Google Says Microsoft Uses Patents When Its Products Fail

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
What he is trying to say is even if you own a patent, if the product it is attached to isn't massively successful you should allow everyone to freely copy it without penalty.

So under that reasoning, all patents that belong to the Mac Mini are up for grabs and anything associated with Linux?

Stupid arguement, if you own a patent you should litigate against anyone who copies it, under general principle, exactly the same as if a burglar breaks into your house and steals the toilet brush. It doesn't matter if it is valuable or not, theft is theft.
 
[ Begging for helps ] Complaint about Human Rights Violations by IBM China on Centennial

Please Google:

IBM detained mother of ex-employee on the day of centennial
or
How Much IBM Can Get Away with is the Responsibility of the Media
or
Tragedy of Labor Rights Repression in IBM China
 
[citation][nom]larkforsure[/nom][ Begging for helps ] Complaint about Human Rights Violations by IBM China on Centennial Please Google:IBM detained mother of ex-employee on the day of centennialorHow Much IBM Can Get Away with is the Responsibility of the Media orTragedy of Labor Rights Repression in IBM China[/citation]
Yeah, IBM doesn't treat people like this anywhere else in the world, I think your arguement is not against IBM but against China.
Try the United Nations, not a tech forum, mkay?
 
captaincharisma: Wall Street thanks you for thinking of the stability of their investments, and Intel and Microsoft thank you for protecting their monopolies.

If anybody could do anything and copy anything else, and borrow ideas in their own products, only companies that constantly innovate with every product will be able to sell anything. 1 CPU company, with 1 competitor, is not competition, a 200 company free-for-all is competition.
 
Funny how Porter flames on Microsoft but doesn't even mention Apple. Maybe he is living under a rock but Apple is the one that sues everyone for the most ridiculous patents on mostly stolen ideas...
 
I hate companies that make public stamtments like this . "oh wow ! a company actually likes to make money , gee theya re so evil our company would enver do that " hoenstly i hate google they have WAY to much controlling interest in the internet than what i'd care to see any one single company have , for all intents and purposes they are to the internet what MS is to operating systems. which in turns makes them extremely big hypocrits , somthing else i also hate. it just pisses me off any time some company acts suprised , or fakes awe , at how dirty some other company is , because really every company rathits retial , comptuers .software , all pul dirty shit , they all get products form areas taht institutionalize lot of cheap labor with little pay , and then charge every one else in teh world 300-400% what they paid for , for said merchandise. every company has it's share of skeleton's in thier closets , so piss off google.
 
I don't think I've ever read such a blatant admission of guilt. The lawyer comes off sounding like a little kid upset that he got caught doing something he wasn't supposed to do.
 
I don't get how you can patent software without writing a single line of code, then sue someone who never even knew your 'design' existed.

To be honest, if someone comes up with a solution, that can prove they had no involvement/access to someone's idea, I would say let them get on with using it.

The idea of unlock button on the iphone is rediculous, it just puts on a screen a button that already existed in the real world. It wouldn't take a genius to go "hey, maybe we could put on a touch screen, physical buttons that were on the phone previous"
 
captaincharisma: Wall Street thanks you for thinking of the stability of their investments, and Intel and Microsoft thank you for protecting their monopolies.

If anybody could do anything and copy anything else, and borrow ideas in their own products, only companies that constantly innovate with every product will be able to sell anything. 1 CPU company, with 1 competitor, is not competition, a 200 company free-for-all is competition.
Click to expand...

just telling it like it is which seems to offend you. don't blame me blame your capitalist society USA! USA! LOL :lol:



 


nope its a capitalist society where everyone is full of greed. if you cannot make tons of money off an idea but only a little they still will think it's not worth it
 
Google and Microsoft need to get their heads out of their asses. If they would cooperate they could knock off that lumbering oaf called apple off the pedestal. Instead of focusing on their cores competencies they step on each others toes.
 


Microsoft's core competency is making software. Google's is in selling personal information and usage data. How do you propose to synnergize the two companies?
 


give it up. they both do that. there has been many times MS was accused of getting user data from users when they use windows
 
[citation][nom]sinfulpotato[/nom]Google and Microsoft need to get their heads out of their asses. If they would cooperate they could knock off that lumbering oaf called apple off the pedestal. Instead of focusing on their cores competencies they step on each others toes.[/citation]

Consider cause and effect.
 


"Accused" means nothing. I can accuse you of being a child rapist.
 
[citation][nom]sinfulpotato[/nom]Google and Microsoft need to get their heads out of their asses. If they would cooperate they could knock off that lumbering oaf called apple off the pedestal. Instead of focusing on their cores competencies they step on each others toes.[/citation]
Co-operating to deliberatly destroy a competitor would immediately set alarm bells off at the DoJ, Federal Trade Commission and the Monopolies Commision.
You should "win" by making a better product and letting the customer decide, but if anyone tries to "borrow" your ideas whilst you are developing it from a fledgling product into a larger market then you should open up with both barrels.
...
People wouldn't need to litigate if other people didn't keep using their products without permission and this statement applies to EVERYONE, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Nokia, EVERYONE.
 
It's always the thief that complains about the laws going against them.

If Google didn't borrow so much IP, then maybe they wouldn't have Oracle, Apple and Microsoft after them and their partners.
 
Clearly this whole situation is because software patents exist when they shouldn't. Like imagine if the patent existed for seat belts or for bridges. You could only buy one type of car because the rest would be illegal by not having seat belts and only one company in the world would be allowed to build a bridge. It's rediculous. Ideas should never be patented. The only thing you can patent is how you built the bridge or how you set up the seat belt mechanism in the car. This would be like source code, how you managed to do something. Otherwise every car company is violating the rights of the first person to put 4 weels on a frame.

I say tell everyone who current holds a software patent, produce your source code or codes (if they have done it several ways) to maintain your patent, under that source code. Anyone who doesn't supply source code should have thier patents rejected, and anyone who now comes out with a product would have thier source code reviewed, and if it's a duplicate of a patent the it's infringement, if it's not then it's innovation.

That is the system we need. And that shouls apply to all companies. Apple, Microsoft and Google. No one would be exempt and everyone would have to play fair.
 
Ever heard the saying, "there's more than one way to skin a cat." Well, right now the patent system is broken and if you own the patent for "skinning a cat" then you currently own all the ways to skin it, even if it was done using technology that won't exist until ten million years later.
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]this isn't software, but look at wacom and its competitors. due to wacoms patents, its competitors cant compete. the tech is old as hell, but still, a reasonalbly sized tablet still costs about 400-500$ and the only consumer tablet they sell costs about 100$ for a work area that is barely 4 inches. and it can do this because they have no competition. look at the competitors, i have one of their tablets, idios or something, its 9-10 inches, and i payed 50$ for it. wacom has a monitor you can draw on, its their highest end product, but the tablet in the lowest end one isnt even as good as their mid range ones, and its a 12 inch screen, and they charge 1000 for it, 2000 for a 21 inch 1600x1200 and 2500 for a 24 in 1920x1200 and the charge that much because they else to light a fire under their butts.sorry that was a bit rantish, i really want a penable monitor, and a 1920x1200 too, but the point is valid, and shows what happens when pattents are held by one person in tech.[/citation]
Oh definitely, I actually considered purchasing the Wacom Intuos4 myself, but due to shoddy workmanship on the USB mounts I passed it by. In the end, I settled for some off-brand tablet for $50 myself and it serves the purpose, though it's not nearly as nice as a Wacom. I figure if I'm going to be spending that much money on a damn tablet, it had better do everything that I want it to do flawlessly.

But I sure do with they had some proper competition. :)
 
[citation][nom]mbieker21[/nom]Consider cause and effect.[/citation]
Everytime I hear "cause and effect", I have to suddenly take a piss. A la Merovingian.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom