Google Claims a 'Hostile, Organized Campaign Against Android'

[Tigger92]

This certainly has happened before with PCs

It's not like this is some new thing in the industry. Been happening for years. Microsoft did exactly this with Windows NT and IBM OS/2. In this case, they actually teamed together to work on a joint operating system. A short time later....Microsoft went their own way and went after IBM for using the joint code. IBM had to pay Microsoft $10 for every copy of OS/2 that they sold in the 90's.

And I happen to be an formet IBMer that knew a few of the people involved.

 

[MattInOz]

Patent trolls run amok. Why? Because anyone can write an absurdly broad patent and sue with it. Prior art is so damned narrow that it's virtually useless. The SLIGHTEST change in a product is enough to invalidate prior art these days. Patent trolls are nothing but despicable little parasites. They produce nothing and their only business is suing others with patents they probably bought thirdhand. Then we come to software patents, something that should never had existed in the first place. You may as well try to patent a math formula. They're also much worse than physical patents because you're only patenting a method of doing something, and they usually involve slapping two items together, ie, the patent on garbage collection when iterating through a linked list, which is nothing more than mashing two existing ideas together. This does not encourage innovation. This destroys it.

So the systems not broken just it's application.

 

[macsmurf]

I personally recommend that everyone listen to "This American Life" episode/podcast #441 "When Patents Attack".

I think this is a great episode and will give you a good sense of what the patent industry is like these days. Also, toward the end of the program, they get into things like this Nortel patent purchase and Lodsys. Please listen to the whole thing. It's equally disturbing and fascinating to me.

These patent purchases are really just to protect themselves against lawsuits.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack

Thanks for the link. I especially liked the last part (about the Nortell patents):

"Think of that — 4.5 billion dollars on patents that these companies almost certainly don’t want for their technical secrets. That 4.5 billion dollars won’t build anything new, won’t bring new products to the shelves, won’t open up new factories that can hire people who need jobs. That’s 4.5 billion dollars that adds to the price of every product these companies sell you — 4.5 billion dollars essentially wasted, buying arms for an ongoing patent war. The big companies, Google, Apple, Microsoft, will probably survive this war. The likely casualties, the companies out there now that no one’s ever heard of that could one day take their place."

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[Durendal]

For somebody sucked into the Google hive mind as completely as you are, it's pretty ridiculous for you to go off ranting about fanboys.

Except I'm not part of the Google hivemind and I'm not a Google fanboy. You kneejerked something fierce right there, pal. Defensive, are we? Google has had hits and misses. They're not a perfect company and they've erred like any other. However, on the patent abuse front, they've done a helluva lot better than most. I'm calling it like it is. If that happens to make Google look good when Apple fanboys here are calling them names, then oh well.

Folks not so blinded by 'free'ware fandroidism as you can pretty plainly see that Google's game is to use their huge money pile to drive everyone else out of the market by giving it all away for free and forcing all consumers to fully join the Google collective where we will all be good little captive consumers of Google's advertising monopoly that makes their real money.

My goodness! How dare they provide free services! My God, they've found a viable business model in providing a wide variety of services for free! Those evil, horrible people! Now people will be forced to use every Google product ever! All because they were able to find a way to provide free services instead of charging for them!

Do you even have any idea just how laughably absurd your post is? Do you have even the slightest understanding of these things?

Apple, MS, HP, RIM, etc. will be doing the world a massive favor if they can force reasonable fees on Android and blunt Google's plans for total domination of the world's consumers.

I find it hilarious that you lump MS in there when they have been notorious for monopolistic practices and strongarming the competition out of the market. And force "reasonable fees"? Are you KIDDING ME? So we should make everything cost more for consumers? Is that somehow a good thing?

Jesus H Christ, come back when you have some grounding in reality.

 

[Durendal]

So the systems not broken just it's application.

Both. The system being the courts and legislative bodies are pretty well broken for letting this insanity run amok, most notably a court in east Texas. If courts would stop allowing so much abuse and legislative bodies would enact reform then the application would be fixed as well. However, seeing as how so many politicians and judges are former lawyers, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[Uragon]

I think you guys should remember that when google bid on the patents for $4B, they were doing it for themselves. What you have against Google is pretty much every anti-Google player bidding on the patents and sharing them. This brings up a question: If it were for defense, why not allow Google into the consort? Simple: It is, indeed, a hostile, organized campaign against Android.

That's not to say that the tax evaders at Google don't deserve it. But Apple is teaming up with Windows and RIM to do this. Who was left out?

it seems Google was invited to the consortium, but they turned it down. Let's see how this will develop.

But Google seems to be playing the sympathy card from the crowd. It's really weird coming from their legal team.

 

[Durendal]

It's a bit hypocritical to say that. First of all, you're ignoring the fact that people like Apple products for reasons other than shininess. Then you are going on the extreme side to call them religious...

Person who owns Apple products != Apple fanboy. Yes, the shiny bit was a bit simplistic, but the point stands. Apple is a company that makes goods and services. That's it. Simply liking many of their products should never blind a person to the actions of said company.

The truth is, there are Apple fanboys, but most people here like Apple for legitimate reasons and don't like Google because of how little innovation they make. I'll admit, a lot of people tend to overlook Apple's faults, though.

I'm sure folks in here have their reasons for liking Apple PRODUCTS, but from this thread alone (and many more on this site), it's pretty obvious that many have gone completely irrational in justify any possible action Apple performs and will find any reason to badmouth competitors without even bothering to examine what's going on. I've seen some posts on these forums over the years that are so mind-blowingly stupid and ignorant that I wonder if forced sterilization of some people isn't such a bad idea.

Personally, I don't doubt that Google infringed some patents, but even if they didn't, I wouldn't mind since they are not an innovative company. They're not that bad, though. Microsoft is by far the least innovative big company (the least innovative overall would be those Chinese knockoff-ers). I do not want to see them benefit from this, but they might. And the only reason I want Apple to be successful is because I use their products because they are almost always the best, so I want them to be the primary producer. It's like how my Mac would have more software available for it natively if Apple defeated MS a long time ago. Ah well, I'll use VirtualBox and WINE.

Apple is already plenty successful without having to sue a bunch of people with broad, obvious patents. I'd like to see Apple be successful too. I like a number of their products. However, I also want to see some competition in the market and people not playing so dirty, too. "Innovation" has become such a ludicrously watered-down term that it hardly means anything anymore. Apple doesn't really innovate either. They're very good at taking a number of existing ideas (and perhaps a new one or two) and packaging them in a product that integrates them all very well. That's not innovation. That's tweaking and polish. It's what most companies do these days. Apple just tends to do it better than most. Having a marketing machine that cannot be matched in the tech industry doesn't hurt, either.

 

[faroZ06]

Apple is already plenty successful without having to sue a bunch of people with broad, obvious patents. I'd like to see Apple be successful too. I like a number of their products. However, I also want to see some competition in the market and people not playing so dirty, too. "Innovation" has become such a ludicrously watered-down term that it hardly means anything anymore. Apple doesn't really innovate either. They're very good at taking a number of existing ideas (and perhaps a new one or two) and packaging them in a product that integrates them all very well. That's not innovation. That's tweaking and polish. It's what most companies do these days. Apple just tends to do it better than most. Having a marketing machine that cannot be matched in the tech industry doesn't hurt, either.

Yeah Apple does a lot of tweaking and polishing, but the main innovations are the Macintosh and the iPhone, which redefined what a smartphone is. I guess their packaging is really good, so that's not really "innovative", but I've never seen any company do it so well before. I just love how well the Apple products work with each other because of Apple's policy of making the hardware and software. They just do an unmatched job of making their products complement each other.

So even if Apple doesn't "invent" things today in the strictest terms, they are definately the leader in using older ideas to make something new. The iPod by itself would just be another MP3 player, a lot different from Apple's system of iPod + Mac + accessories.

 

[Durendal]

Yeah Apple does a lot of tweaking and polishing, but the main innovations are the Macintosh and the iPhone, which redefined what a smartphone is. I guess their packaging is really good, so that's not really "innovative", but I've never seen any company do it so well before. I just love how well the Apple products work with each other because of Apple's policy of making the hardware and software. They just do an unmatched job of making their products complement each other.

Xerox PARC had the GUI before Apple did. Apple took that concept and then improved and polished it. They didn't invent a great deal. Also, look up the LG Prada. Looked a lot like the iPhone before the iPhone was announced. I'm not saying that Apple doesn't do a good job on their products. I'm saying they aren't generally big, wild innovators. They're simply good at succeeding where others have failed.

So even if Apple doesn't "invent" things today in the strictest terms, they are definately the leader in using older ideas to make something new. The iPod by itself would just be another MP3 player, a lot different from Apple's system of iPod + Mac + accessories.

And this is true. Apple does a good job with integration and UI. It doesn't hurt that Apple's marketing team is among the best in the business.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Person who owns Apple products != Apple fanboy. Yes, the shiny bit was a bit simplistic, but the point stands. Apple is a company that makes goods and services. That's it. Simply liking many of their products should never blind a person to the actions of said company.

I'm sure folks in here have their reasons for liking Apple PRODUCTS, but from this thread alone (and many more on this site), it's pretty obvious that many have gone completely irrational in justify any possible action Apple performs and will find any reason to badmouth competitors without even bothering to examine what's going on. I've seen some posts on these forums over the years that are so mind-blowingly stupid and ignorant that I wonder if forced sterilization of some people isn't such a bad idea.

Apple is already plenty successful without having to sue a bunch of people with broad, obvious patents. I'd like to see Apple be successful too. I like a number of their products. However, I also want to see some competition in the market and people not playing so dirty, too. "Innovation" has become such a ludicrously watered-down term that it hardly means anything anymore. Apple doesn't really innovate either. They're very good at taking a number of existing ideas (and perhaps a new one or two) and packaging them in a product that integrates them all very well. That's not innovation. That's tweaking and polish. It's what most companies do these days. Apple just tends to do it better than most. Having a marketing machine that cannot be matched in the tech industry doesn't hurt, either.

Well said. But you're being rational, and you know where that will get you here.

 

[Ron Adair]

Also, look up the LG Prada. Looked a lot like the iPhone before the iPhone was announced. I'm saying [Apple] aren't generally big, wild innovators.

Have you seen the prada?
Have you seen the iPhone?
Have you read the background on this story?
Is this a joke?

So—Apple went after LG, copied their design, made a massively better phone in the process, but really owes it all to a phone that basically snorts dung. Oh, and Apple did all this in 4 months time? No way that Apple had been working on this for years. Yeah. Mmmhmmmmm.

And I wish people would realize that innovation isn't about the big ostentatious strokes of the brush. It's almost always about the little things. It's so much more than "features." Innovation and improvement is more often about taking away, rather than adding more. Apple is king in this department, and THAT is their innovation.

Put another way, they think of the user first, second, and last. The product is made for THEM, not the other way around. If you think that isn't wildly innovative, I hope you never helm a company that has the power to move markets.

Because you'll be moving them backwards.

 

[beg_ne]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A5274d Safari/7534.48.3)

Dear Apple-haters, what do you think of this?

https://twitter.com/fxshaw/status/98932077327691776

Corporate communications guy at MS showing email proof between MS and Google that proves Google rejected their offer to join the group.

Must suck to have been played for morons by your precious Google. They tried to ******** the world with their weak story and you guys bought it hook line and sinker because you couldn't see past your hate for Apple. LOL

 

[Durendal]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A5274d Safari/7534.48.3)

Dear Apple-haters, what do you think of this?

https://twitter.com/fxshaw/status/98932077327691776

Corporate communications guy at MS showing email proof between MS and Google that proves Google rejected their offer to join the group.

Must suck to have been played for morons by your precious Google. They tried to ******** the world with their weak story and you guys bought it hook line and sinker because you couldn't see past your hate for Apple. LOL

See this as a shining example of blind idiocy. Let's take a look...

1. Claiming that anyone backing Google must be an Apple hater, as if thinking that Google has a point immediately means you hate Apple.
2. Claiming that anyone backing Google must be a massive Google fanboy, as if thinking that Google has a point immediately means you love Google.
3. Claiming that because there is no middle ground, anyone backing Google couldn't see past their Apple hate. Oh God, the irony, it burns...
4. Just being plain obnoxious and ignorant.

 

[Durendal]

Have you seen the prada?
Have you seen the iPhone?
Have you read the background on this story?
Is this a joke?

So—Apple went after LG, copied their design, made a massively better phone in the process, but really owes it all to a phone that basically snorts dung. Oh, and Apple did all this in 4 months time? No way that Apple had been working on this for years. Yeah. Mmmhmmmmm.

Here's a direct quote from an LG spokesman:

"We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006."

Now, perhaps that's just sour grapes, but he may have a point. If you think it takes four years to polish off the look and feel of a device then you are utterly insane. Apple had been working on phone ideas for years, but that doesn't mean they were working on the same thing the entire time. Whether the Prada was a good phone or not is utterly irrelevant. It's entirely possible that Apple was able to put a design together in four months or so built around existing tech they'd already been working on.

And I wish people would realize that innovation isn't about the big ostentatious strokes of the brush. It's almost always about the little things. It's so much more than "features." Innovation and improvement is more often about taking away, rather than adding more. Apple is king in this department, and THAT is their innovation.

See earlier statement on how the word "innovation" has been watered down to the point of meaninglessness. Apple does some things very well. There's no denying that. But it seems that too many eat up the marketing buzz in droves and can't see past it. Marketing is always brighter and shinier than the real deal.

Put another way, they think of the user first, second, and last. The product is made for THEM, not the other way around. If you think that isn't wildly innovative, I hope you never helm a company that has the power to move markets.

Because you'll be moving them backwards.

Gee, point out where I said otherwise. You're seriously just pulling things out of your buttocks at this point to fling at me. Nice job. My only real criticism of Apple as a business has been their abuse of the patent system. Pointing out that they don't shatter the earth with every announcement does not make that cut.

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

Serious question here. Since Sony and Ericsson are in the consortium, even if there were some fee associated with Android devices, would this make Sony Ericsson exempt? No one seems to have addressed this at all.

 

[chirpie]

This seems very timely.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack

 

[Ron Adair]

Here's a direct quote from an LG spokesman:...
Now, perhaps that's just sour grapes, but he may have a point.

Look who you're quoting as evidence that something is amiss between Apple and that company. Of course LG is going to cry—they thought they could sell their device for LOADS more than the market had hitherto borne by tapping into the underserved luxury market. Except their plans were likely killed overnight with the announcement of the Apple iPhone. Sure it's sad, but that's business.

If you think it takes four years to polish off the look and feel of a device then you are utterly insane.

I said (nor thought) no such thing AND I am utterly insane. Now argue that.

It's entirely possible that Apple was able to put a design together in four months or so built around existing tech they'd already been working on.

I do not think you understand the fundamental nature of Apple as an innovative company, nor as a consumer electronics company. They aren't your standard-fare ripoff artists nestled in the hills of Shanghai. Apple doesn't 'rush to market,' 'jump on the bandwagon,' or 'throw stuff together.' Are they inspired by lots of things in the world? Only a fool would think this isn't the case with anyone. But that's a long way off from "copying" another handset maker. Look at the phone market—where was it before Apple? Where was it heading? How close to a 180° turn did the industry make after the iPhone debuted?

Now, can you tell me again how this is not the mark of an innovative product and/or approach?

See earlier statement on how the word "innovation" has been watered down to the point of meaninglessness. .... You're seriously just pulling things out of your buttocks at this point to fling at me.

I don't think you get it. My buttocks have nothing to do with it. Apple sees a market that is chock full of crap (but showing promise from a standpoint of user interest or need), and are constantly asking themselves whether they can do it better. They often (most often, in fact) end up with an emphatic "NO!" But for the 1 in 50 (maybe?) times they say yes, they don't go in with the same ideas and approaches everyone else took which led to failure or mediocrity. Where most companies think of profits, Apple thinks of people—specifically, the people who will be using the device.

If this isn't an innovative approach, and their products aren't innovative, then please—define innovative for us here and now (before you start talking about my insanity-stricken nether-regions again).

 

[MattInOz]

Both. The system being the courts and legislative bodies are pretty well broken for letting this insanity run amok, most notably a court in east Texas. If courts would stop allowing so much abuse and legislative bodies would enact reform then the application would be fixed as well. However, seeing as how so many politicians and judges are former lawyers, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

No still just one, the courts and lawyers who've brought the application of many legal systems into poor standing.

 

[Tesseract]

Yeah.... hey Google, this "Hostile, Organized Campaign Against Android" conspiracy is called "competition" in most parts of the world.

 

[TauCeti808]

Big Data = Big War

RIM, Apple, Microsoft band together to contain Google. They are afraid of Google ruling mobile search with Android as they rule "fixed" search.

So the chain is roughly like:
Android->OEM/ODM->Operator->User->Search/Ads->Big Data->Revenue

At the big picture I see Apple investing in Big Data and Mobile Search, MS is doing roughly the same, but the holy grail is Big Data the patents are just proxies to contain Google resp. Android from becoming dominant.

At the moment Amazon, Google and Facebook are the rules in big data, hence all the fuss about Kindle, FB Browser and Google TV.

That is the reason they are howling now, they are prevented from ruling mobile search because the royalities will force them to make concessions in one way or another.

I have no regret for Google, they are in some way radical and innovative but in detail they are not conclusive ie offering GWT running local but the chart library has to run on their servers, Google+ is a nice push on the paper but the user interface looks a bit to spartanic compared to FB. Google TV was announced with a lot of hello but the delivery was dissapointing, and it was obvious that the TV channels would resist against Google TV and Google should have known it by analysing Apple's strategy regarding Apple TV.

So Google is failing and after 10 years of strategic fiddling they still have no idea what comes after search and user profiling. If Apple or MS is ever enabled to amass as much data as Google about users, Google will have a big problem without dominance.

Reading in that context the potence of a shift from Mac OS X to ARM CPUs and merging iOS and MAC OS becomes a new meaning, because it would mean to merge the power of Mac OS X with the knowledege about your personal behaviour that is incooperated in iOS.

 

[PlipPlop]

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).

If you say Apple invented things like itunes cant we say Google invented things like gmail and google+?

Itunes is just a music player which was done before.
Ipod is an mp3 player with a spin wheel - done before
Airport - just wifi also done before

 

[pandamonia]

Google is pissed because they give away other peoples patents for free to Android Phone makers instead of licensing things the way other companies do.

Google makes money from tracking you all over the web like a god damn disease. Search money and other pay to click crap.

Apple makes money by selling thing you want to buy.

Id rather hand over my money and know what i pay for is mine and thats the end of it.

Rather than have my web and text messages logged and scanned so people can spam me adverts.

I hope google die. i hate adverts i NEVER buy from them anyway who does?

 

[boss.king]

I hope google die. i hate adverts i NEVER buy from them anyway who does?

No one buys from Google because they give their stuff away for free, which shows how little you know about the company you hate so much. If you hate ads, use an adblocker.

 

[neko girl]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A5274d Safari/7534.48.3)

Dear Apple-haters, what do you think of this?

https://twitter.com/fxshaw/status/98932077327691776

Corporate communications guy at MS showing email proof between MS and Google that proves Google rejected their offer to join the group.

Must suck to have been played for morons by your precious Google. They tried to ******** the world with their weak story and you guys bought it hook line and sinker because you couldn't see past your hate for Apple. LOL

See this as a shining example of blind idiocy. Let's take a look...

1. Claiming that anyone backing Google must be an Apple hater, as if thinking that Google has a point immediately means you hate Apple.
2. Claiming that anyone backing Google must be a massive Google fanboy, as if thinking that Google has a point immediately means you love Google.
3. Claiming that because there is no middle ground, anyone backing Google couldn't see past their Apple hate. Oh God, the irony, it burns...
4. Just being plain obnoxious and ignorant.

You do understand that you have no point whatsoever here? Google was offered to be part of the consortium so that the patent pool includes all/most smartphone OS makers. This consortium could then defend itself against typical patent trolls (companies without any competing products suing for IP).

You are here defending an advertising company, with a blatant disrespect for IP generated through years of research from other companies, who also has no interest in playing ball with the rest of the industry (see Google's history with media content providers).

Is this what you think good products are made of?

Please, by all means, educate us on what we seem to be missing from the article, and Microsoft's subsequent update.

 

[macsmurf]

Google is pissed because they give away other peoples patents for free to Android Phone makers instead of licensing things the way other companies do.

Google makes money from tracking you all over the web like a god damn disease. Search money and other pay to click crap.

Apple makes money by selling thing you want to buy.

Id rather hand over my money and know what i pay for is mine and thats the end of it.

Rather than have my web and text messages logged and scanned so people can spam me adverts.

I hope google die. i hate adverts i NEVER buy from them anyway who does?

Actually Apple sells your information to advertisers as well. To me it's a bit irrational to trust one multinational cooperation over another multinational cooperation but whatever floats your boat.