or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › The iPhone Patent Wars: Early patent skirmishes of Apple, Inc., in pictures
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The iPhone Patent Wars: Early patent skirmishes of Apple, Inc., in pictures

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 
The iPhone Patent Wars have now been raging for nearly four years, not in the competitive market for smartphone sales, but rather in contentions over intellectual property, expressed in the government-enforced monopolies over inventions known as patents.

Patent


These wars have been waged in the courts over damages related to patent infringement, within private negotiations for settlement and in Executive Branch decisions considered by the International Trade Commission, a quasi-judicial federal agency with the power to block imports and ban sales. ITC bans are a particularly devastating weapon for patent holders to wield.One of the biggest Federal Court trials yet isn't even set to begin until next summer

One of the biggest Federal Court trials yet isn't even set to begin until next summer: a second case between Apple and Samsung following the original trial that resulted in a jury award of $1 billion in damages for Apple last fall. That case is still on appeal, too.

This series provides a look at what's happened so far, and why many in the general public aren't even aware of the extent and intrigue in the patent shenanigans occurring among Big Phone players, starting with how Apple got its reputation for abusing patents even before the iPhone appeared.

Apple becomes one of the most sued companies on earth



In 1985, there were fewer than 2,000 computing-related patents granted in the US. But by 2006 there were over 150,000 in effect, and over 17,000 more were being granted every year in the U.S. alone. Patents were not just being granted; they were increasing being leveraged to extract millions of dollars up front and in demands for ongoing royalty fees.

As the once beleaguered Apple Computer transitioned itself into the very successful Apple, Inc., a metamorphosis fueled by profitable sales of tens of millions of iPods in the first half of the 2000s, existing companies that failed to successfully compete in the market (or simply didn't bother to try) turned to patent litigation in order claim a cut of Apple's earnings.

ADD patent
Source: AAD Patent


In March 2005, Advanced Audio Devices sued Apple over patent 6,587,403 for a "music jukebox," presented above from the patent filing as "a perspective view of a music jukebox in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention." Apple denied any infringement but eventually settled over an "undisclosed" sum.

The U.S. government, through the Patent Office, had in August 2000 granted Advanced Audio Devices "inventors" Peter and Michael Kelley a legal monopoly over the "invention" of a music jukebox that could play songs in playlists.

Using the legal system, the "inventors" demanded royalties from Apple to "practice this invention" four years after the company had invested millions into designing the iPod and building a viable business around it in a competitive marketplace where other companies were seeking to do the same, generally without being able to turn a profit.

The Contois and Creative monopolies on ordered lists and menus



In June 2005, Contois Music Technology sued Apple over patent 5,864,868, alleging that iTunes infringed upon its "Computer Control System and User Interface for Media Playing Devices," depicted below. The firm also sued Sony, Napster, Real and MusicMatch over the same patent.

Contois patent
Source: Contois Music Patent


A year later, in May 2006, Singapore-based Creative Technology sued Apple in court for damages over its "Zen patent" 6,928,433, officially titled "automatic hierarchical categorization of music by metadata," concerning the presentation of menus on a portable music player based on song metadata.

Creative Zen patent
Source: Creative Zen Patent


In parallel, Creative also filed an injunction with the ITC seeking to ban imports of Apple's iPods. Apple countersued with patent claims of its own. Just three months later, the two companies settled out of court, with Apple agreeing to pay Creative $100 million and Creative joining Apple's "Made for iPod" licensing program.

Apple and the Billion Dollar Patent



That same month, Apple also settled with Contois, buying the disputed patent for an "undisclosed" sum. Michael Starkweather, the lawyer of the patent's inventor, later issued a press release describing the patent as being worth a billion dollars and predicting that Apple would use it to shake down the entire industry for royalties.

"I believe that, with this patent in hand," he stated in 2006, "Apple will eventually be after every phone company, film maker, computer maker and video producer to pay royalties on every download of not just music but also movies and videos.""Apple will eventually be after every phone company, film maker, computer maker and video producer to pay royalties on every download"

That never happened however. Apple didn't exercise its supposed "billion dollar patent" in a royalty offensive designed to syphon off the profits earned by the rest of the industry.

Instead, it essentially buried the patent, preventing Contois itself from suing "every phone company, film maker, computer maker and video producer" on earth, including Apple's customers, its partners and its competitors.

However, new companies continued to come out of the woodwork, all demanding from Apple millions in royalties of their own related to dubious patent claims. Note that in addition to the major cases above, there were lots of smaller claims and suits targeting technologies in Apple's Macs and other devices and peripherals, including the Nike+iPod pedometer sensor.

The Burst bubble in the iPod patent offensive



One of the most famous was Burst.com (the Burst.com domain is now operated by a different company) which had been suing Microsoft, then the world's leading technology company, for years over four patents related to "fast start" video streaming; essentially, buffering.

In 2005, after three years of legal wrangling, Microsoft settled with Burst, agreeing to pay $60 million to license its patent portfolio.

Burst planned to leverage its winnings in the patent lottery against Apple, hoping to claim, according to a report by BusinessWeek, a 2 percent cut of Apple's revenues related in any way to media playback, reaching in the ballpark of $200 million.

burst.com vs Apple


Burst's threats loomed just as patent holding "Non Practicing Entity" NTP, Inc. had successfully won a jury award against Blackberry maker RIM for $33 million, an amount the judge punitively increased to $53 million for being "willful," along with ordering an injunction that would not only block Blackberry sales but turn off the company's core messaging network that served RIM's installed base of subscribers.

Fed up with the flood of shameless patent extortion going on, Apple fired the first shot against Burst.That promised to not just drive RIM out of business, but also be so disruptive to critical U.S. government operations that the U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Defense intervened to stop the injunction.

The case was eventually settled in early 2006 for $612.5 million, a number considered low by some observers because it stopped NTP from claiming any future, ongoing rights to additional patent royalties.

Fed up with the flood of shameless patent extortion going on, Apple fired the first shot against Burst in early 2006, filing a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the Non Practicing Entity's entire patent portfolio. Burst then filed suit against Apple for infringements of 36 claims related to its four patents, just over a year after it first began asking Apple for money.

After Apple was successful in getting 14 of the claims on the patents tossed out, Burst agreed to a settlement in November 2007 that for "only" $10 million ended all of Burst's future and ongoing claims.

Apple gets maligned for fighting back



Much of the coverage of Burst's lawsuit against Apple flowed from columnist Mark Stephens, writing under the name Robert X. Cringely for a variety of sources, including "I, Cringely" for PBS.


Source: PBS


In January 2006, he described the preemptive strike as "an enormous mistake for Apple," noting that "since Apple sued Burst, Burst shares have gone UP by 30 percent. The market is rarely wrong," he explained.

He continued by predicting, "Apple will lose and Burst will win, and Apple won't be able to afford to wait for the courts to decide anything."

By September 2007, "I, Cringely" was complaining under the curious headline, "I Report, You Decide: Patent cases like Apple v. Burst.com deserve better news coverage," that "there has been a heck of a lot of spinning going on having to do with a story I broke years ago and have followed off and on ever since -- the trials of little Burst.com -- and even the revered New York Times (and nearly everyone else) this time got it shamefully wrong."

He linked to what he called "an especially deplorable story in Ars Technica," which had summarized the case in the sentence, "a tiny firm with a few patents is trying to get some big bucks from Apple in licensing fees," stating that "Apple looks to be taking a stand" and that "other patent trolls may want to take some notes."

At that point, Burst was now gunning for $500 million from Apple, of which Cringely noted, "that's a lot more than the $60 million Burst got from Microsoft and for a good reason: Microsoft generally gave away the technology they stole from Burst while Apple sells it."

What did Apple "steal" from Burst?



Burst's patent 4,963,995 from 1990 and 5,164,839 from 1991 describe compressing video and sending it over a network for faster than real time remote playback "from one video tape to another using only a single tape deck."

Patents 5,057,932 from 1991 and 5,995,705 from 1999 describe a digital VCR-ET ("editor/transceiver," pictured below) with the ability to store, edit and transmit recorded videos to another VCR-ET.

Burst VCR-ET
Source: Burst Patent


With these patents, Burst was alleging broad infringement involving "the iTunes Store, iPod devices, iTunes software, iLife software (GarageBand, iMovie, iWeb) separately and in conjunction with the .Mac service and Apple computers sold with or running iTunes or iLife," essentially everything Apple sold at the time.

Cringely was more than a little sympathetic to Burst, which he noted "is a three-person company based in Santa Rosa, CA, where I used to live" and which at the time had "almost no sales."

However, he added that "Burst's technology was developed over a period of 20 years by far more than three people at a cost in excess of $66 million," complaining that "the implication in many of these stories is that Burst cobbled together some dubious patents and tried to coerce real companies into taking licenses, that they are so-called 'patent trolls.' Trolls don't spend 20 years and $66 million building the bridges they defend."

Two years of writing patents, ten years of failed sales, five years of suing



But neither did Burst. According to the LinkedIn profile of Burst (now known as Democrasoft) inventor/patent holder Richard Lang, he "co-founded this company with Lisa Walters in 1989. Went on to develop, patent and introduce burst-mode (faster-than-real-time) media delivery to optimize quality, reliability and user experience of video & audio over networks. Developed portfolio of U.S. & international patents. Company became public in 1992."


Source: Richard Lang, LinkedIn


Three quarters of Lang's "patent portfolio" asserted against Apple in 2006 were filed between 1990 and 1991, just a year or two after he founded Burst. The company subsequently tried to set itself up as a proprietary toll link between consumers and video streamers, but after failing to sell its ideas to Microsoft, Burst turned into a litigation company in 2002, and after three years of suing Microsoft, spent two years suing Apple.

Burst had demonstrated a digital streaming prototype VCR in 1991, but wasn't able to develop, produce or market a successful product. Using the patent system, it hoped to gain a monopoly over the entire concept of streaming digital video, long before the idea was really practical.This kind of use of the patent system and the courts doesn't have much in common with Apple's attempts to stop Samsung.

Using the legal system, Burst then began to retroactively "sell" other companies the right to have implemented their own technology for a fee in the millions of dollars, with negotiations that began only after those other companies had finished their products and gainfully sold them for half a decade.

Of the $10 million settlement Burst finally negotiated with Apple, $5.4 million went to the company's attorneys and legal fees, not to an inventor. The rest appeared to be largely paid to the firm's shareholders as a dividend.

This kind of use of the patent system and the courts doesn't have much in common with Apple's attempts to stop Samsung, for example, from selling virtually identical products to the iPhone and iPad in an obvious, immediate response to Apple's products selling and Samsung's not being nearly as successful.

Overwhelmingly however, virtually all reports of patent infringement are presented by journalists with a presumption of guilt. Once "infringement" of a patent is alleged, the question is rarely "is the patent legitimate?" or "does this product actually infringe valuable intellectual property?" but rather "how many millions will this company need to pay?"

Apple shifts patent target from iPod to iPhone



Apple's efforts to quickly settle the various iPod-related patent lawsuits being waged against it in 2006 seems, in retrospect, to have been part of an effort to get past the litigation in order to focus on its innovative new iPhone that was due for introduction in 2007.

After having survived a barrage of patent attacks on the iPod and iTunes (among those also targeting its other products), Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs expressly noted at the iPhone's introduction that the company had patented every aspect of its new mobile phone that it could, in order to protect itself from having its own work taken.

Patented


However, just as Apple never threatened to use its supposed "billion dollar patent" on the rest of the industry, it also didn't begin arming its iPhone patent missiles for launch until 2010, three years deep into the iPhone's existence.

Major smartphone vendors watching their sales collapse were more than willing to resort to legal action, however, as a future segment in the iPhone IP Wars will outline. The next segment focuses on Apple's shifting role as a litigator and as an innovator in the intellectual property wars that birthed the current world of patent conflicts, looking at the computing world before patents were in widespread use.
post #2 of 30
Cant wait for iPhone Patent Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Samsung clones.
post #3 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Cant wait for iPhone Patent Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Samsung clones.

 

The force is strong in Apple. They'll find a way to setup a deflection field against the clones.

And have the evil ways of the clones exposed to the Galaxy.

post #4 of 30

Although it's true that journalists should try to distinguish between good and bad patent suits, I think the focus on "how many millions will this cost company X?" happens not because journalists think the patents are all good, but because the cases are almost always settled, whether they're good or not. There are three separate accounts in the post of Apple itself settling against dubious claims. 

post #5 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post

Although it's true that journalists should try to distinguish between good and bad patent suits, I think the focus on "how many millions will this cost company X?" happens not because journalists think the patents are all good, but because the cases are almost always settled, whether they're good or not. There are three separate accounts in the post of Apple itself settling against dubious claims. 

I wish that was the case but "millions of dollars" draws readers more than "validity of patents".
post #6 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


I wish that was the case but "millions of dollars" draws readers more than "validity of patents".

 

Too true.

post #7 of 30

Dang it! I thought, finally, that I'd be able to understand and better comprehend all of these lawsuits because they'd be explained with pictures.1smile.gif

 

But when I clicked on the article, once again, I saw a whole bunch of those word thingys.1frown.gif

 

 

Whoa is me, I guess I'll never understand...

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #8 of 30

I'm sorry but some of these patents that have been granted are BS patents. If you are going to put together a music player, it OBVIOUS that someone would need to identify the artist, album and song titles and that metadata is the only way to make a product that plays music.  I wouldn't uphold that portion of the patent.  Metadata and using metadata is an Industry Standard.  Sorry, I think that portion of a patent is COMPLETE BS.

 

Apple gets sued, but a lot of the lawsuits have been dismissed and some I think were BS lawsuits. Even Apple had patents issued and then later were pulled once Apple sued another over a patent.

 

Microsoft got themselves sued more than Apple, heck they were getting sued daily due to Anti Trust violations and unfair business practices for years and I think they settled a $1 Billion lawsuit with State of Ca, but instead of handing them a check, they gave them vouchers to buy more Microsoft product, which was about the most chicken $hit form of settlement.  That's like saying "Oh, we're sorry, here's some coupons to buy more of our product", instead of here's some cash to buy someone else's product, so to me, that's not a REAL settlement.  That's just getting a discount from already over valued licensing.  That's just keeping suckered into buying more product instead of going to a competitor.

post #9 of 30

I guess since Apple has traditionally been the lowest in terms of spending money on lobbyists, they get unfair treatment in the legal system.    MIcrosoft spent the most in lobbying money spent, but now, it's Google that spends the most in lobby money for high tech companies.

 

W

post #10 of 30

smartphone patent wars

Smartphone patent lawsuits, as visualised by George Kokkinidis at designlanguage.

 

Link to article here: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/nov/01/smartphone-patent-lawsuits-diagram#_

post #11 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjs View Post

smartphone patent wars

Smartphone patent lawsuits, as visualised by George Kokkinidis at designlanguage.

Link to article here: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/nov/01/smartphone-patent-lawsuits-diagram#_

He left out all those lawsuits Google filed against it's competitors. 1hmm.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #12 of 30
The whole patent rip off thing does not annoy me as much as blatant imitations.

I can understand that there is a natural progression with ideas and designs that can happen in different places at different times, but when Microsoft build Windows after developing for Apple and Samsung change the whole look and feel of Tablet computers after building components for Apple, this is where I get angry.

Copy-cat technologies are just sheer laziness.
I know Apple have used "ideas" from other companies (e.g.:WIMPS from Xerox)... but they where really the first to bring it to a home computing and professional computing environment. It's about being the first to say "let's create something different and take a risk".

I also realise the iPod was nothing new, but at least Apple made it more than just an "mp3 player" and they took the risk getting it to the masses. Microsoft and Samsung just keep seeing where Apple have succeeded, so it's the "we'll do the same" mentality that I find a little tiresome.
Don't get me wrong, I like the competition, but if you look at Microsoft and Samsung BEFORE they got their hands on the Apple product, you'll know why I get angry. Stop copying and do it for yourself guys!
post #13 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Windle View Post

The whole patent rip off thing does not annoy me as much as blatant imitations.

. . .

Copy-cat technologies are just sheer laziness.
I know Apple have used "ideas" from other companies (e.g.:WIMPS from Xerox)... but they where really the first to bring it to a home computing and professional computing environment. It's about being the first to say "let's create something different and take a risk".

. . .

You forgot to mention that Apple paid PARC/Xerox

http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #14 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

He left out all those lawsuits Google filed against it's competitors. 1hmm.gif

They're in yellow:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/googles-motorola-files-new-german.html
post #15 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

They're in yellow:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/googles-motorola-files-new-german.html

Google? No pretty sure they're shown in black,

Oh I see, you're using the the Mueller word-play of substituting Google for Motorola. Tricky tricky Marvin.

So Motorola Mobility continues to push the same H.264 patent claims they've used for the last three years or so (that got them an injunction against Microsoft last year but stayed by a US judge) to better position themselves for a cross-licensing settlement with Microsoft. The same posturing Microsoft/Motorola cross-licensing efforts they've both been pursuing for a few years now. So not really new patent claims at all but more of a Motorola/Motorola Mobility continuance of the same old H.264 patent suits then. Thanks for the link.
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/10/13 at 8:27am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Google? No pretty sure they're shown in black,

Oh I see, you're using the the Mueller word-play of substituting Google for Motorola. Tricky tricky Marvin.

So Motorola Mobility continues to push the same H.264 patent claims they've used for the last three years or so (that got them an injunction against Microsoft last year but stayed by a US judge) to better position themselves for a cross-licensing settlement with Microsoft. The same posturing Microsoft/Motorola cross-licensing efforts they've both been pursuing for a few years now. So not really new patent claims at all but more of a Motorola/Motorola Mobility continuance of the same old H.264 patent suits then. Thanks for the link.

 

Google owns Motorola Mobility and gets to choose whether it continues its behavior or not, as it did in the letter above.

 

Saying Mueller is using "word play" to supposedly conflate Google with its wholly-owned subsidiary, particularly one which Google replaced the CEO with an ad executive of its own, is a pretty sketchy accusation even coming from you. 

post #17 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Google owns Motorola Mobility and gets to choose whether it continues its behavior or not, as it did in the letter above.

Saying Mueller is using "word play" to supposedly conflate Google with its wholly-owned subsidiary, particularly one which Google replaced the CEO with an ad executive of its own, is a pretty sketchy accusation even coming from you. 

Gothcha. So you've gone from "Google is suing Apple/Microsoft" to "really they aren't but they could stop MM's old existing lawsuits". You and I might actually agree then. Google didn't stop MM from using an older Android version on the MotoX either but they probably could (should) have. Aggressive micro-management of a Google subsidiary could take care of that.

Either that or you lay the blame for all of Motorola and Motorola Mobility actions and licensing efforts over the past several years at the feet of Google who's owned them since... last May, about a year .Fair enough. Doesn't make it factual but your opinion is certainly yours.

To paraphrase Apple's pledge to not assert SEP's, I'm sure Google could tell Motorola management to stand down and drop the Apple/MS lawsuits if Apple and Microsoft would do the same.

Kinda good Google's around now to keep new patent infringement claims from Motorola in check. Not much danger of anything really new, and certainly not initiated by Google, wouldn't you agree?
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/10/13 at 11:16am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #18 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

To paraphrase Apple's pledge to not assert SEP's, I'm sure Google could tell Motorola management to stand down and drop the Apple/MS lawsuits if Apple and Microsoft would do the same.

That's designed to make it look like Apple took an offensive position first. Apple feels that with Google releasing Android, that was taking the primary offensive position because it would be like Apple doing the equivalent of Bing, knowing full well how close the two companies were:

http://gizmodo.com/5941817/what-really-made-steve-jobs-so-angry-about-google

Google even comically said they didn't see Android as competition to the iPhone:

"Eric Schmidt defiantly publicly represented that Google is not a "primary competitor" to Apple's iPhone. Under pressure from the FTC, Schmidt resigned from Apple's board in August 2009. In November 2009, Google outbid Apple to acquire mobile advertising leader AdMob. Then Google launched its first smart phone, the Nexus One, in January 2010, just seven months after Google's Schmidt publicly represented that Google did not compete with Apple's iPhone.

Google's Chairman Eric Schmidt made a potentially incriminating admission at Motorola's new phone launch in publicly admitting that "we were late to tablets" and that only 70,000 of Google's 1.3 million daily Android activations are tablets. That's potentially incriminating because during 2008-2009, when Mr. Schmidt was still on Apple's board, Steve Jobs made sure to keep Eric Schmidt in the dark about development of the iPad. Isn't it interesting that when Mr. Schmidt was on Apple's board and aware of the iPhone, Google was not "late" to the smart phone market (Google-Android now has dominant market share), but when Google's Schmidt was out of the loop as a board director on the existence of the iPad, Google is somehow "late" to the tablet market?

The big overall takeaway here is that if Google's leadership is willing and comfortable stealing from longtime personal friends and colleagues who have given generously to them and greatly helped them succeed at most every stage, Google could be expected to have no compunction stealing from people they don't know. This also helps explain why Google has by far the worst intellectual property infringement record of any major American corporation and why so many companies and people are suing Google around the world for intellectual property infringement."

The author there has a few bad things to say about Google as the disclosure at the end highlights but the point is that Apple's lawsuits are being used as a response to what they perceive as some form of theft and abuse of the trust they had with Google. I've always felt it was a necessary move for Google because there was no way Apple could control the overwhelming majority of the smartphone market with their quality (and price) bar.

The problem came with the hardware competitors because they used Android in order to closely mimic Apple's products as a whole, the worst offender by far being Samsung. That wouldn't have happened (at least as quickly) without Android. Just look at how long it took Microsoft and RIM to have competitive products.

I personally prefer that Google has taken the dominant competing position and not Microsoft or RIM though because they promote open standards like unix, webkit and H.264, which the others wouldn't have. This means that two very like-minded companies control the majority of computing devices in the world and push these things forward.

It's a difficult situation to resolve in a way that benefits everyone. I don't want to see Microsoft succeed in mobile because they don't deserve it and I think that would be more damaging than Android succeeding. That requires that Android sticks around. Something needs to be done about Samsung. They aren't going to stick by Google so it doesn't matter from Google's point of view:

http://venturebeat.com/2013/08/09/buh-bye-samsung-why-googles-new-bestie-asus-is-making-the-new-nexus/

Other Android manufacturers are making better products than Samsung but aren't making any money. Samsung is succeeding because they mimic Apple.

The lawsuits against the hardware manufacturers are justified. I think Apple has benefitted from the lawsuits as the public is now clear that Samsung has been ripping them off. This hasn't necessarily been financially beneficial but that perception is important because Samsung would have ripped them off anyway and the public wouldn't have been any wiser. They'd have just bought what they'd see as the next best thing to Apple's devices for a lower price. Counterfeit markets all over the world thrive on the indifference to originality of the public.

I'd like to see an opportunity arrive for Apple to wind down their litigation but the likes of Samsung have made it clear they won't let up and Google has no choice but to be caught in that because they were so instrumental in allowing them to become so damaging to Apple. It's unfortunate that Apple and Google were driven apart but Google made the choices that led to it, not Apple.
post #19 of 30

The suggestion that Apple "buried" the billion dollar patent for altruistic reasons is puzzling- Why would they do that? If is really is that powerful then surely they should be using in the on going Samsung case?

post #20 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

That's designed to make it look like Apple took an offensive position first. Apple feels that with Google releasing Android, that was taking the primary offensive position because it would be like Apple doing the equivalent of Bing, knowing full well how close the two companies were:

http://gizmodo.com/5941817/what-really-made-steve-jobs-so-angry-about-google

Google even comically said they didn't see Android as competition to the iPhone.

FWIW Daniel Eran Dilger said the exact same thing more than once. Yet again in late 2009 he said even in hindsight he was 100% correct that Google's Android was not meant to compete with Apple. According to him and a lot of others Microsoft was the target. From the tone of your post I think you believe that too, that no challenge to Apple was ever intended. It was all about Google's future as it related to Microsoft.

In any event tho yours was a well-reasoned and generally balanced response Marvin, exactly the type of post you're known for. IMHO there's a reason you've remained a moderator and the clues are in posts like this one.

With that said, the writer of the Gizmodo article you chose to quote at the beginning of your post is overly influenced by his hate of Google. His claim that "Google has by far the worst intellectual property infringement record of any major American corporation and ... so many companies and people are suing Google around the world for intellectual property infringement."

If being sued for infringement was proof of infringement then Apple might have the "worst intellectual property infringement record" of all. That author neglected to mention how many times Google has been found guilty of IP theft: No more times than Apple has been found to AFAIK.

There's better balanced articles to quote than the Gizmodo one.

EDIT: corrected the post to 2009 instead of 2010. My apologies
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/11/13 at 1:09pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #21 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

FWIW Daniel Eran Dilger said the exact same thing more than once. Yet again in 2010 he said even in hindsight he was 100% correct that Google's Android was not meant to compete with Apple. According to him and a lot of others Microsoft was the target. From the tone of your post I think you believe that too, that no challenge to Apple was ever intended. It was all about Google's future as it related to Microsoft.

I think Microsoft was the original target but they must have had an idea that it would have affected Apple by releasing an OS in direct competition to them. Their rhetoric has changed over the years too and they've attacked Apple more and more with negative marketing about how they are closed and controlling. They are out to protect their core revenue streams no matter what:

http://www.electronista.com/articles/13/07/02/latest.salvo.of.legal.filings.from.geolocation.firm.accused.brin.of.misconduct/

They've said they're patching some things up with Apple and their relationship is improving:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sun-valley-googles-eric-schmidt-584566

If Apple continues to generate similar levels of profit going forward, iOS can happily co-exist with Android but I think it would help for Google to put out a more positive message about Apple. They know as well as anyone who set the trends for Android but they never really made it clear to their fans that Apple led the way. In the past, Steve had to tell the audience after booing Microsoft that for Apple to win, Microsoft didn't have to lose. Google can make it clear to their audience that their target isn't Apple and they aren't set out to destroy the iPhone as Steve indicated. They have no reason to because they make a lot of revenue from iOS.
post #22 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I think Microsoft was the original target but they must have had an idea that it would have affected Apple by releasing an OS in direct competition to them..

Then your addition of "comically" doesn't make any sense seeing as you, Schmidt and DED all agreed that Google wasn't after Apple in the first place. No biggie and I do endorse the bulk of your previous post in any event. As for this one I don't recall anything remotely anti-Apple coming from Google other than a single comment by Vic Gundotra that he was quickly muzzled for by Brin. Has there been other anti-Apple rhetoric from Google that I missed? I've seen some from Apple against Google but for the most part Google doesn't snipe back do they?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Then your addition of "comically" doesn't make any sense seeing as you, Schmidt and DED all agreed that Google wasn't after Apple in the first place. No biggie and I do endorse the bulk of your previous post in any event. As for this one I don't recall anything remotely anti-Apple coming from Google other than a single comment by Vic Gundotra that he was quickly muzzled for by Brin. Has there been other anti-Apple rhetoric from Google that I missed? I've seen some from Apple against Google but for the most part Google doesn't snipe back do they?

 

Oh what horseshit, even for you. Google has collectively acted like an arrogant prick about how it would destroy Apple starting before even the G1 in 2008, the Droid 2.0 launch in 2009, the Honeycomb 3.0 "iPad-killer" & Google TV "will take over" in 2011, Google Wallet NFC in 2012, and right up to the fraudulent core count of last year's Nexus 7 (16!) and this year's Nexus 7 (X8!), pure misrepresentation of garbage app counts against the App Store, on and on. 

 

Of course you don't remember any of this, you were too busy copying and pasting Google propaganda online. 

 

For all of Google's massive string of failures in virtually every market outside of ads, the company displays some remarkably juvenile arrogance every time it introduces anything, and has been flinging excrement at Apple every opportunity it gets. 

post #24 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Gothcha. So you've gone from "Google is suing Apple/Microsoft" to "really they aren't but they could stop MM's old existing lawsuits". You and I might actually agree then. Google didn't stop MM from using an older Android version on the MotoX either but they probably could (should) have. Aggressive micro-management of a Google subsidiary could take care of that.

Either that or you lay the blame for all of Motorola and Motorola Mobility actions and licensing efforts over the past several years at the feet of Google who's owned them since... last May, about a year .Fair enough. Doesn't make it factual but your opinion is certainly yours.

To paraphrase Apple's pledge to not assert SEP's, I'm sure Google could tell Motorola management to stand down and drop the Apple/MS lawsuits if Apple and Microsoft would do the same.

Kinda good Google's around now to keep new patent infringement claims from Motorola in check. Not much danger of anything really new, and certainly not initiated by Google, wouldn't you agree?

 

You don't get to represent what I've said in the past, "Gaterguy."

 

Also, I do not agree with any of the contorted bullshit logic you seem to think makes sense. 

 

Google owns 100% of MM. Its inability to install the latest version of Android on a new MM-branded phone is no evidence that Google lacks the ability to stop or change MM's flagrant patent abuse performed in the interests of Google's platform, which has occured in parallel with Google feeding patents to HTC and others to use in attacking Apple in ineffectual attempts to "defend" Android from its own, purposeful and flagrant IP infringement.

 

Any time you try to put words in my mouth you better cite an actual quote in context, because your ability to twist what other people say is as legendary as it is shamefully dishonest. 

post #25 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


As you wish sir, and in your own unedited words. You're welcome to explain how I'm misrepresenting it.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/10/21/gartners-presumptuous-coronation-of-android-as-the-windows-of-smartphones/
"Let me (Daniel Eran Dilger) say what I really think

If you’ve read this far, you’ve may have decided that I hate Android and Google and am running down the platform to make the iPhone look better than it is, and that all the facts that I present are therefore meaningless because of my personal opinion. If so, you’d be wrong on all counts.

I think Google is a fantastic company on many levels, ranging from its commitment to supporting open, interoperable software development to its core business model that effectively churns out free (well, ad-supported) services that almost always work well and are quite reliable. I use Google’s services every day. I earn some money from Google AdSense from the properties that publish my articles. While I think the tech media sometimes gives Google a free pass in some areas where it deserves scrutiny, Google’s track record in playing fair, in supporting the environment, in treating its employees well, in not immediately selling out in human rights issues to gain access to China, and many other areas is much better than most of its peers.

As for Android, while I see lots of obvious problems that I think the media is ignoring or glossing over in their simplistic desire to write up a compelling underdog piece, I have never described Google’s smartphone plans as being a competitor or threat to the iPhone. My first article on the subject presented that the rumored “gPhone” was not going to be a hardware competitor to the iPhone at all, but rather a software platform that would target Windows Mobile. I was completely right."


Even the legendary DED should not have the OK to break forum rules and personally attack the character of other forum members. If you have a legitimate counter-point to make you don't need to fall back on schoolyard tactics. Whatever the case may be sir, I won't be baited into replying in kind.

EDIT: Truncated Corrections quoted post since his original comment has since been edited. (Kudos to moderator)

 

If you weren't lying you wouldn't need to use big letters to attempt to make a point.

 

In 2009 when the article you cited was written, Google hadn't yet had the opportunity to increasingly misrepresent Android and Apple for the 4 years as I outlined. 

 

Do you not understand that? 2009. It's now 2013.

 

The "gPhone" article was from 2007. At the time, Android Enthusiasts were writing opinions that Google would come out with a gPhone to sell against the iPhone. They were wrong, for every reason I correctly outlined in that article. And note: since 2007 Google hasn't produced a phone of its own, although it has put its Nexus brand on partner phones from HTC, Samsung and so on. Every one of those has failed.

 

The Moto X is not branded by Google, and Google takes great pains to suggest that its wholly owned subsideraty is an equal partner among other Android licensees (which is bullshit). But it doesn't change the fact that in 2007, Google was working "a software platform that would target Windows Mobile" and not "a hardware competitor to the iPhone at all," unless you think that Google is so incompetent that it took 6 years to bring its in-development hardware to fruition.

 

If you want to do some fact checking, why not review the  7,452 posts you've made at AppleInsider and see if you can find one that is not pure fact-twisting garbage, let alone an accurate portrayal of what is happening in the mobile industry, and proven to be correct more than five years later as the post above you try to attack me with. 

post #26 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

 

Oh what horseshit, even for you. Google has collectively acted like an arrogant prick about how it would destroy Apple starting before even the G1 in 2008, the Droid 2.0 launch in 2009, the Honeycomb 3.0 "iPad-killer" & Google TV "will take over" in 2011, Google Wallet NFC in 2012, and right up to the fraudulent core count of last year's Nexus 7 (16!) and this year's Nexus 7 (X8!), pure misrepresentation of garbage app counts against the App Store, on and on. 

 

Of course you don't remember any of this, you were too busy copying and pasting Google propaganda online. 

 

For all of Google's massive string of failures in virtually every market outside of ads, the company displays some remarkably juvenile arrogance every time it introduces anything, and has been flinging excrement at Apple every opportunity it gets. 

 

None of the examples you quoted has anything to do with Google saying it would destroy Apple.  How does introducing shitty products say anything Apple specific? So Google saying that Google TV is going to get a lot of OEMs is "destroying Apple?"  Yeah, Google Wallet NFC was a failure, and doubly fouled up because of stupid carrier interference, but again, what does Google shipping a Wallet/Payment system have to do with attacking Apple? Apple doesn't even have a wallet commerce solution yet, and Google Wallet came out of Google Checkout and if anything, was targeted more at PayPal/Square/Amazon. Google as a company is based on giving engineers freedom to create projects and launch them, and so not a day goes by that Google isn't launching something new. Many of these will fail, just like the majority of small businesses or startups will fail. It is a different view of innovation, bottom up, not top down. We need both.

 

I'm still waiting for actual examples of "flinging excrement at Apple every opportunity it gets." I want to see actual links to quotes from Google, press releases they put out, ads, or even interviews where they bash Apple or fling excrement. And I'll start by giving you Vic Gundotra's I/O keynote. If you can't produce the needed citations, I think you should retract.

 

Google as a company is simply not interested in "destroying Apple". That's the kind of talk that came out of Microsoft, and there is zero evidence this is how Google thinks. We do have as evidence on the other side Job's "thermonuclear war" comment, as well as Steve Ballmer's comments on destroying Linux and Android. There is not a single shred of evidence quoted anywhere from Google likewise.

post #27 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I think Microsoft was the original target but they must have had an idea that it would have affected Apple by releasing an OS in direct competition to them. Their rhetoric has changed over the years too and they've attacked Apple more and more with negative marketing about how they are closed and controlling.

Just because you don't pay attention to it doesn't mean that Google isn't giving Apple well-deserved props.
http://news.yahoo.com/eric-schmidt-praises-apple-innovator-urges-blackberry-step-185027754.html
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2168684/google-boss-clarifies-web-remarks-praises-apple-facebook
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #28 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Then your addition of "comically" doesn't make any sense seeing as you, Schmidt and DED all agreed that Google wasn't after Apple in the first place.

Like I said, they were obviously aware that it would have been in direct competition to what Apple was doing regardless if it was their intention or not to do harm. You don't think it would be comical if Apple started Bing and came out publicly saying they don't see themselves in competition with Google?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't recall anything remotely anti-Apple coming from Google other than a single comment by Vic Gundotra that he was quickly muzzled for by Brin. Has there been other anti-Apple rhetoric from Google that I missed? I've seen some from Apple against Google but for the most part Google doesn't snipe back do they?

They don't go overboard with insults but they've been feeding their fans with negativity about Apple how they are closed and want to stifle innovation:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/18/google-larry-page-facebook-apple
http://bgr.com/2012/12/12/google-eric-schmidt-apple-war/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy 
Just because you don't pay attention to it doesn't mean that Google isn't giving Apple well-deserved props.

The first link says:

"while Schmidt was adamant in his praise for Apple’s 9.7-inch iPad, he was also was quick to point out the superior experience users can have on a Nexus 10 tablet by claiming that it has “more apps, is more scalable and more secure.”"

It's like saying "I love Apple but their products are a bit stale lately" and then focusing on the first part of the sentence as praise. The whole sentence is designed as an insult.

The fans do more damage but none of the negativity is necessary. I've never heard Google say that buying an Android device or an iOS device doesn't matter - Google can profit just as much from either one. Google fans always promote Android devices over Apple under the assumption that this is better for Google when that's not necessarily the case.
post #29 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The fans do more damage but none of the negativity is necessary. I've never heard Google say that buying an Android device or an iOS device doesn't matter - Google can profit just as much from either one. Google fans always promote Android devices over Apple under the assumption that this is better for Google when that's not necessarily the case.

Absolutely. IMHO, and apparently yours too, I don't imagine Google cares where the revenue is coming from as long as they aren't locked out. That was the fear Google had with Microsoft's mobile plans. They'd already seen what lengths Microsoft was willing to go to control the desktop and wanted to make sure that it wasn't a repeat in mobile. I think you agree with that.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #30 of 30
Judge Robard gets the difference between Google and Motorola. Tho Microsoft tried to mix the two together in an attempt to convince the court that MS already had the rights to any IP Google had with regard to MPEG-LA, the court recognizes MM and Google are two separate entities,

From yesterdays' ruling on various Summary Judgement motions:

"Here, the court agrees with Motorola and grants summary judgment that Google’s failure to grant a license to Microsoft under the Google-MPEG LA agreement cannot form the basis of Microsoft’s claim that Motorola breached its RAND commitment. Despite opportunity to plead Google into this matter, Microsoft has not done so, and accordingly Google is not a party to this lawsuit. Motorola cannot reasonably be expected to answer for the actions of Google, because Motorola does not in any way control Google. The court is unaware of any authority that permits Microsoft to sue Motorola for the actions of another entity, Google, and Microsoft has pointed the court to no such authority. In any event, the court concludes that it would be unfair for Motorola to be put on trial for the actions of another. Taken to its logical extreme, Microsoft’s argument would allow Microsoft to accuse Motorola of breach of contract based on actions by any other with whom Motorola has some sort of affiliation. That cannot be a just result. Accordingly, the court grants Motorola’s motion for summary judgment regarding the Google-MPEG LA license agreement and any failure on the part of Google to provide a license under that agreement."
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • The iPhone Patent Wars: Early patent skirmishes of Apple, Inc., in pictures
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › The iPhone Patent Wars: Early patent skirmishes of Apple, Inc., in pictures