Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt Says Apple and Google Will Resolve Issues 'the Adult Way'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
im sorry to be rude... but no one is answering the main question here
WHAT THE FU3K! DID DID GOOGLE STEAL FROM APPLE?
WHAT THE FU3K! DID DID GOOGLE STEAL FROM APPLE?
This HAS to be true, while using chrome the screen flickered and then the house went dark briefly
Seriously though it just amuses me when I see posts about the evil Google.
At least no other tech company was dumb enough to put Schmidt on their board after he showed his true snake self.
Don't let this guy into your house without patting him down for cameras and recording devices first.
Don't let this guy into your house without patting him down for cameras and recording devices first.
This HAS to be true, while using chrome the screen flickered and then the house went dark briefly
Yup, that's Chrome for you. There's always a bit of power drain when it kicks up the generators and goes into nutsuck irradiation mode.
----------
I'm hoping future society won't consider bounceback and pinch to zoom as having the same cultural relevance as FTL travel.
...which NASA is currently experimenting with, by the way.
Fair enough.
1) Which patents are you referring to?
2) Do you understand that you don't have to steal anything to infringe on a patent?
Thanks!
"......and how Apple is currently embroiled in legal drama with Google's Android partners rather than Google itself."
That's because Apple has to show that the other company (Samsung) using the copied product is profiting. Google is not profiting from Android since it gives it out for free- just like the boxes that help you bootleg cable for free in the '80s, you couldn't sue the maker- only the user.
But go ahead Google, fight your proxy patent war with Apple through Samsung. The objective is to water down the Apple patent portfolio. At the end of the day, it will come back to haunt Google.
That's because Apple has to show that the other company (Samsung) using the copied product is profiting. Google is not profiting from Android since it gives it out for free- just like the boxes that help you bootleg cable for free in the '80s, you couldn't sue the maker- only the user.
But go ahead Google, fight your proxy patent war with Apple through Samsung. The objective is to water down the Apple patent portfolio. At the end of the day, it will come back to haunt Google.
Right now, it doesn't look like it's haunting anybody but Apple. Yeah, they've won a few battles here and there, but their one major target has become the biggest selling Android manufacturer despite all the legal withering fire. Their only stunning victory has been blunted by the USPTO after the fact, so they can't turn around and sue other Android manufacturers for pinch to zoom anymore. Most of Apple's wins have been over piddling things that are more a minor inconvenience than a fatal blow to the losing side.
Steve Job's masturbatory thermonuclear war has been a waste of time for everyone involved, and hasn't done anyone any favors, least of all Apple. If he intended the final act of his legacy to be the destruction of Google, the only thing he's done is set up his own Waterloo.
Where have you been? This came from Steve Jobs, it was in his biography and all over the internet.
The idea to produce a touch screen interface for smartphones that didn't suck like all previous attempts had. Android was a Blackberry style OS for hardware keypad phones when Google bought it. When the mole saw what Apple was doing, he took some ideas back to Google. As a result, Android changed direction.
That was Steve's version of events, and I'm inclined to believe him over the mole.
Steve never accused Eric Schmidt of anything in his biography.
It's all over the Internet because people made it up and spread it.
Go to page 511.
If you read the biography and don't come away with the impression that Steve felt Google had copied Apple, and that he considered Schmidt's actions as a personal betrayal, you are in denial.
Perfectly joking then, because saying that there is the idea of touch interface that doesn't suck what was copied is one of the silliest thing I have read here. And the competition is hard.
There's a very wide margin between accusing Eric Schmidt personally because of his position on the board and accusing Google of using "multi-touch" in the Nexus One, a couple of months after Eric quit the board and more than a year after Google having shipped Android.
More info here :
http://venturebeat.com/2011/10/20/how-steve-jobs-felt-betrayed-by-eric-schmidt-over-googles-android
You're quite misunderstanding the context of the page you're pointing to and what it really means in the timeline. Again, for folks just joining :
1998 - Andy Rubin founds Danger Inc.
2001 - Andy Rubin ships HipTop for T-mobile's Sidekick line
2003 - Andy Rubin founds Android Inc.
2005 - Google buys Android Inc.
2006 - Eric Schmidt is invited to Apple's board.
2007 - Apple unveils the iPhone
2008 - Google ships Android, HTC makes the hardware
2009 - Eric Schmidt quits Apple's board, with much positive comments.
2010 - Google and HTC introduce the Nexus One. Steve gets pissed about Multitouch use.
2011 - Apple is denied the trademark over Multitouch.
No where has anyone from Apple ever even hinted that Eric's position on their board resulted in the "theft" of multitouch (something they've never owned, even if Steve thought they had a broad patent over the whole concept and Apple tried to trademark it). The accusations came much after Eric's tenure on the board, 3 years after the iPhone shipped and demoed multitouch, more than a year after Android shipped on hardware to customers in the field.
So again : The accusation that Eric "maliciously" used his position on the Apple is pure fiction. Steve never hinted at such. Rewriting history is a thing for forums goers to use to spread FUD. At least stick to the facts, no need to demonize Eric Schmidt. In the end, Apple didn't own as much of Multitouch as Steve thought they did and so his anger was mostly based on a false premise to begin with.
Sure, Jobs thought that by keeping Schmidt nearby, he could influence Google to not make their phone (which they were already working on) too similiar to his own. Not exactly pure intentions, but understandable.
As for betrayal, Jobs was clearly talking about copying AFTER the iPhone came out. If he thought anyone used inside info, he would've surely kicked them off the board immediately and/or sued them.
The overwhelmingly logical point is that after Jan 2007, competing companies didn't need someone on the Apple board to be able to copy a public device. And prior to that, multi-touch, pinch zoom and flick scrolling were already announced phone features. No need to copy Apple for those major items.
.
Last edited: