or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Android makers "unfazed" by Google's Motorola deal, but patents judged weak
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Android makers "unfazed" by Google's Motorola deal, but patents judged weak

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
Android licensees say they are making no changes to their product strategy following Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility, preferring instead to view the deal as a protection from patent infringement claims by Apple and others despite reports noting that Motorola has little value left in its patent portfolio.

A report by Reuters at the IFA consumer electronics fair being held in Berlin, Germany said that interviews with representatives of Android licensees Acer, Sony Ericsson and HTC painted a unanimously optimistic view Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility.

The report said licensees continue prefer to view the acquisition as a "move to protect the software from legal attacks and not a competitive threat in the marketplace," and stated that "the Motorola acquisition will give Google access to one of the mobile phone industry's largest patent libraries."

The "legal attacks" against Google's Android include efforts by Microsoft and Nokia to force Android licenses to pay for patented technology infringed upon by Android, as well as efforts by Apple and Oracle to block sales of Android devices entirely, due to infringement of technical and design implementation patents.

Motorola Mobility patents "crap"

However, in a video interview published by Bloomberg West, Dr. David Martin, founder and chairman of M-Cam Inc, called Google's $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility "an immense mistake for two reasons."

Martin stated that "what they bought is crap, because at the end of the day Motorola sold off its good assets. Back in the early years, Motorola sold off some MPEG patents to GE in a securitization deal. After that, they took a bunch of the Freescale patents and sold those off." Martin then said that Google had actually increased its patent vulnerability, "painting a target" on itself with the deal.



An independent report by FOSSPatents blogger Florian Mueller noted that that 7 of Motorola Mobility's 18 patents that are thought to be relevant to Android and smartphones (of the 25,000 patents and pending patent filings the company sits on) were previously 'declared essential to industry standards,' and therefore restricted by F/RAND commitments that limit them from being raised defensively as valid counterclaims against the infringement of Apple's implementation patents.

Mueller referred to Martin's comments on Bloomberg West before adding, "And the relatively best ones MMI has -- which wasn't discussed on Bloomberg -- are subject to F/RAND commitments."

Mueller said that claims that Motorola's Google-acquired patents are "so powerful that they can protect Android as a whole" are "completely off base," and described those making that claim as "issuing statements that blow the strategic value of MMI's patents completely out of proportion," adding that "Googlorola won't help Samsung."

Android needs protection; licensees not entirely unfazed

Nikolaus Scheurer, the head of product marketing at Sony Ericsson, was cited by Reuters as saying, "It is important for us to protect the Android ecosystem," while adding that "Google confirmed that this [acquisition] is not making Google a hardware manufacturer," a belief that runs counter to comments by Google itself that its acquisition of Motorola Mobility would, among other things, allow it to pursue new hardware products it can't currently.

"I assume the global market share of Motorola is somewhere around 15 percent in Android," Scheurer said. "I think everybody would agree that it does not really make sense to jeopardize 85 percent of your business."

Sony Ericsson previously weathered through the collapse of Symbian, lead and eventually taken over by Nokia, and then lived through Microsoft's attempts to compete with its own Windows Mobile licensees with its failed KIN phones (after destroying its PlaysForSure partners with the introduction of the Zune).

Sony Ericsson remains a licensee of Microsoft's Windows Phone 7, although it has not introduced any new WP7 phones since Microsoft aligned the future of WP7 with its close partnership with Nokia.

HTC continues to make both Android and WP7 phones, introducing new WP7 models even as it also pays Microsoft for patent royalties involved in its production of Android phones. Acer has also demonstrated new WP7 models.

Samsung, which Reuters did not mention in the report, is the largest Android licensee and has gone on record making the same supportive public comments about the Motorola Mobility acquisition by Google. However, the company was also reported to have enacted a top down push to focus on software development of its own, including its alternative Bada platform.
post #2 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

After that, they took a bunch of the Freescale patents and sold those off."

Apple bought them ...

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011...freescale.html
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #3 of 47
Android phone makers are in denial that Google will not be pouring all the best Droidy goodness in their new pet Motorola. I doubt Moto will have the design and engineering skills to match the other handsets already out there.
post #4 of 47
The closer Google's BOD looks at the deal the better the $2.5 billion write-off looks... jmo
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #5 of 47
I am having a tough time following this. I think it means this: Motorola's Freescale division sold their patents long ago, some of which Apple bought. And most of the patents Google just bought for $12 billion are dependent on those long-gone Freescale patents. Therefore Google is *more* liable because of buying Motorola?

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #6 of 47
I'll said it several days ago and I'll say it again, for $12.5 billion, Google could of hired the top 100 programmers in the world and cleverly innovated their way top the top of the heap (metaphorically) but nooo, they continue to want copy Apple. How sad for a once admired Google.

Quote:
in a video interview published by Bloomberg West, Dr. David Martin, founder and chairman of M-Cam Inc, called Google's $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility "an immense mistake

I'm not surprised to hear this. However, Larry could not of made the monumental mistake of buying worthless patents - he's not that stupid...or is he?

Naw.

So if Larry knew the patents were worthless, that they would not protect the Axis of Copycats, just why did he buy Motorola?

:
post #7 of 47
I'd be interested to hear what Otellini thinks of this deal.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #8 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryb View Post

Android phone makers are in denial that Google will not be pouring all the best Droidy goodness in their new pet Motorola. I doubt Moto will have the design and engineering skills to match the other handsets already out there.

please tell me how Google closing the code will give them more money.

Please remember the following:
1) Google makes money using eyeballs
2) HTC and Samsung both have existing deals with WP7, which uses Bing.
3) If Google pissed off HTC and Samsung it means far fewer eyeballs.

In order to make a "closed" android more attractive to them than "open" android currently is, Google would need to spend massive amounts of money improving developer experience for the platform (wait.. that would benefit them MORE if they were "open") . They would have to invest a ton of money into hardware design. (which they can do without closing android off), and they would need to find some way to make current android users all desire a higher priced "premium" motorola device (unlikely)

I don't doubt that google will do SOMETHING with motorola phones, but the whole "Google's going to close android" argument smacks too much of people assuming that Google thinks it can become Apple. The only company that really has a chance at "competing" with Apple in ecosystem terms is Amazon.
post #9 of 47
Yup.
Google needed to protect it's Android OHA partners, so they bought one of the same OHA partners (that needed the same protection).

The whole of Androidland is now protected??
Do those OHA guys have any sense at all?
post #10 of 47
This,

Quote:
"I assume the global market share of Motorola is somewhere around 15 percent in Android," Scheurer said. "I think everybody would agree that it does not really make sense to jeopardize 85 percent of your business."

Sounds more like a thinly veiled threat.

Of course, that isn't 85% of Google's business: their business is the minuscule slice of ad revenue they get from those phones. Selling phones only has to look better than that teeny tiny, virtually insignificant amount of ad revenue for Google to switch gears.

But that also misses a simple fact. There's no question that Google is getting into the hardware business since they just bought a hardware company and announced they're going to keep making hardware. The assertion that it will be run as a separate business is meaningless. It's utterly bizarre to see people talking as if Google moving into hardware isn't already a done deal.

The question is, What kind of advantages will Motorola have over other Android vendors when it's part of Google? The main one is that Motorola will be subsidised. Motorola was losing money. Now it doesn't matter. Motorola is the only manufacturer that will be subsidised by Google in terms of cold, hard cash. That alone makes it massively favoured over Samsung and HTC. There's also perception. Even if Motorola phones won't feature any Google branding, they'll surely be regarded as the "true" Android phones. Will they use "pure" Android? Will Google push to make sure they always get timely updates? Won't it make it more difficult for Samsung, HTC, et al, to differentiate themselves when one company is seen as the "legitimate" Android vendor?
post #11 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Apple bought them ...

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011...freescale.html

Yes they did and Google should have done their homework.
post #12 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Beige View Post

I'll said it several days ago and I'll say it again, for $12.5 billion, Google could of hired the top 100 programmers in the world and cleverly innovated their way top the top of the heap (metaphorically) but nooo, they continue to want copy Apple. How sad for a once admired Google.



I'm not surprised to hear this. However, Larry could not of made the monumental mistake of buying worthless patents - he's not that stupid...or is he?

Naw.

So if Larry knew the patents were worthless, that they would not protect the Axis of Copycats, just why did he buy Motorola?

:

Quite a large number of the best of the best work at Apple and are paid handsomely for their efforts.
post #13 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Quite a large number of the best of the best work at Apple and are paid handsomely for their efforts.

I thought of you when I read this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider

reports noting that Motorola has little value left in its patent portfolio.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #14 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryb View Post

Android phone makers are in denial that Google will not be pouring all the best Droidy goodness in their new pet Motorola. I doubt Moto will have the design and engineering skills to match the other handsets already out there.

Motorola Atrix, the original droid. Stop putting moto down, as far as android phones go I think they are no better or worse than the competition.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #15 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

please tell me how Google closing the code will give them more money.

Please remember the following:
1) Google makes money using eyeballs
2) HTC and Samsung both have existing deals with WP7, which uses Bing.
3) If Google pissed off HTC and Samsung it means far fewer eyeballs.

In order to make a "closed" android more attractive to them than "open" android currently is, Google would need to spend massive amounts of money improving developer experience for the platform (wait.. that would benefit them MORE if they were "open") . They would have to invest a ton of money into hardware design. (which they can do without closing android off), and they would need to find some way to make current android users all desire a higher priced "premium" motorola device (unlikely)

I don't doubt that google will do SOMETHING with motorola phones, but the whole "Google's going to close android" argument smacks too much of people assuming that Google thinks it can become Apple. The only company that really has a chance at "competing" with Apple in ecosystem terms is Amazon.

I agree with this BUT the problem is THIS:

Quote:
Originally Posted by poke View Post

This,



Sounds more like a thinly veiled threat.

Of course, that isn't 85% of Google's business: their business is the minuscule slice of ad revenue they get from those phones. Selling phones only has to look better than that teeny tiny, virtually insignificant amount of ad revenue for Google to switch gears.

But that also misses a simple fact. There's no question that Google is getting into the hardware business since they just bought a hardware company and announced they're going to keep making hardware. The assertion that it will be run as a separate business is meaningless. It's utterly bizarre to see people talking as if Google moving into hardware isn't already a done deal.

The question is, What kind of advantages will Motorola have over other Android vendors when it's part of Google? The main one is that Motorola will be subsidised. Motorola was losing money. Now it doesn't matter. Motorola is the only manufacturer that will be subsidised by Google in terms of cold, hard cash. That alone makes it massively favoured over Samsung and HTC. There's also perception. Even if Motorola phones won't feature any Google branding, they'll surely be regarded as the "true" Android phones. Will they use "pure" Android? Will Google push to make sure they always get timely updates? Won't it make it more difficult for Samsung, HTC, et al, to differentiate themselves when one company is seen as the "legitimate" Android vendor?

This Motorola acquisition is a tight walk. Not only are Motorola's debts and profit losses Google's debts and losses, but Motorola is the only android handset maker that has built in legal indemnity for Android.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #16 of 47
Google: We paid $12.5 billion for what????

They may need to go back to that whole "adult supervision" thing...

Reminds me of a discussion Orlando and I had about this deal a couple of weeks back:

Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Did Google seriously not "war room" all these scenarios when they decided to buy MMI in the first place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

There is an alternative. The real world is unprepared for Larry. The Motorola deal is either brilliant or insane. There is no middle ground.

Whatever Larry Page's next move turns out to be, It had better be brilliant.

I'm voting for whatever choice is "not brilliant". :P

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #17 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Quite a large number of the best of the best work at Apple and are paid handsomely for their efforts.

Perhaps not paid as handsomely as you think. . .
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/pres...123373858.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #18 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Beige View Post

I'll said it several days ago and I'll say it again, for $12.5 billion, Google could of hired the top 100 programmers in the world and cleverly innovated their way top the top of the heap (metaphorically) but nooo, they continue to want copy Apple. How sad for a once admired Google.

Umm.. sorry but Google's on the hook for copying stuff from Sun/Oracle, not Apple (note that Apple isn't suing Google for patent/copyright infringement at the moment). Samsung and HTC are the ones on the hook for copying Apple.

Also, Google already effectively has "the top 100 programmers in the world." In fact, Apple isn't really all that well known in the community for "programmers" though they do have a strong team. They're known for their best-in-class industrial designers, and for their interface designers. Essentially---and super-simplified, Apple gets the best RISD grads while Google gets the best MIT grads.
post #19 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes View Post

Umm.. sorry but Google's on the hook for copying stuff from Sun/Oracle, not Apple (note that Apple isn't suing Google for patent/copyright infringement at the moment).

Give them time.
post #20 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Perhaps not paid as handsomely as you think. . .
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/pres...123373858.html

Ah, so they work for Apple and turn out their excellent products because ... they love what they do? They like being part of a winning team that innovates?
post #21 of 47
All's not well in the boudoir of Android. This sad story has more twists than a cheap soap opera. But a good though expensive time was had by Google but now it is time to smell the flowers and start digging out of this special hole.

And all your friends are leery. Never trust the keeper of the bridge who's honour possesses no spine.

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #22 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psych_guy View Post

Ah, so they work for Apple and turn out their excellent products because ... they love what they do? They like being part of a winning team that innovates?

Probably a good reason. . .
Apple isn't tops on the payscale.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Perhaps not paid as handsomely as you think. . .
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/pres...123373858.html

Apple's numbers include a lot of retail wages in that figure.

They published a mean without glancing at the standard deviation. Numbers only tell a story if you look at what they have to say. What a shame journalists have been replaced by reporters. Don't believe me? Check the in-depth reportage on their home page, they are the Bay Area web equivalent of the USA Today.

Gator, you read that tripe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Give them time.

It's far easier to sue a hardware manufacturer, because there is a mechanism in place to physically block imports.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #24 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Probably a good reason. . .
Apple isn't tops on the payscale.

I'm sure I'd take less money to work at Apple than at MS. Just being able to use a Mac at work over a Windows PC is worth at least $10k/year in stress relief.
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 #25 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Apple's numbers include a lot of retail wages in that figure.

They published a mean without glancing at the standard deviation. Numbers only tell a story if you look at what they have to say. What a shame journalists have been replaced by reporters. Don't believe me? Check the in-depth reportage on their home page, they are the Bay Area web equivalent of the USA Today.

I've seen mention in the past that Apple engineer salaries are less than average. But they're also mentioned as one of the best companies to work for, making the pay differnence less of an issue.

A quick search shows support for the claim that Apple is fairly stingy when it comes to paying their engineering talent.
http://www.geekpedia.com/Report4_Sal...And-Yahoo.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'm sure I'd take less money to work at Apple than at MS. Just being able to use a Mac at work over a Windows PC is worth at least $10k/year in stress relief.

I've been telling this to my company's IT guy for years now...
post #27 of 47
I've been saying this from the beginning. In addition, from what I know about Moto's patent portfolio, most Of their patents aren't related to Googles' business at all. They have radio telephony patents. Patents related to two way communications, automobile interference CE technology, cable communitcations transceiver technologies, DVR patents, etc.

Little of this is related to what Google needs. Then, many of these patents have just a few years left.

I still insist that Google got snookered into this purchase under terms that were a last minute knee jerk reaction to Jha's statements the week before the purchase that stated that Moto was looking into making a WP7 phone line, and monetizing their patents with licensess, mostly to other Android manufacturers. I totally believe that spooked Paige, and anyone else involved.

Interestingly, even though Google has said that Andy Rubin was highly involved in this, other sources said that he was just TOLD of it when he was first brought in a week before!
post #28 of 47
In a few months we'll all understand the strength of Moto's patents better (or the lack of it). I've come across several opinion pieces that claim Google is buying enough to protect Android from almost monthly attacks on Android or it's partners. There's even claims that the IBM patents were aimed at Apple rather than the Moto ones. Since none of the Motorola patents have been tested in the infringement claims yet, we're all just guessing (or hoping) that there's nothing to them.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Google: We paid $12.5 billion for what????

They may need to go back to that whole "adult supervision" thing...

Reminds me of a discussion Orlando and I had about this deal a couple of weeks back:

I'm voting for whatever choice is "not brilliant". :P

I'm voting for the "it is such a big event that we need to wait for the dust to settle before judging"

It could be one of the most costly mistakes made in the software industry, it could also be a brilliant move that catapults Google to even greater success. I can think of positive scenarios and negative scenarios. I do think there are a lot of details that aren't yet visible. Whatever your feelings on Google, they're certainly not boring.
post #30 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Perhaps not paid as handsomely as you think. . .
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/pres...123373858.html

Apple may have a bunch more designers and Web marketers on staff than some of the other companies, and that might pay less, Lee told Bloomberg News

I think support staff would really bring down the median salary at Apple.
post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronn View Post

Apple may have a bunch more designers and Web marketers on staff than some of the other companies, and that might pay less, Lee told Bloomberg News

I think support staff would really bring down the median salary at Apple.

The Apple engineering staff is also paid significantly less than at some other tech firms.
See post #25
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

I'm voting for the "it is such a big event that we need to wait for the dust to settle before judging"

It could be one of the most costly mistakes made in the software industry, it could also be a brilliant move that catapults Google to even greater success. I can think of positive scenarios and negative scenarios. I do think there are a lot of details that aren't yet visible. Whatever your feelings on Google, they're certainly not boring.

Well said, Orlando.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

I am having a tough time following this. I think it means this: Motorola's Freescale division sold their patents long ago, some of which Apple bought. And most of the patents Google just bought for $12 billion are dependent on those long-gone Freescale patents. Therefore Google is *more* liable because of buying Motorola?

That's exactly what the video said as I understood it! Staggering if true.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #34 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

please tell me how Google closing the code will give them more money.

Please remember the following:
1) Google makes money using eyeballs
2) HTC and Samsung both have existing deals with WP7, which uses Bing.
3) If Google pissed off HTC and Samsung it means far fewer eyeballs.

In order to make a "closed" android more attractive to them than "open" android currently is, Google would need to spend massive amounts of money improving developer experience for the platform (wait.. that would benefit them MORE if they were "open") . They would have to invest a ton of money into hardware design. (which they can do without closing android off), and they would need to find some way to make current android users all desire a higher priced "premium" motorola device (unlikely)

I don't doubt that google will do SOMETHING with motorola phones, but the whole "Google's going to close android" argument smacks too much of people assuming that Google thinks it can become Apple. The only company that really has a chance at "competing" with Apple in ecosystem terms is Amazon.

Google tried to get an injunction against one of Microsoft's witnesses in their case against Motorola, stating that the witness may reveal "highly proprietary parts" of Android's code which Google doesn't even share with OEM's.

The judge threw out Google's motion.

"Open" is a marketing term Google uses to attract the gullible to Android.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #35 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

I agree with this BUT the problem is THIS:


This Motorola acquisition is a tight walk. Not only are Motorola's debts and profit losses Google's debts and losses, but Motorola is the only android handset maker that has built in legal indemnity for Android.

Read an interesting article earlier where a tax expert said how Motorola's losses could actually help Google when it comes to tax write-offs: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...xes-2011-9.DTL

So the deal isn't as bad for them financially (even not considering patents) as it might first seem.
post #36 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Google tried to get an injunction against one of Microsoft's witnesses in their case against Motorola, stating that the witness may reveal "highly proprietary parts" of Android's code which Google doesn't even share with OEM's.

The judge threw out Google's motion.

"Open" is a marketing term Google uses to attract the gullible to Android.

I've explained this to you before. You ignored it then, so I won't waste my time.

TLR: There is code related to android that is not open and never was open. (Gapps, Market) You can build a working version of android without this code.
post #37 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

I've explained this to you before. You ignored it then, so I won't waste my time.

TLR: There is code related to android that is not open and never was open. (Gapps, Market) You can build a working version of android without this code.

You can build a working version of something, but it isn't Android without the closed parts, and Google won't allow you to sell it as such. hill60 is exactly right, Android isn't open and Google's claims that it is are just smoke and mirrors intended to dupe those who aren't capable of critical, rational thought.
post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

hill60 is exactly right, Android isn't open and Google's claims that it is are just smoke and mirrors intended to dupe those who aren't capable of critical, rational thought.

And that matters because. . . ?

I've barely seen that mentioned anymore, even on enthusiast sites. No harm no foul IMO. Whether it's "open" according to everyone's personal interpretation of the idea really doesn't matter except to bloggers and geeks. It's not what attracts buyers to the Android devices. It's more that it offers choices for what fits them, whether it be the screen size, handset size, Google Navigation, finish or style, the latest hardware, price or carrier availability, whatever.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with choices. Even Apple recognizes that. They just don't feel the need to offer several of them in the handset line yet. What they have sells pretty darn good as is. But at some point you'll even see Apple start branching out with different color combos, style options and handset sizes IMHO.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumjuan View Post

Yup.
Google needed to protect it's Android OHA partners, so they bought one of the same OHA partners (that needed the same protection).

The whole of Androidland is now protected??

Um... yes, assuming the patents were worth a squat. (According to this story, they aren't.)

But if they were, Google would take one or more of the good nuggets and sue the heck out of Apple for infringement, asking for preliminary injunctions against iPhone and/or iPad. If the patents were strong enough to warrant discussions and negotiations, Google's aim would be to settle this through a huge cross-licensing deal that included its partners.

So all that hinges on the big "if" of whether there are enough strong patents in that portfolio. This story says "no".

Thompson
post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

Um... yes, assuming the patents were worth a squat. (According to this story, they aren't.)

But if they were, Google would take one or more of the good nuggets and sue the heck out of Apple for infringement, asking for preliminary injunctions against iPhone and/or iPad. If the patents were strong enough to warrant discussions and negotiations, Google's aim would be to settle this through a huge cross-licensing deal that included its partners.

So all that hinges on the big "if" of whether there are enough strong patents in that portfolio. This story says "no".

Thompson

"This story" is one of many with varying opinions.

Google has no history of suing anyone over IP. There's also no indications whatsoever that they plan to start now. IMO, Google is not a danger to any of their competitors from a legal standpoint, unlike the extremely aggressive and unusual (for a large respected company) IP attacks that both Apple and Microsoft have been launching.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Android makers "unfazed" by Google's Motorola deal, but patents judged weak
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Android makers "unfazed" by Google's Motorola deal, but patents judged weak