or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple-backed patent consortium sues Google, major Android manufacturers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple-backed patent consortium sues Google, major Android manufacturers - Page 4

post #121 of 152

There are no clean hands in this industry. Stop pretending otherwise.

post #122 of 152
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post
There are no clean hands in this industry.

 

Sure there are. The clean hands are the ones who haven’t done any work of their own.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #123 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

There are no clean hands in this industry. Stop pretending otherwise.

- iOS has fragmentation so it's the same as Android. Stop pretending otherwise.
- Apple has sought injunctions so they are the same as Samsung, Motorola and the rest. Stop pretending otherwise.
- iOS can get malware too, so it's vulnerable just like Android. Stop pretending otherwise.

You should stop pretending everything is black and white and that your "hands" can only be clean or dirty - nobody has hands anywhere between those two extremes.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #124 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

- iOS has fragmentation so it's the same as Android. Stop pretending otherwise.
- Apple has sought injunctions so they are the same as Samsung, Motorola and the rest. Stop pretending otherwise.
- iOS can get malware too, so it's vulnerable just like Android. Stop pretending otherwise.

You should stop pretending everything is black and white and that your "hands" can only be clean or dirty - nobody has hands anywhere between those two extremes.

What about multiple amputees?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #125 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


- iOS has fragmentation so it's the same as Android. Stop pretending otherwise.
- Apple has sought injunctions so they are the same as Samsung, Motorola and the rest. Stop pretending otherwise.
- iOS can get malware too, so it's vulnerable just like Android. Stop pretending otherwise.

You should stop pretending everything is black and white and that your "hands" can only be clean or dirty - nobody has hands anywhere between those two extremes.

- iOS fragmentation is not nearly as bad as Android. Stop pretending otherwise.

 

- Apple has sought injunctions over infringement of its patents that are not standards essential, which makes Apple vastly different from Samsung and Googorola who are abusing their standards essential patents. That's why President Obama's office overturned the ban on Apple products but left intact the ban on Samsung products. Stop pretending otherwise.

 

- iOS is much more difficult to catch malware than is Android. Some people might even argue Android itself is malware. Stop pretending otherwise.

 

Despite the smoke and mirrors put up by the Android consortium, eventually the general public is going to recognize the intellectual property rights abuses Google has facilitated.

post #126 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Why are you so upset that some competitors of Google pooled their money to acquire some patents and then enforce them? The owners of Rockstar are practicing entities.

Of course the owners are practicing companies. That's why they set up a troll, , , er, sorry, an NPE to do the dirty work of suing competitors. Doing it themselves could be dangerous to business but suing Rockstar in return is useless. They don't make anything. Apple and Microsoft get to claim they aren't breaking any promises they've made and hopefully keep the DoJ and FTC at bay by staying out of the limelight as simple investors with no control over how Rockstar operates.1wink.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #127 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Of course the owners are practicing companies. That's why they set up a troll, , , er, sorry, an NPE to do the dirty work of suing competitors. Doing it themselves could be dangerous to business but suing Rockstar in return is useless. They don't make anything. Apple and Microsoft get to claim they aren't breaking any promises they've made and hopefully keep the DoJ and FTC at bay by staying out of the limelight as simple investors with no control over how Rockstar operates.1wink.gif

There's nothing wrong with what Apple et al. are doing via Rockstar, as you have acknowledged. Rockstar wasn't created by Apple et al. And Rockstar isn't a troll when it's funded by practicing entities. If Googorola or Samsung has a beef over patent infringement against Apple or Microsoft, they could establish their own intermediary to do the dirty work. The problem is, as we've already seen in the courts and in the Office of the POTUS, Googorola and Samsung won't get very far with their standards essential patents. Thus far, though, it seems Googorola and Samsung have had good success in making the general public mistakenly believe their patent concerns are equivalent to Apple's.

 

You didn't address your strange lack of disdain for Google, since it's clearly being two-faced in bidding $billion$ for Rockstar and then claiming the patents are worthless.

I guess that makes you a troll.:lol:

post #128 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

There's nothing wrong with what Apple et al. are doing via Rockstar, as you have acknowledged. Rockstar wasn't created by Apple et al. And Rockstar isn't a troll when it's funded by practicing entities. If Googorola or Samsung has a beef over patent infringement against Apple or Microsoft, they could establish their own intermediary to do the dirty work. The problem is, as we've already seen in the courts and in the Office of the POTUS, Googorola and Samsung won't get very far with their standards essential patents. Thus far, though, it seems Googorola and Samsung have had good success in making the general public mistakenly believe their patent concerns are equivalent to Apple's.

You didn't address your strange lack of disdain for Google, since it's clearly being two-faced in bidding $billion$ for Rockstar and then claiming the patents are worthless.
I guess that makes you a troll.lol.gif

Google said the Nortel patents were worthless? You wouldn't be making that up would you? By the way practicing companies investing in a troll down't mean that NPE is no longer a troll does it? Microsoft and Nokia both are backers of MOSAID, an NPE who filed suit against Apple a few months ago. It doesn't change MOSAID"s status does it?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #129 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

There's nothing wrong with what Apple et al. are doing via Rockstar,

Nope, nothing illegal about Rockstar AFAIK or Apple enabling them. Whether anything is wrong about Apple arming trolls (plural as they have done so at least twice recently) might depend on your view of patent trolls overall. Bad if they're suing Apple but good when Apple is doing the serving instead? I seem to remember a lot of complaints and claims of patent trolling here when VirnetX won a few hundred million from Apple a few months ago.
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/3/13 at 5:33pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #130 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Google said the Nortel patents were worthless? You wouldn't be making that up would you? By the way practicing companies investing in a troll down't mean that NPE is no longer a troll does it? Microsoft and Nokia both are backers of MOSAID, an NPE who filed suit against Apple a few months ago. It doesn't change MOSAID"s status does it?

Google and Samsung declared the patents "worthless" by refusing to pay licensing fees, which is what landed them in court.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #131 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Google and Samsung declared the patents "worthless" by refusing to pay licensing fees, which is what landed them in court.

Exactly. GatorGuy can read more about it here.

 

Be sure to read the last paragraph, which points to this tweet (which links to an important opinion piece).

post #132 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Of course the owners are practicing companies. That's why they set up a troll, , , er, sorry, an NPE to do the dirty work of suing competitors. Doing it themselves could be dangerous to business but suing Rockstar in return is useless. They don't make anything. Apple and Microsoft get to claim they aren't breaking any promises they've made and hopefully keep the DoJ and FTC at bay by staying out of the limelight as simple investors with no control over how Rockstar operates.1wink.gif

How stupid can you be? Where is it written anywhere that if Company A (Rockstar) sues Google that Google is only allowed to countersue Rockstar instead of filing their own suit against Company B (Apple)? I see this same comment repeated everywhere by idiots - that Rockstar isolates Apple and MS by protecting them from counter suits. This is an outright lie made by people to try and imply Apple/MS are acting as patent trolls through a proxy. The only trolls are the idiots who keep stating this.

Why don't you explain a simpler method that 5 companies could collectively buy thousands of patents and manage them? Rockstar exists because having a single company own and manage the patents is by far the simplest method.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #133 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

How stupid can you be? Where is it written anywhere that if Company A (Rockstar) sues Google that Google is only allowed to countersue Rockstar instead of filing their own suit against Company B (Apple)? I see this same comment repeated everywhere by idiots - that Rockstar isolates Apple and MS by protecting them from counter suits. This is an outright lie made by people to try and imply Apple/MS are acting as patent trolls through a proxy. The only trolls are the idiots who keep stating this.

Why don't you explain a simpler method that 5 companies could collectively buy thousands of patents and manage them? Rockstar exists because having a single company own and manage the patents is by far the simplest method.

Eric, Apple/Microsoft and the others already had a group they formed to manage the patents, Rockstar Bidco. So why would Bidco transfer ownership to a new independent entity supposedly no longer answering to that group of companies? I see a few clear reasons for it, and you can too. You're trying to go end around to avoid acknowledging them.

1. Avoid any potential breaking of previous commitments or promises made by Rockstar Bidco or perhaps even limitations from the Nortel bankruptcy court.
2, Ability to deny they have any say in how the patents are used or who is sued, since none of the group technically own those 4000 anymore. That's right, none of the original bidders own any of the 4000 patents. They belong to Rockstar Consortium now. The original group of bidders are only licensees.
3. Keep the government from stepping in with potential antitrust concerns if it were Apple or Microsoft bringing a fresh round of patent suits, especially using that purchased Nortel IP. They already called the CEO of Rockstar in for a discussion.
4. If Google or HTC or ASUS respond, and particularly Google, with lawsuits targeting Apple or Microsoft the government agencies and courts may view that as a worrisome escalation and perhaps respond with antitrust concerns directed at them since they can't claim it's a defensive response to new Apple or MS litigation. It's an immune-to-IP-counter-claims Rockstar suing and they aren't controlled by Apple or MS, right? A sagacious move really and yes isolating the original bidders from counter-suits since Google, et-al would not be countering anything filed by Apple, et al.

Smart and well-planned from a competitive angle and certainly shrewd on the business side. Sounds more Microsofty to me though. Apple has normally stayed above these types of business schemes while MS has a history of working thru NPE's.
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/4/13 at 5:11am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #134 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Eric, Apple/Microsoft and the others already had a group they formed to manage the patents, Rockstar Bidco. So why transfer ownership to a new entity supposedly no longer answering to that group of companies and calling it Rockstar Consortium? I see a few clear reasons for it, and you can too. You're trying to go end around to avoid acknowledging them.

1. Avoid breaking previous commitments or promises made by Rockstar Bidco.
2, Abiltiy to deny they have any say in how the patents are used or who is sued, since none of the group technically own those 4000 anymore. That's right, none of the original bidders own any of the 4000 patents. They belong to Rockstar Consortium now. The original group are only licensees.
3. Keep the government from stepping in with antitrust concerns if it were Apple or Microsoft bringing a fresh round of patent suits.
4. If Google or HTC or ASUS respond with lawsuits targeting Apple or Microsoft the government agencies and courts will view that as a worrisome escalation and perhaps respond with antitriust concerns directed at them since they can't claim it's in response to new Apple or MS litigation. It's an immune-to-IP-counter-claims Rockstar suing and they aren't controlled by Apple or MS, right?

The way I read it, Rockstar Bidco was the group that was form to bid on the 6000 Nortel patents. After they won, certain patents were distributed among themselves based on what they contributed and wanted. But I don't think Rockstar Bidco was never going to manage the left over patents. They turned them over, about 4000 of them, to a newly formed group, Rockstar Consortium, to manage. This was always the plan and the government knew this when they approved the bid. Rockstar Bidco is now no longer around. I think all the original members of Rockstar Bidco owns equal shares of the left over 4000 patents and therefore no one member is majority share holder of them.  Which was why they had plans to transfer them to the newly formed group, Rockstar Consortium, in the first place. Since all of them own equal share of the 4000 left over patents, no one company wanted to be responsible for licensing them out or the enforcement of them. But I'm sure they are all still equally benefitting from any money made from them. And it's why Rockstar Consortium doesn't have to answer to any one member. As far as Rockstar in concern, Apple carries no more weight than Sony or EMC.  It's like if 5 people got together to buy a 100 unit apartment complex and each of them chose an apartment to live in rent free, but none of them wants to play landlord. So they hire a property management company to rent out, maintain, answer complaints and collect the rent on all the units. And after all the bills are paid, they split the remaining profit equally among themselves.

 

Sounds like what Google should have done to manage the patents they got from Motorola. This way, your claim that Motorola is acting on its own and that Google has nothing to do with any of the lawsuits that Motorola is filing has a little more weight than just hot air.   

 

One of the promises the original group, Rockstar Bidco, made was that the patents will be licensed out in a fair manner. So far, you haven't proven that Rockstar Consortium is not keeping this promise. Just because your precious Google is named in a patent infringement suit doesn't mean that there were any promises broken. It doesn't matter if Apple or MS had anything weight in bringing on the suit. If the original license offer was fair, then it's Google own fault for being sued by not accepting the fair license offer. And unsurprisingly, the way it sounds, Google doesn't want to pay for any license at all. Fair or not. If Google thinks the patents are invalid, they can now try to invalidate the claims in court. Just like what they did in the  Oracle suit. Or like what MS did with some of Motorola / Google patents. Either way, it's going to be popcorn time for most of the people on this forum.

 

The only patents I'm not sure of, that are part of that promise, are those that each of the members kept for themselves. If they're are not SEP to begin with, then I'm not sure if they have to license them out at all. Or at the least, made available to new licensees.  


Edited by DavidW - 11/4/13 at 5:46am
post #135 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

The way I read it, Rockstar Bidco was the group that was form to bid on the 6000 Nortel patents. After they won, certain patents were distributed among themselves based on what they contributed and wanted. They turned them over, about 4000 of them, to a newly formed group, Rockstar Consortium, to manage. This was always the plan and the government knew this when they approved the bid. 

Where did you read that?

Your're right tho that no promises are broken as Rockstar Consortium made no promises nor agreements with the government in the first place. That would have been Bidco.
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/4/13 at 6:04am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #136 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


Sounds like what Google should have done to manage the patents they got from Motorola. This way, your claim that Motorola is acting on its own and that Google has nothing to do with any of the lawsuits that Motorola is filing has a little more weight than just hot air.

Since Google bought them Motorola Mobility isn't filing any new IP infringement cases. 1hmm.gif Hot air? Hardly. It's a fact.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #137 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Google and Samsung declared the patents "worthless" by refusing to pay licensing fees, which is what landed them in court.

Not paying the licensing fees a patent holder demands hardly says those patents are worthless in the view of the possible infringer. Just ask Apple in their dealings with VirnetX, Motorola Mobility, Nokia, HTC and many others. They claim they're willing to pay several of the companies who claim Apple to be illegally using their IP but refuse to pay what they see as exorbitant amounts the patent holders want "which is what landed them in court".

So try again. Where did Google say the Nortel patents were worthless?
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/4/13 at 8:48am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #138 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Since Google bought them Motorola Mobility isn't filing any new IP infringement cases. 1hmm.gif Hot air? Hardly. It's a fact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9488453/Google-uses-Motorola-Mobility-patents-in-new-Apple-lawsuit.html

post #139 of 152

"Google terminates Apple patent suit" Yup, that one.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/143a676c-0cde-11e2-b175-00144feabdc0.html

There are NO new patent infringement cases from MM since Google purchased them. I realize it's inconvenient to your argument and I expect you'll look for any angle to disprove it but Google has never been aggressive in asserting IP claims and that now appears to extend to the newly purchased Motorola Mobility. Old lawsuits from years past? Let 'em play out. Ramp up the attacks with fresh new infringement claims? It's not in Google's DNA, tho perhaps they can eventually be pushed hard enough to respond in kind.
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/4/13 at 9:32am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #140 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Where did you read that?

Your're right tho that no promises are broken as Rockstar Consortium made no promises nor agreements with the government in the first place. That would have been Bidco.

Because Rockstar Bidco originally consisted only of EMC, BB, Sony and MS. When they teamed up with Apple in the bidding war and won, I imagine they changed their name to Rockstar Consortium to include Apple in the group. So really, the only difference between Rockstar Bidco and Rockstar Consortium is the inclusion of Apple as member.  So I would think that any promise made by Rockstar Bidco and Apple to the government to fairly license the patents when they were bidding on them will most likely be honored by the consortium they formed.

 

What you're getting hanged up on is the statement by some one at  Rockstar Consortium stating that they don't have to honor any promises made by Apple or MS. No where does this mean that they won't honor the promises Rockstar Bidco made to the government, that they will fairly license out the patents, when they were bidding on them. I think the not having to honor any promises made by MS or Apple statement has more to do with the fact the neither MS or Apple has any more weight in the newly formed consortium than EMC, BB or Sony. Therefore, the consortium will do what's best for all of them, rather than to honor some promise that MS or Apple might have made with some other entity, that wants to license some of the patents, just because of how much power they have in the industry when compared to the other members. Specially if the promises will end up mainly benefitting MS or Apple. 

post #141 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


"Google terminates Apple patent suit" Yup, that one.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/143a676c-0cde-11e2-b175-00144feabdc0.html

There are NO new patent infringement cases from MM since Google purchased them. I realize it's inconvenient to your argument and I expect you'll look for any angle to disprove it but Google has never been aggressive in asserting IP claims and that now appears to extend to the newly purchased Motorola Mobility. Old lawsuits from years past? Let 'em play out. Ramp up the attacks with fresh new infringement claims? It's not in Google's DNA, tho perhaps they can eventually be pushed hard enough to respond in kind.

Just because they later terminated the suit doesn't prove it's not in their DNA. If it's not in their DNA to assert IP claims, they wouldn't have went after Apple with it, after they acquired MM patent portfolio, in the first place. This wasn't a suit started by MM. It was a Google suit. Just because they later terminated the suit doesn't prove it's not in their DNA. They most likely saw another losing case using their weak MM patent portfolio and thought better of it. 

post #142 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

... etc

Cool story but Apple was part of Rockstar Bidco when they won the patent auction in July of 2011, more than 2 years ago. Rockstar Consortium wasn't formed until mid-2012 and only included 5 of the original 6 as investors (Sony is probably out now too based on court filings and making it a group of 4 majors with perhaps some minor individual investors as well). Further Apple "purchased" 1024 of those Nortel patents before the remaining ones had ownership given to the Consortium. Kinda changes the explanation for the rest of your post doesn't it?
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/5/13 at 3:12am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #143 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

Just because they later terminated the suit doesn't prove it's not in their DNA. They most likely saw another losing case using their weak MM patent portfolio and thought better of it. 

Yeah that's probably it. 16 years of never filing a single patent infringement suit doesn't indicate a long history of avoiding it. 1rolleyes.gif
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/4/13 at 11:13am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #144 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yeah that's probably it. 16 years of never filing a single IP suit doesn't indicate a thing. 1rolleyes.gif

That would be consistent with the aphorism "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

Google has a substantial history of stomping on the intellectual property rights of others. (e.g., slurping news sites, scanning millions of books, hosting music collections in the cloud... all without approval of the copyright owners; assisting hardware makers with infringing on Apple's iPhone patents; hiring the Sun Microsystem employees who created the JVM to clone it; etc.)

 

Google's acquisition of MM for $12.5B--and its failed offer of $4.4B for the Nortel patents--would seem to be amateurish, late-to-the-game attempts to defend itself. Google management seems to be lacking in maturity and likely feels the past rewards for behaving so can and will only continue.


Edited by Cpsro - 11/4/13 at 11:44am
post #145 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

That would be consistent with the aphorism "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
Google has a substantial history of stomping on the intellectual property rights of others. (e.g., slurping news sites, scanning millions of books, hosting music collections in the cloud... all without approval of the copyright owners; assisting hardware makers with infringing on Apple's iPhone patents; hiring the Sun Microsystem employees who created the JVM to clone it; etc.)

Some might say Apple has a substantial history of stomping on the IP rights of others based on history alone. After all they're the most sued company on the planet for patent infringement aren't they? Of course the fact they're accused doesn't make it true they're serial offenders anymore than it does in Google's case. They're both just great big well-heeled targets who happen to be the best in the world at what they do IMO and attract stones thrown at both of them. Neither loses very often either which might speak to how valid those claims of wrong-doing really are.
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/4/13 at 12:28pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #146 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Some might say Apple has a substantial history of stomping on the IP rights of others based on history alone. After all they're the most sued company on the planet for patent infringement aren't they? Of course the fact they're accused doesn't make it true they're serial offenders anymore than it does in Google's case. They're both just great big well-heeled targets who happen to be the best in the world at what they do IMO and attract stones thrown at both of them. Neither loses very often either which might speak to how valid those claims of wrong-doing really are.

Apple being sued is consistent with it being very large and very profitable, and often represents defensive, public image maneuvers by the likes of Samsung the Immitator. Trolls go where the money is, not necessarily where real infringement exists. (That's why you're here, too!)

 

Your buddy Google has likely avoided infringement suits over Android, because it wasn't a hardware manufacturer until it acquired Motorola Mobility. Sadly for your buddy, Rockstar is now moving to capitalize on the new distinction.

 

Before Apple hosted music in the cloud, it obtained the permissions. Perhaps some music entities feel they got left out or slighted by Apple's deals with the major labels, but at least Apple made a major effort to sign them all up. And what did Google do?

post #147 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post


Before Apple hosted music in the cloud, it obtained the permissions. Perhaps some music entities feel they got left out or slighted by Apple's deals with the major labels, but at least Apple made a major effort to sign them all up. And what did Google do?

The same thing. They made major efforts to sign up the providers and hosted them on Google Music and Google All-Access only after reaching licensing agreements with them. What did you think they did?
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/4/13 at 1:54pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #148 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Cool story but Apple was part of Rockstar Bidco when they won the patent auction in July of 2011, more than 2 years ago. Rockstar Consortium wasn't formed until mid-2102 and only included 5 of the original 6 as investors (Sony is probably out now too based on court filings and making it a group of 4 majors with perhaps some minor individual investors as well). Further Apple "purchased" 1024 of those Nortel patents before the remaining ones had ownership given to the Consortium. Kinda changes the explanation for the rest of your post doesn't it?

 

I wish Apple would buy out all of the Rockstar partners and become the sole owner of that IP. That would be massive.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #149 of 152
Any word on if Sony is being targeted by this patent troll as well? They do make Android products after all.
post #150 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The same thing. They made major efforts to sign up the providers and hosted them on Google Music and Google All-Access only after reaching licensing agreements with them. What did you think they did?

What I know they did was launch Google Music without licensing deals. That's not the same as Apple.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20061280-261.html

post #151 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post
 

What I know they did was launch Google Music without licensing deals. That's not the same as Apple.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20061280-261.html

 

Are you suggesting that there was something wrong with launching without licensing deals? From that article:

Quote:
 Amazon and Google appeared to have built their services to carefully avoid violating any copyrights. They didn't make any additional copies of songs. Users upload songs to both services and those same copies are what the users hear when they access their libraries. If Amazon or Google, say, scanned the hard drives of its subscribers to ensure that they owned the music and then streamed back to them a company-created copy--a process known as "scan and match," Amazon and Google would have needed a license.
post #152 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

What I know they did was launch Google Music without licensing deals. That's not the same as Apple.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20061280-261.html

Hmm. . .
Users could upload and listen to only their own music until Google reached licensing deals with the appropriate labels, which they did. I believe you can still do the same with iTunes too even today, with uploads of your own content in the event iTunes Match doesn't have a licensed version. For a minute there I thought you were trying to claim Google was illegally offering unlicensed music thru Google Music or All-Access, which of course they have never done anymore than Apple has.
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/4/13 at 6:00pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple-backed patent consortium sues Google, major Android manufacturers