or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Steve Jobs vowed to 'destroy' Google Android, called it a 'stolen product'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Jobs vowed to 'destroy' Google Android, called it a 'stolen product' - Page 9

post #321 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

The fact that "people who think Steve jobs is infallible" wasn't used in place of any other argument and then argued against then no, he did not use it correctly.

It absolutely was used in that way.

You can look at the comment to which I responded as evidence.


Believe me: As much respect as I have for Steve Jobs, and it's a lot, I don't think he was infallible. No one is. Real life is more complicated than the comics I love to read. But that person implied that people were saying that Jobs was perfect. NO one was saying that.

It's a straw man argument, through and through.
post #322 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexualintellectual View Post

What about the color depth of the display, or even that allowed by the OS? Did the browser render a majority of web pages even remotely close to what a desktop browser would (hint: the answer in the case of Palm's Blazer is NO, and I say that from experience)? Since these devices already had what others claim made the iPhone better, what was the adoption rate of Palm and Windows Mobile devices in comparison to all other phones at that time?

Decent screen for the time, but the phone side of things wasn't as big since they wanted to conserve battery life. I hated that but that's life back in 2005 prior. The adaption rate was decent also for Palm devices, though they still needed to get rid of aging garnet.

Quote:
The issue is not whether smartphones and PDAs existed prior to the iPhone. The issue is whether or not the competition unethically leveraged the work that Apple put into hitting so many of the right notes with the iPhone. The individual ideas were not entirely new, but the functionality and accessibility of the whole were roundly hailed as a revolution in the mobile industry. Just because the pieces existed before doesn't diminish what it took to put them together.

Unethical? Wrong to copy ideas, as in "shameless"?

Quote:
I don't think Steve Jobs was adamant that nobody else was allowed to make a smartphone. I think he was pissed at what he perceived to be negligible differentiation in aspects of the competition's implementation. His perception was his reality, and he had more knowledge of what conversations took place than any of us do, whether you'd like to admit that or not.

Negligible? He's pissed over pinch to zoom. So what. What about all the others who came up with pinch gestures before him in the link I posted back on page 3? All those who came up with all the hardware to actually implement his idea vs. his stupid lame attempts at patenting software heuristics long in use before he claimed it?

Let's put this another way: Why isn't he hell bent on destroying webOS, another OS that took all his ideas as well?
post #323 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Let's put this another way: Why isn't he hell bent on destroying webOS, another OS that took all his ideas as well?

I don't know if it's been mentioned but a few times in this thread alone, but maybe because Palm didn't have their CEO on Apple's board during the production of a device they would eventually compete with. Nobody even knew at that time if Android was going anywhere. If Schmidt used any information gleaned from his time on Apple's board to compete against them, that would be a breach of trust. Are you in a position to know that didn't happen? I don't know that it did, but apparently Jobs felt that way. Even if Google had done it, would you honestly expect them to acknowledge culpability? Only the insiders know what really happened.

At least Jobs could feel comfortable knowing that a Palm employee didn't just waltz into Apple's boardroom prior to the iPhone's release, play with it, see something impressive, and mutter "I think we could do something like this too." It took Palm two years to launch a competing product. In less than a year, Android took a different form factor from what everyone outside of Google knew it to be in 2007. Interpret history however you want, more people are going to read his version (a first hand account from Apple's perspective) than yours (hearsay from either side). Are you going to try to "correct" all that disagree with you when you can't possibly know what the truth is?
post #324 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

None that Apple needs.




Stop posting. Read. Learn. THEN you can post.

I've already explained multiple times the difference between using an idea which is not protectable and copying an implementation which is protected by intellectual property rights. Are you refusing to understand that because you're intellectually incapable of comprehending that simple concept or because you're intentionally trolling?



Actually, he does - and he used the term correctly. You appear to be the one who is babbling about things you don't understand.

Lolz, aren't you the SAME ONE who couldn't respond when I DO provide evidence to you given the premise?


Hold on, I'mma let you finish, but:

Quote:
jragoasta wrote: What's that got to do with anything (and, no, I'm not angry). You claimed that iPhone 4 cases might not work on the iPhone 4S. Yet all the evidence (see above) says that they will.

So where's the evidence to support your claim that iPhone 4 cases might not work? Alternatively, feel free to withdraw your FUD.







Trolling, not likely. At least I can back stuf up.
post #325 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post

Apple designed the processor in the iPhone, Samsung is the manufacturer.

Well, yeah but wouldn't it put them in an akward situation if Samsung just up and left?

Second, it's the wireless 3G (I think?) patents Samsung holds that they could potentially use to hold back Apple.
post #326 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1 View Post

Lolz, aren't you the SAME ONE who couldn't respond when I DO provide evidence to you given the premise?


Hold on, I'mma let you finish, but:









Trolling, not likely. At least I can back stuf up.

It looks like the CDMA iPhone 4. A lot of GSM iPhone 4 cases still worked with the CDMA iPhone. And many of those that didn't had updated versions released. Most importantly, the 4S and 4 have the exact same dimensions.
post #327 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1 View Post

Lolz, aren't you the SAME ONE who couldn't respond when I DO provide evidence to you given the premise?





Trolling, not likely. At least I can back stuf up.

So what? The phones have their switches in a slightly different location. Big deal. That doesn't prove that the same cases wouldn't work. Apple specifically states that their bumpers work with both. Every report I've seen says that the minor difference in switch location does not affect how the cases work- and a couple of reviews specifically commented on it. They said that the difference in location did NOT prevent the case from working.

So I'm STILL waiting for you to back up your claim that iPhone 4 cases wouldn't work with the 4S.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #328 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

FYI, the resolution of that thing equaled the iphone, with winmob already having 640x480 screens. The browser in that thing could render webpages just fine - it was much better than the pathetic IE4 in winmob. In fact, it could download prc files from the web browser and install them without a computer either, oh snap.

The point is, the iphone isn't a totally new device, they didn't come up with the multi-touch gestures completely, and as usually, innovated in key areas. If Steve is so upset with someone taking his ideas, what about all the others's ideas he "stole" before him?

The funny thing is that the IDEA was there. I've an a Palm device (pre palm os). It's quite similar to iPhone on the outside. It has apps too and just realized how similar it was. It had a grid of icons.

The iPhone DID utilize the IDEA but totally revolutionized it.

I'm tired of thse Apple Fanboys defending Apple "Oh, but that's NOT the same. It was a SMALLER SCREEN!" By this logic, if Android largely doesn't violate any patents, then it did NOT copy. At all.

You are correct, the iPhone isn't toally new. It's ignorant to say something like how it's so new. The way it was designed is incredible.

For example, 3D gaming was used on the NES (Active shutter glasses, mind you). The Gensis and N64 had online gaming (DLC). But the Xbox and Dreamcast (more or less) is credited with online gaming today.
post #329 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So what? The phones have their switches in a slightly different location. Big deal. That doesn't prove that the same cases wouldn't work. Apple specifically states that their bumpers work with both. Every report I've seen says that the minor difference in switch location does not affect how the cases work- and a couple of reviews specifically commented on it. They said that the difference in location did NOT prevent the case from working.

So I'm STILL waiting for you to back up your claim that iPhone 4 cases wouldn't work with the 4S.

Here ya go.

Not enough? How about the words out of the spokeperson's mouth?

Quote:
"Existing OtterBox case options designed for the original Apple iPhone 4, with the exception of the Reflex Series, will not accommodate the new iPhone 4S. OtterBox will offer iPhone 4S cases in Impact Series, Commuter Series, Reflex Series and Defender Series beginning Oct. 14, which will also accommodate all versions of the iPhone 4."

Still not enough? I've got plenty of sources.

I never said that all won't work. The ATT iPhone 4 cases probaly won't work, but the Verizon should.
post #330 of 372
Steve is wrong on so many fronts when it comes to "ideas". Thomas Edison, Henry Ford do NOT control every car/light bulb that exists. However they were able to profit and set the direction. Yet we recognize their genius by how these products/innovations change how we live and experience life. Steve should just take his direction and collect patent fees. Android lovers will whine about this, but Microsoft is doing this to perfection. MS does it from a follower perspective to slow growth, Apple can do it from a leadership perspective to EXPAND their growth. What do you think pays for SURI, ICLOUD. Hell they could offer these for free and use the PATENTS to pay for them. Everyone wants to settle with Apple. Steve is the classic "ARTIST" "UNIQUE". He can't stand someone copying his idea. He would be pissed if a sibling wore the same clothes he did. Life doesn't allow us to have it both ways. If he can get past his narcissism and see HE is changing the world and his influence leads and he is paid for those efforts, what left are you looking for?
post #331 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexualintellectual View Post

I don't know if it's been mentioned but a few times in this thread alone, but maybe because Palm didn't have their CEO on Apple's board during the production of a device they would eventually compete with. Nobody even knew at that time if Android was going anywhere. If Schmidt used any information gleaned from his time on Apple's board to compete against them, that would be a breach of trust. Are you in a position to know that didn't happen? I don't know that it did, but apparently Jobs felt that way. Even if Google had done it, would you honestly expect them to acknowledge culpability? Only the insiders know what really happened.

At least Jobs could feel comfortable knowing that a Palm employee didn't just waltz into Apple's boardroom prior to the iPhone's release, play with it, see something impressive, and mutter "I think we could do something like this too." It took Palm two years to launch a competing product. In less than a year, Android took a different form factor from what everyone outside of Google knew it to be in 2007. Interpret history however you want, more people are going to read his version (a first hand account from Apple's perspective) than yours (hearsay from either side). Are you going to try to "correct" all that disagree with you when you can't possibly know what the truth is?

Actually, there was some friction between Apple and Palm when the Pre came out. It just wasn't about the OS. The CEO (Rubenstein - a former Apple executive) had the bright idea to have the Pre spoof itself as an iPhone when connected to iTunes. They were able to do this because Rubenstein was in charge of the iPod division when at Apple. A bunch of updates killing the function were issued along with statements but no lawsuits that I can remember.

I think Apple never went after WebOS is because Palm has/had a ton of (non-FRAND) mobile patents.
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 #332 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

Well, we now finally know why Apple is saving up that enormous pile of cash - $80B+ and probably approaching $100B by June.

Google market cap today: $188B

For a hostile takeover you need what percentage of the total value of your target? About 50%, right, and you finance the rest?

I forgot to include Google's cash position. At the end of September it was $42.6B. Market cap yesterday was $192B. Actual cost to acquire is $150B ($192B - $42B).

Apple already has more than 50% of the acquisition cost in the bank.

And selling Android (which would be required by the FTC) would reduce the cost further.

Remember previous musings as to why Apple never got into search? Well, if they had their own search, and it was successful, they would never be allowed to acquire Google.

Crazy idea, I know, but I bet they are/were thinking about it, given the context: "Steve vowed to destroy Android."

One of the best ways to destroy Android would be to remove Android's Google subsidy and make it survive on its own.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #333 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

Well, we now finally know why Apple is saving up that enormous pile of cash - $80B+ and probably approaching $100B by June.

Google market cap today: $188B

For a hostile takeover you need what percentage of the total value of your target? About 50%, right, and you finance the rest?

I STILL believe that Apple should have bought Dell, shut it down, and given the money back to the shareholders. It gets easier for them to do that every day; they have more money than of which Dell could ever dream.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #334 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I STILL believe that Apple should have bought Dell, shut it down, and given the money back to the shareholders. It gets easier for them to do that every day; they have more money than of which Dell could ever dream.

What's the point of that? Granted I do hate Dell (They used to be SOOO good) , but I can't see the benefit.
post #335 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1 View Post

What's the point of that? Granted I do hate Dell (They used to be SOOO good) , but I can't see the benefit.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-203937.html

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #336 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-203937.html

Oh. This goes payback. Payback's a b!t##
post #337 of 372

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 12:26pm
post #338 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

And there's the difference between Jobs and Cook which may give investors great confidence in Apple going forward:

It may well be that Jobs might agree with you, that he'd want to spend the company's money on such personal vendettas. But Cook governs with a cooler head.

Now before y'all rush to click "Reply" so you can write "Troll!", check out how Jonathan Ive describes Jobs in post #325 above.

People are complex. Jobs was a visionary, but we all have blind spots and Jobs was no exception.

Deification of his legacy will not help Apple; Jobs himself understood this, and made it clear the company should not spend time going forward locked in arguments about "What would Steve do?", but instead trusted Cook and Ive and others to exercise their own judgment.

That trust in Cook and Ive may well be among the most sound decisions Steve ever made. It benefits the community to respect that as we see changes going forward.

I wonder if Cook is a pushover? I honestly do. That could cause the company to fall. Steve had a blessing and a curse (HE WAS EMPLOYEE #0 FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!). He did what he wanted....and this was ironically his success.
post #339 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1 View Post

I wonder if Cook is a pushover? I honestly do.

Supposedly, Cook is the one who wrangled all the most recent deals with external companies.

He's supposed to be ruthless at it. He doesn't have the name-dropping power of Steve, but that's because no one else is Steve. Cook's just good at what he does.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #340 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Supposedly, Cook is the one who wrangled all the most recent deals with external companies.

He's supposed to be ruthless at it. He doesn't have the name-dropping power of Steve, but that's because no one else is Steve. Cook's just good at what he does.

It's just in his pictures he seems so nice.
post #341 of 372

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 12:26pm
post #342 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

I also find it bothersome that Apple chooses to sue/attack the manufacturers of Android devices instead of suing Google directly. Attacking Google/Android via proxy seems childish. It seems a way to get revenge on Google and then take out the competition in one fell swoop.

There should be far fewer lawsuits. Apple should be suing Google as well as Samsung (due to other patent violations other than those in Android) NOT companies that choose to sell Android products. Very tacky. I say this as a shareholder (tiny tiny shareholder) and a customer.

Not childish at all!

Unfortunately, Google started it, by competing with Apple BY PROXY themselves through all the manufacturers.

Since Google doesn't "sell" Android, it makes it hard for Apple to sue them and particularly hard to collect any money from them if successful. Also, filing with the ITC would not have worked because Android is not an import, and the ITC is the fastest way to get relief, so that is where Apple is taking action, but against the importing manufacturers. The real money associated with Android is not with the software, but with the manufacturers.

I have to believe that Apple would rather sue Google directly, but that their attorneys told them it wouldn't be as effective or even successful.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #343 of 372

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 12:26pm
post #344 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

It isn't about Google's integrity (or lack of). It isn't about Google being rewarded. It is about Jobs being willing to unnecessarily squander Apple's assets on trying to bring down a competitor versus just using those funds in a positive manner. Perhaps Jobs should have tried to gain a deeper understanding of his chosen religion/life philosophy.

There are more ways for Apple to "fight" Google than just use every nasty trick in the business to take them down. That integrity road goes both ways.

It's not about squandering Apple's assets. It's about tens of trillions of dollars worth of business over the mid-term iOS lifecycle. Without the copying everyone is another 3-5 years behind. In the business world THAT is what you fight for. Your shortsightedness over what the IP fight is really over is quite limiting.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #345 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

The most unfortunate thing is that AI's inflammatory style has fostered a community in which "competing" is equated with "starting it".

Including yourself with all the Google/Android did it first jazz over the past few months? Are you saying you are so mindless you let a website twist you how to think because you can only pick one extreme or another -- irregardless of fact?

Quite the conundrum! Either you are correct -- and you don't control your own posting; or you expose yourself as trying to extremize the website as a way to deflect attention from your own agenda.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #346 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

The most unfortunate thing is that AI's inflammatory style has fostered a community in which "competing" is equated with "starting it".

It is pretty clear that Apple truly believes that their IP is being violated. So if a competitor violates your IP, your recourse is negotiations and then lawsuits. Obviously, the competitor has to start it, or there would be no violation. So your point is?

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #347 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1 View Post

Here ya go.

Not enough? How about the words out of the spokeperson's mouth?

Let's see. Gizmodo. Unreliable from the start. But then, he says "probably". So he never tried it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1 View Post

Still not enough? I've got plenty of sources.

I never said that all won't work. The ATT iPhone 4 cases probaly won't work, but the Verizon should.

OK, so one iPhone case manufacturer out of a thousand has cases that don't work with the new phone. You win a trivial, insignificant point.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #348 of 372

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 12:26pm
post #349 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Actually, there was some friction between Apple and Palm when the Pre came out. It just wasn't about the OS. The CEO (Rubenstein - a former Apple executive) had the bright idea to have the Pre spoof itself as an iPhone when connected to iTunes. They were able to do this because Rubenstein was in charge of the iPod division when at Apple. A bunch of updates killing the function were issued along with statements but no lawsuits that I can remember.

I think Apple never went after WebOS is because Palm has/had a ton of (non-FRAND) mobile patents.

There isn't a law against spoofing devices except for USB certification; Apple complained about it if I remembered right but couldn't sue.

But if they didn't sue because of the zero sum game of patents that Palm has, what does that show about the system as a whole again?
post #350 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

There isn't a law against spoofing devices except for USB certification; Apple complained about it if I remembered right but couldn't sue.

But if they didn't sue because of the zero sum game of patents that Palm has, what does that show about the system as a whole again?

About no law, that part's true. But spoofing device IDs was illegal due to Palm's contractual agreements with the USB standards authority, USB-IF. Palm was told to stop spoofing, or stop using USB. If Palm hadn't done one or the other they would have been sued by USB-IF, Inc. rather than Apple.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #351 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

I have no question that Jobs himself believed this wholeheartedly.

But I also observe what appears to be a difference of opinion between him and the cooler heads at Apple on this issue: Apple has not taken Schmidt or Google to court over this.

Perhaps Apple is secretly mounting a suit against Google and we're just not aware of it. Neither you or I have any way to know that. All we know is that what Steve says on this issue contradicts what Apple does.

Apple can't get much of anything from suing Google directly, until after the Moto acquisition is finished.

Most of the iOS IP is protectable via market incursion injunction or cash damages. Since Google isn't shipping Android devices, there is nothing to injunct against, and Apple's iOS IP isn't wide ranging enough to completely shut down all of Android preemptively. the pre-emptive part requires ridiculous situational support and in a potential Apple vs Google that's just not going to happen until Google ships a phone via an owned Moto.

Apple can sue against a shipped device in a very straightforward manner because they can attempt to prove their IP is in the device without license, and if the IP isn't part of a standard the law says they do not have to settle for $$, Apple can get an injunction against sales. Once (or if) Apple proves a critical mass of IP violations and gains successful injunctions (a number that may only be a US case or two on top of the other international cases) Apple would be able sue just about any Android device shipper with a near Apple auto-wins scenario.

Apple is currently testing the waters, and if they win they will go all in and the rest of the Android market will have to go back to the drawing board to get around the Apple IP. Google sees this coming, Apples attempt to choke off Android's air supply. That's why Google is buying so much IP now, hoping to find a magic bullet that will force Apple to settle before Apple wins any of these first critical cases.

So you see Apple doesn't have to touch Google if Apple can win the first IP case or two, because then the legal precedent will be theirs and the infringing code is in just about all the Android distributions and products. It is like Google is out on a lake in an Alumacraft 165 with a broken motor and a lightening storm approaching head on.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #352 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Does Apple really share Jobs' belief?

I have no question that Jobs himself believed this wholeheartedly.

But I also observe what appears to be a difference of opinion between him and the cooler heads at Apple on this issue: Apple has not taken Schmidt or Google to court over this.

All we know is that what Steve says on this issue contradicts what Apple does.

What could account for this disparity?

The explanation for not suing Google is in Hiro's excellent post above (post #356!). Thanks Hiro.

I doubt is has anything to do with differences of opinion between Jobs and other Apple leadership. Perhaps a difference in level of passion, but it would be pretty FU'd for a leading American corporation to make major legal/strategic/financial decisions based solely upon the CEO's "hurt feelings". The Board and executive leadership have to be convinced there is some chance of winning, meaning they view their IP as valid and defensible, and that the lawsuits have a reasonable chance of success. Given the predictable PR blowback, probably more than a reasonable chance.

And BTW, you are wrong, what Steve said does not contradict what Apple does in this area.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #353 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

My point is that there is not always a 1-to-1 correlation between belief of an infringement and actual infringement. And even if there may be, it may not always be intentional.

Sorry to disagree, but the point I was referring to that you made is:

Originally Posted by

MacRulez
The most unfortunate thing is that AI's inflammatory style has fostered a community in which "competing" is equated with "starting it".
Your explanation has almost nothing to do with this statement.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #354 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

Not childish at all!

Unfortunately, Google started it, by competing with Apple BY PROXY themselves through all the manufacturers.

Since Google doesn't "sell" Android, it makes it hard for Apple to sue them and particularly hard to collect any money from them if successful. Also, filing with the ITC would not have worked because Android is not an import, and the ITC is the fastest way to get relief, so that is where Apple is taking action, but against the importing manufacturers. The real money associated with Android is not with the software, but with the manufacturers.

That is absolutely not true. Look up 'contributory infringement'. Google could be liable for billions. And the proof required to show that a given Android phone violate Apple's IP is not that different whether Apple is suing Google or HTC. The difference is tactical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

I have to believe that Apple would rather sue Google directly, but that their attorneys told them it wouldn't be as effective or even successful.

It could be equally effective - maybe more so given Google's cash horde. The difference is tactical. If Apple goes directly after Google, they are threatening Google's core and Google could easily justify immense money to defend themselves. By choosing a handset maker first, Apple is playing 'divide and conquer'. Once Apple wins one or two cases against handset makers, it becomes almost impossible for Google to win future battles.

I suspect that's why Apple is going after Samsung first. Since Samsung has clearly violated not just Apple's patents but also Apple's trade dress, it's easy for Apple top paint Samsung as "the copyist". Once Samsung falls, Apple's case against the other vendors doesn't need to be as strong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

My point is that there is not always a 1-to-1 correlation between belief of an infringement and actual infringement. And even if there may be, it may not always be intentional.

And, yet, judges around the world are finding Samsung to have violated Apple's IP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Apple can't get much of anything from suing Google directly, until after the Moto acquisition is finished.

Most of the iOS IP is protectable via market incursion injunction or cash damages. Since Google isn't shipping Android devices, there is nothing to injunct against, and Apple's iOS IP isn't wide ranging enough to completely shut down all of Android preemptively. the pre-emptive part requires ridiculous situational support and in a potential Apple vs Google that's just not going to happen until Google ships a phone via an owned Moto.

Apple can sue against a shipped device in a very straightforward manner because they can attempt to prove their IP is in the device without license, and if the IP isn't part of a standard the law says they do not have to settle for $$, Apple can get an injunction against sales. Once (or if) Apple proves a critical mass of IP violations and gains successful injunctions (a number that may only be a US case or two on top of the other international cases) Apple would be able sue just about any Android device shipper with a near Apple auto-wins scenario.

Apple is currently testing the waters, and if they win they will go all in and the rest of the Android market will have to go back to the drawing board to get around the Apple IP. Google sees this coming, Apples attempt to choke off Android's air supply. That's why Google is buying so much IP now, hoping to find a magic bullet that will force Apple to settle before Apple wins any of these first critical cases.

So you see Apple doesn't have to touch Google if Apple can win the first IP case or two, because then the legal precedent will be theirs and the infringing code is in just about all the Android distributions and products. It is like Google is out on a lake in an Alumacraft 165 with a broken motor and a lightening storm approaching head on.

Actually, that all misses the concept of contributory infringement. If Apple can show that Android violates its IP, they can easily go after Google for contributory infringement.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #355 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

Sorry to disagree, but the point I was referring to that you made is:

Originally Posted by

MacRulez
The most unfortunate thing is that AI's inflammatory style has fostered a community in which "competing" is equated with "starting it".
Your explanation has almost nothing to do with this statement.

Wh wh

You copied the quote formatting and image link instead of just quoting?

AWESOME!

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #356 of 372
deleted
post #357 of 372
deleted
post #358 of 372
So that's why Apple is hoarding cash! For the longest time people couldn't figure out why Apple is hoarding cash. Investors and analysts all wanted them to do something with it, either a dividend or stock buy backs but Steve refused. It now all makes sense.

Jobs knows that at some point down the line he's going to have to battle Google in law suits. That's very expensive and he wanted the biggest war chest he can have as Google also generate billions of dollars each year. It's the only way to protect against those who freeload off of Apple's IP.
post #359 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCC View Post

So that's why Apple is hoarding cash! For the longest time people couldn't figure out why Apple is hoarding cash. Investors and analysts all wanted them to do something with it, either a dividend or stock buy backs but Steve refused. It now all makes sense.

Jobs knows that at some point down the line he's going to have to battle Google in law suits. That's very expensive and he wanted the biggest war chest he can have as Google also generate billions of dollars each year. It's the only way to protect against those who freeload off of Apple's IP.

As someone was asking on Mac Rumors. Can. Someone, anyone, detail what Android has stolen from iOS?

Not obscure minor IP even God can't avoid violating but what specifically was copied?
post #360 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Actually, that all misses the concept of contributory infringement. If Apple can show that Android violates its IP, they can easily go after Google for contributory infringement.

It can be very difficult to jump straight to contributory infringement. Let alone get billions of damages that way on a product that is "given away". The judge already threw out most of that argument in the Oracle case where Google is far more directly accused of violating IP, so I would think it would be even harder for Apple to go after Google in that manner.
.
Reply
.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Steve Jobs vowed to 'destroy' Google Android, called it a 'stolen product'
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Steve Jobs vowed to 'destroy' Google Android, called it a 'stolen product'