Originally Posted by Foo2
The NY Times article suggests Apple was unhappy long before the Nexus One and Apple doesn't have to sue every supposed infringer at once.
Apple has, I think, the best case for an unfair trade relationship here, with the Google-branded phone. This is not some OS just giveaway, this is an active cooperation.
1. They might be able to intimidate HTC, and also get a quick judgment from the trade body that would grant an injunction against further importation until the validity of the patents is tested. That takes a long time. That's called kicking Google in the nuts.
2. They could get tons of interesting info out there about the HTC/Google relationship. Did Google pay for the phone to be made? Did they show HTC exactly how they wanted it done? Then it's Google's baby, and not poor little HTC.
I really like the software that Google gives away on the web. Many times, that's all you need, though it's seldom the best stuff. I find their interfaces generally suck. I've got Google Wave, but have been completely baffled as to what the hell I want to do with it. Google Voice's interface sucks, and this: I tried to use SkypeIn as one of my phones. But you can't do it, because Skype's answering machine picks up first, leaves no word, and if Skype's not open, nothing shows you that that's happened. I looked and looked for an answer in the help section, but couldn't find a thing. I turned off SkypeIn. Apparently, you can also do it by forwarding the message from Skype back to your original Google number. Then it leaves a message in Google voice. You'd never guess that from Google Voice.
I don't feel the same conflict of interest in the Google experiments with gigabit ethernet. It would be terrific to see a small town transformed by this. Sure, Google makes more money the more we use the Internet, but I don't begrudge them that. They can show us proof of concept, at least, and that might embarrass the other ISPs and propel the FCC to do something. A nationwide ISP for Google? I'm less sure of that. That begins sounding like a monopoly. Their basic business is search. How many times can you say that? They can't own content, because they own the pipes. That's the same law as there should be for the ISPs and cable. If you're a content producer, that's one thing. The pipes can't own the content, because then they can favor one producer over another.
Back in the '40s, the movie theaters were owned by the studios. So if MGM made an expensive turkey, they'd leave it in enough theaters until it got its money back. If they had a hit, they'd keep it in their owned and operated theaters until the audiences started falling, then they'd give it to the other houses. Not surprisingly, the mob was heavily involved in the movie theaters. So the feds broke up the monopoly by forbidding the studios from owning theaters. Made sense then, makes sense now.