Apple's choice not to sue Google directly 'extremely curious,' says Schmidt - Page 3

 

 

The analogy with Betamax is hopelessly flawed. In this instance, the manufacturer(s) of the scanners Google used to pirate books are in the position Sony was in in that case. Google is the guy using Sony's recorders to produce and sell pirated copies of copyright holders' works. Making the recorders wasn't illegal, because they had legitimate uses. But the guy selling pirated copies was still breaking the law.

 

And the answers to your questions are yes and no, respectively. It's ridiculous -- and either disingenuous or clueless -- to even ask if copyright holders were deprived of money. And, no the public does not benefit by undermining intellectual property law, particularly not copyright law.

 

 

This is a red herring & ad hominem that has absolutely nothing to do with the legitimate issues here. So, no, it's not worth noting.

 

 

Forgive me, perhaps I have it wrong. I only took about 10 IP classes in law school. My copyright professor teaches at one of the top law schools in the country.

 

Now that that is out of the way. You are over looking the Sony case in which Fair-Use was established. Sony made a product that allowed the public to copy copyrighted works. Sony made money on selling it's product that it did not share with the copyright holders. The Supreme Court held that what Sony did was Fair-Use. It was OK Sony was making money on selling a product that used the copyrighted works of others. 

 

I am not going to explain to you the interplay between the First Amendment and Fair-Use, but I found this article to give you an idea of how the two work together.

 

Finally, you act like Google was giving the works away for anybody to read. It simply was not going to do that (unless the works were already in the public domian). It copied the books so people could search for a topic. Google would than show people what books discussed those topics.  It would let you read a couple of pages (like Amazon already does) and point you to where you could get the book. This would have helped both the public and publishers. 

 

A "points" system attached to a search engine is just as scary as Google's model.  It shows quite explicitly that Microsoft/Bing is in the business of gathering your personal data, likes/dislikes, etc., just like Google.  Worse yet, by tying to real-world services that you can't take advantage of anonymously (like XBox [I'm assuming XBox Live], Amazon, etc.), now Microsoft has a direct tie between Bing usage and the real-world you.  No anonymous accounts.

 

 

I admit the situation is not exact, but the analogy is not flawed. Sony was being sued for contributory copyright infringement. Namely, assisting the true copyright infringers. The Supreme Court ruled that the people doing the copying were not liable for copyright infringement on fair-use grounds, and therefore Sony was not liable as a contributory infringer. Some people are suggesting that because Google's intent was to make money by copying the books, it can't claim a fair-use defense. That simple is not the case. Like in the Sony case, Google can successfully raise a Fair-Use defense if what it did benefits the public and doesn't substantially deprive the right holders money. Here is an article explaining Fair-use. Google would likely win this test. 

 

 

Pointing out Microsoft's involvement is not a red herring and/or ad hominem attack. It goes to motive and is useful for understanding the forces at work. I will agree that shouldn't be looked at when evaluating the Fair-Use argument. 

Edited by TBell - 12/5/12 at 10:34am

 

 

I don't see it that way. Microsoft is trying to get people to use its search business. In return, it is paying people points based on the number of searches they perform. That clearly is the focus.  For people using X-Box, Microsoft already knows their address and names. Apple already knows my address and name as well. 

 

Further, Google already indexes search results and ties that to an IP address. It then shows people ads based on those searches in places like their Gmail account. Google doesn't even let you use a fake name on its G+ Facebook competitor.

 

Microsoft can't do anything different. Moreover, I could care less if Microsoft knows I drink Starbucks and shop at Amazon. I choose to give it that information. I certainly haven't noticed any consequence of providing my address to redeem those rewards. To each their own, I suppose. I am enjoying my free Starbucks. :O)

Edited by TBell - 12/5/12 at 10:35am

 

It's completely flawed, for the reasons given above, which you've conveniently ignored in your "rebuttal". You apparently need to go back to school, because your understanding of fair use is completely flawed too.

 

Google was stealing books to publish and otherwise use them -- to sell advertising, for example -- without any grant of any license, solely for commercial gain. Under no interpretation of fair use is this legal. It's piracy.

 

And, rather than an article "explaining Fair-use", let's look at the actual law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

 

Particularly this,

 

which outlines the types of purposes fair-use applies to. Google's copying and use don't fall under any of these purposes, nor any similar purpose. There is simply no viable argument that Google's Books Program falls under fair use, not unless we simply throw reason to the winds and declare it does because we want it to.

Edited by anonymouse - 12/5/12 at 11:20am

 

Last week, I searched for floor liners for my car to catch the winter slop and sound bars for home theatre. I did the search from home. Today I get targeted ads for floor liners and sound bars AT WORK. It must be tied to more than an IP address.

 

Edit: Or maybe that was just coincidence.

Edited by Bilbo63 - 12/5/12 at 11:07am

Once again there were some pretty savvy opinions here, specifically regarding Fair Use vs. Copyright infringement.

Just for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate:

How would (many of) you go about trying to monetize and financially support the massive amount of energy, bandwidth, hardware, services, etc. that Google provides for "free".

Yes "free" in quotes, because I'm aware and have stated here in these Forums re: Android/Google years ago, that the "free beer" strategy has it's drawbacks and I'm personally wary of it and it's "reach".

However, to deny that Google offers services that are beneficial to all of us, is to admit to blind hatred... or possibly simple jealousy and loathing that we actually need Google's services more than we would like to admit.

Anyone care to remember Internet search before Google?

Think of an internet today dominated by MS (no not Bing, since they would never have upgraded without Google being around) or Yahoo search. Maybe an AltaVista or Excite would still be around, but I sort of doubt it. Google has definitely over-stretched our personally defined "natural bounds and limits" to what they should be allowed to archive, store, and/or sell. Then again, there is no law against it either.

Love 'em, hate 'em, or loath the main characters, Google is and does provide services that the world uses. Those loathsome characters are still beholden to the true owners of the company, it's shareholders. Also required by law (within limits) and to the best of their ability to safeguard the investor's money and hopefully, allow it to generate more income than traditional savings.

So. What is the best way to go about that?

Lest we forget: we are talking about an "Original American Success Story and Company" here that provides plenty of high paying jobs. Unlike those that took Google's enabler and Apple's IP to steal and create a bastardized iPhone (names escape me

* Disclaimer: I use about the same amount of Google's services as I would guess most people. Android Nexus 7** was recently purchased for curiosities sake and web development. Personal go-to-devices are all Apple, but search, images, and RSS services are all Google. What to do about that?
** Same exact experience and opinion as Chris Prillo/Lockergnome; Google it...

 

Sorry, but the argument that we'd have squat if Google hadn't given it to us is apologist nonsense. There's no reason to think someone else might not have come along and offered us everything Google did. In fact, it's likely more accurate to see Google as a roadblock to innovation and better systems than what they provide. Their monopoly in search and dominance in other areas acts as a barrier to prevent others from even attempting to enter the market. So, it's just as easy, and perhaps more plausible, to argue we'd be better off if Google had never been.

Man, his mom dresses him funny.

Thanks for that. 

 

2.4% of gross sales for Wifi SEP's plus 2.4% of gross sales for phone network protocol SEP's.

 

So how much is that?

 

Google and their supporters use this argument to support limiting of choice.

 

So what is wrong with choosing NOT to participate?

I sort of understand, because every time I see a photo of Schmidt, I feel like stuffing him into a locker.

Well stated, Littlefinger.

Well This is pretty much TRUE for most of the IT service/cloud/search companies, be it Google, Amazon, facbook, Apple.  Revenue through Advert is the big chunk of their income.  Each one of them gathers your personal information as much as possible, exmple Amazon tracks your shopping, facebook tracks your most of the personal info, Apple tracks via iTunes (remember the Genius option in iTunes and App store) and now they can gather lot of information via SIRI (if you are a regular user). In day to day life you use google services more in terms of search or mail or +, and naturally that gives them an edge.

It is not like google is the only one peeps into your information, rest of them do it may be in a less magnitude due to lower interaction rates (facebook might be an exception!)

 

You've missed the point completely. Google's entire revenue stream is this. Apple makes no revenue whatsoever from it.

 

...if Google had it their way, there wouldn't be any meaningful patent protection for that young Andy Rubin's great, market-shifting, game-changing ideas...since it's fought long & hard to defend it's ability to copy meaningful components of a competitor's IP.  totally ludicrous point...

 

 

Just to make this point unambiguously...

 

Apple gathers information from you, information you can choose to not provide by not using the service, and they make this point pretty explicitly in, for example, iTunes in regard to the Genius data and retrieving album cover art. They do this to provide you with specific services. (It would be difficult for them to provide you cover art without knowing what albums you have.) They are selling to you.

 

Google collects information about you, without even notifying you that they are doing so, and without the possibility of opting out. They do this to provide advertisers with specific services. They are selling you.

 

Equating the two in this regard is either evidence of not understanding what you are talking about, or a deliberate intention to deceive and confuse.

...and yet people would continue to come up with new ideas and and original products in their quest to earn a living. No software patents required, and zero evidence that innovation would slow without them. 

 

Not denying what he said brought a slow smile to my face…

 

And no, that wouldn't be the case.

So I'm not confused, "what" wouldn't be the case? I think we're agreeing....

 

That innovation wouldn't be hit due to an inability to actually protect said innovation.

 

 

GG likes to argue against all historical evidence to the contrary. By discounting all the evidence that contradicts his assertion, he's able to claim zero evidence. This is a pretty common mode of argument with him. But, then, that's his job, to push an alternate view of reality that contradicts the facts.

 

He upvoted me. Probably because he didn't understand I was disagreeing with him.

Yet AM has no "historical evidence to the contrary" to offer that might disprove what I wrote about software patents and innovation. That's why I ignore him.

Do you know that I affirmed my statement not negated it?

 

Google makes money from search and Android is the "platform" that enhances it. Duh!

 

If there were no Android phones there would be no portable Google search boxes. Search would be limited to the desktop. Android allows for more searches and of course more $$$$$$ for Google.

 

I am the wrong person to try and debate with. You are wrong!

 

Figure it out!

Jobs and Wozniak built Apple Computers into a viable company. . . without a single software patent to their name. 

 

Paul Allen and Bill Gates wrote and developed a piece of software to serve as a BASIC interpreter and brought it successfully to market. . . without a single software patent to their name.

 

They went on to write and distribute an OS in `1980. . . without a single software patent to their name 

 

IBM originated, wrote and distributed UNIX with huge success. . .  without a single software patent to their name.

 

The idea and creation of text messaging occurred without the creator asking for a single software patent in his name.

 

Those are examples of historical evidence.

 

...and that's not even touching Xerox, Motorola, Hewlett-Packard and thousands of individuals and companies who pursued, developed and marketed computer operating systems and software without the protection of software patents. In fact there were hundreds of software developements stories from the 70's and 80's and software developers and sellers that flourished without software patents to "protect" their innovation.

Edited by Gatorguy - 12/6/12 at 11:49am

 

Then they, or at least one of them, discovered that they had no way to stop others from stealing the fruits of their labors and said, we aren't going to make that mistake again.

 

Thieves and the people they hire to do spin want to abolish software patents. Those who are actually innovating want them so the thieves can't steal their work.

 

It's kind of funny, that out of the long history of IP, GG decided to focus on one short period where a bunch of naive kids were doing stuff that, at the time, wasn't even patentable. They wised up, just like all the inventors before them, and don't make those mistakes any longer. Patents have made innovation flourish in the countries that have them because inventors didn't have to worry their inventions would be stolen out from under them. The same is true of copyrights. The argument to get rid of IP is nothing but spin from people who want to steal, often hypocritical spin at that -- case in point, Google.

Edited by anonymouse - 12/6/12 at 2:39pm

The need to reform the two systems isn't mutually exclusive.

As it is, you are right on the time period. The length of copyright will be extended by 20 years every 20 years. As long as it isn't written as permanent, it's valid. They might as well make it a thousand years next time around, because it's possible that nothing will lapse into public domain any more.

 

It is completely ridiculous that copyright currently lasts 70-120 years. It could also be argued that the practice of continually extending it subverts the intent of the clause in the Constitution authorizing it,

 

 

And even though each extension is for a limited time, a legislative practice of never allowing it to run out makes it effectively perpetual. As well, it could be argued that 70-120 years is beyond what the Founders intended as "limited Times" since the original Copyright Act of 1790 allowed for a maximum of 28 years (14 years + 1 14-year renewal) and that it was never intended that copyrights (or patents) survive the Author or Inventor. Unfortunately, as mentioned, the public doesn't have a good lobby, and the current Supreme Court, at least, is owned by moneyed interests.

 

 

Realistically, it could also be argued that the terms for patents are too long in the present day, and that, while giving inventors exclusive rights to their inventions for some period is essential to fostering innovation, 20 years actually, in at least some fields (pharmaceuticals comes to mind), stifles innovation because it provides a disincentive to release something new until the profits have been milked from existing patents. (And, yes, Judge Posner is an idiot when he speaks on patent law.)

 

 

Frankly, in the world we live in today, a 10 year term for patents would be sufficient to serve the intended purposes, and even shorter terms in fields like pharmaceuticals (don't believe the drug company propaganda about the cost of developing new drugs) might better serve the intended purpose of fostering innovation. I also don't see any reason why copyrights should extend beyond 50 years or the life of the author, whichever is shorter, since the clause authorizing them doesn't say, "Authors and their descendants."

Yep

Edited by Big Brother 84 - 12/7/12 at 9:17am

 

Yep. Google are the new Big Brother. Be afraid.

Late in replying to this... but wow!

I agree with almost every single post you've ever made here.. but this one is just out there from left field!

Do you remember internet search before Google at all? The trend at the time was a bloody mess of portals, like AOL, Yahoo, MSN and friends. You couldn't "find" a damn thing most of the time! Google actually was godsend, since they took a page out of Apple's playbook and kept it simple: search box. That's it. I'm not going to go into the history of Google and how great they WERE, and for I'd venture 99% of the world that still sees the Google search box whenever they start their browser.

So once again, considering almost 2 billion people banging Google's servers (100's of times only for search...excluding other free services like Maps, Earth, Mail, and YouTube!) every single day... I'll ask again:

***How would YOU financially support it and monetize it for your shareholders?!***

Any way that didn't involve regularly ignoring the privacy of their own customers, and if that way could not be found, then no way at all.

It is not acceptable to make your unofficial mantra, "Don't be evil unless it looks like it could affect your ability to survive, then it's alright.".

We have enough of those companies already.

It's a shame Google lost its way.

Addition to the above post:

Read my original post again: I am NOT a Google-apologizer at all, far from it... I'm VERY skeptical of everything they offer. I have Google Mail as a 3rd tier website registration for example and to be able to test their devices with my login. Pretty much the same way I have a Hotmail Live account (2nd tier). My 1st tier services are all closed to me and my servers and providers, and are only cross synced with Apple devices through Safari or Firefox with the Ghostery addon set at basically "proxy".

Some would ask what I have to hide. Answer: absolutely nothing. However, I don't (you neither) really KNOW how deep Google or any of the other services go into snooping around my data. No personal need in my life to sync and create a "profile" of me. I know who I am and what I do, who my "real friends" are, and am still cognizant and intelligent enough to remember where it all is and belongs to, and how to get at it again.

STILL again... Google offers some services (like search) that I would love to be matched or made better. Some have tried... some have failed... and some succeeded at other peripheral services. For example:
Failed: MS with everything currently;
Success: Craig's list, Ebay, Amazon, Apple, and Wikipedia.

But still: how do most people GET to those sites and relative search? Yup. Through Google. To ignore that simple fact and harder yet, too turn it around... is going to take something big... and an even bigger company to make it happen.

Apple's the biggest and most profitable company in tech on the planet, and I would have my doubts if they ever anounced they were going to try and tackle the problem. As a sad example: even though Apple Maps works great for me... I can just see the headlines now if Apple went for search the same they're going after Google's Maps. One bad unrelated result and the blogosphere and media headlines would be active for MONTHS headlining Apple's failures. EVEN though as we all know and experience daily, the search results from Google are becoming more and more like spam. I even have a mini course for friends and clients, how to use Google effectively*. (They shoud've learnt it themselves long ago, since the tricks like "-" "___", "+", "url:" etc. have always been there.)

Regardless: I wholeheartedly agree that Google needs some restraint imposed* upon them, however still be able to develop their services and financially support them. I'm thoroughly flummoxed though how to go about that. *AND NO NOT A GOVERNMENT AGENCY! Dawg forbid!!!!!

PS. John Connor carries an iOS device vs. we know what the Terminator carries!

That's a rather open-ended reply to "how". How: as to offer free services and pay for them.

Privacy: what privacy? You have over 1 BILLION people freely pouring their hearts and lives out on Facebook. Asinine, idiotic and shortsighted behavior AFAIC(concerned)! But they do it out of peer-pressure, just as humans have done for milleniums... ask the church!

I think the bigger question and, wherein a solution might present itself: how to turn people off in droves to using Google's services.

Reality says: look at our tiny little Apple universe, and how many people clamor for the return of Google's Maps so that they can be better tracked. How are you going to beat that persistance, desire for, and the massive worldwide use of Google's services... to essentially "force" Google to change their ways and possibly implement better individual privacy controls.

We really are talking about how to change the world here. NOT Google directly... but indirectly causing them to be concerned enough to change their ways.

Bolded: the mantra of every single market-oriented company on the planet! The polar opposite is: central-planned economy, because as for the customer: F*** 'em! They'll eat or use what we blood well give them... or there's a Gulag near you looking for long-term guests.

Sorry to say, I'm not through yet... and sorry if I'm going into a slight tangent within this thread, however it does pertain to my above posts in regards to "free".

Free. Everything on the Internet, and increasing off of it as well (Apps for example)... are expected to be free and close to it. How about this site? It's for all of us here to banter, b***** and moan, and discuss these topics. No need to go into how they monetize and finance it: we know. Ads.... just like millions of sites the world over.

The discussion has been raised countless times over the years, how to do it differently. There has been NO other viable plan to date. No ads = no income. Because we all know (if you're a content creator that is), that to ask anyone to pay-to-play... your asking for a chapter 11 form in short time.

So if ads are off of the table as a way to financially offer a service or app for free, what else is left? Would you pay 1 cent for every Google service/screen view you use? Just so that you wouldn't be tracked? It has been thrown around. The "tax" would be extracted from your ISP, and paid to Google. Would it make you feel better that your ISP is tracking you now instead of Google? My answer: no.

I'm interested in hearing solutions and ideas... not whole encompassing replies as to what's wrong with Google and their mantra. We all know it's serious BS... but currently a necessary BS not only for those in the search of "free", but I believe also a necessity for Google. There is no other plan at the moment. None.

And may I again stress, that I do not EVER want to see a government or UN agency even get their hands on the doorknobs to Google's servers or become decision makers...EVER! At that point in time if it ever comes to that, we as "free" humans are doomed! This would not be anything like the FTC, the USPO, the airline, food, and/or drug agencies. This is the absolute control of our identities. Safe to say "almost as" effective as if we were implanted with chips the day we were born. Funnier still, is that the majority of the population is effectively "chipping" themselves in the desire to be "Liked". How ironic and far easier than even Orwell could have imagined is that?!!!!

Note to self: remove tin hat before going to watch footie this afternoon! Track that!

 

As indicated by others, there's no need for Google to be Big Brother to monetize search. However, the post you are replying to had nothing to do with that. I was talking about the fact that Google's dominance acts as a barrier to others entering the field (even Microsoft with their deep pockets is having trouble establishing a toe hold), thus, we are excluded from the possibility of better services and solutions being developed by others. This as a counterpoint to your argument that we should be grateful to Google. Should we, or are they stifling innovation with their de facto monopoly?

 

The difference is that those people chose to, "freely [pour] their hearts and lives out on Facebook." No one chose to have Google tracking them all over the web, anywhere they go. No one was even offered a choice. In fact, most people still don't even realize that it's happening.

 

The other difference is that, to my knowledge, at least, Facebook is not a criminal enterprise, whereas, Google is.