Google Claims a 'Hostile, Organized Campaign Against Android'

[marksman]

Seriously, guys?


Patents, when enforced by the original developer for his own protection, fit its original purpose. But when patents are enforced by its subsequent purchasers who benefit little from the innovation itself, and who use it only to prevent others to get to the same stage, that's just mean, and meant to stifle innovation. One can't say that Apple and Microsoft aren't unethical in what they're doing (and they should be pointed out for it), especially when they're hurting consumers instead of it just being healthy business competition.

Haha. It is weird how some people want inventors marked for death the second they patent something. Hey that guy invented something we need for our product. Put out a contract on him and when he is dead his invention is free for the taking. Woohoo!

So you are trying to tell me everyone ganging up on Google to keep Android out of the market does not hurt consumers?

They consider the market as a whole and whether or not it provides adequate competition. They do not micromanage the market and see if an individual change is better or worse for some people.

With an overall market review, Google being minimized in the Smartphone OS spectrum will not hurt the market, make it non viable or have any significant impact on competition.

You'll have to be more specific. Are you talking about hardware or software? Because hardware wise, the iPad is a rectangle. Are other tablets supposed to be circular or hexagonal so as not to be an ipad clone? Should they be thicker? Should they have less desirable screen sizes? The same goes for the iPhone. You can ooh and ahh over minor form factor changes between iPhone generations but then turn around and say that most phones these days look the same as the iPhone?

Since no phones LOOKED like the iPhone before the iPhone and most phones look like the iPhone after the iPhone, I am not sure your point stands. Same goes for the iPad. That tablets did not look like the iPad until the iPad came along and now they all look like the iPad...

You try to claim that these designs were obvious and anyone would have made them, yet NOBODY made them before Apple, but since Apple made them everyone copies them. That is pretty much the definition of innovation.

It is so obvious NOW what these devices should have looked like but it was NEVER obvious before Apple made it obvious.

Lots of designs and products come about that way or change in that way. That does not lessen the actual innovation accomplished by the person who actually brought the change or design to market.

 

[marksman]

Its cute that you're crediting Apple with all these advances in hardware technology and cell networks. Really, it is.

Actually the iPhone did help push a lot of changes in the smartphone market especially in the cell networks. the iPhone era actually caused people to use data on their cell phones thus changing how the cell networks were being used thus changing how they were built out and how they grew their networks and coverage.

I don't know anyone who wants to get rid of iTunes, and by "sync" I mean how iTunes syncs your computer's music, videos, apps, addresses, notes, photos, purchase history, settings, and OS updates to your iPod/iPhone, and it keeps a backup that can be encrypted. I can just take my iPod Touch out of my pocket, connect it to my computer, and forget about it. When I want to use it, everything is already synced.

It works well with the other Apple products like Airtunes/Airplay on Airport (which syncs with the Mac) and soon iCloud (also syncs with the Mac). The whole thing is a nice, well built structure.

I do. I hate iTunes. I avoid using it whenever I can. I think it is the biggest piece of crap Apple makes. It is a horrible piece of software and runs like Microsoft wrote it.

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.

Anyone who throws up the Prada as proof that Apple did not revolutionize the smart phone should be summarily dismissed. If it is not even a laughable argument. It is such a poor and lacking argument that laughing at a person who used it would be cruel and unusual. Just ignore them and dismiss them because it is a clear sign they have nothing to offer the discussion or debate.

It is hard to take anyone seriously who does not admit that Apple revolutionized both the Smartphone and Tablet markets with the iPhone and iPad.

I do not care if you like Apple or not. If you refuse to concede those real facts then you are being intellectually dishonest or you are actually deluded to the point of being conversationally challenged.

If Apple did not make the iPhone the previous industry MAY have gotten somewhere close to it, but it would have taken ten years to approach the level of the original iPhone.

 

[macsmurf]

The consider the market as a whole and whether or not it provides adequate competition. They do not micromanage the market and see if an individual change is better or worse for some people.

With an overall market review, Google being minimized in the Smartphone OS spectrum will not hurt the market, make it non viable or have any significant impact on competition.

Half of all smartphones sold today are Android phones. When something better comes along it will overtake Android. That's the essence of fair competition. Most don't have a problem with that.

So you're completely right, as long as you ignore the entire premise for this thread which is warfare with prohibitively expensive, obvious, and overly broad patents. Guess who pays for those billions of dollars spent on patents? You do.

 

[boss.king]

Since no phones LOOKED like the iPhone before the iPhone and most phones look like the iPhone after the iPhone, I am not sure your point stands. Same goes for the iPad. That tablets did not look like the iPad until the iPad came along and now they all look like the iPad...

You try to claim that these designs were obvious and anyone would have made them, yet NOBODY made them before Apple, but since Apple made them everyone copies them. That is pretty much the definition of innovation

Google 'Axiotron Modbook' and then try tell me nothing looked like the iPad before 2010.

 

[marksman]

Half of all smartphones sold today are Android phones. When something better comes along it will overtake Android. That's the essence of fair competition. Most don't have a problem with that.

So you're completely right, as long as you ignore the entire premise for this thread which is warfare with prohibitively expensive, obvious, and overly broad patents. Guess who pays for those billions of dollars spent on patents? You do.

Do I need to explain to you what happens to a marketplace where innovation and inventions are not protected?

I will give you the quick version.

Small companies innovate and create, big companies copy and put little companies out of business. Little companies who innovate stop innovating because they can not afford to spend the resources to create something and not reap the benefits it would bring.

Soon you have a few large companies that spend no money on R&D because it is wholly unnecessary. They can either wait for someone else to invent something and steal it and then force them out of business, or they can just sell the products they have without any upgrades or development because consumers have no choice.

Even Apple who currently invents and innovates outside of market pressures would not be creating new products because others could just steal them. There would literally be no reason for anyone to invent anything. The companies who held on to their resources and used them to steal other people's inventions and then force them out of business would control all relevant markets.

By the way I have no problem paying for products who license technology from other companies or invent it themselves. That is mostly what I am paying for...

 

[macsmurf]

Do I need to explain to you what happens to a marketplace where innovation and inventions are not protected?

I will give you the quick version.

Small companies innovate and create, big companies copy and put little companies out of business. Little companies who innovate stop innovating because they can not afford to spend the resources to create something and not reap the benefits it would bring.

In the current climate, little companies are put out of business by patent suits which, according to the radio program mentioned a couple of times, costs 2-5 million dollars to defend against, or exorbitant license fees under the threat of patent suits.

Your patent system does not encourage innovation - it stifles it.

 

[boss.king]

Do I need to explain to you what happens to a marketplace where innovation and inventions are not protected?

I will give you the quick version.

Small companies innovate and create, big companies copy and put little companies out of business. Little companies who innovate stop innovating because they can not afford to spend the resources to create something and not reap the benefits it would bring.

Soon you have a few large companies that spend no money on R&D because it is wholly unnecessary. They can either wait for someone else to invent something and steal it and then force them out of business, or they can just sell the products they have without any upgrades or development because consumers have no choice.

Even Apple who currently invents and innovates outside of market pressures would not be creating new products because others could just steal them. There would literally be no reason for anyone to invent anything. The companies who held on to their resources and used them to steal other people's inventions and then force them out of business would control all relevant markets.

By the way I have no problem paying for products who license technology from other companies or invent it themselves. That is mostly what I am paying for...

And on the other end of that spectrum you have companies that patent every concept under the sun and sue the bejeezus out of any competitor.

Eg:
"A computer-implemented method, for use in conjunction with a portable multifunction device with a touch screen display, comprises displaying a portion of page content, including a frame displaying a portion of frame content and also including other content of the page, on the touch screen display," the patent abstract reads. "An N-finger translation gesture is detected on or near the touch screen display. In response, the page content, including the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the page, is translated to display a new portion of page content on the touch screen display."

That's from one of Apples patents. It basically covers any touchscreen that is compatible with human skin. How is that fair?

 

[Azathoth]

Let's assume for a minute that you're a professional artist. You create a very nice painting. I take a picture of it and start selling postcards with your painting on the back.

Would you show me some "consideration" and not sue me?

No, according to google's claims, a more apt analogy:
you're in a country of painters and some of your peers buy the canvas makers and increase the price of canvases. I.e. cartel forming.

I don't know if the recent Nortel patent acquisition is anti-competitive, but what is clear is that the tech industry is focussing more on legal BS (trivial patents filed defensively, "just in case"), which is harmful for consumers.

 

[Renverse]

Microsoft just made Google's whole QQ post invalid.

See: http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/03/microsoft-just-kicked-google-in-the-nuts/

Microsoft, you go girl. I would love a snide remark from Apple, too.

 

[Swift]

Why? There is nothing like Google for search and gmail, just because the whole android platform is a ripoff doesn't mean it is going to die. Bit like saying Linux is going to melt down ala OS/2

I think the significant thing here is that you identify Linux with Google. Linux is genuine open source, and they make very little money.

Google makes a boatload of cash every quarter. Their stock is valued in the hundreds of billions. They are NOT a struggling, pure open-source company held together by volunteer's devotion. They are a ruthless corporation who have lots of money to spend, and they've always had a cavalier idea about other companies' intellectual property. First scan all the books. Then worry about copyright. Then accuse the authors of being money-grubbing when they sue. Free! Open! Our patent system is worthless! Especially when it doesn't please us!

We probably do need some kind of revamp of patents, especially software patents. But in the meanwhile, the law is in the corner of those defending patents.

In non-software related patenting, I'm generally in favor of patents. But sometimes it doesn't work well. I cite the famous case that Major Armstrong, the true inventor of FM radio, waged against NBC for years and years, until he finally won but had ruined his life fighting the huge corporation. David Sarnoff knew he'd have a long time with his infringement of Armstrong's patents before he'd have to pay a little in damages, and he turned out to be right.

I think patents would make more sense if they were granted more selectively, had (for software) a more limited term, if they didn't have to be defended in million-dollar lawsuits against huge corporations that have bottomless pockets, and if they couldn't be exercised except by the original developer.

 

[divinox]

If technology patents were "real-world" we'd see patents on things like doors (a device used to temporarily open a solid structure to allow the passage of items).

We need patent reform when it comes to technology and we need it soon.

Best post ive seen in this forum so far. Now we just have to wait for the patent-lovers to explain to us how doors being free to use hampers innovation.

 

[divinox]

I think the significant thing here is that you identify Linux with Google. Linux is genuine open source, and they make very little money.

Google makes a boatload of cash every quarter. Their stock is valued in the hundreds of billions. They are NOT a struggling, pure open-source company held together by volunteer's devotion. They are a ruthless corporation who have lots of money to spend, and they've always had a cavalier idea about other companies' intellectual property. First scan all the books. Then worry about copyright. Then accuse the authors of being money-grubbing when they sue. Free! Open! Our patent system is worthless! Especially when it doesn't please us!

We probably do need some kind of revamp of patents, especially software patents. But in the meanwhile, the law is in the corner of those defending patents.

In non-software related patenting, I'm generally in favor of patents. But sometimes it doesn't work well. I cite the famous case that Major Armstrong, the true inventor of FM radio, waged against NBC for years and years, until he finally won but had ruined his life fighting the huge corporation. David Sarnoff knew he'd have a long time with his infringement of Armstrong's patents before he'd have to pay a little in damages, and he turned out to be right.

I think patents would make more sense if they were granted more selectively, had (for software) a more limited term, if they didn't have to be defended in million-dollar lawsuits against huge corporations that have bottomless pockets, and if they couldn't be exercised except by the original developer.

Non-transferable patents is a silly idea, really. Its not that patents are transferable that is the problem here, that, in my opinion, is good (as in furthering innovation). The current situation is just retarded though (in America at least, nordic patent law is not as flawed).

 

[mabaker]

Google's hypocrisy knows no limits.

 

[boss.king]

Google's hypocrisy knows no limits.

Care to elaborate?

BTW, your sig is hilarious

 

[JetBlack7]

Why does Apple even take the time to feed the trolls over at Google when they should be worried about improving even further they products?

 

[Shasterball]

So let me get this straight, Google is angry somebody else than them bought the patents? Isn't the point of a free market that anyone can compete for the same product?

Yeah, but you can't use anti-competitive tactics in buying them up or asserting them. I'm not saying Apple/Microsoft/Etc... are, just that this is Google's gripe (not the mere fact that they have been bought).

 

[Zaim2]

Microsoft just made Google's whole QQ post invalid.

See: http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/03/microsoft-just-kicked-google-in-the-nuts/

Microsoft, you go girl. I would love a snide remark from Apple, too.

Judging from the date, those are for the Novell patents, not the Nortel patents, where Apple, MSFT, RIM etc bandied together in secret.

 

[mabaker]

Care to elaborate?

BTW, your sig is hilarious

I for one think Google is wrong for first offering $3.1 billion "defensively" and then calling the consortium's win "bogus". Every thinking person knows that they would use the patents for their gain once acquired. Of course, not to say Apple is the holy Angel of it all - not at all.

What we have here is a classic example of big corporation politics aka Big public back mouthing and smearing while deals are being made backdoors.

 

[d0minick]

Let's assume for a minute that you're a professional artist. You create a very nice painting. I take a picture of it and start selling postcards with your painting on the back.

Would you show me some "consideration" and not sue me?

LOL More like.

Your an artist who takes pictures and sells them on postcards. You get angry at competition. So you team up with another bigger seller of post cards and buy the patent to post cards so no one else but you two, unless competition pays, can use the post cards.

LOL yup.

 

[glossywhite]

Oh ok you just seem so surprised or shocked that there are fanboys here who get mad when you talk about Apple. It's the same on any site. I own an android phone and there are plenty of fanboy morons on android sites, just like there are on this site. It happens.

I've just taken a quick glance at your G+ profile... and surmised that you're obsessed with the word 'fanboy'. You need to grow up.

 

[d0minick]

Plain and simple. Buying old patents stifle competition.

No ideas original. Get over it. Get creative. Innovate. Compete. Live. Love. Laugh. Drink. Have Sex. Do it all over again.

 

[Tanguyvd]

Anyone who thinks Apple plays a fair game is a clown. I own all Apple computers, but if they don't show consideration for anyone but themselves soon, that will be coming to an end.

Why is everyone giving bad votes to this post?
Taking lilsoccakid to his words, he'll be leaving this forum soon, and thats one troll les...

 

[Popeye206]

Plain and simple. Buying old patents stifle competition.

No ideas original. Get over it. Get creative. Innovate. Compete. Live. Love. Laugh. Drink. Have Sex. Do it all over again.

Nice idea, but not realistic.

Besides... you know Google tried to buy these patents and lost the bid. What do you think they would have done if they bought the patents? Yup... been knocking on Apple's and MS'd door looking for licenses.

They were for sale. Someone bought them. Now the owners are going for licenses. That's how it works. I see nothing but sour grapes in the blog post.

 

[2 Owls]

If it is true, just call it revenge for the HORRIBLE new tablet search, goodbye android ha ha.

 

[krischik]

If the patents are "dubious", why were you willing to pay $4 billion for them?

Simple: because defeating dubious patents cost a lot of time and a lot of money money.