Google Baffled by Apple Suing Android Partners

[zakislam]

Former CEO discusses "on and off" relationship between the two technology titans.

Google Baffled by Apple Suing Android Partners : Read more

 

[freggo]

This is all driven by litigation happy attorneys.
We need a hunting season for lawyers

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]This is all driven by litigation happy attorneys.We need a hunting season for lawyers [/citation]
[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]The explosion of patent trolling is one of the worst things to happen to the tech industry in a long time...[/citation]

You guys are right...that's why I just stay home and do the robot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-_iUHY8RBs

Thanks Dancin Kim lolz!

 

[ddpruitt]

spending by both Apple and Google on patents exceeded their spending on research and development of new products.

Leave it to Zak to spin the purchase of Motorola as spending on patents.

 

[Branden]

QUOTE: "Google is doing fine. Apple is doing fine. Let me tell you the loser here. There's a young Andy Rubin trying to form a new version of Danger [the smartphone company Mr. Rubin co-founded before Android]. How is he or she going to be able to get the patent coverage necessary to offer version one of their product? That's the real consequence of this."

and that's exactly why apple is doing this, it's easier to prevent competition from sprouting up in the first place than it is to legitimately beat it on a level playing field. it's a dirty tactic, but it's the only way to stay on top if you're not willing to innovate.

 

[guru_urug]

Everyone in the tech world knows whats going on. There have been excessive and ridiculous patent lawsuits in the last few years. Everyone knows that there is better use for the money and energy spent on this. Still lets not talk about the elephant in the room! More innovation less poop-flinging please, consumers are losing out. Just sort it out like grown-ups, Win-Win-Win!!

 

[ericburnby]

Is he talking about when Andy Rubin worked at Apple (1989-1992)? The time where Andy was a junior engineer working under two senior engineers who were developing a key patent that's at the heart of both iOS and Android? A patent that was being developed at the exact same time Andy was "on the same team"? A patent that Apple now claims Android infringes?

 

[esrever]

My guess is the top executives of apple is going to cash out with as much money as possible.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]ddpruitt[/nom]Leave it to Zak to spin the purchase of Motorola as spending on patents.[/citation]
How is that spin? It has always been widely believed by many that Google's main purpose in purchasing Motorola's mobility division was to get ownership of their patents.

From Forbes...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/quentinhardy/2011/08/15/google-buys-motorola-for-patent-parts/

(Google CEO Larry) Page said in the blog post announcing the deal, “Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies.”

 

[the1kingbob]

The biggest problem with patents is the ability to patent processes or designs that are considered to be a standards by the public. This was seen with Henry Ford. He also didn't start Ford because the patent on the "automobile" was locked. If anyone wanted to sell a car, they had to be approved by the patent holder which included a fee. Same thing is seen today, rather hard for a start up to make a phone with wifi without being sued by someone.

 

[internetlad]

"Google is doing fine. Apple is doing fine. Let me tell you the loser here. There's a young Andy Rubin trying to form a new version of Danger [the smartphone company Mr. Rubin co-founded before Android]. How is he or she going to be able to get the patent coverage necessary to offer version one of their product? That's the real consequence of this."

What a down to earth sentiment.

 

[gogogadgetliver]

Google really has no clue what intellectual property means. They take first and ask later.

Newsfeeds, Youtube, Google Books scans, Android, everything about you.

 

[milktea]

Well you gotta feed the lawyers. If not, something even worst might happen.

 

[Darkk]

Do what Back to The Future Part II did "Speedy trial because they abolish all lawyers"

 

[Pinhedd]

[citation][nom]the1kingbob[/nom]The biggest problem with patents is the ability to patent processes or designs that are considered to be a standards by the public. This was seen with Henry Ford. He also didn't start Ford because the patent on the "automobile" was locked. If anyone wanted to sell a car, they had to be approved by the patent holder which included a fee. Same thing is seen today, rather hard for a start up to make a phone with wifi without being sued by someone.[/citation]

You have the timeline confused. When a standard's body decides on a standard such as h264, or XHCI, they first appeal to all of the parties involved in the process that hold patents which may be relevant to the standard in question. If the parties are willing to licence their patents then the parties become bound by the licencing rules set out by the standard's organization which typically include the phrase "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms". If the parties are not willing to licence their patents, then the standards body must work around the patents in question. Once patents have become part of a standard the rights of the patent holder are severely restricted, but there's a much broader audience to be reached.

 

[Shin-san]

He shouldn't be baffled. Apple probably is trying to sue companies that are less-prepared to defend themselves. If they win in those cases, it'll force Google to comply in some way because US law is defined a lot by precedence

 

[LEXX911]

I don't it's a smart idea on their part to sue Google and piss off million of users and make them hate crApple even more. Another thing is that Google would just counter sue them with stuff crApple stolen from Google.

 

[wislam]

I was fairly neutral in the iPhone vs Android thing... until I saw Apple's first iPhone keynote: -


I highly recommend all technologists to watch how it all started.

Anyway, long story short, turns out while Steve Jobs was announcing that Apple was proud to work with Google to develop Maps for iPhone, in the background, Eric Schmidt (and Google) was busy stealing ideas and solutions from Apple (Schmidt was also on the Board of Apple) ... you'll see Eric walk on stage with Jobs saying how great it was working with Apple...

This is how Android basically came to be (and so quickly after iPhone), and that's why Jobs called it a stolen product.

It's sad and unbelievable how Google and Schmidt basically stabbed Apple in the back.

 

[wislam]

Humm, link to Youtube video - trying to paste link again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uW-E496FXg

 

[Guest]

[I was fairly neutral in the iPhone vs Android thing... until I saw Apple's first iPhone keynote: -]

You said it like it is a little known fact. This is well known and a lot of people disagree whether Google did steal the idea. Also, didn't Apple steal the rounded rectangle square idea from Palm Treo? Or steal the page turning look and feel from thousands of years of human history? Only a thief will always think other people steal from them.

 

[aggroboy]

Further patent law reform is nice, too many trolls and predators meaning entrepreneurs have zero chance.

 

[digiex]

As the stocks of Apple continue to decline, they will be more aggressive in pursuing patent litigation.

That's how survival instincts works.

 

[GreaseMonkey_62]

I say that all future patents fights take place in a pit lined with traps and random blunt objects. The CEO still standing gets to use whatever patents they want. It won't solve the patent wars, but it'll be more interesting.

 

[the1kingbob]

[citation][nom]Pinhedd[/nom]You have the timeline confused. When a standard's body decides on a standard such as h264, or XHCI, they first appeal to all of the parties involved in the process that hold patents which may be relevant to the standard in question. If the parties are willing to licence their patents then the parties become bound by the licencing rules set out by the standard's organization which typically include the phrase "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms". If the parties are not willing to licence their patents, then the standards body must work around the patents in question. Once patents have become part of a standard the rights of the patent holder are severely restricted, but there's a much broader audience to be reached.[/citation]

I apologize, I did not make myself clear. I understand the difference between a standard and a patent. I was making the comment from a consumer's point of view. For example, I believe the slate form factor with rounded edges and a touchscreen is not something that should be patented. It is the same concept as the automobile. Someone came up with the idea of putting a motor on four wheel, they should have rights to it but there has to be a limit. Apple has tried to position themselves so they can sue if someone makes a slate phone, with wifi, a touchscreen, and bouncy/fancy animations.

 

[MaXimus421]

and that's exactly why apple is doing this, it's easier to prevent competition from sprouting up in the first place than it is to legitimately beat it on a level playing field. it's a dirty tactic, but it's the only way to stay on top if you're not willing to innovate.

+1 to this. Exactly my thoughts as well.