Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
For the Apple fanboys defending their holy corporation;

Whats in it for you to be so obsessed with Apple's success? Unless you own Apple stocks, you shouldn't be so psychotically in love with Apple, or any other corporation.

Do any of you ignorant fanboys realize that so much control, lawsuits, market dominance, and patent holdings only stifle competition and innovation? If Apple had its way, smaller companys woud cease to exist, competition would be gone and the push for Apple to innovate themselves is gone. Good luck with technology moving forward when theres no push any corporation to do so. This has already happened with the iPods complete obliteration of the market, and it helped Apple further when they were able to suck up NAND flash memory, not only at a lower price but also killing off the supply possible for competitors.

A great example would be Canada's duopoly in the broadband internet market. Only Bell and Rogers exist and have nearly complete control over the entire country for internet services. Only recently have Canadians generally been able to get speeds beyond 10-20mbit connection, depending on connection. Bell doesn't offer me anything faster than 1mbit connection in my area with a 300gb cap and they still charge me $45/month just for internet. I don't have any other options.

You think these corporations are in any rush while they can milk the consumer for everything they've got?

I like some Apple products as much as I dislike their other products. I give both harsh criticism as well as great praise wherever it is due, but the lot of you ignorant fools need to adapt some sense of rational thought.

Of course, I expect this message to get 'negged' (as it already has THREE only minutes after this being posted). Its obvious that certain macrumors members either; don't read more than the first line or have trouble with critical thinking.
 
Last edited:
I whole heartedly agree with Google, but I also whole heartedly think they wouldn't be saying a single word had they won the Novell portfolio!!

I think the entire patent system, especially in the US, is an utter joke. The way they sew each other is ridiculous. The entire system should be scraped and overhauled from the start.

I'm all for having the law protect something YOU invented. But not the way it's done at present.
 
The bigger picture is if these patents do in fact raise prices for Android devices. We do not want this. As much as I like Apple devices, it is companies like Google that keep the competition up and prices down.

The problem is that the customer for all of these Android devices is not the consumer. It's the carrier. Apple is the first mobile phone OEM that actually views the consumer as the customer.

If Android actually reaches Windows-level success, you can look forward to a future of mediocre phones crammed full of Verizon, Samsung, and Google crapware. But at least they'll only be $49.99 if you sign an 8 year contract!
 
...and out of the other side of Google's mouth, it just bought 1,000 IBM patents...but they have no plans to use them against Apple, etc....
 
Your logic is idiotic. What if i buy the patent to use it in my own product and someone then goes and rips it off? Can I litigate then in your world? The patent I would buy is my property, why should i be limited by what the previous owner did? Maybe they had incompetent engineers or legal counselor or simply no funds to research the claim. Maybe they wanted to profit off selling the patent rather than litigate. This patent becomes worthless because it shouldn’t be defended ever in the future with your logic. By your reasoning if they did not use it in a product they shouldn’t litagate. And then if I went in a bought the patent, well then I shouldn’t litigate either to protect my business and a investment of my share holders even if I incorporated it into a product. Why? Because you think it’ s bad form? I would say screw that, it is MY Property. Unless you dot value property to begin with. Your reasoning makes patents worthless.

Buying patents to incorporate the technology into your own products sounds legitimate. Buying patents to use to litigate against your competitors and try to squeeze them out is idiotic (that its legal, not that companies try to do it). If the original owner did not pursue infringement claims, the buyers should not be able to either.
 
all this will blow over - even Huawei announced an android phone - this thing is out of the bag.
 
Point?

Though I despise Google, in particular for "stealing" wi-fi info, not having any spine with China, etc. I can understand their point on this. Patents have gotten ridiculous and one wonders what the benefit of these portfolios are if so many patents can be filed. There is a patent pending for every little thing you can imagine.
What should be an environment for innovation has turned into defensive posturing. I think a "higher" standard for patent submissions should be made; it is obvious the system is almost completely out of control and ridiculous.
Having said that, from a business perspective, you need to do what is necessary to maintain your business model. By not playing the by the "rules", Google looks like an amateur cry-baby. Get your hands on all those patents first and then go ahead and assert that they shouldn't be valued. Be an example first. Right now, they just come out as bitter...
 
The whole concept of "buying" a patent seems ridiculous to me. If Google files a patent and then Google ceases to exist, then the patent should be void. Just like if an individual inventor files a patent and then dies, the patent should be void.

Just because someone is good at creating something, doesn't mean they will also be good at making a product out of it, or selling it. Which is why they would then sell their innovation to a company which is good at such things.

There is nothing wrong with being able to sell the fruits of your labor.

There is a lot wrong with the patent system, but unfortunately serious discussion of these issues gets undermined by the ideologues (whom Google seems to increasingly be channeling) with even worse ideas.
 
No, it's not. Android is very successful and taking a lot of flak recently. It looks as if every parasite on the planet is trying to suck some blood out of it.

The parasite is Google who has little respect for other peoples work and property.
 
"patents were meant to encourage innovation"

What a douche.
Patents were meant to encourage innovation by PROTECTING INNOVATION. It's that protection that makes people feel safe that they will not be ripped off if they innovate something.
Man! nothing like cherry picking ones words to slip and slide right past the truth.
Guy should run for Congress.
 
The whole concept of "buying" a patent seems ridiculous to me. If Google files a patent and then Google ceases to exist, then the patent should be void. Just like if an individual inventor files a patent and then dies, the patent should be void.

Apple buying a patent is basically just them buying a licence to rip off Nortel's ideas. So why bother with the money?

Okay, but let's flip it around...

Let's say you're a little guy, and you come up with an idea. Google comes along and wants to buy your idea.

This is where buying patents makes more sense.

Sure, you could say that big companies aren't allowed to trade patents, but then it's a double standard.
 
I think the issue Google has isn't so much with the actual patents. After all, they were bidding on them, too, but the fees that are being proposed. While it is OK for companies to protect their IP, they can't act in an anti-competitive manner or collude. The mobile industry is heavily dependent upon cross-licensing since no one company holds all the patents necessary to build a phone or operate a mobile network. If the consortium is selectively enforcing the patent, charging different rates to different licensees, or charging licensing fees that are excessive when compared to similar IP, then Google may have a valid argument.

We don't know for sure how Google would have licensed the patents or how much they would have charged had they won the auction, but given that they have used Android as a loss leader we may be able to make inferences.
 
Hm

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? The largest OS in Mobile Space right now, and they're now open to be sued to death or pay an unreasonable licensing fee on all their handsets.

Now you might dislike Google all you want, but it is indeed biased, and this probably is a trust violation as it singles out a competitor.

If Google got the patents themselves, I would have no problem. Same if Apple did. And that extra half a billion is inflation because in Google's view, no one alone would have been stupid enough to pay more than Google was offering. And they're right. No one alone did.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Wait, so $4 billion was a fair price, but $4.5 billion is "inflated"? I don't think Google would have thought the price was inflated at all if they won the auction. Anyway, those patents are worth whatever the market will bear.

0.5 in billions seem like a small number. Let me convert that for you. A billion is one thousand millions, so half a billion is 500 million USD which is not an easy thing to digest. And for further analysis, a 0.5 increase on $4 billion is a 12.5% increase in price.

Additionally, it is up to these enterprises to study at what point paying a licensing fee becomes more profitable (or not) than dishing out such large quantities of money.
 
I have little sympathy for Google. In the case of Java, it's pretty clear from Google's own internal emails that they willfully infringed on the patents even after discussing licensing with Sun. And now somehow Google is the victim?
 
Let the strength of your products do the talking, Google.

They *are* yours, right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was really, REALLY on Google's side before the original Nexus phone. There was talk that Google would make an "open" smartphone that would break the carrier contract market. There was talk of them bidding on wireless spectrum for "openness" in the public's interest.

But in the end the consumer is not Google's customer. The advertisers are. The carriers are. They made a deal with the devil in Verizon and crippled hopes of net neutrality. Unlocked, off-contract phones at reasonable rates are nowhere to be found. And personal data is mined for the advertisers' benefit.

Mark my words- it will be Apple to marginalize the carriers to dumb pipes in the coming years not Google.
Call me when you do something for the end consumer, Google. I will be answering on my iPhone.
 
No, it's not. Android is very successful and taking a lot of flak recently. It looks as if every parasite on the planet is trying to suck some blood out of it.

Success comes easy when you rip off IP, reduces that R&D costs! Maybe Google should have come up with their own invention to sell to the masses - not a chopped up "open" version of iOS.
 
Something had to happen because Google backstabbed Apple when they promised to never get into the phone business, while they sat on Apple's board stealing ideas.
 
Sounds like someone needs a nap!

To paraphrase Google:

"I wanted to play with that toy and they took it from me. It's not fair. They're doing it on purpose!"

Sounds like someone is getting cranky. Google is gonna start crying soon. Time for a nap, Google. Go to sleep. I'll be back in a couple of hours to check on you.
 
Android is successful because Google copied Apple

No, it's not. Android is very successful and taking a lot of flak recently. It looks as if every parasite on the planet is trying to suck some blood out of it.

Android is only successful in the iPhone clone space. Not in the iPad clone space. And why is that? Only 1.5% of Android running on iPad clones? Why only a roundoff-error share?

Link: Only 1.5% of Android running on iPad clones: http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/08/02/tablets.still.just.small.fraction.of.android.share/

Answer: because Eric Schmidt was shut out of all iPad discussions while he was on Apple's board. Schmidt stole ideas for iPhone and iPhone OS, as it was called back then, and told the Android team to radically change their design. iPad caught Schmidt and Google by surprise, and so far they show no signs of catching up.

If you don't recall, the original Android phones were ripoffs of BlackBerrys. iPhone's hardware and software were vastly superior, and Schmidt's corporate espionage helped Google mash up a quick and dirty iPhone clone. Without a proper Java license from Oracle. And that hastiness, which appears to be deeply embedded in Google culture, will cost them dearly.

Link: original Android BlackBerry ripoff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Android_mobile_phone_platform_early_device.jpg
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.