or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google agrees to license Motorola patents, ending FTC's antitrust investigation
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google agrees to license Motorola patents, ending FTC's antitrust investigation - Page 2

post #41 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

According to the FTC, there are no offenses for Yelp to discuss with them. I'm quite sure that Microsoft, Yelp and whoever else had LOTS of conversations to make their cases with the FTC before today's press conference. 

That doesn't seem right. Perhaps they will open new investigation into specific areas after this broad settlement. If the allegations have been acknowledged, it sounds like there will be follow up by the sites affected. I guess we will know in a few months after the businesses have time to rationalize.
post #42 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post


That doesn't seem right. Perhaps they will open new investigation into specific areas after this broad settlement. If the allegations have been acknowledged, it sounds like there will be follow up by the sites affected. I guess we will know in a few months after the businesses have time to rationalize.

Did you read the actual settlement doc? I linked it in one of the first posts in this thread. It includes the FTC's findings and reasoning on competitors complaints. You should read it if you haven't.

 

EDIT: Linked here again for those that missed it.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1210120/130103googlemotorolado.pdf


Edited by Gatorguy - 1/3/13 at 6:42pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #43 of 72
That's just for the FRAND licensing stuff. I didn't see any details on Google's settlement regarding vertical search sites for example.
post #44 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Did you read the actual settlement doc? I linked it in one of the first posts in this thread. It includes the FTC's findings and reasoning on competitors complaints. You should read it if you haven't.

 

EDIT: Linked here again for those that missed it.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1210120/130103googlemotorolado.pdf

 

None of that means companies like Yelp can't bring civil actions against them.

post #45 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


You'll have to take that up with patsu, who claims that paying a settlement equates to guilt.  I suppose the same goes for accusations of willful patent infringement as well, but we'll have to wait for the learned patsu's determination on that.

 

The federal court just exonerated Google, but if you feel there are other charges they've overlooked you cam submit your complaint and supporting evidence here:

http://www.justice.gov/contact-us.html

 

Let us know how that works out for you.

 

They haven't been exonerated. On the other hand, they have been caught promoting illegal drug sales, stealing copyrighted materials, violating privacy on numerous occasions, lying to investigators, and so on and so on. None of these are technicalities. These were deliberate criminal acts.

post #46 of 72
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post
[Bunch-a-linkz]

 

WOW that entire list always post anti-Apple click bait.

Call me impressed by your list /s

post #47 of 72
I welcome our Google overlords, the rest of you might want to stay quiet or your opinions might be automatically connected to your gmail, Google+ involuntarily accounts.
Welcome Google masters, we love you /s
post #48 of 72

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/16/13 at 12:14pm
post #49 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

That's just for the FRAND licensing stuff. I didn't see any details on Google's settlement regarding vertical search sites for example.

Patsu, you're absolutely correct. I thought the FTC statement on search policy I had read was part of the package; I was plainly incorrect. Thanks for pointing it out sir!

 

There will not be a separate consent agreement for Google's ad and search practice changes as there is for SEP enforcement. IMO it looks as tho the government is recognizing the complaints from Google competitors, primarily Microsoft and their "trade groups", as a ploy to earn more money via government interference with the more successful search provider.  The FTC statement explaining Google's changes to it's search practice's (published in a Dec. 27th letter ) and why the FTC saw no need for further investigation or a consent order is here:

 

http://ftc.gov/opa/2013/01/google.shtm

 

There would appear to be evidence too that other agencies have also chosen to close their investigations into Google search practices, altho I'd expect separate statements at some point, particularly from the EU if that's the case.

"...the FTC concluded that the introduction of Universal Search, as well as additional changes made to Google’s search algorithms – even those that may have had the effect of harming individual competitors – could be plausibly justified as innovations that improved Google’s product and the experience of its users. It therefore has chosen to close the investigation.

The Commission would like to acknowledge the close cooperation in this matter with the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition, and with the state Attorneys General of Texas, New York, Ohio, California, and Oklahoma."


Edited by Gatorguy - 1/4/13 at 5:34am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #50 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Excellent work, Detective Anonymous!  You've uncovered a vast criminal network not even the feds could dig up.

 

Unfortunately, because of its wealth and influence, a serial offender like Google is let off, again and again, with what amounts to less than a slap on the wrist.  Google simply buys its way out of trouble once again.

 

You can pretend they are just like any other company out there, but they aren't. Google has demonstrated over and over again that they have zero respect for the law and zero respect for people. They've broken the law more times in the last 5 years than anyone can even keep track of. Google is a criminal organization run by sociopaths, and, as an organization, behaves like one too.

 

You can be as snide as you like, but that doesn't change the fact that you are shilling for liars and crooks. 

post #51 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

... This is a crushing blow to Microsoft, which has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists and phony grassroots groups over the past several years hoping to land Google in hot water. ...

 

Pretty funny stuff, coming from you.

post #52 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


Excellent work, Detective Anonymous!  You've uncovered a vast criminal network not even the feds could dig up.  Well done!  They'll be so grateful when you send them your mountains of proof.  Why, you'll make even Apple look like a relative weakling, able to outsmart not only their legal resources, but also those of Microsoft, Oracle, and everyone else who's tried to bring Google down but failed.

 

Here is it again just to make sure you don't miss this opportunity to prove the entire world wrong:

http://www.justice.gov/contact-us.html

 

We're so looking forward to hearing how this works out for you.


I thought his original RICO comment was worth quoting but your response to it was even better.  They should have a sub portion of this site devoted to the fanatic followers.  This guys need to be immortalized and turned into a character for the next Jay & Silent Bob installment.  Pure comedy gold.

post #53 of 72

Btw, for what it's worth, I think Google got away a bit on the light side but they worked the system that is in place and there is nothing wrong with that.  If you disagree, then you would also have to disagree with how Apple works the tax system with their Double Irish Dutch Sandwich strategies (which Google also now uses).   The system appears to be broken from a pure justice point of view (right vs wrong) but it is working fine based off the rules we have defined and voted in.  By the way, this didn't happen overnight and it was not setup by anyone person or party.

post #54 of 72

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/16/13 at 12:15pm
post #55 of 72

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/16/13 at 12:15pm
post #56 of 72

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/16/13 at 12:15pm
post #57 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Let's see: price fixing, privacy concerns, class action suits over poor quality, back-dating financials, and the other items I've already listed for you show clearly that the difference between one company and another is merely the logo. ...

 

Sorry, but most of the things you cite "against" Apple are either technical violations, non-issues, or simply false allegations, but all civil issues. To equate them with, for example, knowingly promoting illegal drug sales, or intentionally stealing thousands and thousands of books or duplicitously engaging in browser hacks, contrary to a consent decree, to violate privacy, or willfully lying to investigators about other privacy violations, all of which are criminal actions, speaks volumes to the dishonesty you are desperate to resort to to prop up the image of a criminal organization.

 

We have to ask why you, GG, and the rest of you who come here spewing these falsehoods, for your various reasons, find it so necessary to bend, twist and assasinate the truth to "make your points". Clearly the truth is not on your side, but for those of you who aren't getting paid to do it, what perversion of character motivates you?

post #58 of 72

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/16/13 at 12:16pm
post #59 of 72

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/16/13 at 12:16pm
post #60 of 72

I don't think Administrator edits are tagged as such. Yes your comment was originally there as I recall.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #61 of 72
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post
There's an oddity in the system here in which this line is excluded from posts:

 

"Is this the point in the post where the kids add a slash-s to let the other kids who have no sense of humor know that I'm not serious?"

 

Curiously, the system does not note that the post has been edited, so this is merely a test of the parser to try to discern how it's working.

 

Huh. It doesn't show as edited for you? That's bothersome; it shows for me. It should really be showing up for everyone.

 

I just don't feel there's any reason to be calling others here "kids". You know that, I know that. You could have written it differently. I think that falls under generic rule 1, but that's me. Feel free to express distaste at others' use of sarcasm entirely, of course, just don't insult them when doing it.

 

Maybe it's not showing the edit times because the edits were done too close to the posting time. I've noticed that in both Huddler and vBulletin if a post is edited quickly enough, it doesn't append an "edited by/on" tag.


Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
I don't think Administrator edits are tagged as such. Yes your comment was originally there as I recall.

 

Oh, that's bull! Every edit needs to appear for everyone! Maybe I can turn that on; maybe not. I'll have to dig a little.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #62 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Oh, that's bull! Every edit needs to appear for everyone! Maybe I can turn that on; maybe not. I'll have to dig a little.

Bull? Really? I don't ever recall seeing a thread edited by an admin/mod being tagged as such, even tho it might be mentioned by editor himself in a subsequent post. 

 

FWIW the post MacRulz questioned still does not indicate it was ever edited, at least that I can see. 

 

EDIT: Perhaps by bull you meant that it's not right for the post not to be tagged as edited no matter who did so? I initially thought you were saying it wasn't true. By the way, I agree with you that it's not helpful to bait other members. You're doing your job when moderating comments that mock or ridicule other forum members. I've no issue with it myself.


Edited by Gatorguy - 1/4/13 at 9:45am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #63 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Huh. It doesn't show as edited for you? That's bothersome; it shows for me. It should really be showing up for everyone.

 

Maybe it's not showing the edit times because the edits were done too close to the posting time. I've noticed that in both Huddler and vBulletin if a post is edited quickly enough, it doesn't append an "edited by/on" tag.

TS, you could test that theory by editing my last post if you wish. Wait 5 min and give it a try.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #64 of 72

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/16/13 at 12:16pm
post #65 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post


If they can't agree on a number, the court decides the final price regardless of whether it's licensed by Apple or other companies. It is non-discriminatory. Or Apple can go look for alternatives. End of story. It won't come to injunction.


The full text of the agreement then goes on to state, in effect:  If, after the court or arbitrator has reached its determination of an appropriate final price, the potential licensee still refuses to pay that final price, then injunctions will become an available option (presumably manifested as a form of punishment for the potential licensee's non-compliance with a court order).

post #66 of 72
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
Bull? Really? I don't ever recall seeing a thread edited by an admin/mod being tagged as such…

 

Oh, sorry, I don't mean that directed at you! I meant it for the software. I mean to say that it's incredibly silly that admin/mod edits wouldn't be shown on posts where they happened.


Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

I'm all for moderator efforts to raise the level of conversation here to something more professional.  But really, take a look at the stuff that's allowed to stand here.  "Kids" is among the milder epithets posted here, and given the relatively recent adoption of the slash-s convention here it's probably not all that inaccurate.

 

That said, I'm happy to support your efforts at removing ALL such epithets, and look forward to seeing a less selective application of this principle. 

 

Would this also apply to potentially libelous allegations of specific crimes made by posters who have no evidence to support them?

 

If you see something that you believe is in violation of our rules, please do report it! Users still see the report button on every post, right? Haven't gotten very many user-submitted reports as of late, and I've been chalking that up to increased civility.


This new interest in editing out unnecessary insults will keep you busy and trim a great many posts at first, but once folks get used to writing less insultingly it'll make for a better forum experience for everyone.

 

I don't want to give out infractions left and right, but people say things sometimes that I believe could have been worded better (to put it nicely 1tongue.gif). Usually the rest of the post is perfectly fine. In trimming out the insult (or what have you), it just saves that much headache later for all parties.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #67 of 72
Here are the rules.

Company breaks them to be anticompetitive.

Here's a legal threat.

Company claims to agree to a change in behavior.

Company finds passive-aggressive ways of being maliciously compliant, essentially still doing what it wants to in order to be anticompetitive.

Welcome to sociopathic America. As long as you have money and lies, you can get away with anything.
post #68 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post

Here are the rules.
Company breaks them to be anticompetitive.
Here's a legal threat.
Company claims to agree to a change in behavior.
Company finds passive-aggressive ways of being maliciously compliant, essentially still doing what it wants to in order to be anticompetitive.
Welcome to sociopathic America. As long as you have money and lies, you can get away with anything.

 

Like this passive aggressive?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #69 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Like this passive aggressive?

The mobile version of Google Maps has never officially supported Windows phone. MS has resisted incorporating WebKit into it's mobile browser, needed for viewing Google Maps on Windows handsets and even tho iPhones, Blackberrys, Android smartphones, the Kindle e-readers, Bada and Tizen OS's and others all have WebKit support. That Google was somehow making their mobile maps at least somewhat available on an officially unsupported Windows phone browser was nice of them. Perhaps they no longer want to go out of their way for a company trying to put them out of business. Or perhaps it's just some minor change in API's on either Google or Microsoft's end. Who knows for certain. FWIW a number of comments on other sites mention it's never worked all that well on Windows phones even before this.

 

The simple solution for Microsoft if they're truly concerned about their users convenient access to Google maps? Just include WebKit support in MS Explorer for mobile. They do know how to write code don't they? Microsoft locking down their Windows 7 & 8 phones by restricting them to Trident-based browsers only is their choice.

 

EDIT: Here ya go Hill60

http://mashable.com/2013/01/04/windows-phone-google-maps/


Edited by Gatorguy - 1/5/13 at 6:05am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #70 of 72

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/16/13 at 12:20pm
post #71 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The mobile version of Google Maps has never officially supported Windows phone. MS has resisted incorporating WebKit into it's mobile browser, needed for viewing Google Maps on Windows handsets and even tho iPhones, Blackberrys, Android smartphones, the Kindle e-readers, Bada and Tizen OS's and others all have WebKit support. That Google was somehow making their mobile maps at least somewhat available on an officially unsupported Windows phone browser was nice of them. Perhaps they no longer want to go out of their way for a company trying to put them out of business. Or perhaps it's just some minor change in API's on either Google or Microsoft's end. Who knows for certain. FWIW a number of comments on other sites mention it's never worked all that well on Windows phones even before this.

The simple solution for Microsoft if they're truly concerned about their users convenient access to Google maps? Just include WebKit support in MS Explorer for mobile. They do know how to write code don't they? Microsoft locking down their Windows 7 & 8 phones by restricting them to Trident-based browsers only is their choice.

EDIT: Here ya go Hill60
http://mashable.com/2013/01/04/windows-phone-google-maps/

That would explain why Google Maps doesn't work in Internet Explorer on the desktop or with Opera or Firefox on Android...

...oh, hang on.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #72 of 72

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/16/13 at 12:25pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google agrees to license Motorola patents, ending FTC's antitrust investigation