or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › RIM may top Google's $900M bid for Nortel patent 'treasure trove,' sources say
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RIM may top Google's $900M bid for Nortel patent 'treasure trove,' sources say - Page 3

post #81 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmikeo View Post

Apple should let RIM buy the Nortel patents for 900+ million, then Apple can buy RIM and it's patents for 600 million in about 2 years.

LOL Thats funny.

I dont see anything that RiM has that Apple would want. Theyd be better off siphoning an employee or two for some key areas.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #82 of 120
Are Nortel's assets being liquidated separately or is the company as a whole for sale? I know Microsoft offered to buy their IPv4 addresses for 7 something million dollars. I'm wondering if the patent portfolio is being sold by itself or exactly what RIM is bidding on?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #83 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Lol. Wrong analysis on your part, with a silly comparison of a company that gets pretty much all its revenues from selling its own stuff, versus one that gets its revenue from eyeballs that it (hopefully) directs to other people's sites so they can (hopefully) sell more of their stuff.

Google has three main ad-placement products --search, YouTube and Gmail -- for own revenue (about two-thirds), and gets an additional one-third from third-party sites. If you are convinced that some 'super cool' Googe labs experiments (most of which are pr, and don't necessarily pan out: case in point, Google TV) like Google Body and Google Self-Driving car are comparable to iTunes, iLife, and the App Store in terms of the ecosystem it creates for Apple's hardware sales, I honestly don't know what to tell you.

Incidentally, here's Google's biggest nightmare, and one for which they have no answer despite repeated tries (hence their panic): ad dollars migrating en masse to Facebook, Twitter et. al.

How about you give me an example one Google Labs product that will help solve this problem for them?

I wasn't the one claiming "None of these initiatives is providing a cent of cash flow for Google." Burden of proof is on you if you're claiming it as a fact. If it's just your opinion, that's a different matter. So which is it?

Are you having a problem in figuring out whether or not Facetime brings any revenue to Apple? For some reason they determined it was worth the time and money to develop it, yet include it for free. Same with Garage Band. This all goes back to my point that most of us can't see how Google's business plan makes sense. Yet it works.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #84 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

This all goes back to my point that most of us can't see how Google's business plan makes sense. Yet it works.

It's not really hard to understand at all. Google uses its dominance in search and data mining of personal information, and the revenues that generates, to leverage itself into other markets by giving away low quality software and services for free to destroy the viability of competition in that market. Google Labs is just their way of throwing shit against the wall to see if it will stick -- is this crappy product we have good enough as freeware to get people to stop paying for quality software. Their purpose is to further expand their hegemony in online advertising and personal data collection.

It is, like everything Google does, an essentially destructive approach to doing business. There's no serious innovation going on in Google Labs projects, just crapware development. Like Android and everything else they do, it doesn't have to be good, just good enough to give away for free and destroy the market for companies who have any interest in producing quality software.

It's really not that complicated, nor very impressive in terms of innovation.
post #85 of 120
Anonymouse, whenever I see someone resort to adjectives like shitty, crappy, or crapware, I pretty much figure the poster is at a loss on how to respond.

You might have a great point to make, but writing like it's still Junior High probably won't get your opinion the respect it may deserve. Big boy words would work much better for making a convincing argument.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #86 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Mostly just to call you out as an astroturfer, which in itself is a deceitful, dishonest activity on the part of both the company and the individual engaged in it.

Wild claims? Think Google isn't an outlaw company? Then explain to us why they are engaged in wholesale lawbreaking in the illegal Google Books Program, and why, even after it's been established that their behavior is illegal, and even after they tried to essentially bribe their way out of it, ineffectually, they continue to constantly commit illegal acts because they believe they can simply strongarm authors and buy their way out of trouble for a few pieces of silver.

If open is so good, what's up with Honeycomb? Google's in violation of the GPL and talking out of both sides of their mouth. And while we're on the subject, Google provides all sorts of software to people that's based on GPL code but never provides us with the source code as required by the licenses. This is a company we should trust? This is a company whose very basis is deceit.

Google is a company that will do whatever it wants because it believes itself above the law. Sometimes I think the people inside Google believe they are actually following the "Do no evil" propaganda. They are Google, they do no evil, so, if Google does it, it isn't evil.

Still with the bullshit about google books. And Android is not GPL, except for the kernel.
post #87 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It's not really hard to understand at all. Google uses its dominance in search and data mining of personal information, and the revenues that generates, to leverage itself into other markets by giving away low quality software and services for free to destroy the viability of competition in that market. Google Labs is just their way of throwing shit against the wall to see if it will stick -- is this crappy product we have good enough as freeware to get people to stop paying for quality software. Their purpose is to further expand their hegemony in online advertising and personal data collection.

It is, like everything Google does, an essentially destructive approach to doing business. There's no serious innovation going on in Google Labs projects, just crapware development. Like Android and everything else they do, it doesn't have to be good, just good enough to give away for free and destroy the market for companies who have any interest in producing quality software.

It's really not that complicated, nor very impressive in terms of innovation.

It's called life. Get used to it. Everyone, including apple does it.
post #88 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Anonymouse, whenever I see someone resort to adjectives like shitty, crappy, or crapware, I pretty much figure the poster is at a loss on how to respond.

You might have a great point to make, but writing like it's still Junior High probably won't get your opinion the respect it may deserve. Big boy words would work much better for making a convincing argument.

I guess we can take that as indicating you don't have a response.
post #89 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Still with the bullshit about google books. And Android is not GPL, except for the kernel.

Given that we're discussing Google's "character", their most egregious and ongoing example of rapacious greed winning out over following the law or respecting the rights of IP owners seems entirely appropriate.

And, I love how the self-proclaimed FOSS advocates are now forced into the role of Google apologist.
post #90 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

It's called life. Get used to it. Everyone, including apple does it.

No, it's not called life. Not everyone, and certainly not Apple, approaches business in this fashion. Most companies, especially Apple, seek success through creation. Google is one of the few that seeks success almost solely through destruction. It's a huge difference in philosophy and a very significant one, and says a lot about the character of the companies, and the people running them.
post #91 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I guess we can take that as indicating you don't have a response.

Don't bother. His 'responses' are basically blathering non-responses and non-sequitirs.

That's why I gave up after a while.
post #92 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, it's not called life. Not everyone, and certainly not Apple, approaches business in this fashion. Most companies, especially Apple, seek success through creation. Google is one of the few that seeks success almost solely through destruction. It's a huge difference in philosophy and a very significant one, and says a lot about the character of the companies, and the people running them.

It would be easier for people to respond to your posts if any of them made sense instead of being filled with vitriol and paranoia. With the incredible amount of hatred you obviously have for Google, you should probably be in therapy. I'm certainly glad I'm no where near someone with as much pent up rage as your posts express.

Did a Google employee run over your dog or something?
post #93 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Given that we're discussing Google's "character", their most egregious and ongoing example of rapacious greed winning out over following the law or respecting the rights of IP owners seems entirely appropriate.

I know it's beyond your comprehension that making available orphan works or books out of print where the copyright holder is nowhere to be found nor profiting by said books not being available is "evil".

Quote:
And, I love how the self-proclaimed FOSS advocates are now forced into the role of Google apologist.


Wrong again. I never said anything about Google being FOSS, and anyone else who did was mistaken in their saying that. People who really are FOSS nuts would get a Nokia N900, not anything Android.

But I believe people like you hate the fact that the GPL is "viral" and thus evil. Quite ironic that the "open" BSD style license Android is under allows it to be closed again.
post #94 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, it's not called life. Not everyone, and certainly not Apple, approaches business in this fashion. Most companies, especially Apple, seek success through creation. Google is one of the few that seeks success almost solely through destruction. It's a huge difference in philosophy and a very significant one, and says a lot about the character of the companies, and the people running them.

Right. You keep those rose colored glassed on there buddy.
post #95 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

No, the reason they haven't sued yet is because they think that suing over software patents hurts the industry as a whole and stifles innovation.

In the blog post where they talked about this potential purchase they said as much. They're purchasing these patents for defensive purposes because too many companies are trying to use patents offensively and since Google is such a young company, and they're rather adverse to patents, they don't have a portfolio of their own to make companies think twice before trying to sue them.

Businesses exist for only one reason: make money and lots of it. I don't by company rhetoric which claims that they're taking certain actions out of the goodness of their hearts. I won't spare any company on this, including Apple. All that talk about wanting to maintain the "user experience" is simply business-speak for: "We want to protect our brand and a bad user experience is bad for our brand."

Also, if companies don't have/don't like a particular product, they tend to over-emphasize the negatives and under-emphasize the positives. For example, Apple emphasizes the fact that Android is fragmented in order to attack the claims of Android being "open." Yet, there are benefits to an open-source platform.

Google does not own very many patents, and I don't think they care much about patents. Google is singularly focused on grabbing as many eyeballs as possible. Things like patents are not that important. For that matter, I don't think Google has patents that they could use against other companies.

So if Google claims that they aren't suing because it hurts innovation, I don't buy it for a second. Google probably doesn't have any patents it could use against others. They probably don't care much for patents. This self-effacing rhetoric is nothing more than "sour grapes."
post #96 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Jessi, it's not clear at all that Google "stole" multi-touch from Apple. It was more a "line in the sand" drawn by Steve Jobs.

True, somebody might have attempted to "steal" the idea behind multi-touch and claim it as their own. But it wasn't Google.

I thought Apple acquired the patents when it acquired Fingerworks. Didn't SJ end the uncharacteristic iPhone preview with the punchline "and it's patented"?

McD
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
post #97 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

It would be easier for people to respond to your posts if any of them made sense instead of being filled with vitriol and paranoia. With the incredible amount of hatred you obviously have for Google, you should probably be in therapy. I'm certainly glad I'm no where near someone with as much pent up rage as your posts express.

Did a Google employee run over your dog or something?

Another astroturfer with no actual response, just schoolyard taunts. You guys really aren't earning your money.
post #98 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

I know it's beyond your comprehension that making available orphan works or books out of print where the copyright holder is nowhere to be found nor profiting by said books not being available is "evil".

Well, when you mischaracterize it like that it sounds like they are giving away puppies too. Unfortunately, that's not what the Google Books program is all about. It's about Google appropriating the intellectual property of thousands to use to sell adds.

Quote:
Wrong again. I never said anything about Google being FOSS, and anyone else who did was mistaken in their saying that. People who really are FOSS nuts would get a Nokia N900, not anything Android.

But I believe people like you hate the fact that the GPL is "viral" and thus evil. Quite ironic that the "open" BSD style license Android is under allows it to be closed again.

The fact that the GPL is viral is a drawback to that license, and why there are other licenses. Whether I like that or not has nothing to do with Google's, and your, hypocrisy on this topic. Or with whether Google is violating the GPL by not releasing source code based on GPL code.
post #99 of 120
Let RIM buy Nortel IP then as soon as RIM goes down the crapper, Apple can come in and buy them up at a huge discount.

In the mean time Apple should buy Joyent and boost their cloud services team. NVIDIA would be a great buy too. Apple needs to improve 3D on the Mac leaps and bounds.

I would love for Apple to buy RIM and snatch up QNX OS. It's a great OS to build on with a sound architecture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti View Post

RIM see's their business going down the crapper so owning a bunch of patents allows them to become patent trolls.
post #100 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Right. You keep those rose colored glassed on there buddy.

Dodging the issue again. No counter argument, I suppose.
post #101 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post

Do you really think Apple would buy it? They might have a go but they have generally been a bit frugal in the offering and lost the bid. Admob and Palm (allegedly) spring to mind.

Neither Admob nor Palm offered anything that compelling to Apple.
post #102 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Yes, because no company has EVER reworked their product to better match the market leader before, have they?

The iPhone wasn't OUT when Google switched Android. They changed it AFTER the iPhone was announced.

Apple wasn't leader at all, at the time. It wasn't ever a player, for that matter.
post #103 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

Apple was simply outmaneuvered by Google in the Admob acquisition. I doubt frugality had anything to do with it. Its no surprise they went and hired a pretty senior lawyer to work on their acquisition strategy right after the loss of Admob. Not sure about the Palm acquisition, since there is very little information about it (including whether Apple had a serious offer to actually acquire Palm).

But I see your point. Apple has never really used its money to simply acquire patents, without any technology. That being said, they've not had a long history with billions in the bank, considering they spent most of the 90's simply trying not to go bankrupt.

Perhaps not outmaneuvered, but after looking closer at AdMob they may have decided to push the other bidders as high as possible, with the other company already in their back pocket - no an unusual process in the bidding wars.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #104 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Dodging the issue again. No counter argument, I suppose.

You can't have a counter argument to someone who refuses to give an argument. To borrow your own words, You're just throwing shit against the wall and hoping it sticks so no one calls you out on it.

So no, I'm not responding to you. You've proven time and again that it's a pointless exercise because you insist that I back up every statement with "Proof" and then somehow your browser is conveniently unable to view the weblinks I provide. And then, in an attempt to appear on top of it, you profess the inability to follow different arguments (only when it's in your favor) and instead quote me from a wholly separate conversation and scream that I'm contradicting myself because when I was talking about Pie, I didn't also mention the same things I did when I was talking about Dog breeds.

I know this is hard for you to believe, but most people actually HAVE opinions they base their posts on. Unlike you, they can't simply Copy/Paste from some PR handbook. So it's a given that occasionally they'll forget to cross their T's and dot their i's and you can scream CONTRADICTION at the top of your lungs like it means something. Again, we're not all astroturfers. That's just you.

EDIT: Just to state the obvious for you: I chose your reply to sprokkets because it was the most recent drivel you posted in this thread. My reasoning was really that simple. You can put the tin cap away. I promise, no one here wants to read your mind. We have Apple.com/pr for that.
post #105 of 120
Back on topic ... I don't see RIM being able to out bid Google if Google wants to win.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #106 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Back on topic ... I don't see RIM being able to out bid Google if Google wants to win.

Sometimes its good just to bid so your competition pays ways too much for something you never wanted in the first place.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #107 of 120
That could be a dangerous game. I've bid on something I really didn't want (at auction) just to raise the price for someone I didn't care for. It bit me in the ass once, and I suspect the other bidder knew exactly what I was doing.

Personally I no longer have the stomach nor the funds for brinksmanship. I don't know if RIM would either.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #108 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, when you mischaracterize it like that it sounds like they are giving away puppies too. Unfortunately, that's not what the Google Books program is all about. It's about Google appropriating the intellectual property of thousands to use to sell adds.

I'm not the one who is "mischaracterize" it. It just shows that when you get your information from DED you are bound to share his irrational hate of everything google.

Quote:
The fact that the GPL is viral is a drawback to that license, and why there are other licenses. Whether I like that or not has nothing to do with Google's, and your, hypocrisy on this topic. Or with whether Google is violating the GPL by not releasing source code based on GPL code.

Look in the mirror. The hypocrite is you. And the fact that you won't admit the simple and clear fact: Android isn't GPL.
post #109 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

You can't have a counter argument to someone who refuses to give an argument. To borrow your own words, You're just throwing shit against the wall and hoping it sticks so no one calls you out on it.

So no, I'm not responding to you. You've proven time and again that it's a pointless exercise because you insist that I back up every statement with "Proof" and then somehow your browser is conveniently unable to view the weblinks I provide. And then, in an attempt to appear on top of it, you profess the inability to follow different arguments (only when it's in your favor) and instead quote me from a wholly separate conversation and scream that I'm contradicting myself because when I was talking about Pie, I didn't also mention the same things I did when I was talking about Dog breeds.

I know this is hard for you to believe, but most people actually HAVE opinions they base their posts on. Unlike you, they can't simply Copy/Paste from some PR handbook. So it's a given that occasionally they'll forget to cross their T's and dot their i's and you can scream CONTRADICTION at the top of your lungs like it means something. Again, we're not all astroturfers. That's just you.

Well, that's an impressive, albeit fantastically dishonest, attempt to distract from the facts that a) Google's corporate character is about as sleazy as it gets, b) that you are unable to refute the facts that they are serial law breakers and have demonstrated time and time again their complete lack of any moral compass, and c) and that you are in fact a paid astroturfer.

You're the one who brought up the subject of Google's character. Unfortunately for you and your employer, their character is entirely lacking. No amount of dishonesty, and no attempts to create distractions from the truth, on your part can hide that.
post #110 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

I'm not the one who is "mischaracterize" it. It just shows that when you get your information from DED you are bound to share his irrational hate of everything google.

I'm not sure where you cook up these fantasies about why some of us recognize Google as a "bad citizen", but mostly it's your irrational hatred showing through here.

Quote:
Look in the mirror. The hypocrite is you. And the fact that you won't admit the simple and clear fact: Android isn't GPL.

Parts of it are, parts of it aren't, but none of that is relevant to whether Google is a serial law breaker of poor "character". That's established irrefutably. The hypocrisy (do you even know what that word means, I think not) is entirely yours in coming here constantly bashing Apple for being closed and praising Google's "openness", along with all things FOSS, until it suddenly no longer supports your ends to do so.
post #111 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Dodging the issue again. No counter argument, I suppose.

Since you have nothing to prove your argument, I have nothing to rebut. And no, the google books incident doesn't count.
post #112 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Since you have nothing to prove your argument, I have nothing to rebut. And no, the google books incident doesn't count.

Why doesn't it count, because it's an inconvenient example of Google's behavior? How about how they ripped off Sun's/Oracle's IP in Android, does that count? Does anything count for you when it comes to Google's behavior? Does it count that they refused to link to their (lack of) privacy policy, in violation of the law, until it became a PR nightmare for them? Does it count that all their talk about Android openness is now clearly shown to be the total BS that it always was? Does it count that they were snooping on people's WiFi networks? (Inadvertent? Yeah, they inadvertently got caught.)
post #113 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Sometimes its good just to bid so your competition pays ways too much for something you never wanted in the first place.

Quite, but who is doing that to who?
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #114 of 120
I'm wondering why you guys are bothering to respond to each other.

Sorry DigitalClips, didn't mean you.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #115 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Sun's/Oracle's IP in Android, does that count?

We'll try applying logic here. Not that I think you'll get it. It's just an object lesson for the others.

Sun/Oracle's IP: You mean the lawsuit that hasn't been settled yet? Like the HUNDREDS Apple and any other profitable company is fielding right now? If Google is guilty of stealing that IP, then Apple is guilty of the same, since they're also being sued.

Wouldn't it be better if they had a way to decide if accusations like those were factual or not? Like a court system where companies could be found to be "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" based on the evidence? Why can't we have something like that?

Oh right.

Quote:
Does anything count for you when it comes to Google's behavior? Does it count that they refused to link to their (lack of) privacy policy, in violation of the law, until it became a PR nightmare for them?

Google.com/privacy. It's been active since at least 2000:
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/200...n/privacy.html

Which is pretty darn close to when the website was founded.

Their Privacy policy was also a single click away from their "About Google" page as early as 2000:
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/200...com/about.html

From their "Accounts page" the earliest capture is from 2005. It also has a DIRECT link to their privacy policy:
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/200....com/accounts/
This is the splash page you get whenever you try and log into their services. AKA, anyone giving them "personal" data would have to see a link to the privacy policy before they signed in.

The PR "Nightmare" as you call it was largely over specific applications, such as Buzz that had opt-out social networking instead of opt in. This was a mistake, obviously.

But Google's has a privacy policy available for 11 years. They've had it at the sign in page from as early as 2005 (which is as far back as the waybackmachine has a capture, it could be earlier). It Appeared on their front page in 2008.

Yes, they've recently made a big deal about it (posting links to it everywhere) but they've hardly "Hidden" it and it's in a lot plainer english than most privacy policies are.
Quote:
Does it count that all their talk about Android openness is now clearly shown to be the total BS that it always was?

You mean the FUD that people were spreading based on the talkings of various suppliers, none of them speaking on the record? The rumblings that Andy Rubin talked about in his blog post (one that even AI ran a story of)

If they withold whatever their "I" source is after announcement, then you have a case. What Honeycomb is is a blunder, a big one yes, but not a sign of them "Changing" policy. If you think otherwise, please provide EVIDENCE (note: Your ramblings do not count)

Quote:
Does it count that they were snooping on people's WiFi networks? (Inadvertent? Yeah, they inadvertently got caught.)

Oh, so you have proof that they were snooping intentionally? Really now. You'd think that something like that would be big news and they would STILL be attacked over it.

Did their system gather information? Yes (Provided the person had their network unsecured)
Was it intentional? Not according to what Google says. But since you don't believe them, then how about the courts? NONE of them have said that this was an "Intentional" information grab.

Now, I would ask for you to refute this. To provide evidence to back up what you say. But that's impossible for you. Instead you'll say it's a "Pathetic attempt" (without mentioning any specific points) and find at least three "Creative" (to you) ways to call me an astroturfer.

It's clear that there are only three types of people online in your mind:
1- Normal people: "People who think exactly like me and think that Apple has their best interest at heart."
2- "Trolls": Anyone who disagrees with me, or questions apple (It it, after all, the same thing)
3-Astroturfer: "A Troll who gives linked articles and images to back up what they say. Since it's clear that only normal people, like apple fans, would take the time to link things, these trolls must be paid by other companies."

So instead of wasting my time, hoping for some form of a coherent argument from you, I'll instead use the handy little "Ignore" button that AI's provided. Granted, I should've used it months ago. But call me an irrational optimist, who thought that just maybe it was possible to have a conversation with you, if only I found the right approach. My bad.
post #116 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

We'll try applying logic here. Not that I think you'll get it. It's just an object lesson for the others.

Sun/Oracle's IP: You mean the lawsuit that hasn't been settled yet?

Yes, that one, which they will lose, it was a pretty straightforward act of piracy on their part

Quote:
Google.com/privacy. It's been active since at least 2000:

But they did not post the link on their home page, as required by law, until they came under pressure to comply with the law, purportedly because they didn't want to add any links to their home page, which is a bullshit excuse, but even that shows they are a company that believes they don't have to comply with the law if they don't want to.


Quote:
What Honeycomb is is a blunder, a big one yes, but not a sign of them "Changing" policy.

It may be a blunder, but they have changed their policy.

Quote:
Oh, so you have proof that they were snooping intentionally?

It's preposterous to think that Google was unaware of this data collection for the years it was going on. To believe that, one has to believe they never looked at any of the data. They were just driving around in cars collecting data that they never looked at. Yeah, that makes sense.

That they didn't know they were collecting this data simply isn't credible.


Quote:
It's clear that there are only three types of people online in your mind:
1- Normal people: "People who think exactly like me and think that Apple has their best interest at heart."
2- "Trolls": Anyone who disagrees with me, or questions apple (It it, after all, the same thing)
3-Astroturfer: "A Troll who gives linked articles and images to back up what they say. Since it's clear that only normal people, like apple fans, would take the time to link things, these trolls must be paid by other companies."

The way you identify an Astroturfer is by watching them show up, predictably, on schedule, whenever a particular topic comes up, spouting the company line talking points verbatim.

That's you.
post #117 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Yes, that one, which they will lose, it was a pretty straightforward act of piracy on their part

The source for this happens to have an axe to grind against android. He lost all credibility when he refused to answer if anyone is paying him to post FUD about Android.

Quote:
But they did not post the link on their home page, as required by law, until they came under pressure to comply with the law, purportedly because they didn't want to add any links to their home page, which is a bullshit excuse, but even that shows they are a company that believes they don't have to comply with the law if they don't want to.

This is your smoking gun? Weak.

Quote:
It's preposterous to think that Google was unaware of this data collection for the years it was going on. To believe that, one has to believe they never looked at any of the data. They were just driving around in cars collecting data that they never looked at. Yeah, that makes sense.

That they didn't know they were collecting this data simply isn't credible.

The "data" collected is utter garbage. It isn't any different than walking through a crowded street and picking up random conversations. Since you only are in range for a few seconds, you can't put together anything of value.

But feel free to think you been violated.

Further posts from you will be ignored.
post #118 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

... Further posts from you will be ignored.

I love it when I'm threatened with the ignore list.

I almost forgot to mention how Google displayed it's corporate character in selling out net neutrality by cutting a deal in backroom negotiations with Verizon, that after they paid lip service to it for years. Can anyone trust anything they say? Obviously not. It's all just empty rhetoric, to be cast aside whenever it's expedient to do so, just like the faux "openness" of Android.
post #119 of 120
Google does no evil. Except for like, when they do.

Which these days is a pretty damn lot.

Net Neutrality
China
Panda <-- (oh snap, thats funny when I list it after China)
Net Neutrality
Shanking Apple in the back

And so much more ...
post #120 of 120
Most of your list could be perceived as correct by a lot of forum members. But what is the "evil" they perpetrated in China? They were the only big company to stand up to the Chinese government and tell things as they are rather than keeping quiet so their business there wasn't disturbed.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • RIM may top Google's $900M bid for Nortel patent 'treasure trove,' sources say
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › RIM may top Google's $900M bid for Nortel patent 'treasure trove,' sources say