Google's Top Lawyer: Some Apple Inventions are Commercially Essential, Should Be Made Into Standards

[kdarling]

There is no example of a widget that I've seen that will run without an associated process that's always running when the widget is visible. Plus I assume that widgets on a home screen take higher priority over other processes.

Running late today. Perhaps this will help a bit:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10572813/android-widget-not-responding-to-touches

 

[boronathan]

Running late today. Perhaps this will help a bit:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10572813/android-widget-not-responding-to-touches

Thanks kdarling, that explained a lot but not what I was looking for. Here's a real world example:

I'm using beautiful widgets on my android phone. I place the widget on my home screen and set it to auto refresh every four hours.

So... According to what is being said in this thread the bw process should fall out of memory and only restart every three hours when it needs to auto refresh?

Well that's not the case. If I go to settings, apps and look at my cached processes i see the bw process using 22mb of RAM. If I select it and press stop to force close it it disappears and the memory bar at the bottom shows the reclaimed 22mb of RAM. I exit my setting app and then go back in and the bw process is back using 22mb of RAM.

Next I remove the widget from my home screen. I then go back into the settings app and the bw process is still there using 22mb of RAM. This time if I stop it it stays stopped since the widget is not on my home screen.

And that was my point from the beginning. If you have a visible widget its going to have a associated process and always has in my experience and will use memory even if it's not being updated. Again if anyone here can provide an example of a widget (and not code) that they use that doesn't behave the way I've described that would be great for me to test it out. If such functionality exists, that's no small feat and actually pretty amazing. I've yet to see it though.

I understand what intents and broadcasts and listeners are but they don't work independently of the widget/application process.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Everyone keeps saying this but can't provide an example. I have an android phone and I assume you do too. Can you give me an example of a widget you use that behaves the way you described so I can test? If it works that way I'll be impressed because that's not my understanding and none of the widgets I use behave that way. But if that functionality is there that's awesome.

Well we are going into code speak. I know how the code works (and yes I have coded in it). There are several services an App can tie into. Once it is tied into those services it no longer needs to run or be in ram. If one of those services require the code it will fire up the app or part of the App it needs and run it.

An example would be APW widgets. I have I believe 3 of them on my home screen. I look threw my task manager and not a single APW app was up and running. They all were not running.

Plumb was running but then again plumb refreshes ever 30 and I tend to drop into it every now and then so it does get put into ram. APW the wigdets get their infomation from other locations on the phone, calendar, SMS and all that is set up is when one of those 2 times has a changed it fired up and update the widgets. If I click widget it will fire up the apps not fire up APW but instead want to open up SMS or calendar apps which are complete different apps and not even part of APW widgets. They are the phone calendar and go SMS.

 

[kdarling]

Need a different thread, in a different forum.

This has virtually nothing to do with the topic

 

[boronathan]

Need a different thread, in a different forum.

This has virtually nothing to do with the topic

You're right. Apologize for going off topic.

 

[3282868]

So basically, you have nothing against Apple, but the patent system. You are saying as if Apple is the only company that files multiple patents and even patents that they would never use.

I'm surprised that you are even putting that against Apple. Funny.

Oh, chill out! Chill. Out.

 

[Alameda]

Which specific patents are essential, according to Google?

Slide to unlock? There are many other ways to perform unlock: A physical button, tap a spot onscreen, tap two spots, etc. Pinch and zoom rotate? Yes, there was a lot of prior art there. So I wonder which are these essential patents.

 

[pmz]

You're joking right? I'm sure Google would be happy to pay Apple if Apple actually licensed out their patents like everyone else does.

Of course they would. But what they'd expect to pay would be a typical licensing fee....not anything near appropriate for the amount of innovation they wish to steal.

 

[Oletros]

Of course they would. But what they'd expect to pay would be a typical licensing fee....not anything near appropriate for the amount of innovation they wish to steal.

And what is what they want to steal?

 

[jasvncnt]

Why are we all arguing? We all know if it wasn't for Apple you wouldn't even have the air you breathe.
And the negative marks in 3..2...1..

 

[kdarling]

Which specific patents are essential, according to Google?

Slide to unlock? .... (snip)

See my post #678. Basically, the All Things D article was completely bogus.

Google was talking about patents that were licensed from single companies instead of through a standards organization, and which have become de facto standards due to their widespread adoption.

For example, Compact Discs. Everyone licensed that technology from Phillips with the promise or implied promise of certain terms. That's how it became a de facto standard, and many of the world's consumers depend on CDs.

The problem is, such single-company licenses aren't usually covered by a FRAND agreement. Google's argument was that such de facto standards should have the same protection as FRAND standards, to prevent abuse.

So no, they're not wanting to grab anybody's patents. All they want is protection from companies with de facto standards (such as Microsoft Exchange, the MS FAT file system, etc) that later try to raise rates by licensing their patents through multiple shell patent holding companies.

 

[Alameda]

See my post #678. Basically, the All Things D article was completely bogus.

Google was talking about patents that were licensed from single companies instead of through a standards organization, and which have become de facto standards due to their widespread adoption.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? I read just today that Apple claimed to a judge that Samsung is charging Apple more for a patent license than other companies pay. One might argue that if the patent is Samsung's, they can charge as much or as little as they want; it's theirs to do with as they please. But if patents should be fairly and equitably licensed, why, then Apple should abide by the same rules it tells judges that others must abide by, shouldn't they?

But, hey, what I understand most is that it's very complicated business, and not something I particularly care about.

 

[tbrinkma]

Ok, it's been established that this thread (see Alameda's post directly above mine for an easy reference), and the article it refers to have pretty much nothing to do with the letter the article 'discusses'. With that said, for the sake of argument, I'm going to point out that iOS has had at least *one* 'widget' since it's original release. In practice, there's no public API to create them, so only Apple can do it 'officially' at this point, but they do exist.

So, what is the 'widget' in question?

Take a look at the 'icon' for the Calendar app. It isn't a static icon. It always shows the current weekday and day of the month.
On top of that, it could be argued that the 'icons' for iOS apps are all 'wrapped' in a widget that shows the notification count for the associated app.

Ok, so those examples aren't as fancy as some of the Android widgets I've seen (or many of the OS X Dashboard widgets for that matter), but it's certainly there.


And for those who insist on arguing about 'who did it first', the earliest incarnation of the widget concept that I'm aware of was in Mac OS. Not OS X, Mac OS. (I'm pretty sure it was in the original incarnation, too, not just a later revision.)

There may well have been earlier examples that I'm not familiar with, but (especially) if that's the case, it's certainly not something worth arguing about 'who did first' in a modern context.

----------

Maybe not prior art, but obviousness comes to mind. If 2 vendors came up with the same method/idea in the same time frame, then you could argue the solution was obvious.

I agree completely. Unfortunately, I've been told, by a patent attorney, that it doesn't work that way. I couldn't ever manage to understand his logic, but it seemed to essentially boil down to, "If it was so obvious *they* would have done it and patented it first!"

 

[John.B]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? I read just today that Apple claimed to a judge that Samsung is charging Apple more for a patent license than other companies pay. One might argue that if the patent is Samsung's, they can charge as much or as little as they want; it's theirs to do with as they please. But if patents should be fairly and equitably licensed, why, then Apple should abide by the same rules it tells judges that others must abide by, shouldn't they?

So you can obviously keep your patents to yourself (Google's top lawyer's rant notwithstanding).

Or you can lobby to have the standards agencies include your patented technology in their standards. The rub there is that, to have technology covered by your patents included, you'll have to agree to license your patents under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (aka: FRAND).

If you keep your patent to yourself, you get exclusive use of the technology, or you can derive your own license models to anyone who will pay your asking price.

But if you include your patented technology as part of a standard or standards, you get the revenue for anyone who cares to use it under the same terms as anyone else can get.

Capiche?

So, what is the 'widget' in question?

Take a look at the 'icon' for the Calendar app. It isn't a static icon. It always shows the current weekday and day of the month.
On top of that, it could be argued that the 'icons' for iOS apps are all 'wrapped' in a widget that shows the notification count for the associated app.

Ok, so those examples aren't as fancy as some of the Android widgets I've seen (or many of the OS X Dashboard widgets for that matter), but it's certainly there.

Ironically, the Calendar app on my work Android phone always says it's the 15th, while my iPhone (and Mac) tells me the correct day of the month. I'll take useful any day.

 

[Alameda]

So you can obviously keep your patents to yourself (Google's top lawyer's rant notwithstanding).

Or you can lobby to have the standards agencies include your patented technology in their standards. The rub there is that, to have technology covered by your patents included, you'll have to agree to license your patents under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (aka: FRAND).

If you keep your patent to yourself, you get exclusive use of the technology, or you can derive your own license models to anyone who will pay your asking price.

But if you include your patented technology as part of a standard or standards, you get the revenue for anyone who cares to use it under the same terms as anyone else can get.

Capiche?

I do understand that, but I believe you do not understand the argument:
A) Subject of this thread: "Google claims that some Apple patents are commercially essential and should be licensed under FRAND terms."

B) Apple's claim in court: "Judge, it's unfair that Samsung makes us pay more for (non-FRAND) patents than other companies pay."

Apple wishes to license or not license their patents on whatever terms they want, yet Apple complains in court when another company chooses to license or not license their patents on whatever terms they want.

Capiche?

 

[John.B]

I do understand that, but I believe you do not understand the argument:
A) Subject of this thread: "Google claims that some Apple patents are commercially essential and should be licensed under FRAND terms."

"Commercially essential" is decided by, whom, exactly? Google? It's a made up term that means nothing, invented by a crafty lawyer.

"Standards essential" is decided jointly by the patent holder and the standards body. They willingly came to an agreement to include technology owned by the patent holder as a part of the standard. And the patent holder provides essentially a common license model for anyone who wishes to implement the standard.

As an example, the patents need to implement, say, an MP3 encoder are standards essential. That doesn't mean they are free, just that anyone who implements them can pay royalties under FRAND terms to the Fraunhofer Society and use them. FRAND means the Fraunhofer Society doesn't decide to charge Microsoft double or hold back licensing to Sony.

Now, the Fraunhofer Society could have tried to license this individually, but the MP3 standard as it stands today wouldn't have been ratified under those terms, and adoption wouldn't have been widespread, and they wouldn't be cashing in to the tune of $100 million dollars annually.

B) Apple's claim in court: "Judge, it's unfair that Samsung makes us pay more for (non-FRAND) patents than other companies pay."

Apple wishes to license or not license their patents on whatever terms they want, yet Apple complains in court when another company chooses to license or not license their patents on whatever terms they want.

I do understand that, but I believe you do not understand the argument.

Just because I hold on to proprietary patents that I believe give my products -- and only my products -- a competitive edge, doesn't mean I can't also implement standards-based technology (and pay the required FRAND licensing royalties) that your company may have developed.

Conversely, just because I take advantage of patent technology your company may have submitted to a standards body (and that you agreed to license under FRAND terms to make that happen) doesn't mean I have to give your company license to other proprietary patents in my portfolio.

Capiche?

 

[kdarling]

Or you can lobby to have the standards agencies include your patented technology in their standards. The rub there is that, to have technology covered by your patents included, you'll have to agree to license your patents under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (aka: FRAND).

Note that in this case, we're all talking about ETSI (the radio standards group) FRAND rules, which do not mention rates.

If you keep your patent to yourself, you get exclusive use of the technology, or you can derive your own license models to anyone who will pay your asking price.

But if you include your patented technology as part of a standard or standards, you get the revenue for anyone who cares to use it under the same terms as anyone else can get.

Yes but you still get to set the price and conditions for your FRAND patents, as long as you offer the same to everyone. For example your rate structure might be:

2.0% of device price with no cross-licensing
1.5% of device price with no cross-licensing and a promise of X number sales
1.0% of device price with some cross-licensing
0.5% of device price with some cross-licensing and a promise of X number sales
0.0% of device price with eternal full cross-licensing (Moto used to do this)

Qualcomm gets over 3% for their IP. Nokia and others get at least 2%. So if Motorola or Samsung also start at 2%, they're not out of bounds. In most cases, users will negotiate cross licensing rates and get as low as .05% or even free. If you're like Apple and don't want to cross-license, then you will have to pay closer to the top rate.

This is FRAND because it applies to everyone and is fair when it comes to value received and given among everyone. Asking for a special deal is not fair to others who have been doing it for years.

PS. Your rate structure could even include a higher price if someone has sued you over the rates and lost. One judge even warned Apple that their attempt at negotiating for a patent license that included a clause allowing them to try to invalidate the patent later on, constituted an unfair attempt at trying to retro-change rates and could cause their current rate to climb as insurance for the patent owner.

 

[Alameda]

I believe you do not understand the argument.

It is not clear that Apple was referring to standards-related patents when they complained about Samsung's licensing fees. Beyond that, I agree with you.

 

[Wardrop]

MacDav, I don't need to correct you on your opening line regarding open-source software as others have already done that for me thankfully.

You have no "skin in the game" so it's quite easy to sit back in your chair and tell the world how things should be done. Yes, the patent system is flawed for sure, but I think your "cure" is worse than the disease. Maybe you own Google stock? Really though, it's unlikely you own any stock at all.

Doesn't the fact that I have no financial or emotional interest in either company give me a more objective view of the problem? You've basically said that rationale opinion has no place in this discussion.