or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's choice not to sue Google directly 'extremely curious,' says Schmidt
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's choice not to sue Google directly 'extremely curious,' says Schmidt - Page 2

post #41 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


What about the $4 billion a year Google/Motorola is demanding for standards essential patents using the extortionate threat of injunctions?
It's convenient that you and Schmidt left Apple standing up to this bullying behaviour out of your calculations.

HUH? Google demands 4Billion a year from Apple for a license to their patents? I think you might be exaggerating just a tad there sir,

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #42 of 128
Eric looks like he's been packing on the plutocrat pounds. Man boobs just sagging to ther own beat.
post #43 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vision33r View Post

From a litigation POV,  it makes more sense to go after the hardware makers directly.  Google didn't make a single device at the time the lawsuits started. 

 

In courts Google would prevail because they could showed that they make no money directly from Android. 

 

Sooner or later Apple will sue if Google's Nexus devices start to hit the double digit marketshare mark.  I'm not sure how long that would take but given that Samsung continues to dominate, it's not worth suing Google yet.

Wait a minute. Apple sues as soon as they're aware of potential patent infringement. They don't wait until that entity has become a profitable competitor, or so I've been told.1wink.gif

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #44 of 128

I find that the people who believe it's OK to steal IP are the kind of people who have never had an original thought in their lives, nor understand the hard work and money that goes into making those ideas reality.

post #45 of 128
Shmidt is missing the point. Apple isn't suing Google because Google themselves don't have patents that Apple would be interested in cross-licensing. Apple is only suing parties who refused their cross-licensing deals.
post #46 of 128
I dont like Google. Ever Since the day they proclaim themselves so righteous. "Don't Be Evil" Mantra, like what Steve have said is BS.

At least both M$ and Apple admit there are necessary evil.
post #47 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


It's just not needed anymore. When the iPhone was released it wasn't possible to play YouTube videos on a browser without the Flash plugin. That's why the YT app was a necessity.

 

I still believe a native YouTube app was more a blessing than a curse.

Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #48 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

I like how Schmidt purposefully pretends to be stupid and obtuse, which is pretty insulting to his audience. 

 

Schmidt and Page are sociopaths. (And, as a consequence, the company they built behaves like one.) They will say and do anything to achieve their ends, and they'll do it without the least twinge of conscience, which they are lacking. Understanding this point is fundamental to understanding Google.

post #49 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

I don't understand Google. Its ok to pay MSFT 5-15 dollar for each Android device. But when Apple wants them to stop copying iOS/or pay some royalties = no.
In Sweden we have legal right to know what a company store about it's users. Only Google refuses to release the data. Why? What are they hiding?
They refuse to delete the data. I want to be able to pay Google for its great services, but that they stop to index everything. I personally hate that people who use Gmail: If I email them, Google indexes my email. I have not given Google permission to do that!. I don't use Gmail..
This is what Google knows about you and store forever:
What you think: Your interests, desires, needs, and intentions: Google.com searches, etc.
What you read: News, commentary, and books: Google News, Book Search, DoubleClick, etc.
What you watch: YouTube, Google TV
What you write/receive: Gmail and Google Docs
Who you%u2019ve communicated with, what you talked about: Groups, Buzz, Gmail, Voice, etc.
What you believe: Politics and religion: search, News, YouTube, Groups, Gmail, Buzz, etc.
Everywhere you go on the Internet: DoubleClick ad-tracking, Chrome, search, etc.
What you plan to do or where you%u2019re going: Calendar, Maps, Streetview, Android, etc.
Where your home, work, commutes and hangouts are: Android, Maps, Street View, etc.
You and your family%u2019s voiceprints and faceprints: Voice, Picasa, translation, etc.
You and your family%u2019s medical history and health status: Search, Google Health, Gmail, etc.
Your financial worth, status, and purchases: Search, Google Checkout, etc.

 

@gmail.com is the new @aol.com. the upcoming generation uses facebook. google realized this which is why we have google+. unfortunately for them, it's a battle they can't win.

post #50 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by koop 
This idea that Apple is winning this patent war is crazy. Google has close to a 90% marketshare in the smartphone market

That's a pretty impressive rounding error. Did you overload the circuit breaker by cranking your RDF up to the max?

Apple is selling a lot of phones:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/11/27/iphone-5-doubles-apples-share-of-us-smartphone-sales-to-surpass-android

Android exceeds Apple's overall marketshare but not even by 100% let alone 900%.
post #51 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

What was the Google Books fiasco?

 

Oh, GG, I love it when you feign ignorance. Just to recap, though, he's referring to the thousands and thousands of books Google stole as part of their Google Books program.

post #52 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

 

Do you realise that you just negated your own argument?

 

According to you, Google actually makes money from Google search, NOT the Android operating system.

No, Mac123's point was spot on. Google DOES in fact make money off of Android, albeit in a back-hand kind of way. Why else would they be pumping money into something and then just give it away? Just to be nice? Of course not! Their revenue model is search and Google makes gobs of money off of it. Their goal is to have their greasy little fingers in every corner of our lives so they can use our data on what we search for, where we go and what we do, to line their pockets with $$$$  and so far it's worked out really well for them.

 

The thing is, we allow Google's greasy fingers in our lives when we use their free or nearly free services or every time we use Google search, or Google Maps. Hell I can't even use the RSS app Reeder (which as far as I know, is not a Google product and I paid for, by the way) unless I have a Google account. Why should that be? Clearly Google have an arrangement with the publisher so they can find out what topics interest me, "for my file". You know what? It's not their freaking business and it pisses me off. Everything Google does, everything they offer "for free" is a hook into our lives so they can harvest information on us. The more data that they collect on us ripples down into more advertising revenue. That is Google's business model and Eric Schmidt is as greasy as they come.

 

I'm not suggesting that Google "sells" my personal info to outsiders, but make no mistake, Google has a file on all of us so they can deliver targeted ads and charge more money to their real customers, the advertisers. I don't have a problem with "a little" targeted advertising, but Google need to take their freaking microscope out of our colons! 

 

So no, Google doesn't make money in the front door with Android, but it's coming in the back door by the truck loads. If they weren't making money on Android in some way why would they bother, why would they care? Why would Google intentionally circumvent my Safari privacy controls? It's all about money. I say again, Mac123's comments were spot on.

post #53 of 128
"There's a young [Android and Danger co-founder] Andy Rubin trying to form a new version of Danger," Schmidt explained. "How is he or she going to be able to get the patent coverage necessary to offer version one of their product? That's the real consequence of this."

Yeah, but you he should be more worried about Google stealing the idea. Apple would just purchase you if they like it.
post #54 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Bonner View Post

"There's a young [Android and Danger co-founder] Andy Rubin trying to form a new version of Danger," Schmidt explained. "How is he or she going to be able to get the patent coverage necessary to offer version one of their product? That's the real consequence of this."
Yeah, but you he should be more worried about Google stealing the idea. Apple would just purchase you if they like it.

So no one one has actually commented on whether they think Rubin's comment was correct or not?  IMHO, he has a completely valid point. If a young "Rob Bonner" wanted to start a brand new company developing a fresh and unique mobile OS based on "Rob Bonner" original ideas and actually ship his product, could he do so? I think not. He'll be sued out of existence before his OS ever comes to market (unless it's a fork of Android1wink.gif). Lacking any significant IP of his own to negotiate with, a likely-to-be successful "Rob Bonner" would be eaten alive by the likes of Apple, who would just want them gone-gone, and Microsoft who would just want their money. 

 

"Rob Bonner" doesn't have a snowballs chance of market success. His only option would be to sell out to a bigger player with plenty of IP of their own and lots of cash in my opinion.


Edited by Gatorguy - 12/5/12 at 6:36am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #55 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So no one one has actually commented on whether they think Rubin's comment was correct or not?  IMHO, he has a completely valid point. If a young "Rob Bonner" wanted to start a brand new company developing a fresh and unique mobile OS based on "Rob Bonner" original ideas, could he get the patent licenses from other players needed to do so, lacking any significant IP of "Rob Bonner's" to trade/pressure? I think not.

 

"Rob Bonner" doesn't have a snowflakes chance of market success. His only option would be to sell out in my opinion.


Rob Bonner would have to be an idiot in the first place to think his brand new mobile OS would gain any traction... unless one of the major players bought it and incorporated it into its existing mobile OS.

 

... and your point being?

 

I mean, come off it. It's always been this way no matter what product it is.


Edited by island hermit - 12/5/12 at 6:42am
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #56 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


Rob Bonner would have to be an idiot in the first place to think his brand new mobile OS would gain any traction... unless one of the major players bought it and incorporated it into its existing mobile OS.

... and your point being?

sooo...don't even try?
post #57 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


Rob Bonner would have to be an idiot in the first place to think his brand new mobile OS would gain any traction... unless one of the major players bought it and incorporated it into its existing mobile OS.

 

... and your point being?

 

I mean, come off it. It's always been this way no matter what product it is.

 

I think his point was that it's OK to steal IP if you are doing it to enrich yourself. That and the implication that Google is the champion of independent IP thieves and a place where they can find safe haven if they steal something really good.

post #58 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


Patents are about intellectual property rights, not marketshare. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the "innovate don't litigate" trolls.

Could applying for a patent on every minor improvement be a significant marketshare protection mechanism? Would the possibility of a patent infringement suit, even one unlikely to apply or succeed, be enough to keep some smaller players from even trying? Without fairly deep pockets can any company afford to get in Microsoft or <insert your favorite litigant> crosshairs?

 

IMO patents can certainly be intended only for marketshare protection.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #59 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Oh, GG, I love it when you feign ignorance. Just to recap, though, he's referring to the thousands and thousands of books Google stole as part of their Google Books program.

Intellectual property Robin Hood.

"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 #60 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

That's a pretty impressive rounding error. Did you overload the circuit breaker by cranking your RDF up to the max?
Apple is selling a lot of phones:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/11/27/iphone-5-doubles-apples-share-of-us-smartphone-sales-to-surpass-android
Android exceeds Apple's overall marketshare but not even by 100% let alone 900%.

Google has nearly zero percent marketshare of smartphones because the Google NExus branded devices don't sell in high volumes. I would guess koop considers a smartphone OS as an actual device but clearly doesn't based on that 90% value he pulled from somewhere.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #61 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


Rob Bonner would have to be an idiot in the first place to think his brand new mobile OS would gain any traction... unless one of the major players bought it and incorporated it into its existing mobile OS.

 

... and your point being?

 

I mean, come off it. It's always been this way no matter what product it is.

The point being that there is now some tech companies with no interest in licensing their IP, with the billions to be made by keeping others out of the market altogether. Even companies that traditionally licensed on supposedly-consistent terms like Motorola, Nokia, Ericsson, etc now use their IP as weapons. It's not that way in every successful industry, nor historically been a major issue in mobile.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #62 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Could applying for a patent on every minor improvement be a significant marketshare protection mechanism? Would the possibility of a patent infringement suit, even one unlikely to apply or succeed, be enough to keep some smaller players from even trying? Without fairly deep pockets can any company afford to get in Microsoft or <insert your favorite litigant> crosshairs?

 

IMO patents can certainly be intended only for marketshare protection.


It's always been that way.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #63 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


I wasn't aware he worked at Apple. I just looked it up Which patent are you referring to there? I was just reading this bio piece. Wiki suggests he was at Apple from 1989-1992, but the discussions on here usually revolve around a much later period. Most of the time when the name comes up on here, it's in reference to a later time period. Also if we're talking about something from the late 80s or early 90s, it should have recently expired.

 

 

This explains it fairly well from Apple's perspective. It is the 263 patent. The patent was filed on 02-01-1996. It expires 20 years after that. 

post #64 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


sooo...don't even try?


What? you haven't seen any new companies or products recently. There are still products out there to be invented that don't infringe on anyone's patents and/or have intellectual property rights that are within reason for even a new player.

 

Besides, there is always the chance of being bought out, making a big haul of loot and starting on the next project.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #65 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Bonner View Post

"There's a young [Android and Danger co-founder] Andy Rubin trying to form a new version of Danger," Schmidt explained. "How is he or she going to be able to get the patent coverage necessary to offer version one of their product? That's the real consequence of this."
Yeah, but you he should be more worried about Google stealing the idea. Apple would just purchase you if they like it.

 

 

Funny, because it rings true. Seriously, though neither company would care until there was market penetration. Nobody sued Apple over FRAM patents until Apple started selling a lot of phones. Apple also didn't start suing until a lot of iPhone knock offs were being sold. 

post #66 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


It's always been that way.

You and I completely agree.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #67 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

I don't understand Google. Its ok to pay MSFT 5-15 dollar for each Android device. But when Apple wants them to stop copying iOS/or pay some royalties = no.
In Sweden we have legal right to know what a company store about it's users. Only Google refuses to release the data. Why? What are they hiding?
They refuse to delete the data. I want to be able to pay Google for its great services, but that they stop to index everything. I personally hate that people who use Gmail: If I email them, Google indexes my email. I have not given Google permission to do that!. I don't use Gmail..
This is what Google knows about you and store forever:
What you think: Your interests, desires, needs, and intentions: Google.com searches, etc.
What you read: News, commentary, and books: Google News, Book Search, DoubleClick, etc.
What you watch: YouTube, Google TV
What you write/receive: Gmail and Google Docs
Who you%u2019ve communicated with, what you talked about: Groups, Buzz, Gmail, Voice, etc.
What you believe: Politics and religion: search, News, YouTube, Groups, Gmail, Buzz, etc.
Everywhere you go on the Internet: DoubleClick ad-tracking, Chrome, search, etc.
What you plan to do or where you%u2019re going: Calendar, Maps, Streetview, Android, etc.
Where your home, work, commutes and hangouts are: Android, Maps, Street View, etc.
You and your family%u2019s voiceprints and faceprints: Voice, Picasa, translation, etc.
You and your family%u2019s medical history and health status: Search, Google Health, Gmail, etc.
Your financial worth, status, and purchases: Search, Google Checkout, etc.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


@ shompa, nice list. First time I've had to contemplate the term "faceprint." In this context, it's very Brave New World-ish.

 

I agree, fantastic list shompa.  People who think "I don't have anything to hide" or "I'm not worth their interest" are completely missing the point.  This level of data shouldn't be in any one party's hands, let alone an unregulated commercial company.

No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #68 of 128
Apple's choice not to sue Google directly 'extremely curious,' says Schmidt

 

Schmidt truly is the Troll's Troll; he says what they're all thinking!

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply
post #69 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbit View Post


I think Google should go back to their search engine. They made a really good one, but should leave it at that

 

I would love to see that as well, but the problem is that Google is not a search engine company anymore.  They started off as one, but their value now is based in large part on the amount of data they gather about their users.  They are mostly an intel-gathering-and-analyzing company.  They'll never admit this in public, but it's true.

No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #70 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post

No, Mac123's point was spot on. Google DOES in fact make money off of Android, albeit in a back-hand kind of way. Why else would they be pumping money into something and then just give it away? Just to be nice? Of course not! Their revenue model is search and Google makes gobs of money off of it. Their goal is to have their greasy little fingers in every corner of our lives so they can use our data on what we search for, where we go and what we do, to line their pockets with $$$$  and so far it's worked out really well for them.

 

The thing is, we allow Google's greasy fingers in our lives when we use their free or nearly free services or every time we use Google search, or Google Maps. Hell I can't even use the RSS app Reeder (which as far as I know, is not a Google product and I paid for, by the way) unless I have a Google account. Why should that be? Clearly Google have an arrangement with the publisher so they can find out what topics interest me, "for my file". You know what? It's not their freaking business and it pisses me off. Everything Google does, everything they offer "for free" is a hook into our lives so they can harvest information on us. The more data that they collect on us ripples down into more advertising revenue. That is Google's business model and Eric Schmidt is as greasy as they come.

 

I'm not suggesting that Google "sells" my personal info to outsiders, but make no mistake, Google has a file on all of us so they can deliver targeted ads and charge more money to their real customers, the advertisers. I don't have a problem with "a little" targeted advertising, but Google need to take their freaking microscope out of our colons! 

 

So no, Google doesn't make money in the front door with Android, but it's coming in the back door by the truck loads. If they weren't making money on Android in some way why would they bother, why would they care? Why would Google intentionally circumvent my Safari privacy controls? It's all about money. I say again, Mac123's comments were spot on.

 

Another nice post.  It's encouraging to see that more people are thinking through Google's business model these days.

 

It's the little things around the edges that clue you into how evil Google has become, like the Safari fiasco.  It's impossible to "accidentally" write code that circumvents user preferences in their browser like they did (like "accidentally" stealing WiFi data in-transit).  When a company comes up with bullshit reasons for how these things come to be and fighting, rather than 'fessing up and saying "Sorry, someone screwed up. They've been sacked.  Won't happen again.", that's when you know they've crossed into the "evil" category.

No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #71 of 128
Every. Single. Word. That. Comes. Out. Of. This. Mans. Mouth. Is. Stupid.
post #72 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

Every. Single. Word. That. Comes. Out. Of. This. Mans. Mouth. Is. A. Lie.

 

There, I fixed it for you.

post #73 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewyboy View Post

They don't sue directly so they can starve them out. It's basically like laying siege to a castle. (1) Cut off their partners and (2) for the partners into licensing agreements and/or win small battles against them so precedence is set for larger and large cases.

point of definition.

 

It's less a siege, than destroy your vassals.   In the feudal system, the king's castle has hundreds of small castles who have vowed alliance with the king.  Threaten all the vassals and if the King doesn't come in defense, they either either are killed or are coopted, in the end weakening the king to the point the king has to reach for a conditional peace offering, often making the king subservient to the new master.

 

The 'siege' you see is the removal of all things google from the iOS system.  stop the ads, stop eyeball monitoring, stop the money.  Starve them out, or drive them to strike alliances that are long term failures (propping up a weak vassal just sucks the life out of the monarchy).

 

Apple's choice not to sue Google was purely to attack the 'point of sale'  Google didn't sell a phone.  They commissioned others to make theirs, and freely (sort of) licensed others to make phones.   Samsung and HTC are making x00's of dollars a transaction... Google.  pennies.  And in any Game of thrones sort of battle, once you show one Lord how flimsy their defense is, and if the King, who really doesn't need you (in the end, they can strike a deal with Apple, kill off Android development, and just go back to competing with google apps on iOS devices), doesn't rise up his considerable strength (none), in your defense, you may as well, submit, and say you'll sell Windows phones.

post #74 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

 

Another nice post.  It's encouraging to see that more people are thinking through Google's business model these days.

 

It's the little things around the edges that clue you into how evil Google has become, like the Safari fiasco.  It's impossible to "accidentally" write code that circumvents user preferences in their browser like they did (like "accidentally" stealing WiFi data in-transit).  When a company comes up with bullshit reasons for how these things come to be and fighting, rather than 'fessing up and saying "Sorry, someone screwed up. They've been sacked.  Won't happen again.", that's when you know they've crossed into the "evil" category.

 

Indeed. It's passed well beyond credibility when, every time Google is caught breaking the law or violating consent decrees and court orders, their excuse is that it was "inadvertent", especially when, for example, we find out that in the Street View WiFi Data Collection Program investigation they even lied ("inadvertently", of course) to regulators about how much data they had collected. Illegal drug sales, Mocality, conspiracy to violate copyright law, patent law, any law that gets in the way of their intentions, and on and on. Frankly, at this point, it's not at all a stretch to wonder why the Feds aren't going after them under RICO statutes. Google is a criminal enterprise and their profits are ill-gotten gains.


Edited by anonymouse - 12/5/12 at 9:20am
post #75 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Oh, GG, I love it when you feign ignorance. Just to recap, though, he's referring to the thousands and thousands of books Google stole as part of their Google Books program.

 

 

I am not a Google fan by any means, but the whole Google books program is an example of where I think Google was in the right. You see copyright was never intended to be an absolute right. It was a right granted in order to encourage the development of creative works for the benefit of the public. Copyright was always supposed to be balanced against the First Amendment. So, to protect the public's first amendment rights, fair use is always a defense to copyright infringement claims. To qualify as fair use one has to show the work benefitted the public in a way that wasn't likely to deprive the copyright holder significant money. For instance, when Sony first came out with its Beta Max players that allowed people to record live broadcasts to be viewed later the networks sued Sony for using their content. Sony won because the copying of the content benefitted the public (allowed them to watch the content later) in a way that didn't significantly injure the copyright holders.

 

Google copied the books so that people could search for content within books. It was an amazing undertaking. Google hired people to scan the entire libraries of several Universities. This undertaking can only help the copyright holders involved because Google's goal was to let users view a little bit of the copyrighted works (e.g. much the same way as you can do in a book store) and then facilitate the purchase and/or borrowing from the library of said books. Considering many of the books are older, that would be a boom for those books. It would have also allowed people to easily obtain works that were now in the public domain. Had Google taken this all the way, it should have easily won on a fair use defense. Nonetheless, this is an incidence where Google was in the right. Considering the fines for losing are massive, Google really has little choice to at least consider a settlement. 

 

People talk about patent reform, but it really is copyright reform we should be talking about. Patent protection only lasts for twenty years, and to be granted a patent your creation has to indeed be truly novel and original. To be granted a copyright it merely has to be mildly creative. Even though the standard for being granted a copyright is much lower, copyright protection lasts over  a hundred years.  The length of protection at the time the Constitution was created was the same at ten years. Copyright has been extended so much longer than patent because the public doesn't have a very good lobby. 


Edited by TBell - 12/5/12 at 9:26am
post #76 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

I don't understand Google. Its ok to pay MSFT 5-15 dollar for each Android device. But when Apple wants them to stop copying iOS/or pay some royalties = no.

Because it's business.

 

And google isn't paying that 5-15... it's the OEM.  

 

Google is developing an OS that ensure that a majority of mobile eyeballs use Google so they can sell ads or demographics to sell ads.   The key issue is that Apple's walled garden controlled iOS eyeballs.  Google saw that Apple could get rid of Google (through the App Store review process), and panicked, designed a OS that looked like iOS, and knowing that Apple doesn't license, tried to build up a patent warchest so their could be a trade.

 

Apple doesn't want Google to pay royalties, they want the HW makers to pay for the mistake of trying short cut the innovation cycle.   It wants Google to be a search engine, not an enabler of Apple's competition.

 

Google wants access to inApp advertising... Apple doesn't want to give them that, as they 'own the eyeballs', the experience, and most of all, the AppleID credit card numbers.

post #77 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

 

I am not a Google fan by any means, but the whole Google books program is an example of where I think Google was in the right. You see copyright was never intended to be an absolute right. It was a right granted in order to encourage the development of creative works for the benefit of the public. Copyright was always supposed to be balanced against the First Amendment. So, to protect the public's first amendment rights, fair use is always a defense to copyright infringement claims. To qualify as fair use one has to show the work benefitted the public in a way that wasn't likely to deprive the copyright holder significant money. For instance, when Sony first came out with its Beta Max players that allowed people to record live broadcasts to be viewed later the networks sued Sony for using their content. Sony won because the copying of the content benefitted the public (allowed them to watch the content later) in a way that didn't significantly injure the copyright holders.

 

Google copied the books so that people could search for content within books. This can only help the copyright holders because Google's goal was to let users view a little bit of the copyrighted works (e.g. much the same way as you can do in a book store) and then facilitate the purchase of said books. Considering many of the books are older, that would be a boom for those books. It would have also allowed people to easily obtain works that were now in the public domain. Had Google taken this all the way, it should have won on a fair use defense. Nonetheless, this is an incidence where Google was in the right. 

 

Your entire argument is mistaken. Fair use does not allow use for commercial purposes. There was no First Amendment issue involved here. This was Google simply setting itself up as a publisher by essentially usurping copyrights for thousands and thousands of books. A clear violation of copyright law on all points. (And public domain books are beside the point, so a red herring in this discussion.) A fair use defense would have fallen on its face and Google would have been found liable for billions in damages. This is an instance where Google was acting as a criminal enterprise pure and simple.

 

The utterly insane aspect part of this misguided "fair use" defense of Google is that the Google Books program represents exactly the reason that copyright laws were put in place in the first place. Before this, a published work, particularly a popular one, would quickly be copied and sold by any number of "publishers" with which the author had no relationship, and thus received no money from for their work. It was practically impossible to earn a living as an independent writer because so many "publishers" were "making your work available to the public". Copyright law put a stop to this practice. The Google Books Program sought to completely undermine the very foundations of copyright law -- i.e.., to undermine the protections authors enjoy to prevent people from stealing their work.

 

So, Google wants to undermine and abolish copyright law. They was to undermine and abolish patent law. They want to undermine and abolish privacy. And they want to undermine and abolish freedom of access to information but filtering search results to their advantage. It's all about taking whatever they want, regardless of the wider effects, regardless of the law, regardless of the consequences for the rest of us.

 

What a great company.


Edited by anonymouse - 12/5/12 at 9:38am
post #78 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

 

I am not a Google fan by any means, but the whole Google books program is an example of where I think Google was in the right. You see copyright was never intended to be an absolute right. It was a right granted in order to encourage the development of creative works for the benefit of the public. Copyright was always supposed to be balanced against the First Amendment. So, to protect the public's first amendment rights, fair use is always a defense to copyright infringement claims. To qualify as fair use one has to show the work benefitted the public in a way that wasn't likely to deprive the copyright holder significant money. For instance, when Sony first came out with its Beta Max players that allowed people to record live broadcasts to be viewed later the networks sued Sony for using their content. Sony won because the copying of the content benefitted the public (allowed them to watch the content later) in a way that didn't significantly injure the copyright holders.

 

Google copied the books so that people could search for content within books. This can only help the copyright holders because Google's goal was to let users view a little bit of the copyrighted works (e.g. much the same way as you can do in a book store) and then facilitate the purchase of said books. Considering many of the books are older, that would be a boom for those books. It would have also allowed people to easily obtain works that were now in the public domain. Had Google taken this all the way, it should have won on a fair use defense. Nonetheless, this is an incidence where Google was in the right. 

The problem is Google has to 'pay' for these benevolent projects.  that's requires capturing eyeballs, and information on eyeballs, in their current model.  the realization that most people will do most of their 'web' on mobile devices, and if the iPod model held true, Apple would have a majority of eyeballs, could switchout of google search, and definitely eliminate ad revenue, as applications moved from being 'searched' to being downloaded from the Apple controlled app store.

post #79 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

 

I would love to see that as well, but the problem is that Google is not a search engine company anymore.  They started off as one, but their value now is based in large part on the amount of data they gather about their users.  They are mostly an intel-gathering-and-analyzing company.  They'll never admit this in public, but it's true.

 

 

Make no mistake. Google is still a search company. To be an effective search company, you need effective data. The problem is the ethical lines Google has stooped to gain that data. Before it just mined the web for said data. Now it creates various free to the public services to get additional data. The users of said products mistakenly think they are Google's customers when in fact they are the product. Google's real customers are advertisers. It gets data from the users of its products so that advertisers can better search for customers. 

 

For users, what used to make Google search so great, was that it separated paid advertising from the search results. Now, Google has blurred that line. It now is no different than what other big search engines used to be. 

 

I have been happily using Bing for a while. The results are now very comparable. I like Bing's start page better. I also like the image search better, which Google changed its own image search to emulate. More importantly, Microsoft gives me points to search. I redeem the points for credit on the X-Box, Amazon and Starbucks gift certificates. 

post #80 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

The problem is Google has to 'pay' for these benevolent projects.  that's requires capturing eyeballs, and information on eyeballs, in their current model.  the realization that most people will do most of their 'web' on mobile devices, and if the iPod model held true, Apple would have a majority of eyeballs, could switchout of google search, and definitely eliminate ad revenue, as applications moved from being 'searched' to being downloaded from the Apple controlled app store.

 

 

Not sure what you mean exactly. Google certainly expected to make money from copying the books. This is no different than Sony expecting to make money when it allowed purchasers of its beta max players to copy the copyrighted works of others. The issue is does Google's actions deprive the copyright holders of money, and does what Google did benefit the public. I'd say Google's action in copying the books was likely to make the book publishers money, and it definitely would have benefitted the public. 

 

It is worth noting that one of the biggest critics of Google copying the books, was Microsoft. This is because for Microsoft to be competitive here, it too would have had to go copy all the books. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's choice not to sue Google directly 'extremely curious,' says Schmidt