or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google argues popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google argues popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential - Page 6

post #201 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

Maybe Apple has major issues with the way the current situation evolved. And rightfully so. But despite that, clearly multitouch and other technologies are way too critical to be held only for the use of one company.
We might all say google stole this from apple. But if google is willing to pay apple for this privilege, and was willing to pay all along, one could argue that it is Apple that forced google to steal by not being willing to license.
...

One could also argue that if you want to use my car and I won't let you, that when you take it and drive cross country, I forced you to steal it. After all, cars are way too critical to be held only for the use of one person.

It would be a really stupid argument, and it wouldn't get you very far in court, but you could argue it.
post #202 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


One could also argue that if you want to use my car and I won't let you, that when you take it and drive cross country, I forced you to steal it. After all, cars are way too critical to be held only for the use of one person.
It would be a really stupid argument, and it wouldn't get you very far in court, but you could argue it.

 

Hey but I'd only use your car to lend it to other people for free.

 

Then I'll give you a cut, how many percent do you want?

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #203 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Huitson View Post

I hope Google wins this, because the ramifications are huge.

Imagine cheap medicines because patented medicine can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds health issues

Imagine cheap food because bio tech patents can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds food supply issues
I am sure the greater good of world health and food supply is a more noble cause than consumer popularism and this move will release all these patents for the better good.

 

Yeah and pigs will fly that week as well.

 

It won't happen.

 

While I appreciate somehow your point of view because I have some insights in the health care and charity business, I have to say that there's no way to equate these issues with smartphones and the related patents.

Cheap or free music, movies, games are entertainment and not part of public welfare although the old Roman "bread and games" might suggest it.

 

The game is about disrupting a healthy market by subsidizing (ads).

I read often "competition is good". Subsidies are a tool to abrogate free market prices by their nature.

They are about eliminating competition and not about the opposite.

 

Beside insuring the necessary standards for health care, safety, education, infrastructure etc. societies need to operate I have never seen cross subsidies doing anything good to a market in the long run.

 

To suggest that smartphones and their technology should be part of the common good isn't acceptable because in my experience free movies aren't a replacement for education and smartphones can't cure cancer.

post #204 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Hey but I'd only use your car to lend it to other people for free.

 

Then I'll give you a cut, how many percent do you want?

 

I'd like $1.000/day, plus you accept liability for any accidents or other damages that occur while you are driving it, and pay for any rental cars I need because I don't have use of it. Or, will that just force you to steal it again?

 

Apple is so mean forcing Google to steal iOS when they originally wanted to steal the Blackberry. Why can't Apple just leave Google alone and stop forcing them to break the law. Tim Cook is just as mean as Steve was. Poor Google.

 

But, as Chairman Page says, "In People's Republic of Googlestan, all your technology are belong to us... and books... and Yelp reviews... and everything are belong to us. Don't be evil. Peace out."


Edited by anonymouse - 7/22/12 at 7:05am
post #205 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

So Apple didn't invent it or use it in any of their products first but they did make it better so they should get a patent for it? Please tell me you aren't really saying this.

 

If someone invents a manner for interacting with a device using a touch screen they deserve a patent on that. If someone else comes along and invents a different and markedly superior way to accomplish the same thing with better results, then yes, I'd say they deserve a patent for it.

 

For how many years did mobile phone manufacturers sit on their asses with no useful innovation beyond tacky variations on case design? Apple revolutionized the mobile industry with their first iPhone, which was ridiculed by all their competitors only to eventually be copied by them. These lazy, greedy and talentless companies don't have the right to just swoop in and blatantly copy Apple's innovations after years of contributing nothing of value to the market.

 

 
post #206 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

I'm quite familiar with Intellectual Ventures. They sign agreements with patent holders or buy patents outright en masse or form patent consortiums to exploit to the fullest their property.

 

All companies exist to make a profit. That is their only real requirement. Not to employ people, not to make society a better place by making huge donations to charities, not to improve the quality of life... none of that. They are doing it right. They make huge profits, it is 100% legal and it is done in a very, very smart way. And you know what is the side benefit to their rampant, disgusting capitalism? People are employed. Huge donations can be made. Quality of life improves. Wow. Think about that.

 

Of course the patent and copyright systems are constructs... legal constructs. Property rights are still rights and a society that widely recognizes property rights seems to be a rare and diminishing thing. Rights are inherent, which means they cannot be given or taken from you. A legal system helps to enforce the rights you already have. In that way, the individual is as powerful as the biggest companies on Earth.

 

The fact that you support and admire Intellectual Ventures' business model places you at the most extreme position of this discussion. This company and its business model are despised by a tremendous majority. The laws need to be changed to prevent this misuse of patent law - as it is clearly a violation of the law's prime objective - to encourage innovation, not to enrich corporate leeches who add zero value.

 

I think I'm done debating this with you and you have revealed your position to be that of an extremist who values one sleazy company's ability to make a huge profit over policies that benefit the market as a whole - and that means companies and consumers.

 

 
post #207 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Why is it when Apple invents something people bring up the silliest examples of prior art like a photo frame, a video mockup of what the future might hold, Star Trek, or some early hominid tablet found in a cave in Southern France, but when it comes to Google prior art all of a sudden has so little meaning that an actual feature (note, not even a product) that was on devices of the same type in the same time frame means nothing?

 

Because:

 

1.   Everybody's always pickin' on Apple.

2.   Everybody who doesn't hate Google is a hypocrite.

post #208 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Huitson View Post

I hope Google wins this, because the ramifications are huge.
Imagine cheap medicines because patented medicine can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds health issues
Imagine cheap food because bio tech patents can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds food supply issues

I am sure the greater good of world health and food supply is a more noble cause than consumer popularism and this move will release all these patents for the better good.

Yeah and pigs will fly that week as well.

It won't happen.

The reason it won't happen is that most of the world realizes that the way to ensure FUTURE inventions is to allow inventors to profit from their inventions.

While voiding all pharmaceutical patents might make a bunch of medicines cheaper today, it would guarantee that there would never be any new medicines in the future. It can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and commercialize a medicine. Why should someone do that if their competitors were simply allowed to copy?
"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 #209 of 271

jragosta wrote:

Of course patent trolls don't exist. It's a silly made-up term used by people who don't understand patents OR business.


 

 

You are defending the patent system as it exists today under the apparent premise that anything that is legal is correct and desirable, so long as it's profitable for someone. Never mind the impact to the market as a whole or to consumers. 

 

The CONCEPT of copyrights and patents is not natural. These are not an inalienable rights.  As I wrote previously it was an ARTIFICIAL construct created with the sole intent of encouraging innovation. In other words, we created this artificial notion that someone's work can be protected from copying for a limited period of time - in other words, a monopoly - with the express intent of encouraging people to create and invent things, which benefits the market and society as a whole.

 

What we have today, and what companies like Intellectual Ventures are doing, goes entirely against this concept. Fortunately, the rest of our nation does not share your selfish Ayn Rand-esque philosophy of every man for himself and f*** the rest of the country.

 

 

 
 
 
 
post #210 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

 

"Misinformed morons" huh?

 

I don't have to "imagine if." Everything is patented. Copy-and-paste is patented, in case you didn't know--and you didn't (US6944821). Dozens of companies own patents related to GPS. Mobile web page rendering. MP3s. All patented. By every company you can name: IBM, Microsoft, AT&T, Motorola, Qualcomm, Apple, Sun, Netscape, Adobe... (and on and on). All patented. And companies sue each over patents all the time. They also cross-license patents to each other. Even Apple. Yes, Apple licenses its patents to other companies (but it can choose which ones to keep for its own secret sauce). This is how the system works.

 

That is why your theoretical "Imagine if Kia..." example is ludicrous. Everything in a mobile phone is in fact, already patented, yet mobile devices still get made. The mobile phone industry doesn't owe its existence to a lack of patents, as you seem to think. For example, every Apple mobile device can play MP3s because Apple pays a license to Fraunhofer and Thompson. Apple doesn't just declare it "standards essential" to justify infringing on Fraunhofer's patent rights. And MP3s are about as de facto as it gets.

 

Patents don't prevent things from getting made; patents encourage an economic return on innovation.

 

 

Perhaps I should have been a little more detailed.  Yes, there are patents for many things that are widely used.  However, those patents are for very specific methods.  Fraunhofer didn't come along and put their patent on "method to play music from a digital media file".  They patented the MP3 format and other specific formats.  Sliding a switch to turn on or unlock something?  Really?  So you can patent a natural movement that has been used in the physical world for decades?  Now as much as you'd like to think this was an invention by Apple, I say your are smoking crack.  This one is an example of a patent that is awarded where there was 1) prior art and 2) so broad that just about any unlock method can be interpreted as being derived from that patent.  Broad patents should not be granted unless they can be specific enough to allow competition the ability to achieve the same goal differently....especially if said method is something we already do in our daily lives outside of the mobile device.

 

Apple's lawsuit against Samsung for physical design.  So Apple can say that having a rectangle with a bezel is their invention?  Again, if you agree, you are smoking crack.  While not as elegant as the iPad, that design was around when the XP Tablet Edition was making the rounds.  Yep, icons on a screen (imagine that), a bezel, and OMG, it was rectangular!  Here again, there was 1) prior art and 2) Apple thinks it has the market on rectangular shaped slates and that if ANYONE ELSE wants to make one, it can't be rectangular (came from the horse's mouth on suggestions to make an non-infringing tablet).  Anyone who believes Apple is in the right there is also smoking crack.

 

Apple's lawsuit against Android for search on a device?  This has gotten to an all time low on Apple's part.  Really?  You are going to tell a company who's business model is based on searches for all corners that their OS can't search the file system it resides on?  PRIOR ART!  This is where Apple has gone off the deep end.  OS's have been doing this for years, far before any iDevice came out.  So because now a voice can input the characters for the search, this is Apple's invention?  Are you kidding me?  I really want to hear you refute this one because this is just something I have to hear!

post #211 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


That's the spirit - just move the goal posts and hope no one notices. This whole stupid exchange started with you stridently attempting to argue that he should not have an emotional response to a company (originally Google, then it moved on to MS) unless he were personally affected by them. So, now you are conceding that he was affected, but that it was his problem?

Muppetry, your mistake is in trying to be logical and consistent - shame on you! :) Consider the source of this whole silly thread. 

 

The wonderful thing about this commenting system is how it allows you to block the people who appear to delight in being contrary, antagonistic jackalopes. The ol' "fredarooney" has earned a special place in this list. Technology can be quite handy at times. :)

post #212 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Clearly struck a nerve there, and fully according to pattern - when he totally runs out of ideas he wheels out the block list. Maybe one day he will put Appleinsider on the block list and the torture will be over.

A hit! A palpable hit! :) I'm sure it won't be too long before "the fredster" pulls out yet another alias so the fun can continue. Maybe there could be a contest - see who can detect his latest alias the soonest?

post #213 of 271

People who think that Apple should license patents and make money are not seeing the point here. Apple's strategy revolves around putting a unique product in the hands of the consumer. Apple tries to set itself apart from competitors products. Licensing out the patents and making a mint off of licensing fees might sound nice on paper. But in the long range, it's contrary to Apple's strategy of building a unique device.

post #214 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

You are defending the patent system as it exists today under the apparent premise that anything that is legal is correct and desirable, so long as it's profitable for someone. Never mind the impact to the market as a whole or to consumers. 

The CONCEPT of copyrights and patents is not natural. These are not an inalienable rights.  As I wrote previously it was an ARTIFICIAL construct created with the sole intent of encouraging innovation. In other words, we created this artificial notion that someone's work can be protected from copying for a limited period of time - in other words, a monopoly - with the express intent of encouraging people to create and invent things, which benefits the market and society as a whole.

What we have today, and what companies like Intellectual Ventures are doing, goes entirely against this concept. Fortunately, the rest of our nation does not share your selfish Ayn Rand-esque philosophy of every man for himself and f*** the rest of the country.

What a stupid argument. The right to drive a car is an artificial construct too. Let's take away your right to drive (starting when you finally turn 16). Better yet, money is an artificial construct. Let's take away all your money. Better yet - just send it to me since you don't believe in artificial constructs.

The fact is that the patent system was created for the purpose of encouraging innovation by allowing inventors to benefit from their inventions as you've stated. So why should Google have the right to steal Apple's inventions? Why should a senile judge who admits that he's not an expert have the right to deny Apple's legislatively granted rights?

You might also want to stop making things up - your final paragraph couldn't be further from the truth. But, then, you've never shown any interest in seeing the world as it really is, anyway.
"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 #215 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


What a stupid argument. The right to drive a car is an artificial construct too. Let's take away your right to drive (starting when you finally turn 16). Better yet, money is an artificial construct. Let's take away all your money. Better yet - just send it to me since you don't believe in artificial constructs.

 

He/she wasn't arguing that it is invalid just because it is unnatural, but that if it doesn't work correctly anymore then maybe it is time to re-examine it.

I understand the motivation behind these laws, but they leave me uneasy sometimes (which might be due to lack of a deeper understanding of the issue). I plan to make money developing software. I basically just don't want either of these to be true:

(a) I'm asked by a client/employer to help patent something which is so simple (to me and other developers) that it is embarrassing to "own" it (hopefully "non-obviousness" is high enough a standard to eliminate this), or so quick-to-invent that "protecting" it takes unnecessary resources away from moving on to bigger and better things, or so complicated that it might be unnecessary to patent anyway--- just understanding it and being able to incorporate it first has a competitive advantage in itself.

or

(b) I legitimately develop something, with good intentions, and am told to stop or be punished for something which I couldn't have foreseen (or which would have been unreasonable to foresee if I dedicate my time/resources to development), just because someone else got there first. That, to me, would seem like running a marathon- except when one runner gets a few steps ahead, he/she turns around with a gun and tells the other runners "Look, I took these few steps before you, therefore you cannot advance until I say so"
 

 

I'm at the early stages of forming an opinion, I guess- but these things haven't been adequately resolved in my mind. (Maybe they never will)

post #216 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwjvan View Post

He/she wasn't arguing that it is invalid just because it is unnatural, but that if it doesn't work correctly anymore then maybe it is time to re-examine it.


I understand the motivation behind these laws, but they leave me uneasy sometimes (which might be due to lack of a deeper understanding of the issue). I plan to make money developing software. I basically just don't want either of these to be true:


(a) I'm asked by a client/employer to help patent something which is so simple (to me and other developers) that it is embarrassing to "own" it (hopefully "non-obviousness" is high enough a standard to eliminate this), or so quick-to-invent that "protecting" it takes unnecessary resources away from moving on to bigger and better things, or so complicated that it might be unnecessary to patent anyway--- just understanding it and being able to incorporate it first has a competitive advantage in itself.


or


(b) I legitimately develop something, with good intentions, and am told to stop or be punished for something which I couldn't have foreseen (or which would have been unreasonable to foresee if I dedicate my time/resources to development), just because someone else got there first. That, to me, would seem like running a marathon- except when one runner gets a few steps ahead, he/she turns around with a gun and tells the other runners "Look, I took these few steps before you, therefore you cannot advance until I say so"

 

I'm at the early stages of forming an opinion, I guess- but these things haven't been adequately resolved in my mind. (Maybe they never will)

Well, neither of your scenarios applies to the patents Apple is defending. They weren't simple or obvious before Apple invented them, even though now, five years later, we all think it s so natural as to be " the only way to do it." That's the thing about brilliantly conceived and implemented inventions: once they are out there, they seem so obviously the best way to do something, but they weren't obvious at all before they were realized.

And, other developers weren't blindly working on the same thing, only to discover that Apple got there first. Apple got there and the other developers (I.e., Google) scrambled to copy them as quickly as possible.
post #217 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, neither of your scenarios applies to the patents Apple is defending. They weren't simple or obvious before Apple invented them, even though now, five years later, we all think it s so natural as to be " the only way to do it." That's the thing about brilliantly conceived and implemented inventions: once they are out there, they seem so obviously the best way to do something, but they weren't obvious at all before they were realized.
And, other developers weren't blindly working on the same thing, only to discover that Apple got there first. Apple got there and the other developers (I.e., Google) scrambled to copy them as quickly as possible.
Well plenty of people think they were and that multi touch devices were inevitable, I guess never mind that Eric Schmidt in a Charlie Rose interview said that Apple invented the smartphone revolution and they should get credit for it.
post #218 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAdComics View Post

A hit! A palpable hit! 1smile.gif I'm sure it won't be too long before "the fredster" pulls out yet another alias so the fun can continue. Maybe there could be a contest - see who can detect his latest alias the soonest?

Hrmm I assume you are talking about me and I find this funny from a poster with only 4 posts. Ask any of the mods if I have had other accounts before or after this one if you want to know.
post #219 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post

Does Google even have a "Notification Center" without iOS?
Regardless you can't "steal" what is "open source" anyway.

Does Apple have a notification center without Android?

And yes...you can steal open source...
post #220 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post
Does Apple have a notification center without Android?

 

iOS certainly did. If people are going to keep repeating idiocy, they shouldn't expect respect.

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 #221 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

The fact that you support and admire Intellectual Ventures' business model places you at the most extreme position of this discussion. This company and its business model are despised by a tremendous majority. The laws need to be changed to prevent this misuse of patent law - as it is clearly a violation of the law's prime objective - to encourage innovation, not to enrich corporate leeches who add zero value.

Your argument is simply begging the question along with hasty generalization. You are arguing that defending IV is bad because IV is bad. Then you argue that everyone knows that IV is bad.

Neither argument holds up to scrutiny. In reality, what IV is doing is completely legal and ethical. They buy property from willing sellers and they then have the right to do whatever they want with that property. If I sell my widget factory to a real estate broker, do you have the right to move in and start making widgets if the broker doesn't immediately rent it to someone? Obviously not. So why would intellectual property be any different?
"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 #222 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Your argument is simply begging the question along with hasty generalization. You are arguing that defending IV is bad because IV is bad. Then you argue that everyone knows that IV is bad.
Neither argument holds up to scrutiny. In reality, what IV is doing is completely legal and ethical. They buy property from willing sellers and they then have the right to do whatever they want with that property. If I sell my widget factory to a real estate broker, do you have the right to move in and start making widgets if the broker doesn't immediately rent it to someone? Obviously not. So why would intellectual property be any different?

 

Because intellectual property is different. Intellectual Vultures is a patent troll, gaming the system with unimplemented patents. They are the poster boy for patent reform and mucking up what is a good thing for those who actually play by the spirit, not just the letter, of the rules. They contribute absolutely nothing to society in exchange for the grant of property, given for the purpose of advancing society. They are leaches, sucking the life blood out of innovation.

post #223 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post


I actually agree with Google on this one - that Apple should be forced to license. 
 
One could also argue that if you want to use my car and I won't let you, that when you take it and drive cross country, I forced you to steal it. After all, cars are way too critical to be held only for the use of one person.
It would be a really stupid argument, and it wouldn't get you very far in court, but you could argue it.

 

This is an improvement. In the past, fandroid arguments have been all over the map, a desperate grab bag of self-contradicting positions on the topic. From denial ("Apple didn't invent such and such! Here's prior art from ancient Greece showing the existence of rectanglez"), to attacking the patent system ("those misinformed morons at the patent office should never have granted Apple this patent"), to calling the kettle black ("Oh yeah? Well Apple stole Android notifications!"), to finally admitting that yes, Google steals from Apple, and Apple did invent this, and Apple does have a patent, but that Apple has no "rights" to have that patent because it's too awesome of an idea. That's the official new argument from Google, and the fandroids have more or less lined up behind it like...GSheep, I suppose. At least the anti-Apple rhetoric is starting to sound coherent, instead of spewing in every which direction they can shake a straw man at.
 
With this admission, we can finally focus on the real issue: Apple has patents that Google wants, and Google feels it is entitled to access it (and indeed, to give it away to everyone). And the fandroids agree, or at least "macarena", from the quote above: "Apple should be forced to license" -- oh really? Forced. What justifies force? Just because Google and a bunch of knock-off handset makers want their products to look and feel as much like Apple's iOS devices as possible? Are you seriously saying that is a valid reason to force Apple to license? Wow, that's just... wow. Make no mistake: that is precisely what the fandroids on these forums mean when they say "Apple doesn't want competition." The fandroids mean that Apple doesn't want Google or Samsung to steal their patents and use them against Apple. We've turned a corner in these forums. Google has officially made clear its intention. They might as well say, "Let's be evil." And to my shock, the GSheep support this.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #224 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Because intellectual property is different. Intellectual Vultures is a patent troll, gaming the system with unimplemented patents. They are the poster boy for patent reform and mucking up what is a good thing for those who actually play by the spirit, not just the letter, of the rules. They contribute absolutely nothing to society in exchange for the grant of property, given for the purpose of advancing society. They are leaches, sucking the life blood out of innovation.

Again, I see a lot of accusations but no facts or evidence.
"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 #225 of 271
Translation: "Apple patents are de facto standard essential therefore we can just rip off whatever we want". "What's that? even if patents are standards essential you have to license them? Nah, no worries, we're Google, we do no evil, so we don't have to license anything, we just rip it off. Better yet, we'll use patsies like Motorola, HTC and Samsung to take the heat so we can continue our illegal and unethical behaviour."
Edited by sr2012 - 7/22/12 at 6:45pm
post #226 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Because intellectual property is different. Intellectual Vultures is a patent troll, gaming the system with unimplemented patents. They are the poster boy for patent reform and mucking up what is a good thing for those who actually play by the spirit, not just the letter, of the rules. They contribute absolutely nothing to society in exchange for the grant of property, given for the purpose of advancing society. They are leaches, sucking the life blood out of innovation.

 

They contribute a way for inventors, particularly smaller one's with less resources, a way to monetize their inventions, while taking on most of the risks.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #227 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

My hatred of Google is growing daily.

Standards Essential Patents are established by the patent holder and other companies, who agree in advance to cross license the patents at fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates. They are not established by lame, backstabbing, copycat companies who unilaterally decide that a competitor's private patents, upon which no standards have been established, must be shared with others whether they like it or not.

Google is following Microsoft's footsteps as a predatory company with few original ideas, and I hope that this leads them to their fall just as it did Microsoft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rioviva View Post

I actually agree with Google. On that note, I think their search algorithms have become essential for the industry. As much as I've tried switching to Bing or Yahoo, I keep coming back to Google's engine.
Those algorithms should be de facto standards and licensed under FRAND

Thank you. Y'all beat me to it. I couldn't have put it better. And, karma's a bitch. The chickens have come home to roost for Microsoft, as they will for Google too... You can count on it.

BTW for Yahoo and Bing, their uselessness is mind-boggling. I use Duck Duck Go and while not superb, is enough without me having to use Yahoo or Bing.
post #228 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

One could also argue that if you want to use my car and I won't let you, that when you take it and drive cross country, I forced you to steal it. After all, cars are way too critical to be held only for the use of one person.
It would be a really stupid argument, and it wouldn't get you very far in court, but you could argue it.

Totally irrelevant reply. If you steal my car, I can't use it anymore. If Google uses Apple's IP and is willing to compensate Apple for it, Apple can still use it's IP.

The point is simply this - the whole point of the patent system is to encourage people to share their knowledge, so that further knowledge gains can be made. If not for this goal, everything could just be a trade secret and no one can build on top of others work. While it is legal to deny licensing, I believe that denying licensing is not a sensible strategy.

Jobs said something to the effect of - I don't want your money, even if you offer $5B. Just stop copying my ideas. That is clearly denying licensing at any rate. Nothing wrong with it per se. But this is one of the reasons for the current mess.

Read my post fully. What I said is that while Apple SHOULD license, the rate at which they license should also be entirely upto Apple. And if Apple chooses to license only at rates that are deterrent, then Apple runs the risk that people will go ahead anyway, in the hope that the outcome of the legal case would not be as damaging as Apple's fees. This is classic game theory.
Edited by macarena - 7/22/12 at 8:09pm
post #229 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post


The point is simply this - the whole point of the patent system is to encourage people to share their knowledge, so that further knowledge gains can be made. If not for this goal, everything could just be a trade secret and no one can build on top of others work. While it is legal to deny licensing, I believe that denying licensing is not a sensible strategy.
I thought that the patent system was designed to define and protect intellectual property.
post #230 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

Totally irrelevant reply. If you steal my car, I can't use it anymore. If Google uses Apple's IP and is willing to compensate Apple for it, Apple can still use it's IP.

Perhaps, but they lose the value because they no longer have a proprietary, exclusive product - so they lose the value of their invention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

The point is simply this - the whole point of the patent system is to encourage people to share their knowledge, so that further knowledge gains can be made.

That's misleading. The whole point of the patent system is to grant inventors an exclusive right to their invention for a limited period of time THEN for it to become public. It is the exclusive right to the invention which is intended to spur innovation. WIthout exclusivity, there's no incentive to innovate.
"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 #231 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

While it is legal to deny licensing, I believe that denying licensing is not a sensible strategy.
Jobs said something to the effect of - I don't want your money, even if you offer $5B. Just stop copying my ideas. That is clearly denying licensing at any rate. Nothing wrong with it per se. But this is one of the reasons for the current mess.

No, this is not, "one of the reasons for the current mess." The "current mess" as you call it came about because Google is lazy, ruthless and unethical, and has, over the years, methodically stolen other people's IP, created cheap imitations of other peoples products, and given them away for free in order to destroy the market for those seeking profits through selling innovative products, so that Google can earn advertising revenues off the backs of the people who did the actual heavy lifting.

They followed this exact strategy with Android, initially copying market leader RIM, but quickly shifting their copying efforts to iOS when it became apparent that Apple had created something revolutionary and unique with the iPhone.

So, the "current mess" came about because Google wasn't interested in investing the effort to attempt to develop something new and unique themselves, but intentionally created a cheap knockoff of iOS to be given away for free in order to make the smartphone market commercially unviable for anyone else. So far, because Apple has been able to stay so far ahead of them, and fended them off to some degree with legal challenges, they've been unsuccessful in destroying the market. Now they want the government to change the law and reward them for their lack of original work by making their chief competitor's original work public domain property.

Apple creates. Google steals and destroys. The difference between the two companies could not be starker. Without Apple's original work, Android as it is today would not even exist, because Google would not have had anything to copy it from. If Google is worried they can't keep Android viable without infringing Apple's IP, they should either do the hard work to develop an alternate paradigm for the smartphone, like Apple did*, or they should drop out of the market. What must not happen is that Google be rewarded for being lazy and dishonest.


* Apple didn't whine that RIM's technology should be made public domain, they created something wholly new that surpasses it. There's no reason other than laziness and lack of genius in their engineers that Google couldn't do the same. The iPhone paradigm is not the only viable smartphone universe. It's just the only one we know today and that Google's limited imagination can conceive. Android is not an achievement of Google, it's an indictment of them, and an embarrassing example of their complete inability to do anything original.
Edited by anonymouse - 7/22/12 at 9:53pm
post #232 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

Totally irrelevant reply. If you steal my car, I can't use it anymore. If Google uses Apple's IP and is willing to compensate Apple for it, Apple can still use it's IP.

Er, dude... It's still stealing, like, you know, a crime... in both instances. By your reasoning I can take anything non-physical as I wish and simply "compensate" others for it.
post #233 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


No, this is not, "one of the reasons for the current mess." The "current mess" as you call it came about because Google is lazy, ruthless and unethical, and has, over the years, methodically stolen other people's IP, created cheap imitations of other peoples products, and given them away for free in order to destroy the market for those seeking profits through selling innovative products, so that Google can earn advertising revenues off the backs of the people who did the actual heavy lifting.
They followed this exact strategy with Android, initially copying market leader RIM, but quickly shifting their copying efforts to iOS when it became apparent that Apple had created something revolutionary and unique with the iPhone.
So, the "current mess" came about because Google wasn't interested in investing the effort to attempt to develop something new and unique themselves, but intentionally created a cheap knockoff of iOS to be given away for free in order to make the smartphone market commercially unviable for anyone else. So far, because Apple has been able to stay so far ahead of them, and fended them off to some degree with legal challenges, they've been unsuccessful in destroying the market. Now they want the government to change the law and reward them for their lack of original work by making their chief competitor's original work public domain property.
Apple creates. Google steals and destroys. The difference between the two companies could not be starker. Without Apple's original work, Android as it is today would not even exist, because Google would not have had anything to copy it from. If Google is worried they can't keep Android viable without infringing Apple's IP, they should either do the hard work to develop an alternate paradigm for the smartphone, like Apple did*, or they should drop out of the market. What must not happen is that Google be rewarded for being lazy and dishonest.
* Apple didn't whine that RIM's technology should be made public domain, they created something wholly new that surpasses it. There's no reason other than laziness and lack of genius in their engineers that Google couldn't do the same. The iPhone paradigm is not the only viable smartphone universe. It's just the only one we know today and that Google's limited imagination can conceive. Android is not an achievement of Google, it's an indictment of them, and an embarrassing example of their complete inability to do anything original.

Very nicely put.

"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 #234 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Er, dude... It's still stealing, like, you know, a crime... in both instances. By your reasoning I can take anything non-physical as I wish and simply "compensate" others for it.

Exactly - except that Google in this instance argues that it doesn't have to compensate at all. They're so fcuked up and arrogant they make themselves look to be ridiculous.
cheers r
post #235 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

They contribute a way for inventors, particularly smaller one's with less resources, a way to monetize their inventions, while taking on most of the risks.

 

What they do is create a cottage industry for creating meaningless patents that aren't intended to be implemented, but only used for extorting money out of companies who develop successful products.

 

These activities violate the intent of patent law and contribute absolutely nothing to the advancement of society. Intellectual Vultures has no intention of ever bringing any product to market. They are the problem with patent law that needs to be reformed and gives patents a bad name among those who can't distinguish between legitimate patent defense, such as in Apple's suits against Android, and leaches like IV who are gaming the system.

 

As I wrote earlier, and this is particularly true with software patents, if you can't produce an implementation, if there's no concrete definition of the invention, then it's not really possible to distinguish between an invention and an idea. (And, anyone who can't produce an implementation of a software system isn't an inventor, they are simply filling out patent applications.) The way to stop this nonsense, this gaming of the system, is to go back to a patent system where for a patent to be issued, an implementation of the patent must be submitted. This solves 2 problems that tend to put companies like IV out of business: 1. By requiring an implementation it makes it more difficult to shape shift the meaning of the patent into whatever target the troll wants to go after, by making the invention unambiguous. 2. It puts patent writers (as opposed to actual inventors) out of business and allows the law to better serve the purpose it was created for.


Edited by anonymouse - 7/23/12 at 8:08am
post #236 of 271

I have long argued that this would be the outcome.

 

When you can sue for one patent and ban a product that is compliance with thousands of other patents and that patent is for all intents and purposes essential to the success of the product in a given product category...well at that point, it's time to discuss whether those patents are de facto standards.

 

Lawmakers will not and should not tolerate giving any company a de facto monopoly based on a single patent like slide-to-unlock....especially if the holder of that patent argues that a single press is a zero-length slide and that the patent is broad enough to cover any action on the lockscreen.  If the patent is going to be that broad, it should be licensed.

 

This goes not just for Apple, but for Google, MS, etc.

 

It will go along way towards reducing patent trolling and frivolous lawsuits.

post #237 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

I have long argued that this would be the outcome.

Considering that we don't know the outcome yet, you're a little premature.

All we know is that Google ASKED FOR something ridiculous and completely outside the intent of the Constitution and the laws that have been passed since then.
"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 #238 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

I have long argued that this would be the outcome.

 

When you can sue for one patent and ban a product that is compliance with thousands of other patents and that patent is for all intents and purposes essential to the success of the product in a given product category...well at that point, it's time to discuss whether those patents are de facto standards.

 

Lawmakers will not and should not tolerate giving any company a de facto monopoly based on a single patent like slide-to-unlock....especially if the holder of that patent argues that a single press is a zero-length slide and that the patent is broad enough to cover any action on the lockscreen.  If the patent is going to be that broad, it should be licensed.

 

This goes not just for Apple, but for Google, MS, etc.

 

It will go along way towards reducing patent trolling and frivolous lawsuits.

 

Utter nonsense. All Google, et al. have to do is change Android and their phones to not infringe. Should be a no brainer in the instance you cite. There's no monopoly, de facto or otherwise, just some lazy dishonest companies like Google who don't respect the law.

post #239 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

I have long argued that this would be the outcome.

When you can sue for one patent and ban a product that is compliance with thousands of other patents and that patent is for all intents and purposes essential to the success of the product in a given product category...well at that point, it's time to discuss whether those patents are de facto standards.

Lawmakers will not and should not tolerate giving any company a de facto monopoly based on a single patent like slide-to-unlock....especially if the holder of that patent argues that a single press is a zero-length slide and that the patent is broad enough to cover any action on the lockscreen.  If the patent is going to be that broad, it should be licensed.

This goes not just for Apple, but for Google, MS, etc.

It will go along way towards reducing patent trolling and frivolous lawsuits.

Except that's not what this is about. There's nothing de facto about slide to unlock or multi touch. These a not essential to the operation of a mobile phone, as evidenced by the fact that once upon a time, there were successful mobile phones that did not have these features. These things are only "essential" if you want to copy the look and feel of an Apple device.

Apple defending itself against copycats is only "frivolous" if you believe that Google and others have the "right" to copy that look and feel with impunity. As mentioned in my previous post, I'm glad that's all out in the open and that we're debating the real issue: Google arguing that it is entitled to copy Apple's look and feel, against Apple's wishes. That's what it is: entitlement. Pure and simple.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #240 of 271

Of course it's broken.  The system is so frakked up, This American Life had to devote an entire show to the subject.

 

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack

 

You're probably one of the patent trolls we're talking about.  Or someone who represents them.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Of course patent trolls don't exist. It's a silly made-up term used by people who don't understand patents OR business.
 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google argues popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential