Maybe the lord god, steve jobs will tell the government investigators that he is a god and can do whatever he wants and they will understand and accept that, then they will apologize for bothering him and go away. Not!
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.
Antitrust Investigation of Apple Led Nortel Patent Purchase
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So your saying the wage costs of the Android team is also Zero?
No wonder it's so easy for other companies to employ away their talent.
Read it more carefully, I'm referring to the cost of an additional copy, which is it's marginal cost.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
This whole notion that android costs nothing is a fallacy.
An OEM could pump out handsets all day by using what is on offer at source.android.com, this much is true but, when an OEM wants to include the google components like Android Market, GMail, Google maps e.t.c then they are licenced through "business deals" which must incur some kind of cost to the OEM.
With that in mind, how many handsets are distributed without the close source Google components? I can't think of any available in the UK without Android Market access.
It's also these handsets that are included in the activation figures.
This whole notion that android costs nothing is a fallacy.
An OEM could pump out handsets all day by using what is on offer at source.android.com, this much is true but, when an OEM wants to include the google components like Android Market, GMail, Google maps e.t.c then they are licenced through "business deals" which must incur some kind of cost to the OEM.
With that in mind, how many handsets are distributed without the close source Google components? I can't think of any available in the UK without Android Market access.
It's also these handsets that are included in the activation figures.
Whats the diference of inventing and buying the patents, so Apple bought them. Now what would have happened if Apple had invented them with these other companies in the first place....?
I don't think anyone will get excluded, there will be licensing, and sharing of Patents to reduce costs on both sides, its all a game of profit. Apple do not want to get rid of ANDROID, ANDROID makes Apple look even better!
These PATENTS will hopefully prevent the cheap copies from China being sold overseas as they completely ignore any laws, PATENT or COPYRIGHT! The more they ignore them the less they can be sold in overseas markets. These clone devices have no support and give Apple and ANDROID bad names, people thing they are getting a good device only to be deceived with no long term support......
I don't think anyone will get excluded, there will be licensing, and sharing of Patents to reduce costs on both sides, its all a game of profit. Apple do not want to get rid of ANDROID, ANDROID makes Apple look even better!
These PATENTS will hopefully prevent the cheap copies from China being sold overseas as they completely ignore any laws, PATENT or COPYRIGHT! The more they ignore them the less they can be sold in overseas markets. These clone devices have no support and give Apple and ANDROID bad names, people thing they are getting a good device only to be deceived with no long term support......
A business still needs to finance it's production costs.
Someone gave them money to do it, those people want a return.
Doesn't matter if it's a loan, venture capital funding, share issue or mum and at minimum the cost of servicing that financing is also part of the marginal cost.
Rubbish
Android is software so these patents will not affect it.
The other handset makers will have to pay a license fee to Apple and the Rockstar group, which is only fair as these guys need to get their 4.5 billion investment to pay off somehow.
Can't see why people think these patents would not be licensed out and Nokia owns most of the LTE G4 stuff anyhow.
I don't get the Andriod vs iOS debate - Just because more people buy something does not make it the best. Think of it like this, Apple hardware + iOS is a complete supercar, Andriod is just a free engine.
Android is software so these patents will not affect it.
The other handset makers will have to pay a license fee to Apple and the Rockstar group, which is only fair as these guys need to get their 4.5 billion investment to pay off somehow.
Can't see why people think these patents would not be licensed out and Nokia owns most of the LTE G4 stuff anyhow.
I don't get the Andriod vs iOS debate - Just because more people buy something does not make it the best. Think of it like this, Apple hardware + iOS is a complete supercar, Andriod is just a free engine.
Hey, Nutjob... cut down on the Dr. Pepper and Ritalin.
First, when one company gives away a product with real costs just to gain market share or force others out of business is actually anti-competitive.
Second, if Google has to pay for the IP they have appropriated then odds are they will have to start charging for their (crappy) OS.
Third, if you think Apple is being driven out of the handset market, realize two-thirds of all the profit smartphones of any brand in the world is made is made by Apple.
Fourth, the cost of distributing and manufacuting software is NOT zero. Everything from development to licensing to support is a cost, not to mention the active costs of the cloud, which Google has relied on more than Apple (iOS 5 will most likely change that).
Fifth, Google's corporate strength is that after Search, they do a lot of things... Poorly. They go for ubiquity, not competence.
Sixth, consider some reading on basic economics.
Seems like Google didnt care too much with their epic pi billion bids
They seem to be doing fine without these patents, im sure they will continue to revolutionize the phone buissness. Its going to be insane if they start to have a million phones activated a day. Nothing can stop the power of Android.
They seem to be doing fine without these patents, im sure they will continue to revolutionize the phone buissness. Its going to be insane if they start to have a million phones activated a day. Nothing can stop the power of Android.
Some of the Apple fanboi's in here are starting to sound like loons.
I love that someone actually said that Android won't be around for long... Guess having the largest market share of any smartphone OS means you won't be around for long. Fail
How about the android fanboy who said earlier in this thread that apple was being run out of the smartphone business? There are some very delusional android lovers out there too. I have both platforms and I find iOS to be far superior although I do like the larger screen on the android. Overall I feel Apple's walled garden is much better than Android's open platform even though I usually prefer open source.
No, but if you had bothered to read the bidding process you would note that the FTC was aware of the Consortium Bid.
Google then pissed and moaned after their schizophrenically induced bidding.
The FTC will open a door and confirm that a room is behind it.
Then this will end. Google might have had more of a chance for a deeper look if they had not been such idiots in the final rounds of bidding.
Very hard to show genuine interest with bidding in pie. The fact that others companies see you for the pig that you are is meaningless.
All the awarded patents will be licensed per the agreements with the FTC.
The fact that Google has a completely Inept Leadership Structure is not grounds for FTC action.
They already stole the widget idea from Konfabulator years ago.
Widgets were on the first Macintosh in 1984. Called "Desktop Accessories" back then.
What "multi touch display" patent application are you referring to?
In what way?
Android is not "free" for the mainline vendors, for several reasons. It simply doesn't have a standard license fee, which is great for tiny companies.
First, you still need plenty of developers to port the versions to your hardware, add in your own UI branding features if you want, and maintain updates. All the major smartphone makers have R&D labs just for Android.
Second, if you want to use the Market, you have to be a member of the Open Handset Alliance. I highly suspect that requires a nice contribution.
Third, if you want to use GMail, Google Maps, etc, you have to license those from Google. (Which is why the activations count doesn't include most of those cheap-o Asian clones.)
Link?
But I'll take that for granted as of now - but can you explain me why they don't count? So only the phones that ship with Google's explicit applications are counted? Why so?
CNN Money: Google responds to Steve Jobs' activation counting accusations
"The Android activation numbers do not include upgrades and are, in fact, only a portion of the Android devices in the market since we only include devices that have Google services." - Google
If Apple had invented them chances are they never would of gotten need for 4G because apple would of never shared them. Apple bought them after they were key to the industry so this would allow them to abuse them and hurt everyone else.
Wow -- we agree... That makes two times, I think. But you are very correct. No matter who won those patents the other side was going to complain. Neither one of these companies is above appealing to the referees when it suits their purposes.
Google wants those patents so that (a) they can license them to the Android device manufacturers and (b) have leverage against Apple. They want to use them to stifle competition -- the same as Apple. Which brings me to the irony of all this. The sale of these patents is being investigated for anti-competitive purposes when patents themselves are by-and-large used to stifle both innovation (the thing they were designed to protect) and competition. I don't have a good fix, but the patent system is doing as much (if not more) harm than it does good.
That makes no sense. Those patents cost money and resources in both R&D and legal fees and administrative fees with patent authorities (e.g.: USPTO). They are assets of a company, and when a company goes bankrupt you have to liquidate the assets to payback creditors.
This part of your post had me rolling on the floor laughing. What a great analogy! So true.
Yes and no. One of the first principles in anti-competitive law has to do with collusion. Google did collude with Intel (and I think a few smaller companies) while Apple colluded with the "Rockstar" group of companies which included Microsoft, RIM, and others. In this case the collusion went like this: "you don't bid independently on these patents and instead you contribute to my bid and in return I will give you a perpetual lifetime license to these patents for some set amount you contribute to my bid." Both Apple and Google did the same thing. One of these two companies would end up owning the patents but in effect they were licensing them at a discount to those would "play ball" and help them win the patents.
This is certainly not the first time a company that has dropped out of bidding has thrown in their hat with another company. It is perhaps one of the most high-profile instances though. The way this is suppose to go down in a perfectly competitive world would have been:
1) Companies bid until they cannot go higher
2) Companies who drop out of bidding sit tight and wait for the winner to emerge
3) Companies who lost out approach the winner for licensing terms
4) Winner uses their new patent ownership to assert also sorts of obstacles to competition in the market while protecting themselves.
5) Losing companies scramble to find other patents that they can use in cross-licensing with the winner of these patents so as to reduce their exposure to recurring licensing fees.
So either way, this plays out in an anti-competitive nature -- that's the irony of it all. Patents are used to stifle the competition while supposedly protecting and fostering innovation. Bear in mind that patents in the hands of patent trolls actually stifle innovation (prevent production of real products) but not competition because the trolls will license to anybody who is willing to pay. But patents in the hands of companies that actually use the patents in real products are typically used to stifle competition (since licensing to the companies or partners of your choice can have the same effects on the market as colluding with those companies). I guess you need to choose which is more important: innovation or competition. Both are going to be sacrificed to some degree because the system is not perfect.
Had this patent auction gone down in my "perfect" scenario above, then Nortel would have gotten far less money for their patents.
The only thing being identified as anti-competitive here would be the collusion aspect (e.g.: the "consortium"). Its not like Apple, Microsoft, and RIM incorporated some holding company that did the bidding and would own the patents. Rather, they made side deals and contracts pertaining to patents that were not yet owned by either party. This is analogous to couple of large companies agreeing to set the price for some commodity service or product at X and not to compete with each other on price to avoid a "race to the bottom". I say "analogous" but not "identical" since the companies involved here are essentially screwing each other rather than helping each other to reap a tax on the consumers, though ultimately one could argue that is the final intent. However, I think that one consortium sticking it to another consortium may be judged to be a normal part of a competitive system and the regulators may wait to see what the winning consortium does with this new-found pool of patents. If they use it to successfully gain an unfair advantage in the competitive landscape and start raising the price of smartphones, then regulation would clearly be in order. However, if they simply use the new patents to defend themselves from other lawsuits, then that is something else entirely.
That's a great idea considering all the legal discussions going on. Maybe a page for "Legal" in general so we can discuss Patents, Trademarks, anti-competitive law or choose to ignore it entirely if we don't feel like getting involved in it.
Google did put together its own consortium. It included Intel. Not sure how that is going to over with Apple, since Apple (and not Google) is one of Intel's biggest customers. I found Intel's choice to be a bit odd, but they must have thought that Google was going to win out after they dropped out of the bidding.
I think the bids Google made were good geek fun. Round numbers don't imply anything. In the background Google had a max $ amount on what they would pay and the bidding eventually went over it.
Good luck to the companies who won the bidding on getting their $4.5B back. I'm sure the analysis done at Google went something along the lines of we'll just infringe, get sued and then pay the few hundred million + licensing and still pay less than $4.5B. And before you jump on Google for this, all companies make these risk/ROI decisions everyday. It's exactly what Apple did with respect to the Nokia patents.
Good luck to the companies who won the bidding on getting their $4.5B back. I'm sure the analysis done at Google went something along the lines of we'll just infringe, get sued and then pay the few hundred million + licensing and still pay less than $4.5B. And before you jump on Google for this, all companies make these risk/ROI decisions everyday. It's exactly what Apple did with respect to the Nokia patents.
If a particular company invents a piece of technology and obtains a patent on it, that company is not obligated to share it with others. That company has every right to not allow others to use that technology. As far as I'm concerned, it's business. What Apple is doing is a part of business. It's a cut-throat world. It's not Apple's job to play nice with the competition. With that said, Apple should not engage in anti-competitive behavior, but I feel like that the definition of that word has been stretched too far when it comes to Apple. Refusing to allow others to use a piece of technology that you spent hard cash on developing is not anti-competitive.
Whether or not Apple is abusing those patents is not for you or I to decide. That's for the government to decide. Apple was given clearance to bid on Nortel's patents.
There is a clear patter of perception here on this forum about the major tech companies. Google is seen as the white knight, with their cheap rhetoric about not buying patents on principle because they don't want to stifle innovation. Apple is this big, huge, greedy bully that won't play fair.
Let's talk once there is a product on the market that threatens one of Google's core businesses. Despite how successful Android has been, it's no Google Search. That is Google's flagship business. I'm curious to see if Google is willing to "walk the walk" when it comes to one of its core businesses.
Let's talk once there is a product on the market that threatens one of Google's core businesses. Despite how successful Android has been, it's no Google Search. That is Google's flagship business. I'm curious to see if Google is willing to "walk the walk" when it comes to one of its core businesses.
I believe you but who is the spokesperson we are referring to here?
And just so that I make myself clear again - why is not Google counting all android devices which don't run Google services?
Also would definitely love them to tell us how they actually calculate the number of 'activations'.
I can't answer the first one, but the second two are pretty easy.
Google can't count a device that is not running any Google services.
Their system is unaware of it.
Calculating activations is similar to how Apple does it.
When you fire up a new Android phone that has official Google apps/services installed, you have to register the device in order to use those services.
Example: It is impossible to access the Android Market via the Market app on the phone without activating it first.
Software upgrades don't require a new registration.
I've upgrade the OS on my Atrix a couple of times already and my registration data is always preserved.
It's kept on a separate partition.
Even if you wipe the phone clean with a fresh install, Google still knows it has been registered before. IMEI numbers don't change