or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Appeals court upholds ITC ruling that Apple did not infringe Motorola data patent [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Appeals court upholds ITC ruling that Apple did not infringe Motorola data patent [u] - Page 2

post #41 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You must have missed the past half dozen times I've answered similar queries here. Nope, no connection to Google at all. Not even a share of stock. Now a question for you. What anti-Apple comments from me can you point to? On the contrary I have a lot of respect and interest in Apple.

 

I agree that you don't post anti-Apple comments, but I think that at times, given the perceived tensions between Google and Apple and the widespread dislike of Google among many of the regular posters (which I admit I am starting to share in respect of their intrusive software), defending Google is easily conflated with attacking Apple. You are the most regular defender of Google on the forum, excluding the obvious Android trolls, and you are rarely, if ever, a Google critic.

post #42 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post


May be you can ask him if he uses any Apple products. 
You're not gonna suck me into that well known troll tactic. Nice try tho LOL
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #43 of 83
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
You're not gonna suck me into that well known troll tactic. Nice try tho LOL


This is the reverse, though, isn’t it? When proffered, it invalidates, but when requested… :lol:

post #44 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
You're not gonna suck me into that well known troll tactic. Nice try tho LOL


This is the reverse, though, isn’t it? When proffered, it invalidates, but when requested… :lol:

 

That would be entrapment...

post #45 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

you are rarely, if ever, a Google critic.
I'm sure we would both agree there's no lack of Google bashing here so I don't know how I could improve on everyone else's hard and well-researched work.

With that said there are times I've criticized them too. Googles hard-to-believe-it-was-accidental Safari cookie adventure, the disappointing ITC patent complaints Moto filed on Apple after the Google purchase (that was properly dropped within weeks) and the "sure-it-was-inadvertant" WiFi skimming with Street view come to mind as examples.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #46 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

you are rarely, if ever, a Google critic.
I'm sure we would both agree there's no lack of Google bashing here so I don't know how I could improve on everyone else's hard and well-researched work.

With that said there are times I've criticized them too. Googles hard-to-believe-it-was-accidental Safari cookie adventure, the disappointing ITC patent complaints Moto filed on Apple after the Google purchase (that was properly dropped within weeks) and the "sure-it-was-inadvertant" WiFi skimming with Street view come to mind as examples.

 

I've always assumed that the rampant Google bashing was what led you to try to balance things in the other direction, and your examples are valid, but it doesn't change the overall impression that you are much more a supporter than a critic. I'm sure that's all that drives the accusations by posters who genuinely feel that Google is actually rather evil. It's an inevitability given the territory.

post #47 of 83
Here's to the crazy ones, the outliers of society who make a personal choice to avoid using Google as much as possible.

Something a lot of people have trouble accepting.
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 #48 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You're not gonna suck me into that well known troll tactic. Nice try tho LOL

Ok, now how long have you been using Apple products? 1smile.gif
post #49 of 83
I think the $12 billion cost of purchasing Motorola was to protect Android from Motorola. So may be it was necessary (extortion).
post #50 of 83
Originally Posted by youclay View Post
I think the $12 billion cost of purchasing Motorola was to protect Android from Motorola.

 

Who used Android before the purchase…

post #51 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm sure we would both agree there's no lack of Google bashing here so I don't know how I could improve on everyone else's hard and well-researched work.

One of these days, you'll probably get pushed sufficiently enough into the corner and....

 

That said, you still have not responded to my bewilderment at your massive swipe at Apple about '....courtooms they did not like....'.

 

Care to elaborate, or are you being coy? Or perhaps just avoiding the question?

post #52 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


 Even Apple who has never passed a courtroom they didn't like has sued on only a very tiny number of the thousands they control. Does that make all the others worthless?

 

You say that, but both Nokia and Motorola sued Apple first. The only real fight Apple picked was with Samsung and HTC. 

post #53 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by youclay View Post

I think the $12 billion cost of purchasing Motorola was to protect Android from Motorola. So may be it was necessary (extortion).

Yes, if Motorola started the Android vendor suing other Android vendors, that would have been a real problem for Google. 

post #54 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Fallout from the NSA's spy campaign reveal will be handicapping a lot of US companies in overseas business deals. Cisco and Google won't be the only ones. I suspect there may be quite of lot of economic harm due to what the NSA has been doing.
....

Your right, look what happened to JSF in Brazil they bought Saab Gripen instead and as a bonus ordered Ariane Space to launch a communication satellite also build in Europe instead of a US equivalent...
post #55 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Who used Android before the purchase…

HTC, SonyEricsson, Samsung and others, Motorola used the threat of suing in the biggest sucker play in history, TWELVE POINT FIVE BILLION DOLLARS,
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 #56 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by youclay View Post

I think the $12 billion cost of purchasing Motorola was to protect Android from Motorola. So may be it was necessary (extortion).
Hmm...I do recall stories about Motorola threatening to sue other Android manufacturers for IP infringement and that that was one of the reasons Google bought Moto. I also remember it being said that the threat was sufficiently strong enough to drive up the purchase price.
We'll never know short of some autobiography disclosures when those NDAs expire.1smoking.gif
post #57 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You must have missed the past half dozen times I've answered similar queries here. Nope, no connection to Google at all. Not even a share of stock. Now a question for you. What anti-Apple comments from me can you point to?

On the contrary I have a lot of respect for and interest in Apple. Perhaps you're mistaking my not joining in on "fun with FUD" as dissing Apple's success. Unlike a few I don't think its necessary to make stuff up in the mistaken belief it makes Apple look better. Those that do so are selling them short IMO.

Perhaps 'anti-Apple' would be too simplistic of a term, sorry i used that. A better explanation of my original intent wold be to say, it is the 100% track record (or very close thereto), of very articulately, waving the pro Google banner at any ringside fight Apple and Google are involved in. I am happy to take you at your word regarding the zero connection to Google, sorry i missed any previous replies you have made on that subject. I would add Google would be extremely wise to contact you regarding a position in their PR department, that said so should Apple, and turn you ... 1wink.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #58 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

One of these days, you'll probably get pushed sufficiently enough into the corner and....

That said, you still have not responded to my bewilderment at your massive swipe at Apple about '....courtooms they did not like....'.

Care to elaborate, or are you being coy? Or perhaps just avoiding the question?

Gatorguy threw out a bate comment just to see who would bite. From there he could dodge questions very easily. He and Constable Odo have had much practice with hitting nerves. Let this one as, "Oh, it is Gatorguy trolling again." As for Odo, you can 100% be assured any comment he makes will include a ding at Tim Cook.

On another note, it looks like AI has made changes to the Web site that have decreased Safari crashes. Congratulations!
post #59 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

One of these days, you'll probably get pushed sufficiently enough into the corner and....

That said, you still have not responded to my bewilderment at your massive swipe at Apple about '....courtooms they did not like....'.

Care to elaborate, or are you being coy? Or perhaps just avoiding the question?

Gatorguy threw out a bate comment just to see who would bite. From there he could dodge questions very easily. He and Constable Odo have had much practice with hitting nerves. Let this one as, "Oh, it is Gatorguy trolling again." As for Odo, you can 100% be assured any comment he makes will include a ding at Tim Cook.

On another note, it looks like AI has made changes to the Web site that have decreased Safari crashes. Congratulations!

 

I'm pretty certain that Odo is a Poe.

post #60 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

Gatorguy threw out a bate comment just to see who would bite. From there he could dodge questions very easily. He and Constable Odo have had much practice with hitting nerves. Let this one as, "Oh, it is Gatorguy trolling again." As for Odo, you can 100% be assured any comment he makes will include a ding at Tim Cook.

On another note, it looks like AI has made changes to the Web site that have decreased Safari crashes. Congratulations!

We all know Googleguy will defend Google. I don't have a problem with that. Odo, otoh, is worth blocking.
post #61 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

One of these days, you'll probably get pushed sufficiently enough into the corner and....

That said, you still have not responded to my bewilderment at your massive swipe at Apple about '....courtooms they did not like....'.

Care to elaborate, or are you being coy? Or perhaps just avoiding the question?

I'm frankly surprised you weren't aware of Apple's aggressive enforcement of potential IP infringement (trademark, copyright, patent etc) which they themselves freely admit. Instead I personally think you're either choosing to ignore much of Apple's courtroom history or considering any mention of it an attack on Apple's good name. Maybe both.

IMHO it's hardly a "massive swipe" at Apple . I actually intended it a a light-hearted reference to Apple and the courtroom. They're fully within their rights to question every possible instance of another company or individual straying too close to something Apple is claiming ownership of. If that questioning means Apple chooses a legal filing so be it. But to make believe Apple is shy about resorting to the courtroom as a matter of business policy you'd have to ignore:

-Two different Federal judges in two different and recent cases, Judge Robert Scola and Judge Barbara Crabb, commenting on Apple's use of their courtroom as a negotiation tactic rather than settlement.

-Fully 70% or more of the citations noted in the "smartphone wars history" involve Apple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_patent_wars

-Around 400 Apple legal actions with the USPTO just between 2010 and 2013, most involving perceived threats to Apple trademarks.
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pnam=Apple%20Inc.%20%20&page=16

Controversial actions against Think Secret, various "John Does", Amazon App Store, Odioworks and the SanFrancisco Canyon Company have all been undertaken by Apple in the past few years.

So yeah, I think the evidence of how important Apple views the courtroom as a venue for helping ensure the success of their business is pretty clear. But that doesn't in any way say it's wrong either. It just is. Now if you personally consider the courts to be a last resort and legal actions as something to be studiously avoided then you might consider my mention of Apple and the courtroom as a "massive swipe" I suppose. Pretty sure Apple doesn't see it that way.

My original comment that you took umbrage with concerned the very small number of patents that Apple has chosen to use in the numerous infringement actions they've undertaken to date. Deeming the ones they haven't litigated as just as worthless as the ones that Google hasn't litigated sounds pretty darn silly doesn't it? Yet several posters seem to feel if Google ain't suing with'em they must be no good. Agree or disagree?
Edited by Gatorguy - 1/11/14 at 11:51am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #62 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

One of these days, you'll probably get pushed sufficiently enough into the corner and....

That said, you still have not responded to my bewilderment at your massive swipe at Apple about '....courtooms they did not like....'.

Care to elaborate, or are you being coy? Or perhaps just avoiding the question?

I'm frankly surprised you weren't aware of Apple's aggressive enforcement of potential IP infringement (trademark, copyright, patent etc) which they themselves freely admit. Instead I personally think you're either choosing to ignore much of Apple's courtroom history or considering any mention of it an attack on Apple's good name. Maybe both.

IMHO it's hardly a "massive swipe" at Apple . I actually intended it a a light-hearted reference to Apple and the courtroom. They're fully within their rights to question every possible instance of another company or individual straying too close to something Apple is claiming ownership of. If that questioning means Apple chooses a legal filing so be it. But to make believe Apple is shy about resorting to the courtroom as a matter of business policy you'd have to ignore:

-Two different Federal judges in two different and recent cases, Judge Robert Scola and Judge Barbara Crabb, commenting on Apple's use of their courtroom as a negotiation tactic rather than settlement.

-Fully 70% or more of the citations noted in the "smartphone wars history" involve Apple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_patent_wars

-Around 400 Apple legal actions with the USPTO just between 2010 and 2013, most involving perceived threats to Apple trademarks.
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pnam=Apple%20Inc.%20%20&page=16

Controversial actions against Think Secret, various "John Does", Amazon App Store, Odioworks and the SanFrancisco Canyon Company have all been undertaken by Apple in the past few years.

So yeah, I think the evidence of how important Apple views the courtroom as a venue for helping ensure the success of their business is pretty clear. But that doesn't in any way say it's wrong either. It just is. Now if you personally consider the courts to be a last resort and legal actions as something to be studiously avoided then you might consider my mention of Apple and the courtroom as a "massive swipe" I suppose. Pretty sure Apple doesn't see it that way.

My original comment that you took umbrage with concerned the very small number of patents that Apple has chosen to use in the numerous infringement actions they've undertaken to date. Deeming the ones they haven't litigated as just as worthless as the ones that Google hasn't litigated sounds pretty darn silly doesn't it? Yet several posters seem to feel if you aren't suing with'em they must be no good. Agree or disagree?

Typical of the biased nonsense you often post, using a cloak of 'See, I am so transparent, look at all the links and cites! Whee!...'

Why don't you do a similar analysis for Google, Amazon, Samsung, and Microsoft in their respective domain of expertise and tell us whether Apple's affection for lawsuits and courtrooms is better, the same or worse? Can you refute the assertion that Apple might be less prone to this sort of behavior than any of the others?

Add: Your last para (and the question there) makes no sense to me at all.
post #63 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Typical of the biased nonsense you often post, using a cloak of 'See, I am so transparent, look at all the links and cites! Whee!...'

Why don't you do a similar analysis for Google

As you asked:

One Federal Judge (Scola) was of the opinion that neither Apple nor Motorola Mobility were really interested in settling their lawsuit but instead using it as part of a business negotiation.

Legal citations in the "smartphone wars" mentioning Google including those involving Motorola Mobility since Apple's takeover? Less than 6%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_patent_wars

Number of controversial IP lawsuits filed by Google in their company history? None that I know of

Number of new active lawsuits from Motorola Mobility since the Google takeover? None that I know of

Number of patent lawsuits filed by Google in their company history? One (British Telecom) that I know of

Number of Google legal actions with the USPTO in the same 2010-2013 timeframe, most involving perceived threats to Google trademarks? 1/4 as many, about 100.
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?procstatus=All&pn=Google&qt=adv&page=4

Figured I'd tackle the shortest list first. Pretty sure I'll discover Microsoft actions are at least as numerous as Apple's, maybe more. Better yet rather than depending on me to do your research for you look into it for yourself. 1hmm.gif What better to trust than your own eyes and research skills.

Based on your reply you appear to consider taking legal action against other companies to be something to be looked down on but yet a necessary evil and all the big techs are just as evil as another? That's really the only thing I'm getting from you.
Edited by Gatorguy - 1/11/14 at 10:27am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #64 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


blah blah blah

 

Apple don't promote themselves as being against patents and the protection of IP.

 

Google does with lobbying and whining to the media every chance they get.

 

It's Google's hypocrisy that is the issue.

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 #65 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apple don't promote themselves as being against patents and the protection of IP.

Google does with lobbying and whining to the media every chance they get.

It's Google's hypocrisy that is the issue.

So you believe patent privateering and NPE's in general something to be encouraged? That's what I've seen Google most vocally lobbying against on the patent front. Perhaps you've heard something different? Feel free to educate me.

So is there a newsletter that goes out each month with anti-Google talking points so a few blogs can all get on the same page? I've no issue at all with supported validated complaints. I even share them on occasion. I don't see any big corporation as a shining star and beacon of truth for the world, whether Google or anyone else (See my earlier post of issues with Google).

With that said some of the accusations have near-zero factual basis, or at least the poster doesn't feel they need to be bothered to offer something resembling evidence for their claim. Perhaps the idea is that by repeating disinformation often enough it becomes an accepted fact? It's too easy to repeat something you heard who knows where. It's a little harder to take a look for yourself.

If you're really interested in learning, sharing knowledge, and factual information I would think you'd encourage questioning posts rather than pushing group-think. I'm aware of a couple of educators here who if they consider that comment will probably agree with me whether they voice it or not.
Edited by Gatorguy - 1/11/14 at 11:38am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
Blather

OK, here’s some actual evidence, comparing Microsoft, Google, and Apple, as of end-2011: http://izbicki.me/blog/measuring-corporate-evilness-by-scraping-litigation-results-from-google-scholar

 

First, note that the methodology is quite careful, not some random stuff pulled out of his wherever, like yours is: the author “…wrote a perl script called the litig-o-meter that searches google scholar for lawsuits involving specific companies. It graphs how many cases the companies have been involved in every year; whether those cases were at the circuit, appellate, or supreme court level; and whether the company was the plaintiff or the defendant. Essentially, it does a search for “allintitle: [company name]” of federal court cases and interprets the results.”

 

Second he’s very careful with his disclaimers and limitations, but also notes why it is unlikely to pose an issue here.

 

His main conclusion? (Brace yourself.) “Apple is even more startling. Whereas both Google and Microsoft average around 40 major lawsuits a year, Apple has only 4! This is despite the fact that Apple is a larger company than both Google and Microsoft by total assets, market capitalization, net income, and many other measures. In fact, out of the 20 companies that I analyzed, Apple had by far the fewest lawsuits of all of them. So, despite lots of press about Apple’s recent lawsuits, they’re actually historically a very non-litigious company. So, props Apple!  We need more companies like you.”

 

Sure, you’ll respond by saying it does not cover 2012 and 2013. But it’s incumbent upon you to show us (with equivalently careful analysis) that things somehow did a 180-degree with Apple after 2011.

 

If you’re unable to provide equivalent counter-evidence, I truly hope you’ll stop with your persistent, annoying-- and frequently wrong -- anti-Apple, pro-Google crap.


Edited by anantksundaram - 1/11/14 at 12:30pm
post #67 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
Feel free to educate me.

See above.

post #68 of 83
(Ugh. Double-post).

Edited by anantksundaram - 1/11/14 at 12:32pm
post #69 of 83
"Boy, have we patented it." S Jobs

"If we don't copy it, boy are we screwed" Google.

...and it came to pass that they did, using bullshit "open" marketing spin to justify their wholesale theft of Apple, Oracle and Microsoft's IP.
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 #70 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

OK, here’s some actual evidence, comparing Microsoft, Google, and Apple, as of end-2011: http://izbicki.me/blog/measuring-corporate-evilness-by-scraping-litigation-results-from-google-scholar

First, note that the methodology is quite careful, not some random stuff pulled out of his wherever, like yours is: the author “…wrote a perl script called the litig-o-meter that searches google scholar for lawsuits involving specific companies. It graphs how many cases the companies have been involved in every year; whether those cases were at the circuit, appellate, or supreme court level; and whether the company was the plaintiff or the defendant. Essentially, it does a search for “allintitle: [company name]” of federal court cases and interprets the results.”
 
Second he’s very careful with his disclaimers and limitations, but also notes why it is unlikely to pose an issue here.
 
His main conclusion? (Brace yourself.) “Apple is even more startling. Whereas both Google and Microsoft average around 40 major lawsuits a year, Apple has only 4! This is despite the fact that Apple is a larger company than both Google and Microsoft by total assets, market capitalization, net income, and many other measures. In fact, out of the 20 companies that I analyzed, Apple had by far the fewest lawsuits of all of them. So, despite lots of press about Apple’s recent lawsuits, they’re actually historically a very non-litigious company. So, props Apple!  We need more companies like you.”
 
Sure, you’ll respond by saying it does not cover 2012 and 2013. But it’s incumbent upon you to show us (with equivalently careful analysis) that things somehow did a 180-degree with Apple after 2011.
 
If you’re unable to provide equivalent counter-evidence, I truly hope you’ll stop with your persistent, annoying-- and frequently wrong -- anti-Apple, pro-Google crap.

Well I suppose once you can blind yourself enough to get past the author's basing his conclusion on the premise that Apple was the plaintiff in only two lawsuits over 11 years 1bugeye.gif the rest of it should go down much smoother. IMO spit instead of swallow would be a good policy with that particular piece.

FWIW if I use the same 2000-2011 timeframe the author did and searching for Apple involvement in case law via Google Scholar just as he claimed to have done I come up with far more than 4 instances. Here ya go, try it for yourself. Careful methodology my #**
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=apple&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&as_ylo=2000&as_yhi=2011
Edited by Gatorguy - 1/11/14 at 2:50pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #71 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post


May be you can ask him if he uses any Apple products. 

To be specific, any Apple products without the Samsung product label on the case...?
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #72 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Well I suppose once you can blind yourself enough to get past the author's basing his conclusion on the premise that Apple was the plaintiff in only two lawsuits over 11 years 1bugeye.gif the rest of it should go down much smoother. IMO spit instead of swallow would be a good policy with that particular piece.

FWIW if I use the same 2000-2011 timeframe the author did and searching for Apple involvement in case law via Google Scholar just as he claimed to have done I come up with far more than 4 instances. Here ya go, try it for yourself. Careful methodology my #**
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=apple&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&as_ylo=2000&as_yhi=2011

C’mon, you’re surely better than that, Gatorguy. What about the phrase ‘per year’ in the 40 v. 4 did you not understand? Yikes.

 

His methodology is quite simple and explicit: he focuses on published judicial opinions. There were two involving Apple as plaintiff. Yours is a laundry list of any and all. (Incidentally, can you show us a similar google.scholar list for Google, MSFT, AMZN?)

 

Note that this guy’s hardly partial to Apple: he’s a Linux/Android user (again, read).

 

Finally, if you’re telling me that that a 10:1 ratio for Google v. Apple – as long as it’s a carefully measured, consistent metric that’s being used as opposed to your random, pulled-out-of-some-orifice, seemingly agenda-driven ‘methodology’ – does not tell us something about a company’s proclivity for litigiousness, ‘my ass’ is a right sentiment indeed.

 

Add: One more thing. Considering Google wasn't even a public company until late-2004, a fair comparison would perhaps be in the first ~10 years of their public lives as a corporation (or at a minimum, from end-2004 and on for Apple).


Edited by anantksundaram - 1/11/14 at 3:39pm
post #73 of 83
Amant, even IF (notice the big IF) you accept the author's original assertion (note his later claification quoted for you below) that published case law is an accurate measuring stick for a companies overall level of litigiousness there's no explanation of why that should be the case Further a simple year by year search reveals many more than 4 per year. You can get to the count of four in just one page of yearly results and ignore the others.

So since you apparently must have missed the authors followup comment when just that issue was brought up I'll post it for you:

"You’re right that Apple has sued way more than two companies in the last 11 years. What I tried to show is that there’s only been 2 published judicial opinions about their lawsuits. Likewise, both Microsoft and Google have sued many more times than is listed here. I’m hoping that the number of published opinions is roughly proportional to the total number of lawsuits, and that’s what I’m basing my conclusions off of. But like I say in the disclaimer, that may be way off base."

Yet you want to proclaim that his "study" was carefully considered and his conclusions beyond question based on solid methodology.. Sure they are. 1biggrin.gif All you have to do is ignore what he himself says about the reliability of his conclusions.

It appears he never used his "litig-o-meter" again. It was a silly piece with a flawed premise when you first brought it up and several posts later it's still a silly piece with claims that rely on accepting a leap of faith.

You have to have missed the big egg in his chart for Apple showing the number of cases where they were plaintiff or defendant. It clearly shows his carefully crafted litig-o-meter 1rolleyes.gif only found two cases of Apple as the plaintiff from 2000-2011. And you fell for that? That should'a been a big ol' clue that something wasn't quite right. If it was wrong there what made you believe it was right everywhere else and led to a clear and accurate conclusion?
Edited by Gatorguy - 1/12/14 at 5:14am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #74 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Amant, even IF (notice the big IF) you accept the author's original assertion (note his later claification quoted for you below) that published case law is an accurate measuring stick for a companies overall level of litigiousness there's no explanation of why that should be the case Further a simple year by year search reveals many more than 4 per year. You can get to the count of four in just one page of yearly results and ignore the others.

So since you apparently must have missed the authors followup comment when just that issue was brought up I'll post it for you:

"You’re right that Apple has sued way more than two companies in the last 11 years. What I tried to show is that there’s only been 2 published judicial opinions about their lawsuits. Likewise, both Microsoft and Google have sued many more times than is listed here. I’m hoping that the number of published opinions is roughly proportional to the total number of lawsuits, and that’s what I’m basing my conclusions off of. But like I say in the disclaimer, that may be way off base."

Yet you want to proclaim that his "study" was carefully considered and his conclusions beyond question based on solid methodology.. Sure they are. 1biggrin.gif All you have to do is ignore what he himself says about the reliability of his conclusions.

It appears he never used his "litig-o-meter" again. It was a silly piece with a flawed premise when you first brought it up and several posts later it's still a silly piece with claims that rely on accepting a leap of faith.

You started it with your nonsensical assertion.

 

Come up with something better then to back up your assertion, before you throw around claims like Apple is some ridiculously lawsuit-hungry, 'courtroom-loving' company, when the truth could well be that it's Google that fits that bill.

 

At a minimum, go back to your own Google Scholar search, and do a count of the actual case numbers, adjusted for equivalent time periods, if nothing else. Of course, I don't expect you to.

post #75 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
....a silly piece with claims that rely on accepting a leap of faith.

That had to to be greatest laugh-getter of this whole thread, considering that every one of your assertions is spurious.

post #76 of 83
...and pigs may be flying over your house at this very moment waiting for the sun to rise in the west.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #77 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

...and pigs may be flying over your house at this very moment waiting for the sun to rise in the west.

Hmmm.. You conveniently ignored Post #74.
post #78 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Hmmm.. You conveniently ignored Post #74.
What do you think that count would prove?

Do you believe there's a direct correlation between mentions and the volume of lawsuits filed by any company? How many lawsuits do you assume for each judicial ruling counted? How does a count of judicial opinions define the importance of a courtroom to a companys business planning? If it doesn't why bother with busy work that accomplishes nothing? I don't believe you've actually thought thru whether or how one relates to the other.
Edited by Gatorguy - 1/11/14 at 6:32pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #79 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Hmmm.. You conveniently ignored Post #74.
What do you think that count would prove? Are you still of the belief that counting case law is evidence of how important filing lawsuits is to a company's business planning? Do you believe there's even a direct correlation between mentions and the volume of lawsuits filed by any company? How many lawsuits do you assume for each judicial ruling counted? If there's not one why bother with busy work that accomplishes nothing?

Stop the tripe. You're just adding to your blather at this point. Perhaps you'll think a bit more before you post the next time (although I doubt it).

I am done wasting my time with you in this thread.
post #80 of 83
Thank you. I completely agree the exchange accomplished very little.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Appeals court upholds ITC ruling that Apple did not infringe Motorola data patent [u]
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Appeals court upholds ITC ruling that Apple did not infringe Motorola data patent [u]