I don't know about others, but I'm annoyed with Google breaking patents, which they are.
In addition, they are a worthless company because they do not invent anything. It's like Microsoft.
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 Claims a 'Hostile, Organized Campaign Against Android'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know about others, but I'm annoyed with Google breaking patents, which they are.
In addition, they are a worthless company because they do not invent anything. It's like Microsoft.
When you outsource the crap out of development, have no final right of refusal over the BOM of products that our OS is embedded in and try to follow the Microsoft "Throw crap out on and just get market share" when the market is much more sophisticated where they can distinguish quality, yeah that can happen.
Heard it best "Andriod: a 70s era OS, with 80's era marketing, with a 90's era UI and on '00s hardware."
Google's goal is to commoditize everything and make them available on the Google platforms. So they will champion "open" and "freedom" of everything, unless it involves search and ad of Google.
That's the hypocritical part about Google IMHO. If you're going to promote yourself as being "open" and criticize others for being "controlling," why are you so secretive about your search and ads? Open up your ad algorithm and open source your search if you really want freedom of information so that others can use your search and ads, and perhaps improve upon them.
Unless Google open source their search, whatever "open" rhetoric they use will always ring hollow to me. It's just a way of opening up everyone else's information to make them available for Google's ad business.
You're joking right? Google uses other companies' tech and give it away as "open source" because you know, in their world, that's fair. And competitive.
It's about time that Google get called on their *****.
The only reason that Android is any good is because they ripped of Apple's R & D. Furthermore Eric Shmidt had no business being on Apple's board when only HE knew that they were actually planning to be competitors. the man is a snake.
I think you are missing this as well, these patents are not for search. And if Google's Android was developed without employing the IP owned by others this Novell Patent purchase would be a non-issue for them.
This is nothing but an attempt to keep Apple and Microsoft from bidding on the next auction.
Android is Fragmented Crapware. Sorry Google. Too Little, Too Late.
You are now the VISTA of Mobil OS'. Good luck.
Android is Fragmented Crapware. Sorry Google. Too Little, Too Late.
You are now the VISTA of Mobil OS'. Good luck.
And the myth lives another day.
Apple paid Xerox. They didn't rip them off.
Definitely not innovation then.
Cry me a river. These groups no doubt have cross-licensing agreements to use the patents amongst each other.
If you don't have patents to barter with, pony up.
If you don't have patents to barter with, pony up.
Nothing about this is accurate. This is not a jab against Apple by any means, but:
Android is based on Linux, which didn't even exist until the 1990s (70's era OS?). The history of the OS is similar to that of Mac OS X (deriving from Unix) and it's just as modern. The hardware is also just as modern as the iPhone, in some cases using the exact same parts and on occasion higher performing parts (00's era hardware?). For example the iPhone CPU is simply an ARM Cortex A8, probably the most common CPU design used in smartphones today. The GPU is from PowerVR SGX 535 which is featured on dozens of other phones, including Android phones. This is not a bad thing -- the point is just that there is nothing really unique about the iPhone's hardware other than its overall design.
Last edited:
Do you have some evidence for that? Do you see a lot of innovation coming from, say, China, a place where intellectual property rights carry no weight? Why no, no you don't.
Would a pharmaceutical company, for example, spend millions (billions?) developing and testing a new drug only to see a competitor instantly clone it and sell it for less (no R&D to recoup, you see) due to a lack of patent protection? Hardly.
Patents protect and encourage innovation. That said, the patent system is broken and needs a major revamp. Patents themselves, however, are necessary and an important aspect of the capitalist system.
Google and the rules
In this patent game, Google played by the rules, and lost to those who out-bid them. So now Google wants to change the rules. That's the well-known strategy of the schoolyard bully: time-tested and it works. If I lose, I change the rules. Wonder if the Department of Justice can be lobbied into endorsing the bully-move?
In this patent game, Google played by the rules, and lost to those who out-bid them. So now Google wants to change the rules. That's the well-known strategy of the schoolyard bully: time-tested and it works. If I lose, I change the rules. Wonder if the Department of Justice can be lobbied into endorsing the bully-move?
Loving the negative votes there. I hope you are all angrily clicking away! :roll eyes:
You guys are really hilarious though. Fanboyism at its worst. I have an iPhone and an iPad, but you just blindly love anything with Apple's name on it, including patents it has bought. Oh well.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
I'm out!
You guys are really hilarious though. Fanboyism at its worst. I have an iPhone and an iPad, but you just blindly love anything with Apple's name on it, including patents it has bought. Oh well.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
I'm out!
Be careful, that won't sit well here. If you disagree with Apple, you will be branded a hater and a troll.
That's a cop out. Go to an Android forum and say you agree with Apple and see what happens.
Here's a thought, support your opinion with an argument and have an intelligent debate.
What? What has Apple invented that makes them a cut above the others? Apple is notorious for buying smaller companies and then integrating those services into their ecosystem, but that's not inventing anything.
When did I say "Apple"? I'm just saying that Google doesn't invent stuff. I'm not saying that Apple is good, it's just that the others don't invent anything.
Apple invented stuff like the iTunes + iPod system, the GUI PC and OS (Xerox made GUI but didn't make a real PC), and a bunch of other accessories like Airport that have innovative features.
By no means is Apple a near-perfect company. I have a lot of issues with it too like their unethical restrictions on Airdisk (you can't do Time Machine), their iMac G5, Ping, the iTunes Store, and their iPod Shuffle.
Also, Adobe is an innovative company. I admire them too, but I hate the Flash format and Acrobat Reader (the application).
Last edited:
Loving the negative votes there. I hope you are all angrily clicking away! :roll eyes:
You guys are really hilarious though. Fanboyism at its worst. I have an iPhone and an iPad, but you just blindly love anything with Apple's name on it, including patents it has bought. Oh well.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
I'm out!
Call me an Apple fanboy by pointing out that Google hasn't invented anything, I hope you have fun doing that and only that all day
And how do we know that you are not a Google fanboy? I do not support Apple in this, but I don't like Google being like Microsoft.
You "can't" copy them without paying. To those who think that patents stop innovation, I'm sure that copying stuff without permission is not innovation anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe that Google would have nothing to fear about such moves if it did not infringe upon any of the patents that were purchased. I worked for Nortel for several years and they did have quite a few patents that would be highly sought after by many companies. The fact that Nortel with its major finiancal issues would not have been able to fight a Google or Apple makes this an interesting situation.
So the problem here is not just that Apple and Microsoft have purchased these patents but the patents purchased are being infringed upon. The Google argument seems to fail at the point when they claim a hardship because they are now going to be held accountable for code that they are infringing on and they are profiting from. Even with open source software there is an intrinisc value associated as the company that owns "android".
At the end of the day this is the gamble that companies take. Google is one of the big players with a lot of muscle just like Microsoft, Oracle, and Apple. They push the limits to deliver services and products and skate a fine line a lot of the time to leave it to mitagtion or lawyers to decide the outcome. Look back at many of the large companies and they trample on small companies that they know they have a slim chance of being sued by due to costs associated with a long legal battle. In this case the cards are with Apple and Microsoft and that scares Google. In the end, if they didn't infringe on Nortel patents then they have nothing to worry about and can counter-claim a frivolous lawsuit. I have not heard Google make this statement meaning they feel they are facing some serious issues.
So the problem here is not just that Apple and Microsoft have purchased these patents but the patents purchased are being infringed upon. The Google argument seems to fail at the point when they claim a hardship because they are now going to be held accountable for code that they are infringing on and they are profiting from. Even with open source software there is an intrinisc value associated as the company that owns "android".
At the end of the day this is the gamble that companies take. Google is one of the big players with a lot of muscle just like Microsoft, Oracle, and Apple. They push the limits to deliver services and products and skate a fine line a lot of the time to leave it to mitagtion or lawyers to decide the outcome. Look back at many of the large companies and they trample on small companies that they know they have a slim chance of being sued by due to costs associated with a long legal battle. In this case the cards are with Apple and Microsoft and that scares Google. In the end, if they didn't infringe on Nortel patents then they have nothing to worry about and can counter-claim a frivolous lawsuit. I have not heard Google make this statement meaning they feel they are facing some serious issues.
That is what google is complaining about. Having to pay to use patents they don't own but infringed on and tried to buy.
uh, why even be on the internet? the moment you are online, your identity is exposed. all this 'they're using you for DATA' is a) duh b) who cares?
everyone is already on facebook getting all their personal data being given to 3rd party entities.
if thats the excuse that the Apple fankids are saying now, its a weak argument. it just further demonstrates why i trust Google's business model (there is no interest for them to sell hardware, they just want you to be online searching for stuff via google/voice search).
In essence, Apple will stagnate innovation for the sake of $$$. They want as many of their devices to be sold as possible. And why wouldn't they? They are a publicly traded company, and make huge margins / device! Their interest ultimately lies with their shareholders, not the end user.
Now Google is publicly traded company as well, and make $$$ through ads. Yet they consistently provide a lot of free productivity driven applications as long as they can place miniscule ads on their products.
Still, nobody has answered my original question. At all. Nobody even tried to answer it, which was, what products does Apple bring to the table to end users that are free?
personal anecdote: my mobileme account was compromised. I had multiple unauthorized transactions to my PayPal. This is not a minor issue, neither.
Last edited:
China? Of course. They have been innovating for centuries. Long before patents ever existed.
As for evidence; the entire course of human history until patent law, even in its rudimentary form, ever existed.
Simply put, patents do not spur or encourage innovation. Necessity does. Always has. always will. Innovation is about creative problem solving.
With the profit motive as the underlying paradigm, they mostly seek to solve the most profitable problems meanwhile discouraging less profitable, and in many case, more effective solutions.
Patents simply protect profit or profit potential. Nothing more. Humans around the world innovate every single day. That's how our lower primate ancestor evolved into the Homo Sapien species. We are creative problem solvers. And having an opposable thumb goes a long way toward effectuating problem solving.
As for patents being necessary in a capitalistic system, I disagree, in part. It's only necessary to the degree in which it is most beneficial towards materializing the rewards of the profit motive. It's an incentive system that unfortunately stifles the invention/innovation of less marketable solutions for the public at large. There are many less marketable solutions that fall by the wayside or are skipped over simply because there isn't or wasn't a presently "justifiable" profit to be made.
Patents are legalized monopolies. Worse still, the majority of patents have a scope that is too far reaching. That aspect is responsible for patent trolls to exist and to pursue "similar" ideas. Further, patents substantially increase the risk of innovating. Something which retards innovation. Too close to a "similar" idea or were not able to do due diligence in research if a patent already exists in a reasonable amount of time and you could at best incur an unaccounted for expense. At worse, go out of business.
So where do I agree? I agree that in trying to avoid potential patent infringement, one has to be quite creative in solving that particular problem. You could deem that as "innovation." But that mostly leads to inefficient use of resources and time.
When apple announced the iPhone, it looked and worked different than any other phone ever built. Now most phones look as close to an iPhone as possible.
Then 18 months ago they announced the iPad, which was ulike any tablet computer ever. Now the whole industry is scrambling to build something as close go what apple has done as possible.
But I guess they haven't invented anything?
Wirelessly posted (Iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)
No, but you do have to buy the paint brush...
Look, this is all settled in courts. If apple et all are actually wrong and unfairly using patents, that'll come out in court. Acting as if somehow apple is evil for following the judicial code is absurd. If google is right, they have no reason to worry. By the sounds google has been making publicly, they don't sound too confident they are right and instead are hoping to paint other companies as evil for following the law.
burnside said:
No, but you do have to buy the paint brush...
Look, this is all settled in courts. If apple et all are actually wrong and unfairly using patents, that'll come out in court. Acting as if somehow apple is evil for following the judicial code is absurd. If google is right, they have no reason to worry. By the sounds google has been making publicly, they don't sound too confident they are right and instead are hoping to paint other companies as evil for following the law.