From Steve Jobs' Biography: "I'm going to destroy Android"

[divinox]

Android before acquired by Google is obviously not a stolen product. People are saying that the version Google shipped is a stolen product, which partly is. While Google was developing Android as a competitor to iOS, their CEO was sitting on Apple's board of directors and overseeing iOS and iPhone development.

Nobody is saying they stole lines of code, but they stole a lot of ideas since Android interface prior to iPhone introduction looked a lot like BB.

There are cars running Android, Microwaves running android, TVs running android etc. Yes, there are phones similar to the iPhone running android, just like there are phones not similar to the iPhone running android. The emerging pattern is this: Android is software. Digital capabilities allow for software to be de-coupled from hardware. In KnightWRXs words: Android is hardware agnostic.

In essence, Googles vision of Android is: run everything, on anything. Nothing could be further from what Apple is doing.

 

[Harrybarracuda]

If Apple really brought in Schmidt because they were afraid that Google was developing a competition to their new baby, they wouldn't have done it to spy on Android, which like I said is not doable without Schmidt offering them free insider info. A more probable cause would be just so Schmidt could see what the iPhone is and maybe change his mind about developing a competitor, and instead developing a partnership which could work for both of the companies (Obviously more for Apple than for Google, otherwise it would have happened). So it'd be something like, "forget about Android, we are doing this, so we want to work with you to make this better."

Or perhaps they bought him in to advise on Google APIs and made him sign NDA's.

I've never once seen Apple accused him of passing on confidential information. So why are you essentially doing exactly that?

You live in a fantasy world, my friend.

 

[iBug2]

There are cars running Android, Microwaves running android, TVs running android etc. Yes, there are phones similar to the iPhone running android, just like there are phones not similar to the iPhone running android. The emerging pattern is this: Android is software. Digital capabilities allow for software to be de-coupled from hardware. In KnightWRXs words: Android is hardware agnostic.

In essence, Googles vision of Android is: run everything, on anything. Nothing could be further from what Apple is doing.

That's not a counter argument to "Android development was influenced by iOS and iPhone".

That only says it's not exactly the same as iOS, which I agree with.

But I don't agree with the second part. There are things which are further than what Apple is doing than Android is.

 

[Oletros]

Because they can only sue 3rd party handset manufacturers who use Android. Google can't be sued over any patent infringements for Android.

Ah, so Oracle suing Google must be a dream I have had

 

[divinox]

Despite Jobs' arrogant attitude, if you look at Android--even the new Android 4.0 ("Ice Cream Sandwich")--it has a "look and feel" very much akin to iOS in many ways. It's small wonder why Apple is taking legal action against Samsung and HTC (in effect, suing Google by proxy) over this.

I think that's why if the courts rule in favor of Apple and Apple successfully gets recognition from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for its work on iOS, that could effectively cripple Android until Google completely redesigns its interface to be something original. And that's on top of Google facing legal troubles with its unlicensed copy of Java in Android.

This is why Microsoft designed its very distinctive Metro UI for Windows Phone 7.x--that interface looks nothing like iOS, and personally, I personally think Jobs must have in private admired what Microsoft pulled off--a truly original idea for a "smart" cellphone that doesn't trample on the "look and feel" of iOS.

No. MSFT designed Metro because they thought it made sense. They would have had no second thought sticking with the desktop paradigm (used in e.g. WM) if they wanted to. They simply thought this way was better, and i am inclined to agree with MSFT on that. Apple may have taken the desktop paradigm from the 80's and perfected it. Its still the look and feel we've had for the past few decades. There are generally very little room for out-of-the-box thinking within established paradigms. iOS is really no different.

 

[iBug2]

Ah, so Oracle suing Google must be a dream I have had

Someone explained that back in the thread how that could happen. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the exact details of the law on this, but there's a clause in Android's agreement with 3rd party manufacturers that Google can't be sued because Android used on some handset infringes on some patents.

So probably Sun's lawsuit is about actual code violations.

 

[divinox]

That's not a counter argument to "Android development was influenced by iOS and iPhone".

That only says it's not exactly the same as iOS, which I agree with.

But I don't agree with the second part. There are things which are further than what Apple is doing than Android is.

its a counter to "Android was developed for BB-type phone". As for the second part, Apple runs a vertically integrated show: hardware and software are (somewhat) tightly coupled. In that sense, Google is doing the exact opposite, by decoupling the layers.

 

[G4DP]

So, you are accusing Jobs' official biographer to embellish and lie to get more publicity and sell more books? Good grief...

What Jobs really would have needed was someone to tone down things, because these comments made by him are going to hurt his image.

As for his comments, you're spot on, someone should have been there to check before he said things, these comments will do nothing more than tarnish his memory.

 

[Oletros]

I think that's why if the courts rule in favor of Apple and Apple successfully gets recognition from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for its work on iOS, that could effectively cripple Android until Google completely redesigns its interface to be something original. And that's on top of Google facing legal troubles with its unlicensed copy of Java in Android.

Can you give me a list of things Apple is suing Google/handest manufactures where interface is involved?

And Metro was developed that way following the interface that MS started with Windows Media Center for XP way before the iPhone was released

 

[iBug2]

its a counter to "Android was developed for BB-type phone". As for the second part, Apple runs a vertically integrated show: hardware and software are (somewhat) tightly coupled. In that sense, Google is doing the exact opposite, by decoupling the layers.

Not the exact opposite. But they are doing something different yes, and I never said Android was developed for BB type phone.

But we also don't know if iOS can't run on a BB type phone either. It just doesn't simply because Apple isn't producing one.

 

[Oletros]

but there's a clause in Android's agreement with 3rd party manufacturers that Google can't be sued because Android used on some handset infringes on some patents.

This clause doesn't exist

And no, Oracle is suing Google for patent infringement, not code violation

 

[divinox]

As for his comments, you're spot on, someone should have been there to check before he said things, these comments will do nothing more than tarnish his memory.

if he said it, he said it. if that means his memory is tarnished, so be it. i doubt Jobs would've wanted it any other way. especially not after he was dead and didn't have to care for earthly ******** anymore.

 

[iBug2]

This clause doesn't exist

And no, Oracle is suing Google for patent infringement, not code violation

You can find that clause somewhere in this thread. Someone posted it, should be in the first 15 page if I remember correctly. So yes, it exists, or that someone made it up. I'm vetting for the former.

 

[samcraig]

As for his comments, you're spot on, someone should have been there to check before he said things, these comments will do nothing more than tarnish his memory.

Right - because I am sure he just wrote notes and didn't RECORD the conversations to make sure he got everything correctly. Do you even know how research and biographies are written?

These comments will tarnish his memory if you believed that Jobs could do no wrong and only cared about you. For the people that understand that Jobs was human, a business man and wasn't infallible - they will judge him based on his actions. Like anyone else.

Boohoo.

 

[divinox]

Not the exact opposite. But they are doing something different yes, and I never said Android was developed for BB type phone.

But we also don't know if iOS can't run on a BB type phone either. It just doesn't simply because Apple isn't producing one.

its as much of an opposite as you can get. you see, the opposite to coupling (integration) is decoupling (disintegration). Apple, by design, has their software tightly coupled with hardware. Android, by design, has their software uncoupled with hardware.

Also, next time you feel like disagreeing, state why. Otherwise, whats the point of your post?

And ofc. iOS can run on a BB-type phone. Software is software is software. Point is, Android is ONLY software. Thus, one can only look like a fool in saying "this is what Android looked like*". If Android was a phone, that would make sense. However, it is not. Very simple, really.

* and speaking of the form-factor of the physical device.

 

[Oletros]

You can find that clause somewhere in this thread. Someone posted it, should be in the first 15 page if I remember correctly. So yes, it exists, or that someone made it up. I'm vetting for the former.

That clause was for the FINAL user.

And do you really think that a clause between Google an HTC implies that Apple can't sue Google for patent infringement? Really?

 

[iBug2]

its as much of an opposite as you can get. you see, the opposite to coupling (integration) is decoupling (disintegration). Apple, by design, has their software tightly coupled with hardware. Android, by design, has their software uncoupled with hardware.

Also, next time you feel like disagreeing, state why. Otherwise, whats the point of your post?

And ofc. iOS can run on a BB-type phone. Software is software is software. Point is, Android is ONLY software. Thus, one can only look like a fool in saying "this is what Android looked like". If Android was a phone, that would make sense. However, it is not. Very simple, really.

Microsoft also did the "exact opposite" of what Apple did and licensed Windows to every PC manufacturer. That doesn't change the fact even one bit that Windows 3 was heavily influenced by Mac OS GUI.

I quoted exact opposite because I still don't think it's the exact opposite, but according to you, it is.

----------

That clause was for the FINAL user.

And do you really think that a clause between Google an HTC implies that Apple can't sue Google for patent infringement? Really?

When that clause was posted it was noted that is wasn't in EULA. So it isn't for the final user. But at this point I'm reluctant to continue arguing unless someone can clarify the law on this indubitably. Like I said I'm not a lawyer and I'm basically quoting another forum poster, which I assumed knew what he was talking about.

 

[Oletros]

When that clause was posted it was noted that is wasn't in EULA. So it isn't for the final user.

Tell Oracle and Judge Alsup to look at the thread, that they're wrong and Google can't be sued because there is a clause that nobody but a Macrumors member know it exists

 

[JForestZ34]

As for his comments, you're spot on, someone should have been there to check before he said things, these comments will do nothing more than tarnish his memory.

Yes..... and it will sell a lot more books..... and he's not around to contest it.

Why am I repeating myself?

So, you are accusing Jobs' official biographer to embellish and lie to get more publicity and sell more books? Good grief...

What Jobs really would have needed was someone to tone down things, because these comments made by him are going to hurt his image.

IF its the truth why try to cover it up and tone down what he said.. His family knows what's in the book. If they THOUGHT it would hurt his image they wouldn't let the book be released.

It's sickening to read all these posts in which everyone is saying " Good old Stevie did NOTHING wrong in his whole time at Apple" Some people need to wake up and stop drinking the cool aid....


James

 

[Harrybarracuda]

You can find that clause somewhere in this thread. Someone posted it, should be in the first 15 page if I remember correctly. So yes, it exists, or that someone made it up. I'm vetting for the former.

To quote: "A copy of the complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, says that "Android (including without limitation the Dalvik VM and the Android software development kit) and devices that operate Android infringe one or more claims of each of United States Patents Nos. 6,125,447; 6,192,476; 5,966,702; 7,426,720; RE38,104; 6,910,205; and 6,061,520."".

Pretty unequivocal.

 

[iBug2]

To quote: "A copy of the complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, says that "Android (including without limitation the Dalvik VM and the Android software development kit) and devices that operate Android infringe one or more claims of each of United States Patents Nos. 6,125,447; 6,192,476; 5,966,702; 7,426,720; RE38,104; 6,910,205; and 6,061,520."".

Pretty unequivocal.

Ok here it is: Quoting from different sources

"Which makes the classification of Google as a “vendor” a misnomer. The notion of ‘vending’ something implies a contract. What Google does is write code and place it on an FTP server.

It’s a wonderful way to save on SG&A (there is no sales, general or administrative expense.) But as everyone knows, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

By avoiding any contractual engagement with the authors of the source code, implementors are subject to independent litigation for IP violations. This is why HTC and Motorola are targets for Apple and not Google. Google is no more liable for writing Android than the author of a book on bomb making is liable for the bombs put into use [1].

Patent violation rests with implementation, not the writing of the idea itself.

Furthermore, Google cannot ensure Android users have any specific experience. They can’t encourage upgrades, service models or any form of common UI. The experience, like the protection of property is the responsibility of the implementor."


"Third parties, not Google, would be liable for any Java copyright violations in the Android mobile OS, according to a filing the vendor made Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Oracle sued Google in August over a number of alleged Java patent and copyright violations in Android.

"Any use in the Android Platform of any protected elements of the works that are the subject of the Asserted Copyrights was made by third parties without the knowledge of Google, and Google is not liable for such use," Google attorneys wrote in one of 20 defenses to Oracle's amended complaint."

 

[Harrybarracuda]

"Blah Blah Blah" Google attorneys wrote in one of 20 defenses to Oracle's amended complaint."[/B]

How about this:

Google Inc., the largest Internet search company, won’t have to face part of Oracle Corp. (ORCL)’s claim that it infringed copyrights for the Java programming language.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco today ruled that some of the material Oracle claimed was infringed isn’t protected by copyright.

The copyright claim is part of Oracle’s lawsuit against the search-engine company alleging that the Android operating system for mobile devices infringes patents that Oracle owns after acquiring Sun Microsystems Inc.

Oracle accused Google of infringing 12 lines of code and 37 “specifications” for programming interfaces. Alsup said in his ruling that the names of the specifications that Google copied aren’t protected by copyright and ruled that the Mountain View, California-based company must face infringement claims on the other material.

Oracle, based in Redwood City, California, seeks billions of dollars in damages and a court order for the destruction of all products that violate its copyrights.

The case is Oracle America Inc. v. Google Inc. (GOOG), 10-03561, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

There's plenty of meat in this case and the judge isn't throwing it out because Google have good lawyers.

 

[divinox]

Microsoft also did the "exact opposite" of what Apple did and licensed Windows to every PC manufacturer. That doesn't change the fact even one bit that Windows 3 was heavily influenced by Mac OS GUI.

I quoted exact opposite because I still don't think it's the exact opposite, but according to you, it is.

Which has nothing to do with the look of a Windows grey box, or a BB-style phone - which was the argument made originally. Try to keep up, otherwise you're just wasting both of our time.

As for the GUI, both are operating under the desktop paradigm, so of course they are similar. Like stated, the "box" is only so big and its hard to think outside of established paradigms (and truth be told, neither Apple or Google has, really).

 

[iBug2]

There's plenty of meat in this case and the judge isn't throwing it out because Google have good lawyers.[/QUOTE]

I don't care what the judge rules, since I'm not a lawyer myself and don't know anything in detail about the case, neither does anyone here.

What matters is that such a clause exists between Google and 3rd party vendors and that was Google's defense in court.

It was quoted to counter the argument saying that such a thing does not exist.

 

[divinox]

Ok here it is: Quoting from different sources

"Which makes the classification of Google as a “vendor” a misnomer. The notion of ‘vending’ something implies a contract. What Google does is write code and place it on an FTP server.

It’s a wonderful way to save on SG&A (there is no sales, general or administrative expense.) But as everyone knows, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

By avoiding any contractual engagement with the authors of the source code, implementors are subject to independent litigation for IP violations. This is why HTC and Motorola are targets for Apple and not Google. Google is no more liable for writing Android than the author of a book on bomb making is liable for the bombs put into use [1].

Patent violation rests with implementation, not the writing of the idea itself.

Furthermore, Google cannot ensure Android users have any specific experience. They can’t encourage upgrades, service models or any form of common UI. The experience, like the protection of property is the responsibility of the implementor."


"Third parties, not Google, would be liable for any Java copyright violations in the Android mobile OS, according to a filing the vendor made Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Oracle sued Google in August over a number of alleged Java patent and copyright violations in Android.

"Any use in the Android Platform of any protected elements of the works that are the subject of the Asserted Copyrights was made by third parties without the knowledge of Google, and Google is not liable for such use," Google attorneys wrote in one of 20 defenses to Oracle's amended complaint."

The analogy, in the way it is interpreted in the particular discussion, is false however. In short, if said book about how to make a bomb is itself unlawful - or more to the case, infringing - then one could press action against Google. Further, Android IS the implementation, not just the idea.

In short: open or not, if a Google-based product is infringing, Google is liable.

Addendum: That said, and in accordance with the analogy, Google may not bear responsibility for all damages made by third-parties building on Googles infringing implementation. That, however, does not mean that Google itself cannot be addressed directly.