Tim Cook and Larry Page Working to Address Patent Issues Between Apple and Google

[KnightWRX]

The Android that Google bought was like most smartphones of the time - non-touch, all keyboard, navigation through arrow buttons and the like. As such, it wasn't at all relevant to the project Apple was working on. The surprise was, very soon after iPhone release, it pivoted to a multitouch based phone, all set for release. And Jobs anger had Schmidt pushed off the board (yes, he "resigned" just like Nixon "resigned"). Yes, the press releases were all friendly and professional, but Jobs comments in the book suggest a feeling of betrayal.

The iPhone was introduced in 2007, January. Android shipped on phones in 2008 and didn't enable multi-touch in the core OS until the HTC Nexus One in 2010. Android didn't pivot around anything.

Quote from the book please, page number, and context. "Resignation" PRs are not as glowing as the one Eric received on resignation. They are usually factual, cold and quick.

And Android, again, was not a "non-touch, all keyboard, navigation through arrow buttons and like", it's a piece of software with input drivers. They were working on making it as versatile as possible, right from the get go. It showed in the november 2007 release of the SDK :

http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Like_BlackBerry_Before_the_iPhone_

So please, stop repeating that stupid forum made myth of Eric have stolen anything. He didn't need to be on the board to even do that, I don't why people think Eric being on the board helped if there was even any hint of the touch based input driver idea in Android coming from the iPhone. Google could have just looked in the media around January 2007.

The plain fact is, Android was working to support models the industry wanted to ship and the industry had really ramped up that type of phone in 2006. Samsung had a bunch of prototypes of such phones as shown in their evidence leak in the trial. Windows Mobile was already very invested in touch screen technology at that point, even before the iPhone shipped.

----------

yes it is. They've stolen something, and every one knows it.

Stolen what ? I've never seen Google being accused or found guilty of theft.

On the other hand, maybe Apple is running scared of the new Motorola lawsuit and are wanting to discuss licensing of Motorola's patents over smartphone communication and Siri, all of which aren't standard required patents and thus not subject to FRAND.

----------

You have to ask yourself why would you spend so much time on MacRumors if the logo annoys you?

It's not the logo that annoys me, it's the people going :

"Oh it's on now. "

What does the Apple logo have to do with posts like that ? That diminishes and tarnishes the brand if anything.

 

[samcraig]

Do you guys type this stuff with a straight face?

Look in the mirror.

 

[shulerg]

No! I was all ready for the thermonuclear war, but now they're talking. Damn!

 

[KnightWRX]

No! I was all ready for the thermonuclear war, but now they're talking. Damn!

Computer movies of the 80s should have taught Steve Jobs better :

----------

Look in the mirror.

There is no winning that argument. People like him are convinced that when you buy an Apple product, you have an epiphany of sorts and can't criticize Apple or face facts and reality. They believe strongly that the simple act of buying anything Apple does makes you think Apple is right and it's ok to distort facts and use FUD against anyone who would compete with Apple.

They don't get that some of us just don't have that epiphany buying Apple products. We buy them, we use them day in and day out, but we just don't buy the media spin and FUD being spread and would rather dig farther to get to the truth.

We don't have a place here. This site is not for Apple users interested in the company. It's only for the people who've had the epiphany. Macrumors is a slavish, blatant copy of Apple Insider after all, its forum community should be too.

(yes, that last bit was sarcasm. I don't hang out at Apple Insider and I think Macrumors is much less biased and religious in their coverage, and I find it nice that the community here is not all "100% Apple or bust!". I do find it annoying that some members want to basically make MacRumors into another Apple Insider though, that is why I put these people on ignore. Now if only people would stop quoting them...).

 

[shulerg]

Computer movies of the 80s should have taught Steve Jobs better

Good movie. Perhaps Apple should say, "We've always been shameless about nuking great enemies."

 

[uknowimright]

Samsung triumphs over Apple in Japan patent case
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-apple-samsung-japan-idUSBRE87U05R20120831


I hope no one dares say "oh well they are Asian they banded together,"
Japan and South Korea are actually in the middle of a dispute over an island

 

[thewitt]

Apple already pays Google and Motorola significant license fees.

Having them meeting and discussing the settlement with Samsung and the legal precedent set, in the context of the potential Motorola suit is simply good business.

 

[Menel]

I'd argue otherwise. The jump from single touch to multitouch is a very obvious evolutionary step in touchscreen devices. I very seriously doubt most people who work in that particular section of the industry were taken by surprise by the development. It wasn't like...

"Wait...you can use two fingers? OR MORE? It's genius! No one would've thought of that".

Rather, I think it was more like "well...yeah". Probably because multitouch devices were regularly seen in the high end business world for at least three years by that point. The biggest, and probably only surprise was that Apple jumped ahead of everyone and released a multitouch device with a small 3.5" screen.

Obvious to move in that direction or not. The technology, research, and innovation to go from processing and interpreting single touch, to interpreting accurate multi-touch was ginormous.

Then what you do with that... at a UI level, was icing on the cake.

Microsoft and Diamond Touch were the only others with their hat in the game, and you don't see them suing. So maybe Apple got permission/licensed rather than ripping off, if so, nothing wrong with that.

 

[samcraig]

Every tech company should be thanking apple for showing the way.

Hmmm. I'm pretty sure there was a cellular phone industry before 2007. And that involved most if not all the current players contributing years and years (and billions of dollars) towards R&D so that Apple would have something to contribute themselves.

The evolution was already upon the market. It was the direction it was going. Does that negate Apple's contributions - not at all. But it doesn't make them the end-all/be-all of the mobile industry.

 

[Taz Mangus]

The patents in the lawsuit launched this week are not FRAND patents though.

And investigations occurs because someone complained. Guess who that was... Anyway, the ITC reversed their infringement verdict against Apple

Microsoft and Apple both complained to the ITC. And if I remember correctly the ITC found enough evidence to warrant the investigation.

 

[rjohnstone]

Wow, first they claim they can see no similarities between Samsung smartphones and UI (though a jury had no problem seeing it right away), now they're going to claim this new laptop "design" is not a rip.

Do you guys type this stuff with a straight face? Or are you not looking at your screens at all before you type your pro-Samesung rebuttals?

I can say it with a straight face and a clear conscience.
Apple didn't create that design, so why would I call Samsung's tablet/hybrid a rip of anything Apple manufactured?

If anything, both are guilty of ripping Sony's designs.

And for the record, I never said I didn't see UI similarities between TouchWiz and iOS. I said they were not the same. Similar =/= copy.

I've always said Apple didn't own or invent the grid of icons layout, so Samsung has every right to use the icon grid format.

The fact that some idiot at the USPTO even allowed such a UI patent to even be processed, let alone approved, shows just how broken the system is.

 

[kdarling]

Obvious to move in that direction or not. The technology, research, and innovation to go from processing and interpreting single touch, to interpreting accurate multi-touch was ginormous.

Not that big. Multi-touch came pretty quickly after single touch.

Here's a detailed history of multi-touch by one of its pioneers, Bill Buxton.

A simple timeline of multi-touch can be found in the graphic below, which was taken from this fairly long presentation.



Cheers!

 

[G51989]

Not that big. Multi-touch came pretty quickly after single touch.

Here's a detailed history of multi-touch by one of its pioneers, Bill Buxton.

A simple timeline of multi-touch can be found in the graphic below, which was taken from this fairly long presentation.

View attachment 355352

Cheers!

Stop posting facts!

 

[vrDrew]

Google isn't running scared at all. I think both parties are probably just tired of the warring, it's counter productive and prevents building on the shoulders of giants. Best to just cross-license what they have instead of searching for prior art, invalidating, working around patents, etc..

I don't think Google is that scared of liability due to Android's (possible) infringement of Apple patents. Google is worried because Android simply isn't bringing in the mobile revenue they thought it would.

The fact of the matter is that Android shipments don't make money for Google. Mobile search is where Google makes its money. And iPhone users still use mobile search (and make money for Google) far more than Android users do.

Google's bottom line depends on people seeing online ads - not how many Samsung or HTC phones use the Android OS. And so its in Google's best interest to come to an agreement with Apple (whose iPhone users do seem to use Google services more per capita than Android users do).

Which puts Apple's recent decisions to pull the Google Maps and YouTube Apps from upcoming iOS releases in a new light. That alone could cost Google more mobile revenue than they could lose in a patent suit. And is certainly more than they could hope to get from even a 70% smartphone "marketshare" for Android.

Apple doesn't want (or need) a monopoly position in the smartphone business. They could never meet the supply side and distribution side of things, to say nothing of the anti-trust scrutiny. Far better for them to allow a modified form of Android, one that doesn't tread too heavily on Apple's IP, take those smartphone customers they weren't going to get anyway. But they couldn't allow Samsung to get away with products, and an operating system, that blatantly ripped off everything that the iPhone did.

 

[KnightWRX]

Funny how some people assume it's Google that came running to Apple. "Google is running scared", "Google is going to lose revenue with iOS 6", etc..

Have you guys ever thought it might be Apple that initiated these talks after seeing the Motorola patents raised in a lawsuit this week ?

----------

Microsoft and Apple both complained to the ITC. And if I remember correctly the ITC found enough evidence to warrant the investigation.

FTC, not ITC.

And "evidence" never quite figured into all of this :

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-face-u-dot-s-dot-probe-over-motorola-patents

They opened a probe to gather information. They are at the evidence gathering stage. This is a formal probe following the lawsuits, and could end up being nothing as it is discovered that its only that Apple still refuses to pay the terms offered to it, like they did with the Nokia standard essential patents leading to a long lawsuit before they eventually settled.

 

[samcraig]

Google makes money on licensing their Apps - not just via search and Apps. Android might be free - but maps, mail, play store, and a few others - that all costs manufacturers to use. So I don't think you can say that it doesn't matter how many devices are using Android. Unless you're talking about Kindle's devices which aren't using Google's Apps.

I don't think Google is that scared of liability due to Android's (possible) infringement of Apple patents. Google is worried because Android simply isn't bringing in the mobile revenue they thought it would.

The fact of the matter is that Android shipments don't make money for Google. Mobile search is where Google makes its money. And iPhone users still use mobile search (and make money for Google) far more than Android users do.

Google's bottom line depends on people seeing online ads - not how many Samsung or HTC phones use the Android OS. And so its in Google's best interest to come to an agreement with Apple (whose iPhone users do seem to use Google services more per capita than Android users do).

Which puts Apple's recent decisions to pull the Google Maps and YouTube Apps from upcoming iOS releases in a new light. That alone could cost Google more mobile revenue than they could lose in a patent suit. And is certainly more than they could hope to get from even a 70% smartphone "marketshare" for Android.

Apple doesn't want (or need) a monopoly position in the smartphone business. They could never meet the supply side and distribution side of things, to say nothing of the anti-trust scrutiny. Far better for them to allow a modified form of Android, one that doesn't tread too heavily on Apple's IP, take those smartphone customers they weren't going to get anyway. But they couldn't allow Samsung to get away with products, and an operating system, that blatantly ripped off everything that the iPhone did.

 

[MattInOz]

Funny how some people assume it's Google that came running to Apple. "Google is running scared", "Google is going to lose revenue with iOS 6", etc..

Wasn't there talk of a Apple / Google consortium to buy the Kodak patent pro folio?

 

[samcraig]

Wasn't there talk of a Apple / Google consortium to buy the Kodak patent pro folio?

The war exists mostly as forum banter. And most likely isn't personal between CEO's or their executive staff - or at least not as much as some here would like to think of. Cooler heads always prevail when it comes to BUSINESS decisions. It's not personal - it's business.

 

[vrDrew]

Google makes money on licensing their Apps - not just via search and Apps. .

And how much money did Apple pay to Google for the YouTube and Maps app it shipped with each iPhone? Answer: Nothing. In fact, less than nothing, since Google kicks back to Apple a portion of their earned Search Revenue from iPhone users.

Google does make money licensing its Apps. But that licensing fee is paid by site owners who make use of Google Maps, etc.

And so an Android phone that rarely, if ever, accesses those sites doesn't make money for anyone - except for the phone companies.

Thats the problem, and thats why Google is talking to Apple.

 

[Aidan5806]

And how much money did Apple pay to Google for the YouTube and Maps app it shipped with each iPhone? Answer: Nothing. In fact, less than nothing, since Google kicks back to Apple a portion of their earned Search Revenue from iPhone users.

Google does make money licensing its Apps. But that licensing fee is paid by site owners who make use of Google Maps, etc.

And so an Android phone that rarely, if ever, accesses those sites doesn't make money for anyone - except for the phone companies.

Thats the problem, and thats why Google is talking to Apple.

So are you suggesting that google has set themselves up in a market in such a way that they cant turn a profit on software apps they license?

 

[samcraig]

And how much money did Apple pay to Google for the YouTube and Maps app it shipped with each iPhone? Answer: Nothing. In fact, less than nothing, since Google kicks back to Apple a portion of their earned Search Revenue from iPhone users.

Google does make money licensing its Apps. But that licensing fee is paid by site owners who make use of Google Maps, etc.

And so an Android phone that rarely, if ever, accesses those sites doesn't make money for anyone - except for the phone companies.

Thats the problem, and thats why Google is talking to Apple.

Samsung, Motorola, etc pay licensing fees to have Google Apps on their phones and tablets. I'm not talking about site owners or other people. Which part don't you understand?

 

[vrDrew]

So are you suggesting that google has set themselves up in a market in such a way that they cant turn a profit on software apps they license?

Yes. Thats exactly what they've done.

Google does create some revenue through licensing. Sites that generate more than a certain amount of traffic by incorporating Google Maps pay licensing fees for the privilege. But for a company of Google's size, its insignificant.

The problem, as far as Google is concerned, is that Google makes far more money from each iPhone user (because iPhone users tend to use more Google services and sites) than it does on each Android user.

Think about that for a moment.

The biggest threat to Google's profitability in the mobile arena is Android - Google's own mobile operating system.

If ever there was an incentive for Google to keep talking to Apple, thats it. Not because Google is afraid of being sued by Apple.

 

[samcraig]

Yes. Thats exactly what they've done.

Google does create some revenue through licensing. Sites that generate more than a certain amount of traffic by incorporating Google Maps pay licensing fees for the privilege. But for a company of Google's size, its insignificant.

The problem, as far as Google is concerned, is that Google makes far more money from each iPhone user (because iPhone users tend to use more Google services and sites) than it does on each Android user.

Think about that for a moment.

The biggest threat to Google's profitability in the mobile arena is Android - Google's own mobile operating system.

If ever there was an incentive for Google to keep talking to Apple, thats it. Not because Google is afraid of being sued by Apple.

You need to stop pulling facts out of the air.

 

[Technarchy]

No more native Google maps iOS
No more native youtube app in iOS
No more Google search branding in safari iOS
Samsung Taken for a billion in court
HTC major product launch delayed due to ITC ban

Yeah, Google is starting to get the message. Larry Page decided it was better to kiss the ring rather than get whacked.

 

[samcraig]

No more native Google maps iOS
No more native youtube app in iOS
No more Google search branding in safari iOS
Samsung Taken for a billion in court
HTC major product launch delayed due to ITC ban

Yeah, Google is starting to get the message. Larry Page decided it was better to kiss the ring rather than get whacked.

Let me know when you wake up. I would hate to ruin this erotic dream you're having.