at this point. Could you imagine a startup trying to make the iPhone back in 2007? A startup could not have done what Apple did unless they had a few billion laying around. The moment the industry recognizes a threat from a startup, the lawsuits begin and the startups turns into shutdowns.

Only big companies can afford the $1-2B USD to buy technology like this. I believe we would have more innovation if small companies could play in the game too. The industry is only as innovative as Apple, Google, HP, HTC, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, RIM, Samsung, etc. are themselves. These players all seem to work out licensing deals in the end, so the patents don't really affect the other big players; it only seems to crystallize the players. It's no surprise how the entrenched players in the industry were shaken up and angered when Apple and Google threw the balance off.

Imagine if we did away with patents for a moment... Would Apple still be doing well? I think so. At this point there are already 100 models of smart phones on the market (even doing multi-touch without a license), but the iPhone is still king of the hill. It's not what the iPhone does, but how Apple does it. The execution of the product... design, quality, usability, etc. These are all art, not science. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the companies listed above weren't displaced by Chinese iPhone counterfeiters.

marksman
Jul 4, 2011, 01:41 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Of all the companies on the list and going after the patents the one that I wanted to own them the least was Apple. Reason being is Apple has a long history of not licencing out patents and doing damage long term but it could be after talks with the DOJ Apple could easily already be required to licence them out at a set rate and my guess what it is currently before they were sold and required to do it for who ever request them at that same rate.

Not Apple's style to do that. This strikes me as a defensive purchase. This is how it would go:

Competitor: "Aha! Pay up, Apple. We own these patents that cover the iPhone!"

Apple: "Don't think so. We own the LTE patents. Nice LTE phone you have there, shame if anything were to happen to it."

Competitor: "Never mind."

Chances are legally Apple can not do it. I would not be surpised if Apple has some pretty stick guide lines it agree to with the DOJ. Going against it would mean some pretty heavy fines.

Could you refrain from posting in any legal related threads?

firewood
Jul 4, 2011, 01:44 PM
Since everyone knew everyone else's bids and was allowed to respond, your argument makes no sense. I bid $300. Google bids $314.15. I bid $315 and give Google a quizzical look. Google bids $391.14. I bid $400 and slap Google upside the head.

How, exactly, does bidding physical constants help them?

Strange looking numbers do help. You boss likely secretly authorized you to bid up to some round number like $310 or $320. A weird number bid is less likely to be just under your authorized amount enabling you to immediately top their bid.

cmaier
Jul 4, 2011, 01:46 PM
Strange looking numbers do help. You boss likely secretly authorized you to bid up to some round number like $310 or $320. A weird number bid is less likely to be just under your authorized amount enabling you to immediately top their bid.

Nonsense. If you were authorized to bit $320, bidding $310 works as well as $314.16.

The idea that there was some strategic benefit from bidding like that is nonsense.

*LTD*
Jul 4, 2011, 01:51 PM
Except for the fact that Android manufacturers don't have the margins to pay hundreds of millions in licensing fees.

Interesting point.

charlituna
Jul 4, 2011, 02:02 PM
How strange.

Not really. Apparently this is not unlike the whole LodSys thing. Apple was supposedly one of several companies that paid part of the buying costs for a pack of licenses in exchange for a lifetime license for Apple and (they claim) their partners. But they didn't own the patents which were sold to LodSys. but LodSys doesn't want to honor the original agreement about the partners issue.

It seems this sort of thing happens all the time when one company doesn't have quite enough money or want to spend it.



I'm personally hoping that they are delaying the iPhone 5 until september so that they can add LTE support and att has time to roll out the service.

Even if ATT rolls out whatever they are planning by September it won't be vast enough to be worth it to Apple to support it in the iphone 5. Which actually has nada to do with the delay. They were forced to delay by the March Earthquake.

RalfTheDog
Jul 4, 2011, 02:02 PM
Nonsense. If you were authorized to bit $320, bidding $310 works as well as $314.16.

The idea that there was some strategic benefit from bidding like that is nonsense.

It has the advantage of being fun. Fun is always a good strategy.

charlituna
Jul 4, 2011, 02:05 PM
I'm a fan of Apple, but I think it's pathetic that Apple (or Google) would buy patents to "hobble" their biggest competitor.

THe only person making that claim is some tech blogger who may or may not know what he's talking about


I wonder if Apple would actually make other manufacturers license LTE. I'm not sure how good that would be.

Of course they will. That's how the game works. The question to ponder is if Apple will be dicks about it and try to charge some crazy terms for those that weren't part of the buying group.

Also keep in mind the FTC and DOJ vetted all the players in this fight and it is possible that they "approved" each bidder on the condition that they must legally license said patents or face serious issues (remember these two groups are the anti-trust etc folks they can have products banned and so on)


Let's not forget, if Apple hadn't developed the iPhone - for years in secrecy, this form factor phone wouldn't exist. If Apple hadn't done the same with the iPad, tablets wouldn't exist.


I have to agree and disagree with you. in part because it seems like you are putting too much weight on the secrecy issue. Not to mention that you make it sound like Apple has been working on this for decades when really the project started in like 2003. And there were touch based phones (granted not multi-touch) and tablets before the iphone and ipad.

But I do agree with you that without someone having some serious brass ones to go out large and publicly like Apple did, we probably wouldn't be where we are at this time. And who knows, perhaps one day we'll read some interview where Jobs admits that he released the iphone at that particular moment because he was facing the real chance he might die and he wanted to go out with a bang and not a whimper and it seemed like the best way to do it.


Apple hobble Android?... What do you think Google was trying to do to Apple with a bid of there own? As sad as it seems this is a form competition.


True but there is an implication in the statement that doesn't make Apple look so good. Basically the implication that Apple wanted control so they could refuse to let Google license the tech and sue them if they tried without a license. Whereas Google might have wanted it to make their stuff before and win over iOS in a 'fair fight'.

This implication is likely why the DOJ/FTC stepped in and why they may have warned every company that refusing to play with folks would be seen as an anti-trust move and get them in serious water. Double since they were warned ahead of time so they can't claim they assumed it was okay

gkpm
Jul 4, 2011, 02:21 PM
It has the advantage of being fun. Fun is always a good strategy.

Ah yes, fun is really the best option in financial circles, sure the people at the auction were very amused. That's probably why they all queued up to join Google in a consortium.. oh wait.

Maybe the Federal Reserve can start setting interest rates based on "funny" numbers too.

gnasher729
Jul 4, 2011, 02:33 PM
Except for the fact that Android manufacturers don't have the margins to pay hundreds of millions in licensing fees.

Google was willing to spend four thousand million dollars for the patent package. So there is plenty of money there to pay for license fees.


Not really. Apparently this is not unlike the whole LodSys thing. Apple was supposedly one of several companies that paid part of the buying costs for a pack of licenses in exchange for a lifetime license for Apple and (they claim) their partners. But they didn't own the patents which were sold to LodSys. but LodSys doesn't want to honor the original agreement about the partners issue.

In the Lodsys case, Apple's argument is not that the license applies to Apple's partners. Their argument is that all the actions covered by Lodsys' patents are in fact done by Apple and nobody else, therefore only Apple needs a license.

marksman
Jul 4, 2011, 02:33 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Let's not forget, if Apple hadn't developed the iPhone - for years in secrecy, this form factor phone wouldn't exist. If Apple hadn't done the same with the iPad, tablets wouldn't exist.

Samsung, etc, wouldn't know what to do. There'd be nothing to copy.
I can't believe you actually typed this drivel.
The "form factor" existed already.

As for the LTE patents, if they are part of an industry standard, Apple has to license them to everyone who requests it.
Ask Nokia about their GSM patents. ;)


EDIT: Nice down votes.... guess the truth hurts. :rolleyes:

Really? Full screen touch screen w these dimensions existed before the iPhone?

farmboy
Jul 4, 2011, 02:48 PM
Except for the fact that Android manufacturers don't have the margins to pay hundreds of millions in licensing fees.

The license fee could be assessed per unit made or sold as well, annual amount, or some combination.

marksman
Jul 4, 2011, 02:49 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Ya.....being the most innovative culture this planet has ever seen is a real negative.

(Hint: Out patent system is why America is the most innovative culture this planet has ever seen)
I want to see proof that "America is the most innovative culture this planet has ever seen". Otherwise I call that total BS. I'm sure per capita countries like Australia and the UK are just as innovative. If not more so.

So provide some facts before you blurt out stuff like that.

Not even close.

xxBURT0Nxx
Jul 4, 2011, 03:25 PM
Even if ATT rolls out whatever they are planning by September it won't be vast enough to be worth it to Apple to support it in the iphone 5. Which actually has nada to do with the delay. They were forced to delay by the March Earthquake.
att is not the only carrier of the iPhone, and vzw will have a very solid LTE footprint by september. I'm not saying that's why they delayed the phone, I said I hope that it is the reason, although still probably unlikely.

And where is your source that they had to delay the iphone because of the earthquake? That sounds like non-sense to me...

tinman0
Jul 4, 2011, 04:17 PM
That is assuming they did not already make an agreement with Nortel and I believe that part of the sell required the one who bought the patents to honor any agreements already in place by Nortel.


So in other words it is safe to say that it will not effect most of them as chances are really good they already had agreements in place before hand. Samsung and HTC both have LTE phones already out in the market so they have to already have an agreement in place.

Doesn't matter if they had agreements in place, they are ponying up cash to Apple either way.

My original post still stands, have a read of it some time.

mdriftmeyer
Jul 4, 2011, 05:16 PM
I'm a fan of Apple, but I think it's pathetic that Apple (or Google) would buy patents to "hobble" their biggest competitor. The iPhone is a better phone because of the competition with Android. I have no problems with them protecting their own intellectual property like they are doing with Samsung and their blatant ripoff of the iPhone. But to buy patents for the sole purpose of hurting the competition is anti-competitive, and wrong IMO.

I do realize that in the end, it's not really Apple's fault and that they are just playing by the rules of the game. If they hadn't ponied up the $2B, then Google would have done the same to "hobble" Apple. So I don't blame Apple entirely, and instead blame the entire environment created by the awful existing system. But in the end, the consumers lose, which sucks.

What do you think Edison did for decades? GE, IBM, HP and more have all done it.

Apple didn't buy patents to keep the innovation from evolving, but they bought patents knowing they will have a strategic advantage over their competition [Google Android] and will force Google to invest in R&D to come up with novel ways to match the competition.

cmaier
Jul 4, 2011, 05:20 PM
Doesn't matter if they had agreements in place, they are ponying up cash to Apple either way.

My original post still stands, have a read of it some time.

Of course it matters. If a company has a license to patents, they are licensed even if the patents are sold to another party. (Unless the patent license specifically terminated the license in such a situation, but such a license would be exceptionally uncommon).

mdriftmeyer
Jul 4, 2011, 05:21 PM
When you bid on something on ebay, for instance, would you be the person bidding at $300, or the person bidding $301? Most people understand this concept of overbidding and even $1 over isn't enough anymore. That is why Google bid odd numbers; $314.15 compatible to this example. It was a [geeky] strategy, one that seems to be lost on a few of you.

Yes, lets all bid like we're on the Price is Right. ``What was the last bid? $300. I'll bid $301!''

They are not getting the patents to hobble their competitors. They need the patents as protection for their own products and will license the patents.

They won't license non-LTE patents to Google. They won't be required to do so. They will license LTE as the FCC will require it. Google will have to innovate on those non-LTE patents in novel ways producing their own patents or face legal action.

swagi
Jul 4, 2011, 05:49 PM
Apple Bashers: Have you ever considered what your cell phone would be like today had it not been for Apple? ALL of the rest of the manufacturers were lazy and in bed with the carriers. Talk about control, you can thank Verizon for their heavy handed control of wanting a piece of every action on the cell phone, hence curtailing the many different apps that we would have been denied had it not been for Jobs. AT&T? All they want to do is sell crappy service at a premium price. Apple may not have the fastest phone or the absolute best display or some other perceived best but they make products that are easy to work, are sexy, and that people work. Go ahead and bash Apple but every time taht you bash them you simply look envious and stupid.

Actually quite the same as ever. Or to paraphrase your post...

Apple Fanbois: Have you ever considered reading coverage about the Mobile World Conference in Barcelona? You know, the one that Apple so happily dismisses. The one were all major players on the planet show real smartphones and not some stylish AngryBirds stuff. Come one - Zynga a presenter at WWDC - need I say more. "You now get push notification, when your crops are ready to harvest!" Great. Can't live without it!

Americans: Have you ever considered that the world couldn't laugh as hard as it should when your majesty Steve Jobs went on stage and said EDGE is sufficient? FWIW there ARE LTE phones out there. Just not in the US, as being a mobile carrier in the US must be a real PITA. Only country worse will be Australia or Canada. Lots of white spots on the map.

"My Apple product XYZ is the sexiest thing on earth"-crowd: Yeah. Go for it, fashion victim.

cmaier
Jul 4, 2011, 05:58 PM
Actually quite the same as ever. Or to paraphrase your post...

Apple Fanbois: Have you ever considered reading coverage about the Mobile World Conference in Barcelona? You know, the one that Apple so happily dismisses. The one were all major players on the planet show real smartphones and not some stylish AngryBirds stuff. Come one - Zynga a presenter at WWDC - need I say more. "You now get push notification, when your crops are ready to harvest!" Great. Can't live without it!

Americans: Have you ever considered that the world couldn't laugh as hard as it should when your majesty Steve Jobs went on stage and said EDGE is sufficient? FWIW there ARE LTE phones out there. Just not in the US, as being a mobile carrier in the US must be a real PITA. Only country worse will be Australia or Canada. Lots of white spots on the map.

"My Apple product XYZ is the sexiest thing on earth"-crowd: Yeah. Go for it, fashion victim.

Sadly in America we don't have off on Fridays to stay home and battery condition battery-sapping LTE phones. We're too busy inventing things and saving the world from dictators.

What's a "barcelona?" Does it taste better with ketchup?

Rodimus Prime
Jul 4, 2011, 06:08 PM
Yes, lets all bid like we're on the Price is Right. ``What was the last bid? $300. I'll bid $301!''

My favorit was one time I saw the 1-4 be bid. Talk about a sure fired win for the 4th guy.

squirrellydw
Jul 4, 2011, 06:12 PM
Doesn't matter if they had agreements in place, they are ponying up cash to Apple either way.

My original post still stands, have a read of it some time.

You guys are forgetting one important detail, just because Nortel had the patents doesn't mean they licensed them out. If they didn't then everyone is probably going to have to pay up.

gkpm
Jul 4, 2011, 06:14 PM
Come one - Zynga a presenter at WWDC - need I say more. "You now get push notification, when your crops are ready to harvest!" Great. Can't live without it!

I don't get the games either, but a lot of people apparently do. Did you miss Zynga aiming for a $1 billion (that's US billions btw) IPO, for a valuation of $15-$20 billion.

Know another company who had a $20 billion valuation 7 years ago? Try Google.

Maybe if European companies (ie Nokia) had taken this things more seriously instead of pissing away money on the latest Web 2.0 lunacies, the MWC in Barcelona would be more interesting. But of course there's always the paella. Umm.

daxomni
Jul 4, 2011, 06:20 PM
Sadly in America we don't have off on Fridays to stay home and battery condition battery-sapping LTE phones. We're too busy inventing things and saving the world from dictators.
Rather humbling to remember how all these dictators we've "saved" the rest of the world from were previously on our payrolls, eh cmaier?

squirrellydw
Jul 4, 2011, 06:21 PM
Actually quite the same as ever. Or to paraphrase your post...

Apple Fanbois: Have you ever considered reading coverage about the Mobile World Conference in Barcelona? You know, the one that Apple so happily dismisses. The one were all major players on the planet show real smartphones and not some stylish AngryBirds stuff. Come one - Zynga a presenter at WWDC - need I say more. "You now get push notification, when your crops are ready to harvest!" Great. Can't live without it!

Americans: Have you ever considered that the world couldn't laugh as hard as it should when your majesty Steve Jobs went on stage and said EDGE is sufficient? FWIW there ARE LTE phones out there. Just not in the US, as being a mobile carrier in the US must be a real PITA. Only country worse will be Australia or Canada. Lots of white spots on the map.



"My Apple product XYZ is the sexiest thing on earth"-crowd: Yeah. Go for it, fashion victim.

Yes you are correct, the U.S. is way behind in cell technology and a few other areas. However, I think the U.S. is one of the largest markets so they design a phone round that. Could you imagine if the first iPhone in 2007 was released with LTE. Almost everyone in the U.S. would be like what is that and the rest would be like wait, I can use it yet since no one here supports LTE yet. Apple is based in the U.S. so they are going to design products for us U.S. people :)

By the way what is a REAL SMARTPHONE?

*LTD*
Jul 4, 2011, 06:26 PM
Actually quite the same as ever. Or to paraphrase your post...

Apple Fanbois: Have you ever considered reading coverage about the Mobile World Conference in Barcelona? You know, the one that Apple so happily dismisses. The one were all major players on the planet show real smartphones

The 800-pound gorilla in the room is the one that's never there: Apple.

http://gigaom.com/apple/apple-isnt-at-mwc-but-apple-is-everywhere-at-mwc/

This one is interesting:

http://news.oneindia.in/2011/02/17/tech-mwc-2011-best-mobile-award-apple-iphone-aid0102.html

http://www.i4u.com/45390/apples-spectre-looms-large-mwc-2011

It's Apple's show. Even in absentia.

That's about as "real" as you can get. Apple doesn't actually need to be there to get all the play.

cmaier
Jul 4, 2011, 06:30 PM
Rather humbling to remember how all these dictators we've "saved" the rest of the world from were previously on our payrolls, eh cmaier?

Wow. Not get sarcasm much?

gkpm
Jul 4, 2011, 06:40 PM
Yes you are correct, the U.S. is way behind in cell technology and a few other areas. However, I think the U.S. is one of the largest markets so they design a phone round that. Could you imagine if the first iPhone in 2007 was released with LTE. Almost everyone in the U.S. would be like what is that and the rest would be like wait, I can use it yet since no one here supports LTE yet. Apple is based in the U.S. so they are going to design products for us U.S. people :)

He's just trolling, or lying which is worse. There was no LTE in Europe in 2007.

The first commercial LTE network in Europe was in Stockholm and Oslo only at the very end of 2009 (two weeks away from 2010), and for data dongles only. The second commercial implementation is just launching in Germany now, and the first handsets are coming out. So the US is actually already ahead on this.

What the Europeans thought was strange was no 3G (which is not LTE) on the first iPhone. But that was justified because commercial 3G chipsets were rare at the time and the 3G phones around had to be tailored - cutting down on features - for low power consumption.

Apple wanted to take a general computing platform and put it on a phone, but technology then would only give them 3-4 hours of the battery.

gkpm
Jul 4, 2011, 06:47 PM
Wow. Not get sarcasm much?

Ah sarcasm, another European invention.

cmaier
Jul 4, 2011, 06:48 PM
Ah sarcasm, another European invention.

I think you're thinking of irony.

gkpm
Jul 4, 2011, 07:24 PM
I think you're thinking of irony.

Nah, they're both Greek concepts, fed by the French and raised by the British.

kdarling
Jul 4, 2011, 07:44 PM
He's just trolling, or lying which is worse. There was no LTE in Europe in 2007.

Or he's just mistaken. There's no reason to call names.

The first commercial LTE network in Europe was in Stockholm and Oslo only at the very end of 2009 (two weeks away from 2010), and for data dongles only. The second commercial implementation is just launching in Germany now, and the first handsets are coming out. So the US is actually already ahead on this.

This is correct. LTE covers 1/3 of the US population right now. It'll be another three years before LTE covers even 1/12 of Europe's.

What the Europeans thought was strange was no 3G (which is not LTE) on the first iPhone. But that was justified because commercial 3G chipsets were rare at the time and the 3G phones around had to be tailored - cutting down on features - for low power consumption.

When the iPhone came out, virtually every other smartphone in the US and the world had 3G. Moreover, some countries like the UK had almost no EDGE coverage since they had gone 3G years before.

Apple left out 3G for two reasons: 1) it save money making the first model, and 2) it let them negotiate with ATT for a cheaper data plan. Battery conservation was way down the list.

gkpm
Jul 4, 2011, 08:14 PM
Or he's just mistaken. There's no reason to call names.

Oh, of course not. His post was exemplary, how can I even try to tarnish such sensible and rational speech.

Apple left out 3G for two reasons: 1) it save money making the first model, and 2) it let them negotiate with ATT for a cheaper data plan. Battery conservation was way down the list.

Well if you want to be precise it's also because Apple didn't have the 3G patents in place with InterDigital yet (the ones they thought would be enough and not need Nokia's), those only came after the launch of the iPhone.

But battery life was an important factor, the earliest phone closer to the the iPhone in general specs (but with far worse software, eg WAP only browser) was the LG Prada. The 3G version of that phone had terrible battery life, eg 3h talk time in 3G (on paper, even worse in real life).

When the iPhone 3G came out it had a more sensible +5h talk time (real as usual of Apple's specs). So you may be mistaken on the "list" of Apple's priorities.

SactoGuy18
Jul 4, 2011, 08:14 PM
I'm a fan of Apple, but I think it's pathetic that Apple (or Google) would buy patents to "hobble" their biggest competitor.

I hope that Apple's legal department carefully reads up on the famous cases brought by the US government against the United Shoe Machinery Corporation in the first half of the 20th Century, where the company was sued for abusing patent rights to snuff out competitors. We could see a stipulation from the Federal government that Apple must license the patents on Nortel's LTE implementation at low cost to other cellphone makers in order to ensure real competition for 4G LTE cellphones.

marksman
Jul 4, 2011, 08:25 PM
Actually quite the same as ever. Or to paraphrase your post...

Apple Fanbois: Have you ever considered reading coverage about the Mobile World Conference in Barcelona? You know, the one that Apple so happily dismisses. The one were all major players on the planet show real smartphones and not some stylish AngryBirds stuff. Come one - Zynga a presenter at WWDC - need I say more. "You now get push notification, when your crops are ready to harvest!" Great. Can't live without it!

Americans: Have you ever considered that the world couldn't laugh as hard as it should when your majesty Steve Jobs went on stage and said EDGE is sufficient? FWIW there ARE LTE phones out there. Just not in the US, as being a mobile carrier in the US must be a real PITA. Only country worse will be Australia or Canada. Lots of white spots on the map.

"My Apple product XYZ is the sexiest thing on earth"-crowd: Yeah. Go for it, fashion victim.

European Bitterness and Angst is smelly.

*LTD*
Jul 4, 2011, 08:32 PM
I hope that Apple's legal department carefully reads up on the famous cases brought by the US government against the United Shoe Machinery Corporation in the first half of the 20th Century, where the company was sued for abusing patent rights to snuff out competitors. We could see a stipulation from the Federal government that Apple must license the patents on Nortel's LTE implementation at low cost to other cellphone makers in order to ensure real competition for 4G LTE cellphones.

You'd better call them to make sure. The best legal team working for the most valuable company in tech might have overlooked it completely.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 4, 2011, 08:33 PM
I hope that Apple's legal department carefully reads up on the famous cases brought by the US government against the United Shoe Machinery Corporation in the first half of the 20th Century, where the company was sued for abusing patent rights to snuff out competitors. We could see a stipulation from the Federal government that Apple must license the patents on Nortel's LTE implementation at low cost to other cellphone makers in order to ensure real competition for 4G LTE cellphones.

who not saying that Apple might of been required to do that by the DOJ to be allowed to bid. That could easily of been among the requirements for them to be allowed to even bid for the patents.

cmaier
Jul 4, 2011, 09:22 PM
I hope that Apple's legal department carefully reads up on the famous cases brought by the US government against the United Shoe Machinery Corporation in the first half of the 20th Century, where the company was sued for abusing patent rights to snuff out competitors. We could see a stipulation from the Federal government that Apple must license the patents on Nortel's LTE implementation at low cost to other cellphone makers in order to ensure real competition for 4G LTE cellphones.

You know, I had posted a nasty response to this, but now I give up. I merely suggest if you are going to cite a case, next time you read it.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/247/32/

Unsubscribe.

realeric
Jul 4, 2011, 09:33 PM
Have you ever used a Samsung Galaxy S2? In case you do, don't be surprised when you sell your iPhone and switch to the Galaxy -- I did. Not only the hardware of the Galaxy is superior to Apple's hardware, the software is also better in every aspect - and unlike iOS, Android does NOT try to restrict the user whenever and wherever possible.

Apple has lost the leadership and no longer has the better products; iOS 5 and iCloud are "me too" designs that basically only implement features that Android has had for a long time now. Since being good is not sufficient when somebody else is better, Apple is now trying pathetic legal games to regain the pole position.

Did you enjoy the counterfeit or copycat? Strange. :cool:

firewood
Jul 4, 2011, 10:05 PM
I'm a fan of Apple, but I think it's pathetic that Apple (or Google) would buy patents to "hobble" their biggest competitor.

I'm posting this on the 4th of July. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the right to pass laws allowing patent holders to hobble any and all of their competition. This in order to encourage Progress of Science and useful Arts (for a limited time).

MorphingDragon
Jul 5, 2011, 12:39 AM
I'm tired of this statement. You cannot get a "software patent" in the U.S., either (at least not like everyone implies). You cannot patent a pure algorithm or abstract idea, same as Australia. You are patenting a machine that performs some series of steps; these steps may be directed by software (or cams, levers, and dancing squirrels) You do the same thing in Australia. In New Zealand there are guidelines permitting "embedded software" to be patented, same as the U.S. (which permits patenting of media containing instructions causing a machine to perform specific steps). In both Australia and the U.S. you can patent a business method if it is performed by a computer. The "well defined" laws in Australia are essentially the same as in the U.S. as far as what is patentable, but it is easier to get a patent in Australia than in the U.S. - most folks consider the USPTO to do a better job of finding prior art than other countries. People who complain about U.S. "software patents" are people who have not read the claims of the patent and/or who don't work as patent agents in the U.S. or other countries.

I'm aware that software patents is slang. Have some tea and scones and sit down for awhile. You clearly need some time in your happy place.

tenly
Jul 5, 2011, 12:42 AM
If RIM, as a part of this consortium received a paid-up license to use all of the Nortel patents in exchange for their 770 million dollars, what would happen if RIM were acquired by another company? Would the acquiring company also inherit the paid up license to use all of those patents?

With the recent drop in RIM's stock price, Google could purchase RIM for about 15 billion dollars. If that price includes the license rights for 4.5 billion dollars worth of patents as well as all of RIM's existing patents, customer base and infrastructure, then Google may have dropped out of the bidding war for the patents because they see more value in acquiring RIM outright to gain access to the patents than by purchasing the patents outright.

A lot of Apple's success with the iPhone comes from controlling both the hardware and the software. If Google wants to imitate that model, acquiring RIM at its current valuation may make a lot of sense.

RalfTheDog
Jul 5, 2011, 01:24 AM
This is not the basic form of LTE that is on the market today. This is an advanced LTE that will take several years to hit the market. By the time this is available, Apple will have obliterated Google and people will write about them in history books. I don't understand what the big deal is.

:)

mdriftmeyer
Jul 5, 2011, 01:30 AM
I'm aware that software patents is slang. Have some tea and scones and sit down for awhile. You clearly need some time in your happy place.

He's an Engineer who happens to be a Patent Attorney. I'm sure he takes it personal when people constantly misrepresent his profession.

My favorit was one time I saw the 1-4 be bid. Talk about a sure fired win for the 4th guy.

I never thought I'd say this but The Price is Right should have ended when Bob Barker retired. Growing up watching that was a right of passage in America. Now it's just painful to watch.

And nothing like all the 70s babes.

swagi
Jul 5, 2011, 01:49 AM
He's just trolling, or lying which is worse. There was no LTE in Europe in 2007.

The first commercial LTE network in Europe was in Stockholm and Oslo only at the very end of 2009 (two weeks away from 2010), and for data dongles only. The second commercial implementation is just launching in Germany now, and the first handsets are coming out. So the US is actually already ahead on this.

What the Europeans thought was strange was no 3G (which is not LTE) on the first iPhone. But that was justified because commercial 3G chipsets were rare at the time and the 3G phones around had to be tailored - cutting down on features - for low power consumption.

Apple wanted to take a general computing platform and put it on a phone, but technology then would only give them 3-4 hours of the battery.

I never said LTE phones were out in 2007. I said they are out now ITW. But thanks for the flowers...

My post was and is just to remember you that your so-called 'most innovative company on the planet' intentionally delivers lower grade hardware components - but the RDF kicks in so it is *magical*.

Apple's history of the iPhone is one of marketing genius. Considering the product, it's really meh. And yes, I perfectly see that none of you ever cared about other mobiles. But it's great to see a forum bashing Google for data-mining while they are all collecting location-based data and soon will deploy *their whole life in form of documents* on Apple based servers.

Now come out blind followers and crucify your Galilei.

MorphingDragon
Jul 5, 2011, 02:04 AM
He's an Engineer who happens to be a Patent Attorney. I'm sure he takes it personal when people constantly misrepresent his profession.

The cat's out of the bag.

Just like about every other technological or scientific profession on the planet. Yes it does suck, but there's not much you can do about it. Getting personal about publicly skewed terms is unnecessary stress.

ssk2
Jul 5, 2011, 02:42 AM
Why do people:

a) think this will obliterate Google?
b) want to obliterate Google?

Seriously, why is a Google, a company that is made up of thousands of normal, working people, that puts out some good products, so hated by many on here? Why do you want to see another company destroyed? How on earth can you hate a company (which is an abstract legal concept) so much?

It just blows my mind...

gnasher729
Jul 5, 2011, 02:55 AM
If RIM, as a part of this consortium received a paid-up license to use all of the Nortel patents in exchange for their 770 million dollars, what would happen if RIM were acquired by another company? Would the acquiring company also inherit the paid up license to use all of those patents?

That's why you pay a lawyer to write a contract. You can be sure that there are pages and pages of contracts that have been signed, and a small detail like this has been taken care of. Most likely if for example Google bought RIM, they would be allowed to continue selling Blackberries under the license, but they would not use the license for any Android phones.

Missfortune
Jul 5, 2011, 03:39 AM
Talk about a power position. Wow.

Totally! Well done Apple. :D

gkpm
Jul 5, 2011, 04:49 AM
Why do people:

b) want to obliterate Google?

Maybe because Google is like a fungus?

Google bought Keyhole, turned it into Google Maps, and made it impossible for anybody else to compete as a mapping company in the mapping space.

Youíve seen fairy rings in the forest, a ring of mushrooms? The real living organismís underground, the mycelium. It absorbs all the nutrients from that spot, completely absorbs all the nutrients and nothing else can grow there and then it grows in the next margin out, so you get this expanding circle and nothing can compete with the mushroom.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-saffo-qa-2011-6#ixzz1RDq9YWM9

Doesn't it sound similar to Android as well? Google bought the company, paid for more development and gave it away free to take over the mobile market.

By giving half baked (beta in Google's words) stuff away for free they are eroding industry after industry and killing off any chance of competition, unless others use Google's ad-supported model, where they dominate.

Fungus can be good and delicious, but not when they take over the whole forest. Then it may be time to kill it off.

Also because when the regulator wants to look at how much the fungus has grown, the fungus builds a huge wall with 18 lobbyist companies (and growing) around itself:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/04/google_lobbyists/

Thunderhawks
Jul 5, 2011, 07:09 AM
Why does it make sense for them to have patents for LTE/4G? They aren't a carrier. Are they going to build a 4G network that only Apple devices can use? (That would be in character for them, wouldn't it...?) Or are they just going to sit on them and extract fees for their use, just because they can, and it increases their power in the business? (Oh, right, that's how business works...)

I know I'm skeptical that having these patents in Apple's hands will be a good thing for consumers. Especially given their track record in terms of working with other companies, or the rates they offer their developers and content providers.

I'm still not convinced that our patent system does more good than harm.

It makes sense for them as LTE is for now the thing until the next innovation in speed.

Instead of spending millions of legal dollars to figure out who owns what, they now own a big part of it.

They will IMO license things out for two reasons:

1) They want that money back
2) They will be forced to by the government

Adriasil
Jul 5, 2011, 07:14 AM
I think people are missing the point, with both the Samsung and Apple products. HTC phones wipe the floor with both of them.

840quadra
Jul 5, 2011, 07:40 AM
I think people are missing the point, with both the Samsung and Apple products. HTC phones wipe the floor with both of them.

You went through the entire forum registration process just to post that pot shot? :confused:

kdarling
Jul 5, 2011, 08:49 AM
.. Talk about control, you can thank Verizon for their heavy handed control of wanting a piece of every action on the cell phone, hence curtailing the many different apps that we would have been denied had it not been for Jobs.

You're thinking of dumbphones. Verizon's (and most carriers') smartphones have almost always been able to download any app from anywhere.

What Jobs did was to take the dumbphone walled garden concept and lower the bar of entry for developers, while retaining similar control and royalty taking.

...At this point there are already 100 models of smart phones on the market (even doing multi-touch without a license), but the iPhone is still king of the hill. ...

What license do you think is needed for multi-touch?

*LTD*
Jul 5, 2011, 08:51 AM
I think people are missing the point, with both the Samsung and Apple products. HTC phones wipe the floor with both of them.

Wrong website. Try here:

http://phandroid.com/

bassboat
Jul 5, 2011, 09:11 AM
You're thinking of dumbphones. Verizon's (and most carriers') smartphones have almost always been able to download any app from anywhere.

What Jobs did was to take the dumbphone walled garden concept and lower the bar of entry for developers, while retaining similar control and royalty taking.



What license do you think is needed for multi-touch?My simple point missed by most but not all, was that Apple brought a smart phone to the market that other lazy, non-innovation companies would even try to do. It is my opinion that these phone manufacturers were taking what the carriers would allow to be made. As I recall Jobs was ready to do his own cell phone network in competition with the major carriers. Did you see Nokia, Samsung, Motorola or any of the rest ready to take it to that level in order to bring an easy to use phone with a lot of features to the market. Think about it, Apple had no phone 5 years ago and now everyone is shooting at them. Give them credit where it is do without malice. When some company comes up with a phone that blows Apple out of the water it will not be because of posts like these, it will be because of consumers voting with their billfolds.

alent1234
Jul 5, 2011, 09:52 AM
I never said LTE phones were out in 2007. I said they are out now ITW. But thanks for the flowers...

My post was and is just to remember you that your so-called 'most innovative company on the planet' intentionally delivers lower grade hardware components - but the RDF kicks in so it is *magical*.

Apple's history of the iPhone is one of marketing genius. Considering the product, it's really meh. And yes, I perfectly see that none of you ever cared about other mobiles. But it's great to see a forum bashing Google for data-mining while they are all collecting location-based data and soon will deploy *their whole life in form of documents* on Apple based servers.

Now come out blind followers and crucify your Galilei.

how is the hardware lower grade? iphone 4 had the fastest CPU/GPU in mobile when it came out. the A5 CPU is a screamer on my ipad.

i have an android phone and the software is crap compared to iOS. i also looked at the atrix and word on the internet was that the tegra 2 was mostly hype and that the software was crap as well. only reason i'm on android is the 4.3" screen and the $20 phone price

shompa
Jul 5, 2011, 11:03 AM
I'm a fan of Apple, but I think it's pathetic that Apple (or Google) would buy patents to "hobble" their biggest competitor. The iPhone is a better phone because of the competition with Android. I have no problems with them protecting their own intellectual property like they are doing with Samsung and their blatant ripoff of the iPhone. But to buy patents for the sole purpose of hurting the competition is anti-competitive, and wrong IMO.

I do realize that in the end, it's not really Apple's fault and that they are just playing by the rules of the game. If they hadn't ponied up the $2B, then Google would have done the same to "hobble" Apple. So I don't blame Apple entirely, and instead blame the entire environment created by the awful existing system. But in the end, the consumers lose, which sucks.

There is a huge different between Apple and Google.

Apple innovated the whole iPhone concept. Touch interface with gestures. Every single Android phone is a copy of it.
Google did not invent Android. They bought Android + Handsprings and cloned Android from iPhone prototypes.

In worst case for Android: they would have to pay a fee for 4G to Apple. That is nothing strange since Android makers already pay licensing fee to Microsoft between 5-12 dollars per Android phone. Yes. Google loves to break patents and force its customer to pay royalties for their stolen goods.

If Google had won the patent they would have made an cross licensing agreement with Apple: "yes. We copied the iPhone, let us license it. Here, you get 4G instead"

Rodimus Prime
Jul 5, 2011, 11:12 AM
My simple point missed by most but not all, was that Apple brought a smart phone to the market that other lazy, non-innovation companies would even try to do. It is my opinion that these phone manufacturers were taking what the carriers would allow to be made. As I recall Jobs was ready to do his own cell phone network in competition with the major carriers. Did you see Nokia, Samsung, Motorola or any of the rest ready to take it to that level in order to bring an easy to use phone with a lot of features to the market. Think about it, Apple had no phone 5 years ago and now everyone is shooting at them. Give them credit where it is do without malice. When some company comes up with a phone that blows Apple out of the water it will not be because of posts like these, it will be because of consumers voting with their billfolds.

Apple never was going to run its own cell network. I do believe they looked into it to see if it was possible but as soon as they got the cost required to get it off the ground they said screw it. Plus they would of never been able to handle the bandwidth demand.

As for the iPhone Apple had some leg up on everyone when it came out. It did not have legacy devices to deal with so it could start fresh. It could speck everything out exaclty how it wanted.

Look at who took off in the past few years. You have Android and iOS. They were able to start fresh. Palm started fresh but were hurt by not having deep enough pockets. Time will tell how HP pocket will help them.
MS market share dropped low enough that they could start fresh and it looks fairly promising and MS is using its very deep pockets to get things going and doing fairly well. It is having faster App growth than the others hitting mile stones at a much faster pace than Android or iOS did. Plus once people start using it they seem to really like it.

RIM marketshare was always way to great for it to do a reboot so they have been rather trap moving much more slowly and it shows. While they are bleeding marketshare they are still having growth and they are still very strong in enterprise. RIM will not risk enterprise for the consumer market it.

shompa
Jul 5, 2011, 11:16 AM
I think people are missing the point, with both the Samsung and Apple products. HTC phones wipe the floor with both of them.

1) HTC pays Microsoft 5 dollar for every sold Android.
2) If you are an American: You support shipping jobs outside of USA.
3) If you look at benchmarks with the latest Android phones to iPhone 4: They barely beat iPhone in real world benchmarks. Why? Apples A5 has NOVA SIMD Extensions in its processor, something non of the other ARM users have. The latest HTC also have 50% less battery time. It does not work shooting video in 1920x1080 since it is not constant frame rate (it does 10-30 fps = useless)
4) 5% of Android phones have been infected by malware. Great work Google. Unix has been secure since 1960. It took Google to make it insecure by installing apps as Root.
5) Buy Android if you like have no syncing software. It is real fun to play around in Explorer and drag files back and fore. This is 1970 computing.
6) Buy Android if you like to be a system integrator. You need to install a firewall. Install apps for saving battery including appkiller. Out of the box you have 3 hours battery time.
7) If you think 1 dollar is to expensive of an app. Use Android and do as all other Android users and use pirated apps. There are pirate apps stores that let you download anything you want free.
8) Pray that HTC update your OS. Google support the phone for 18 month, but the problem is that every single telephone maker needs to compile its own version and its own gui. You have to wait at least 6 month after an Google official release before your phone get updated.
9) Pray that the apps work. There are over 200 telephones running Android with different OS versions + different hardware. The poor developer needs to validate against 200+ phones to know that the app work. Fragmentation is stupid.

Apple users are prepared to use Android when it is better. Android users would never use Apple products. I don't understand that religious stand.

bassboat
Jul 5, 2011, 11:17 AM
Apple never was going to run its own cell network. I do believe they looked into it to see if it was possible but as soon as they got the cost required to get it off the ground they said screw it. Plus they would of never been able to handle the bandwidth demand.

As for the iPhone Apple had some leg up on everyone when it came out. It did not have legacy devices to deal with so it could start fresh. It could speck everything out exaclty how it wanted.

Look at who took off in the past few years. You have Android and iOS. They were able to start fresh. Palm started fresh but were hurt by not having deep enough pockets. Time will tell how HP pocket will help them.
MS market share dropped low enough that they could start fresh and it looks fairly promising and MS is using its very deep pockets to get things going and doing fairly well. It is having faster App growth than the others hitting mile stones at a much faster pace than Android or iOS did. Plus once people start using it they seem to really like it.

RIM marketshare was always way to great for it to do a reboot so they have been rather trap moving much more slowly and it shows. While they are bleeding marketshare they are still having growth and they are still very strong in enterprise. RIM will not risk enterprise for the consumer market it.

All good points but still doesn't address the question of why the other companies sat on their hands until Apple showed them how to do it and the untapped market that existed. As for Apple not starting their own network you are probably right but AT&T didn't take the chance that they couldn't pull it off. They blinked.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 5, 2011, 11:26 AM
1) HTC pays Microsoft 5 dollar for every sold Android. We do not know for sure. HTC also makes WP7 and MS could be giving them a better deal there so they could publicly say they have a deal on Android.
2) If you are an American: You support shipping jobs outside of USA. That applies to just about anything including the iPhone so what is your point there
3) If you look at benchmarks with the latest Android phones to iPhone 4: They barely beat iPhone in real world benchmarks. Why? Apples A5 has NOVA SIMD Extensions in its processor, something non of the other ARM users have. The latest HTC also have 50% less battery time. It does not work shooting video in 1920x1080 since it is not constant frame rate (it does 10-30 fps = useless)If you are talking about the Thunderbolt not exactly relevant there. Thunderbolt is first gen LTE tech. Battery drainer
4) 5% of Android phones have been infected by malware. Great work Google. Unix has been secure since 1960. It took Google to make it insecure by installing apps as Root. Source on this one. I am going to call massive BS here. Also source on bench mark proof.
5) Buy Android if you like have no syncing software. It is real fun to play around in Explorer and drag files back and fore. This is 1970 computing. BS again. If you want to syncing most of the manufactures provide software that does it. Music video you can easily use Double Twist and it handles everything pulling and updating from iTunes.
6) Buy Android if you like to be a system integrator. You need to install a firewall. Install apps for saving battery including appkiller. Out of the box you have 3 hours battery time. BS there. You do not need a task killer or a firewall. This is standard FUD
7) If you think 1 dollar is to expensive of an app. Use Android and do as all other Android users and use pirated apps. There are pirate apps stores that let you download anything you want free.There is jailbroken iPhones that pirate Apps. This is again BS.
8) Pray that HTC update your OS. Google support the phone for 18 month, but the problem is that every single telephone maker needs to compile its own version and its own gui. You have to wait at least 6 month after an Google official release before your phone get updated. You miss the agreement. The manufactures support the phone for 18 months. Not Google. It is an agreement that the manufactures and carriers get a much more timely update. 3 months is good amount of time. 6 months I agree is insane.
9) Pray that the apps work. There are over 200 telephones running Android with different OS versions + different hardware. The poor developer needs to validate against 200+ phones to know that the app work. Fragmentation is stupid.
FUD. This is pure BS and you do not know what you are talking about it
Apple users are prepared to use Android when it is better. Android users would never use Apple products. I don't understand that religious stand.what the hell. I like my Android phone, I like my iPod and use an iPod every day. I own a Macbook, I encourage my parents to buy a Mac and they did. Both my brother and sister use macs. Yes my primary computer now is a windows computer but it is a better tool for what I need it to do. I like most android users am in the boat right tool for the right job. Do not relay on Apple to cover it all.

See my responses in Bold to most of your FUD and BS.


All good points but still doesn't address the question of why the other companies sat on their hands until Apple showed them how to do it and the untapped market that existed. As for Apple not starting their own network you are probably right but AT&T didn't take the chance that they couldn't pull it off. They blinked.

Umm it did address it. Look at what I said. Most of them had to much invested in what they put out in 2003-2005 range if not earlier. Smart phones were starting to take off before Apple hit the market. They were trap on older hardware and software.
Market share needed to drop low enough for them to be able to reboot or they needed to be new to the market it.

Rim is the only one who marketshare had not drop low enough for a reboot.

Bilbo63
Jul 5, 2011, 11:37 AM
What's stopping Google from buying RIM and getting both the Blackberry maker and the Nokia patents in one fell swoop? (and a discount, I might add)

Then again if Apple in fact has "sole ownership" of 4G patents and others that would help them cripple Android, it may not help Google much in potential future patent suits.

shompa
Jul 5, 2011, 11:45 AM
Why do people:

a) think this will obliterate Google?
b) want to obliterate Google?

Seriously, why is a Google, a company that is made up of thousands of normal, working people, that puts out some good products, so hated by many on here? Why do you want to see another company destroyed? How on earth can you hate a company (which is an abstract legal concept) so much?

It just blows my mind...


Google is hated for many reasons:
They sat i Apples boardroom. The Android phone is a direct clone of iPhone prototypes. No own innovation. Google just bought Android, Handsprings and cloned iPhone.

Goolge sniffs open Wifi Networks. They take picture of our houses with satellites. They have street view that map out homes. Google stores every single search you have done in your life. You can't get them to delete this.

Google loves to have you documents and mail so they can data mine to get better advertising rates.

Android does not respect your privacy. They share your telephone number, location. gender and more just to data mine and get more advertising money. Google does not care about security. 5% of Android phones are already infected by malware. This does not affect Googles adverting rates.

Google lie and brainwash people. Just look at Chrome. It has about 20% of the browser market. All chrome users: Safari sux. Chrome rules. Chrome uses just does not understand that both uses Webkit for rendering.

Goolge does not follow standards. They love to buy stuff and make it their standard. For example their own video and audio codec. What is wrong with that? 1) Companies using those codecs can be sued. Googel does not care. 2) For us consumers it is bad since no graphic chip can accelerate these codecs. Less battery time. Phones/computer that can't play those files.

Google have no respect for copyright. Over 90% of youtube clips are pirated. Google knows that over 90% of Android phones uses pirated software, Google does not care, since they only want to sell you advertising. In fact: Androids main selling point is pirated software and emulators. Exactly the same tactic that MSFT used for their windows.

Google search engine is the world largest link collection to wares. Somehow they get away with it. Piratebay get years in prison and million of fines for providing exact same service.

Google has many times get caught using open software where they have simple remover the the author part. This is the reason why companies that uses Google products can get sued. For example: Android makers that have to pay licensing fees to Microsoft for every single sold Android phone. Google does not care. They want to sell advertising.

There are many MANY more examples.

The only thing Fandroids have is: It is open. Apple is closed and evil.
Apple uses are stupid. They only pay for the brand. You get more hardware for the same price with Android/Dell.

But without Apple: How much have Google innovated in Phones? Or MSFT in operation system? Support the innovators!

last:
They have done huge surveys about this:
Apple users are prepared buy Android if it is better.
Android uses would never buy any Apple product.

Most Apple uses use MSFT windows too
Almost no windows uses use Apple (because it is "bad". It is only designer products and you get more hardware with a home build/dell machine)

shompa
Jul 5, 2011, 11:55 AM
See my responses in Bold to most of your FUD and BS.




Umm it did address it. Look at what I said. Most of them had to much invested in what they put out in 2003-2005 range if not earlier. Smart phones were starting to take off before Apple hit the market. They were trap on older hardware and software.
Market share needed to drop low enough for them to be able to reboot or they needed to be new to the market it.

Rim is the only one who marketshare had not drop low enough for a reboot.

Every single Android make have to pay license fee to MS.
I see no point argument with you since you don't even know this fact.
You could have Googled 1 minute and checked that fact. You can do it with everything else I wrote. It is all fact.

Your points are just speculation and dreaming. It is impossible to have a discussion then.

I tell you: The earth is round. And you tell: FUD. Its flat. :rolleyes:

Microsoft today makes over 300 million dollars in licensing fees for Android vendors. They make more on Android phones then Windows Mobile. Windows mobile license is 15 dollar. So MS actually don't care to much about if you use Android or WinMo, they make the same money.

So far 5 Android vendors have signed up with MSFT. Between 5-12 dollar per Android phone. Nothing to do with WinMo7.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070511-microsoft-patent-android.html

rjohnstone
Jul 5, 2011, 12:04 PM
Google is hated for many reasons:
*SNIP*
Your post is pure exaggeration and plain old ignorant FUD.
There's so much BS in your post it could fertilize all the farms in the midwest. :rolleyes:

If you're going to give percentages I suggest you provide facts and sources to back them up.

shompa
Jul 5, 2011, 12:05 PM
What's stopping Google from buying RIM and getting both the Blackberry maker and the Nokia patents in one fell swoop? (and a discount, I might add)

Then again if Apple in fact has "sole ownership" of 4G patents and others that would help them cripple Android, it may not help Google much in potential future patent suits.

They would have to pay over 25 billion for Nokia.
Remember. Google does not care. The Android telephone makes have to pay the licensing fee. And the fee is just a couple of dollar/phone. Not worth 25 billion.

RIM: If we are talking the Nortel patents: They are probably not transferable.

If Nokia can break its crazy deal with MSFT they are a great buy for Google, if Google wants to build their own hardware. Until last year Nokia made billions of profit on phones that had ASP on 100 dollars. They could do that because they have their own factories. These factories is something that make Nokia real interesting for a takeover.

(I have worked within Ericsson and Nokia. Both companies killed thanks to MSFT, but that is another story)

bassboat
Jul 5, 2011, 01:15 PM
See my responses in Bold to most of your FUD and BS.We disagree. While they had semi-smart phones they were cumbersome, been working on them for how long? and did not stand up to the carriers as Apple did.




Umm it did address it. Look at what I said. Most of them had to much invested in what they put out in 2003-2005 range if not earlier. Smart phones were starting to take off before Apple hit the market. They were trap on older hardware and software.
Market share needed to drop low enough for them to be able to reboot or they needed to be new to the market it.

Rim is the only one who marketshare had not drop low enough for a reboot.
We disagree. While they had semi-smart phones they were cumbersome, been working on them for how long? and did not stand up to the carriers as Apple did.

McGee
Jul 5, 2011, 02:08 PM
Let's not forget, if Apple hadn't developed the iPhone - for years in secrecy, this form factor phone wouldn't exist. If Apple hadn't done the same with the iPad, tablets wouldn't exist.

Samsung, etc, wouldn't know what to do. There'd be nothing to copy.

This form factor? Ummm the LG Prada with the same basic form factor was made a year earlier in 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_%28KE850%29

Also remember if it wasn't for Palm and Blackberry Apple probably wouldn't have even thought of developing the smart phone.

cmaier
Jul 5, 2011, 02:14 PM
This form factor? Ummm the LG Prada with the same basic form factor was made a year earlier in 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_%28KE850%29

Also remember if it wasn't for Palm and Blackberry Apple probably wouldn't have even thought of developing the smart phone.

And those companies didn't Borrow a lot from the Newton?

Rodimus Prime
Jul 5, 2011, 02:36 PM
Every single Android make have to pay license fee to MS.
I see no point argument with you since you don't even know this fact.
You could have Googled 1 minute and checked that fact. You can do it with everything else I wrote. It is all fact.

Your points are just speculation and dreaming. It is impossible to have a discussion then.

I tell you: The earth is round. And you tell: FUD. Its flat. :rolleyes:

Microsoft today makes over 300 million dollars in licensing fees for Android vendors. They make more on Android phones then Windows Mobile. Windows mobile license is 15 dollar. So MS actually don't care to much about if you use Android or WinMo, they make the same money.

So far 5 Android vendors have signed up with MSFT. Between 5-12 dollar per Android phone. Nothing to do with WinMo7.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070511-microsoft-patent-android.html
1) you are moving the goal post. I was responding to htc.

2) I belive most of the other 5 make windows phones or use windows on other hardware. Who knows if to sweeten the pot so to speak ms cut them a deal elsewhere.

You past over everything else but you also posted a bunch of android hate and Google FUD.

squirrellydw
Jul 5, 2011, 03:27 PM
Your post is pure exaggeration and plain old ignorant FUD.
There's so much BS in your post it could fertilize all the farms in the midwest. :rolleyes:

If you're going to give percentages I suggest you provide facts and sources to back them up.

Actually it is pretty accurate, open your eyes and use the search bar. You will be surprised what you learn when you educate yourself or are you the lazy type and want everyone to do your work for you?

swagi
Jul 5, 2011, 03:55 PM
how is the hardware lower grade? iphone 4 had the fastest CPU/GPU in mobile when it came out. the A5 CPU is a screamer on my ipad.

i have an android phone and the software is crap compared to iOS. i also looked at the atrix and word on the internet was that the tegra 2 was mostly hype and that the software was crap as well. only reason i'm on android is the 4.3" screen and the $20 phone price

Yap. You just proved my point. iPhone4 was introduced in mid 2010. We really want to go into the hardware debate? O.K. - I get it.

1. Glass back -> it's slippery, it stains easily, it gets scratched if you don't use a pocket or something like that - form over function. Point granted, most cheap plastics look and feel worse, but nothing beats the haptics of original aluminium iPhone (yes - I have one)

2. Camera -> I know that MP isn't everything, but the iPhone camera hardware is just average. Nothing to see here. Come on.

3. Dock consistency -> with every iteration the iPhone gets a new form factor and you can throw away your old docks. I don't know for how long you've been on Apple but rest assured - the first dock connector cables even had fixation points were you had to press to loosen some metal brackets. This is quality hardware!

4. microSIM -> Hail to King Apple for just another step of killing your once in a while travel. No - you just can not pop in a prepaid *insert whatever country here*-prepaid SIM for cheap phonecalls to your mates at home.

5. A4/A5 -> Despite of some posts left here, the iPhone still ships with an A4-processor. Not too bad, but given that dual-core A9s are all over the place now, and given that the writing was on the wall they'll hit in early 2011, I just have to say iPhone5 has to deliver with the A5 processor and it has to be at least dual-Core.

Just some of the major gripes. And I cannot stress enough that I want some respect for neither putting the non-replacable battery nor Antennagate on the list. :D:D:D

Rodimus Prime
Jul 5, 2011, 04:03 PM
Actually it is pretty accurate, open your eyes and use the search bar. You will be surprised what you learn when you educate yourself or are you the lazy type and want everyone to do your work for you?

Umm no it pretty much fud. You have provided no links other than bashing. I would calling you for trolling on some of the stuff because all you did was list off BS and fud yet no facts.

I went threw and tore your first list to pieces with little trouble and yet you dance around it. Tells me that you were making up most of the stuff.

Provide links. You are the one making the claims back it up or you are just full of it and a liar plan and simple.

gkpm
Jul 5, 2011, 05:07 PM
Yap. You just proved my point. iPhone4 was introduced in mid 2010. We really want to go into the hardware debate? O.K. - I get it.

Come on my Spaniard friend, no one really wanted to go into an hardware debate, you kind of pushed into it.

There are gripes - like in everything - but the iPhone also does a lot very well.

Get a Samsung Galaxy S 2 for example, which is the top of range specs-wise for Europe but what do you really get? A faster web browser but lousy battery life, plus a huge unwieldy screen.

I don't know what you do with phones but I'd like a bit more than. The devil is really in the details.

The big gripe is really the cost, you can get a Desire S here for free on a €25/month 24-month contract. That's all in with 1gb data. If Apple broke into that market (which they probably won't) other phones would have a very hard time convincing anyone.

squirrellydw
Jul 5, 2011, 05:16 PM
Umm no it pretty much fud. You have provided no links other than bashing. I would calling you for trolling on some of the stuff because all you did was list off BS and fud yet no facts.
I don't need to do your work.
I went threw and tore your first list to pieces with little trouble and yet you dance around it. Tells me that you were making up most of the stuff.
Yeah and where are your links, proof. Others can say you made that up, nothing to back up what you said.

Provide links. You are the one making the claims back it up or you are just full of it and a liar plan and simple. And you made counter claims, provide links.

I am done with this, this is way of topic now anyhow and the MODS should be deleting most of the last two pages, starting around post 153 since it has nothing to do with NORTEL

swagi
Jul 5, 2011, 05:33 PM
Come on my Spaniard friend, no one really wanted to go into an hardware debate, you kind of pushed into it.

There are gripes - like in everything - but the iPhone also does a lot very well.

Get a Samsung Galaxy S 2 for example, which is the top of range specs-wise for Europe but what do you really get? A faster web browser but lousy battery life, plus a huge unwieldy screen.

I don't know what you do with phones but I'd like a bit more than. The devil is really in the details.

The big gripe is really the cost, you can get a Desire S here for free on a Ä25/month 24-month contract. That's all in with 1gb data. If Apple broke into that market (which they probably won't) other phones would have a very hard time convincing anyone.

Honestly I mainly phone with my phone. Some casual texting and web-surfing, but...

...I came to a point were I am now. I'm using 2 phones. One annoying smartphone (had an iPhone, currently rocking a Galaxy - and just to put that straight - wife still on iPhone) and one stupid dumbass Nokia 1630 phone. You know, one that is on standby for weeks! I need an emergency phone for my job and guess what - a smartphone can't do that job!

Your claims about battery are really stupid claims - as everyone who's had either phone (Android or iPhone) knows -> no juice for one day and your phone may be dead in your pocket. This applies to iOS and Android - and I guess WP7 too, but on this front I cannot comment form personal experience.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 5, 2011, 05:36 PM
Honestly I mainly phone with my phone. Some casual texting and web-surfing, but...

...I came to a point were I am now. I'm using 2 phones. One annoying smartphone (had an iPhone, currently rocking a Galaxy - and just to put that straight - wife still on iPhone) and one stupid dumbass Nokia 1630 phone. You know, one that is on standby for weeks! I need an emergency phone for my job and guess what - a smartphone can't do that job!

Your claims about battery are really stupid claims - as everyone who's had either phone (Android or iPhone) knows -> no juice for one day and your phone may be dead in your pocket. This applies to iOS and Android - and I guess WP7 too, but on this front I cannot comment form personal experience.

The only smart phone I really know of off hand that can go days on end with out a charge was the Blackberry 9700. I know on that phone they would go on and on about how if you went out of town for a weekend you just left your charger at home as the phone would still be in good shape when you got back on sunday.

I know on one of my old dumb phones if I went somewhere for the weekend I would normally just say screw the charger the phone had enough juice to make it from Friday morning until I got back Sunday.
Moved to the smart phone world and juice goes from being measured in days and it be safe to I need to charge it every night.

rjohnstone
Jul 5, 2011, 06:10 PM
Actually it is pretty accurate, open your eyes and use the search bar. You will be surprised what you learn when you educate yourself or are you the lazy type and want everyone to do your work for you?
I very well educated thank you.
As for do my own work? I wasn't the one making baseless claims with no facts to back them up.

Being a user and developer of both iOS and Android devices, I can comfortably call the other poster's claims pretty much pure BS.

Move along now troll.

McGee
Jul 5, 2011, 06:44 PM
And those companies didn't Borrow a lot from the Newton?

And apple didn't borrow some of that from Grid who made http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l%253D%2526a%253D25552%2526po%253D4,00.asp The GRiDPad 1900 in 1989? Although I just found Tandy created the Tandy model 100 in 1983.

maclaptop
Jul 5, 2011, 06:52 PM
Now you can add "stupidity" to the Android mess.
Whatever you do, don't read the mainstream press, or tech sites.

The "mess" is getting a lot of attention and selling a lot of phones.

Challenge yourself to see if you can refrain from coming back with "Yes but Apple sells far more"

1) We already know that
2) I don't care.
3) I happen to own Both iOS, and Android phones and enjoy them equally.

cmaier
Jul 5, 2011, 07:44 PM
And apple didn't borrow some of that from Grid who made http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l%253D%2526a%253D25552%2526po%253D4,00.asp The GRiDPad 1900 in 1989? Although I just found Tandy created the Tandy model 100 in 1983.

You just proved my point. Apple didn't rely on the companies you listed - they relied on the general progression of the state of the art, including their own prior contributions.

squirrellydw
Jul 5, 2011, 08:21 PM
Lol

BTW
Jul 5, 2011, 10:54 PM
This team that won, including Apple, probably has cross licensing deals of the whole portfolio. It is in this team's best interests to see Google left in the dark and paying royalties out the ying-yang thereby making it expensive to be a Google licensee. The Oracle lawsuit is meant to help increase the costs. Google has yet to be confronted on WebM. In the end Android with fail because of all the licensing they'll eventually have to pay-out.

swagi
Jul 6, 2011, 06:12 AM
For those guys putting LTE in the far future:

Just today I had a flyer in my letterbox telling me that my home city of

COLOGNE, GERMANY

is about to get LTE.

Contracts and Surf-Sticks are offered :D

shompa
Jul 6, 2011, 10:18 AM
Samsung has to pay Microsoft 15 dollar per Android phone.

So the people who called my post FuD:

Who was right????

http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+Wants+15+USD+Per+Samsung+Android+Phone+Sold/article22079.htm

shompa
Jul 6, 2011, 10:22 AM
This team that won, including Apple, probably has cross licensing deals of the whole portfolio. It is in this team's best interests to see Google left in the dark and paying royalties out the ying-yang thereby making it expensive to be a Google licensee. The Oracle lawsuit is meant to help increase the costs. Google has yet to be confronted on WebM. In the end Android with fail because of all the licensing they'll eventually have to pay-out.

Google does not manufactures phones.

The royalties are payed by the manufactures: HTC, SAMSUNG and so on.
Google does not CARE. They only care about advertising and data mining that they use Android OS from.

Google calls Android free, but it is already more expensive to use Android then Windows Mobile7. Windows Mobile 7 license costs 15 dollar.

Android is "free", but since Android breaks so many patents by Microsoft, Android makes have to pay 5-15 dollar per Android phone to MS.
+ every Android maker does their own GUI.

+ There will be more licensing fees when more companies calls out all the copied stuff by Google in Android.

ssk2
Jul 6, 2011, 11:07 AM
Samsung has to pay Microsoft 15 dollar per Android phone.

So the people who called my post FuD:

Who was right????

http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+Wants+15+USD+Per+Samsung+Android+Phone+Sold/article22079.htm

If you read the headline, it says they WANT $15 per phone and not that they HAVE to. Moreover, this only applies to Samsung phones, not each Android phone sold.

So yeah, nice try...