or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google agreed to pick up tab for some Samsung legal fees, take on liability in case of loss
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google agreed to pick up tab for some Samsung legal fees, take on liability in case of loss - Page 2

post #41 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Man, you are so full of crap my monitor stinks. How many times do we have to explain this to you before it finally sinks in?


You actually have the nerve to bring up that last discussion? Good. I'm going to quote it to show everyone just how stupid (ignorant) your obvious trolling comments were. You should be fine with that, since you brought it up, right? Just like in a court, once you open a door the prosecution will pursue it to the end.

Before I get to that, you should have read that document through. You missed a HUGE problem with it that I picked up right away. It only talks about Google Applications. Let me say that word again. Applications. They list all included Applications, but you might recognize some of them: Gmail, Google Maps, Youtube, Google Earth, even Orkut is mentioned.

Did you get that? The actual Android OS itself IS NOT indemnified in that HTC agreement you linked to. Microsoft indemnifies ALL their OS software products.

Excuse me while I dig up your pathetic history on this topic.
LOL... Tell me I didn't call it. Take a look at the "white type" at the bottom of the post.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178754/google-agreed-to-pick-up-tab-for-some-samsung-legal-fees-take-on-liability-in-case-of-loss#post_2521009

Anyway, what does paragraph 1.1 refer to? The entire agreement speaks to Google Android and the requisite Google applications running on it. In general the two are inseparable.

1rolleyes.gif
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/22/14 at 8:30pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #42 of 92

The thread can be found here if anyone wants to read it in its entirety:

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/177199/microsoft-reveals-windows-phone-8-1-with-siri-like-cortana-personal-assistant

 

Here's the posts in the order in which they appeared.

 

Me: The HUGE difference (which will be a big selling point) is MS has an indemnification policy (something Google lacks, and MS loves to make fun of).

GG: I vaguely recall something about Microsoft and indemnification but can't remember any of the details. Do you perhaps have a link to it?

GG:  Ah found it. http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Microsoft-Indemnifies-Its-OEM-Partners-Against-IP-Attacks/ "Microsofts embedded offerings are excluded, given that some OEMs are allowed to modify that code, which complicates the issue of indemnification for those products, he said." ADDED: GG is quoting David Kaefer from Microsoft.

Me: Do a Google search for "microsoft indemnity agreement". It's the first link that appears and it's a .doc file (I was going to embed the link but it's too long).

 

Note: I just checked and Googling the terms in quotes still bring it up as the first item.

 

Me: If you read MS's policy I posted about it includes "Mobility and embedded OEM/embedded distributor".

GG: As far as that indemnification part the quote I offered was from Microsoft themselves., David Kaefer, director of business development in Microsoft's Intellectual Property and Licensing group. He says that Microsoft's embedded offerings are excluded, given that some OEMs are allowed to modify that code. Maybe they've changed it in the past couple of years and cover them even if modified or skinned as an Android licensee does.

Me: First off, I told you specifically how to find MS's indemnity document which explains what is and isn't covered (and I mentioned above that mobile and embedded is covered). Yet you ignored that and still continue on with the assumption that embedded isn't covered.

 

Let me make this really clear for you. Here's an article where they talked to David Kaefer (whom you quoted) and he explains that mobile and embedded are now also covered under MS's indemnity policy. He also goes on to describe they were working on this for some time, but it took longer due to the differences between their regular products and embedded systems. BTW, this article is dated AFTER the one you provided.

 

http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3584181

 

Coles Notes: I claimed MS has an indemnification policy that Google doesn't have. GG digs up a really old article from 2004 (without bothering to read the MS policy which I clearly instructed him how to find) to imply mobile isn't covered.

 

Typical of all his posts on here - trying to sound reasonable while spreading garbage.

 

 

Now I'll go back and show the real stupidity - your false claims that Android doesn't infringe any Microsoft IP simply because you're not privy to the settlement details.

post #43 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


LOL... Tell me I didn't call it. Take a look at the "white type" at the bottom of the post.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178754/google-agreed-to-pick-up-tab-for-some-samsung-legal-fees-take-on-liability-in-case-of-loss#post_2521009

1rolleyes.gif

 

Wow, thanks for proving my point. Did you even read these agreements? The Motorola one INCLUDES the Android OS itself, the HTC one DOES NOT. Just like I called it - Google picks and chooses what to cover depending on which company they're dealing with.

 

And still Google runs away like a coward leaving their Android partners out to dry after giving away a "free" OS that stole Microsoft IP.

post #44 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Wow, thanks for proving my point. Did you even read these agreements? The Motorola one INCLUDES the Android OS itself, the HTC one DOES NOT. Just like I called it - Google picks and chooses what to cover depending on which company they're dealing with.

And still Google runs away like a coward leaving their Android partners out to dry after giving away a "free" OS that stole Microsoft IP.

...ummm
Section 1.4
http://www.benedelman.org/docs/htc-mada.pdf

So anyway, you've been avoiding an answer to a question: What is Microsoft trying to hide and didn't you identify hiding the patent(s) supposedly infringed as a sign of a troll?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #45 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post


Here's that post again. I think this new article warrants a reprint of it:

Here's my explanation of why Apple is suing Samsung rather than Google. It has to do with an element of patent law termed Indirect Infringement.

First, let's speak about direct infringement:

Google, when it markets and sells its Nexus line of phones and tablets incorporating Android, can be accused of direct infringement of Apple's patents. Direct infringement is the act of developing and selling a product that infringes another company's patent. If Google never sold a Nexus device, but merely kept Android in a lab somewhere, then there would be no evidence that Google directly infringed Apple's patents; there would truly be no harm done and so no reason for Apple to litigate against Google. But Google does sell Android devices and so could be sued by Apple over parts of Android Apple feels infringes its patents. However, the fact that Google sells relatively few Nexus devices means that the harm done by Google's direct infringement is relatively minor.

Now let's discuss indirect infringement.

If a company develops a technology, in this case Google's development of Android, and then licenses that technology to another company (doesn't matter for what licensing fee or no fee at all) and the licensing company (Samsung, for example) then incorporates that technology into its products, that company can be accused of indirect infringement. Of course, the company would have to be reasonably aware that the licensed technology infringed another company's patents. And it's the responsibility of the licensor to inform its licensees of any potential areas for infringement. But it's reasonable, given the high visibility and awareness of the presence of patents in the consumer electronics industry, that Google knew Android contained technology Apple would claim as its intellectual property and it's reasonable that Samsung would also know this, so there's little argument that could be made Samsung didn't know this. Therefore, Samsung can be accused of indirect infringement, which carries the same burden of damages as does direct infringement. And since Samsung is the company that sells the most product containing technology Apple claims as their intellectual property, it's Samsung, not Google, that represents the most damage to Apple and therefore reasonable that Apple would sue Samsung rather than Google.

Finally, Apple's action against Samsung is also a salvo against Google. When licensing technology for use in an end product, as Samsung licensed Android for use in its phones and tablets, a smart company will insist that the licensing agreement include an indemnity clause, where the licensor (Google) agrees to indemnify the licensee (Samsung) in the event the incorporated technology is found to do harm. If Samsung has such language in the license agreement with Google, then Samsung will be able to go after Google to recover damages it is forced to pay Apple. Then Google and Samsung can fight it out between them with respect to which infringing parts came from Android and which were later added by Samsung on top of Android (slide to unlock, for example, appears to be a Samsung addition). To Apple, it matters not how the subsequent battle between Samsung and Google unfolds; Apple, if successful in its lawsuit against Samsung, will have recovered damages from the entity that was proximate in causing the most damages.

Dilger and other columnists and analysts may be excused for not speaking to the indirect infringement angle as to the reason Apple is going after Samsung; I wouldn't expect these folks to be especially conversant in patent law. However, it does cast some light on Mueller that he hasn't made this point. Given that it's a point in favor of Apple behaving rationally in its actions, one must wonder why such an obvious point about patent law would fail to warrant mention.

He was ASKED to be on Apple's board a year AFTER Google bought Android...so there was no mystery there...that's fact one.

 

The iPhone was announced in January of 2007....less than 5 months after he was ASKED to be on the board.

 

Android 1.0 was released for the public on October 22nd 2008 in the form of the G1....a phone so unlike the iPhone to even compare it to iOS is an insult to iOS..it was cheap, ugly, unfinished, and pretty much as non-iOS like you can get while still using a touch based icon based OS.

 

By the time he resigned in 2009 Android had been out for a year and a half and the iPhone was known for over 2 years.

 

And everything else your spewing is full of speculation that it isn't worth mentioning.

 

And I don't give a rats ass about Samsung...I probably hate Samsung MORE than you because I am a fan of Android on my phones

 

But that Eric Schmidt super spy bullshit is just frustrating to read as it reeks of the same bullshit as "Bush is Hitler and hates black people" or "Obama is a Nazi"

 

Also you can have as many opinions as you like but a stupid uninformed opinion is always stupid especially when it is stated as an absolute fact despite a lack of evidence and in some way examples of circumstantial counter evidence.

 

In order for the Eric Schmidt super spy thing to work Apple would've had to have been the most retarded company in the world and that makes absolutely no sense because a) iPod and b) iPhone (post re-Jobian era)

 

People think they are just making Google (grrr arrrggg enemy because reasons!!!) look bad with that stupid narrative but they also make the entire Apple executive team look like a bunch of complete and utter morons. And that should be unacceptable. There are enough facts in this situation to base opinions off of without making stuff up.

 

Apple had 2 people at Google at the time...maybe they overheard plans of Google wanting to make a phone and filtered that back to Apple and Steve Jobs stole the idea from Google BEFORE Google bought Android...I mean why not...since we are making no sense!!!

 

That would be an absolutely retarded thing for anyone to say...the Schmidt super spy is almost as retarded.

post #46 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnAmazingThing View Post

He was ASKED to be on Apple's board a year AFTER Google bought Android.

I'm not sure if you're simply not familiar with the history of Android or if you're deliberately glossing over what was and was perceived as back in 2005 when Google bought this startup but you can't attribute the product Android in 2005 to the product today. The consensus then was Google wanted a way to get their advertisements onto mobile devices via SW. Sure, an OS is SW but it was perceived as being in their apps or their code added to an app. The idea that Google was buying them to make a smartphone OS in 2005 was only known to a few at Google.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #47 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

  • What is the difference between the patent, and desktop search features like Ubuntu's (combined local machine / internet search)?
  • What is the difference between the patent, and desktop search features like Windows' that search drives connected via LAN? 
  • What is the difference between the patent, and search features like that of iTunes, Spotify and other similar content-distribution systems, where local files (installed / downloaded media) are searched together with remote files (stuff in a store / streamable media)?
  • Does a claim like 'The method of claim 14 wherein said other heuristic locates Internet web pages' cover 'submit the input to Google and rank items by search result position'? If so, why is this patentable (particularly given that Apple do not provide the backend search mechanism)? If not, what's the difference?

Thanks in advance.

edit: Two more:
  • Why does the 'background sync' patent not cover all modern browsers, mail clients, etc. etc? 
  • If you remove the 'one of these is a handheld device' from the background sync patent, does the patent still have any merit? If so, where? If not, why does adding 'on a mobile' make it patentable?

Apple was working on this before Ubuntu even existed.
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 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I'm not sure if you're simply not familiar with the history of Android or if you're deliberately glossing over what was and was perceived as back in 2005 when Google bought this startup but you can't attribute the product Android in 2005 to the product today. The consensus then was Google wanted a way to get their advertisements onto mobile devices via SW. Sure, an OS is SW but it was perceived as being in their apps or their code added to an app. The idea that Google was buying them to make a smartphone OS in 2005 was only known to a few at Google.

It was still in the news at the time...I typed "Google buys Android" into Google and the first result is a business week article from August 16th, 2005...

 

Schmidt was asked to join Apple's board August 28, 2006. 

 

iPhone was announced January 9, 2007

 

134 days between Schmidt joining the board and iPhone being revealed to THE WORLD or roughly 3.5 months.

 

iPhone was announced January 9, 2007 the G1 was revealed October 22nd, 2008

 

652 days between both...or 1.78 years (I accounted for the leap year).

 

The point is the narrative of the super spy doesn't make sense with regards to the timelines involved ESPECIALLY considering the finished product.

 

I don't know why so many people are obsessed with this stupid idea that there had to be some super secret spying going on and that Apple is run by morons and that these morons are apparently going to let this slide by going after data detectors and universal search and slide to unlock as opposed to the super duper not fake corporate espionage they believe happened.

 

I don't know why so many people mistakenly believe Android, stock, in any form was a clone of iOS (it was so obviously and openly inspired by it, sure, but "stolen" and "copy" are stupid words to use unless you're trying to diss Apple).

 

I feel people conflate Samsung and Android and assume because Samsung's version so obviously and royally aped iOS that it must be stock but it isn't...and the super spy narrative is pathetic and is in the same realm as those political articles calling -insert politician here- a tyrant or a Nazi or Hitler or Stalin or whatever.

 

The argument of super spy Schmidt is dumb...period.

post #49 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnAmazingThing View Post

It was still in the news at the time...I typed "Google buys Android" into Google and the first result is a business week article from August 16th, 2005...

Again, Android then is not the Android of today which means a mention in 2005 about Google buying Android is not about Google buying Android OS. You'll see that SW based ads and apps are the common topic back then, with Android as an OS as some rumour mentioned in passing as something Rubin may have considered.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #50 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post


Most of the patents covered in his trial should not have been patented as they cover an idea and not an execution. 

The difference is that we have an  understaffed under funded patent system, where all you need to get a patent is a worth smith. Throw in a few "apparatus" and "hierarchy" make it 20 pages and you could get a patent for anything. 

see this masterful patent on toast: http://www.google.com/patents/US6080436

In the rest of the develop world these patents would be laughed out of court and they have. 

So your saying these patents are only an idea and do not exist in Apple products???
post #51 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Oh wow, we have an IP law genius in our midst. 1rolleyes.gif

As to the rest of the developed world, I'll take the tech innovation leadership of the US any day, by a long shot. No one else comes even close. So, I'll assume we must be doing something right despite all the 'laughter'
elsewhere.
Germany and France are doing a good job there, and the US patent system has a serious issue. Unless I am very mistaken, the legal part of the system is not really broken, but the administration is, either for lack of agents or lack of highly specific skills. Then again, I am not Obamabush.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #52 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Again, Android then is not the Android of today which means a mention in 2005 about Google buying Android is not about Google buying Android OS. You'll see that SW based ads and apps are the common topic back then, with Android as an OS as some rumour mentioned in passing as something Rubin may have considered.

What does that have to do with Eric Schmidt super spy conspiracy super theory complete with the bumbling opponents of Steve Jobs, the other board members, and all Apple executives? Android as a phone OS was always the plan. . . I wasn't aware it may not have been widely known to be the plan but it was rather obvious...I remember reading about it in 2005 thinking "cool a Google phone" I remember reading more in 2006 when I had some odd samsung vertical slider phone. The point is it wasn't hush hush...it was out there...

 

I also don't get what that has to do with anything I said though...if you're just informing me, thank you. Otherwise 

post #53 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnAmazingThing View Post

What does that have to do with Eric Schmidt super spy conspiracy super theory complete with the bumbling opponents of Steve Jobs, the other board members, and all Apple executives? Android as a phone OS was always the plan. . . I wasn't aware it may not have been widely known to be the plan but it was rather obvious...I remember reading about it in 2005 thinking "cool a Google phone" I remember reading more in 2006 when I had some odd samsung vertical slider phone. The point is it wasn't hush hush...it was out there...

I also don't get what that has to do with anything I said though...if you're just informing me, thank you. Otherwise 

1) It has to do with your flawed premise that Google purchased a modern, mobile operating system in 2005.

2) It was likely Google's plan but it wasn't known outside of a small team at Google.

3) There is nothing obvious when a company does something radically different than it's ever done and makes no mention of their plans to go in a radically new direction.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #54 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Germany and France are doing a good job there, and the US patent system has a serious issue. Unless I am very mistaken, the legal part of the system is not really broken, but the administration is, either for lack of agents or lack of highly specific skills. Then again, I am not Obamabush.

Apple was unable to push email to iPhones in Germany because of injunction Motorola and Google enforced over a software patent.

Ignorance, obfuscation or a lie?

Which do you choose to hide behind?
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 #55 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


LOL... Tell me I didn't call it. Take a look at the "white type" at the bottom of the post.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178754/google-agreed-to-pick-up-tab-for-some-samsung-legal-fees-take-on-liability-in-case-of-loss#post_2521009

Anyway, what does paragraph 1.1 refer to? The entire agreement speaks to Google Android and the requisite Google applications running on it. In general the two are inseparable.

1rolleyes.gif

 

Google Android?

 

Is that some closed version of the open source Android?

 

More lies and hypocrisy from Google, the masters.

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 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Google Android?

Is that some closed version of the open source Android?

Yup,.that's exactly what it is.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #57 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnAmazingThing View Post

He was ASKED to be on Apple's board a year AFTER Google bought Android...so there was no mystery there...that's fact one.

The iPhone was announced in January of 2007....less than 5 months after he was ASKED to be on the board.

Android 1.0 was released for the public on October 22nd 2008 in the form of the G1....a phone so unlike the iPhone to even compare it to iOS is an insult to iOS..it was cheap, ugly, unfinished, and pretty much as non-iOS like you can get while still using a touch based icon based OS.

By the time he resigned in 2009 Android had been out for a year and a half and the iPhone was known for over 2 years.

And everything else your spewing is full of speculation that it isn't worth mentioning.

And I don't give a rats ass about Samsung...I probably hate Samsung MORE than you because I am a fan of Android on my phones

But that Eric Schmidt super spy bullshit is just frustrating to read as it reeks of the same bullshit as "Bush is Hitler and hates black people" or "Obama is a Nazi"

Also you can have as many opinions as you like but a stupid uninformed opinion is always stupid especially when it is stated as an absolute fact despite a lack of evidence and in some way examples of circumstantial counter evidence.

In order for the Eric Schmidt super spy thing to work Apple would've had to have been the most retarded company in the world and that makes absolutely no sense because a) iPod and b) iPhone (post re-Jobian era)

People think they are just making Google (grrr arrrggg enemy because reasons!!!) look bad with that stupid narrative but they also make the entire Apple executive team look like a bunch of complete and utter morons. And that should be unacceptable. There are enough facts in this situation to base opinions off of without making stuff up.

Apple had 2 people at Google at the time...maybe they overheard plans of Google wanting to make a phone and filtered that back to Apple and Steve Jobs stole the idea from Google BEFORE Google bought Android...I mean why not...since we are making no sense!!!

That would be an absolutely retarded thing for anyone to say...the Schmidt super spy is almost as retarded.

Did you read the message you just laid down this rant against? It was about indirect infringement of a patent. Nowhere in that message is anyone named Eric mentioned. Seriously, you need to read before you rant.
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
post #58 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post


Did you read the message you just laid down this rant against? It was about indirect infringement of a patent. Nowhere in that message is anyone named Eric mentioned. Seriously, you need to read before you rant.

 

Besides it was Rubin who worked at Apple.

 

Who knows what else "inspired" him aside from the 263 patent, which magically appeared in Android and was licensed by HTC as part of their settlement.

 

Google aren't Robin Hood robbing the rich to help the poor, no matter how much they want to portray that image, they are sleazy late night TV advertisers of the lowest level.

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 #59 of 92
Originally Posted by AnAmazingThing View Post
He was ASKED to be on Apple's board a year AFTER Google bought Android...so there was no mystery there...that's fact one.

 

Android 2005 ≠ Android 2008.

 
The iPhone was announced in January of 2007....less than 5 months after he was ASKED to be on the board.

 

Wow. HEY, EVERYONE! No one who has ever been ASKED to do something has EVER, in the history of human civilization, gone against what was ASKED of them!

 
And everything else your spewing is full of speculation that it isn't worth mentioning.

 

I’d say that for you, but you’re banned, so I’ll tear it apart anyway.

 
I probably hate Samsung MORE than you

 

Why do I get an image in my head of the friend of a murderer telling a father who just lost his kid he hates the murderer more than him… 

 
But that Eric Schmidt super spy bullshit is just frustrating to read as it reeks of the same bullshit as "Bush is Hitler and hates black people" or "Obama is a Nazi"

 

Godwin’s Law: you instantly lose the argument. Never mind that your position lost it itself.

 
Also you can have as many opinions as you like but a stupid uninformed opinion is always stupid especially when it is stated as an absolute fact despite a lack of evidence and in some way examples of circumstantial counter evidence.

 

:lol: Irony.

 
In order for the Eric Schmidt super spy thing to work Apple would've had to have been the most retarded company in the world and that makes absolutely no sense because a) iPod and b) iPhone 

 

Wow. HEY, EVERYONE! Apple could never possibly have made a bad decision or had their trust subverted by anyone, ever!

 
Apple had 2 people at Google at the time...maybe they overheard plans of Google wanting to make a phone and filtered that back to Apple and Steve Jobs stole the idea from Google BEFORE Google bought Android...I mean why not...since we are making no sense!!!

 

Because 1. the numbers don’t add up for this, 2. the numbers add up for what you’re arguing against.

post #60 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Android 2005 ≠ Android 2008.
iOS 2005 ≠ iOS 2007. I doubt either one had a set roadmap yet.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #61 of 92
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
iOS 2005 ≠ iOS 2007. I doubt either one had a set roadmap yet.

 

Indeed. Android’s wasn’t set until January 9, 2007. Apple’s, on the other hand…

post #62 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

iOS 2005 ≠ iOS 2007. I doubt either one had a set roadmap yet.

Considering Jobs did a long demo showcasing the HW and OS and apps of iOS on January 11th, 2007 I think there was definitely a roadmap in place at Apple well before Google bought Android just 1 year, 4 months, and 25 days prior.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #63 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Considering Jobs did a long demo showcasing the HW and OS and apps of iOS on January 11th, 2007 I think there was definitely a roadmap in place at Apple well before Google bought Android just 1 year, 4 months, and 25 days prior.

Soli, don't the insider stories say Jobs didn't even green-light the iPhone project until sometime Spring/Summer 2005? If so that would put it shortly AFTER Google bought Android outright in late 2004 or very early 2005. The press didn't catch wind of it until mid 2005 according to the timelines, when the Android team was moved to Mountain View. You know that Samsung had a shot to buy Android in late 2004, two weeks before Google invested then bought them outright.

EDIT: Here's the story, apparently sourced from the book "Dogfight"
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Did-you-know-Samsung-could-buy-Android-first-but-laughed-it-out-of-court_id52685
http://www.amazon.com/Dogfight-Apple-Google-Started-Revolution-ebook/dp/B00BIV1R98
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/23/14 at 9:41am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #64 of 92

Three questions which I have-

 

1)Did Samsung actually lie in any of the trials related to indemnification

 

2)If the answer to question 1 is yes, how does that affect Samsung in the present trial

 

3)Does the indemnification affect anything else related to the trial.

 

Not sure I saw the answers to these questions anywhere.

post #65 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Soli, do't the insider stories say Jobs didn't even green-light the iPhone project until sometime Spring/Summer 2005, putting it around the same time Google bought Android outright after investing in them back in 2004?

Not even close. Google bought a company in late 2005 whilst Apple was working to create a mobile version of their OS and apps years before that. Forestall stated that in 2004 that Project Purple, the iPhone project was formed, but they started even earlier with hopes of making the mobile OS a tablet. Who knows when they started looking into that HW.

Investing in a company means nothing if Google wasn't actively developing for them and, in this case, actively developing a mobile OS. I invest in many companies but I can't say I've been a developer of their wares simply by having faith in those companies to make me money. Only when Google took control of Android and started to make it a mobile OS does the clock count.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #66 of 92
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Who knows when they started looking into that HW.

 

I remember reading something somewhere that a team presented Steve with a working OS X tablet prototype in 2003, but as it was a tablet in the 1990s sense, he nixed it.

post #67 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I remember reading something somewhere that a team presented Steve with a working OS X tablet prototype in 2003, but as it was a tablet in the 1990s sense, he nixed it.

I didn't even get into Apple's long history of expertise in OS, apps, and mobile HW before the iPhone was announced that lead to such a great product out of the gate. They fold their IP back into itself to make a better product in a shorter time. I had thought by now that Android's SDK would at least be where Xcode for iPhone was in 2008 when Apple opened it for developers in 2008. The refinement and thoroughness just isn't there.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #68 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Not even close. Google bought a company in late 2005 whilst Apple was working to create a mobile version of their OS and apps years before that. Forestall stated that in 2004 that Project Purple, the iPhone project was formed, but they started even earlier with hopes of making the mobile OS a tablet. Who knows when they started looking into that HW..

Nope. Your timeline is off according to every account of it that I've read.
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Did-you-know-Samsung-could-buy-Android-first-but-laughed-it-out-of-court_id52685
"Before being acquired by Google, Andy Rubin’s Android team pitched to Samsung at some point in late 2004, looking for further funding. However, Samsung did not see the potential in Android at the time, preferring to pass on the opportunity to invest in the startup... citing as reference the “Dogfight: How Apple and Google Went to War and Started a Revolution” book by Fred Vogelstein... “’You and what army are going to go and create this? You have six people. Are you high?’ is basically what they said. They laughed me out of the boardroom,” Rubin later said. “This happened two weeks before Google acquired us.”

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/03/26/new-secrets-behind-first-iphone-project-purple-revealed-by-engineer/
"The Green light (from Steve Jobs) in early 2005 was the start of what Mr. Christie called a ’2 1/2 year marathon’,” The Wall Street Journal said. Tweaks were made constantly leading up to the announcement in 2007"
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/23/14 at 10:11am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #69 of 92
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
Your timeline is off according to every account of it.

 

Better update Wikipedia and all its citations, then.

post #70 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Nope. Your timeline is off according to every account of it.

Did Google not buy Android, which had no shipping OS, in August 2005?

Did Apple not announce and demo a working iPhone in January 2007?

Did Forestall not state that he started the iPhone project in 2005?

Was it not stated that before the iPhone project the IP was being developed for a tablet project?

If you think that Apple took everything it did to make that iPhone demo in 2007 in under 1 year, 4 months, and 25 days I think you're nuts but that would also mean that Apple is even more impressive of a company than I've ever given them credit for because that creation in under 1.5 (or 2) years would be such a monumental masterpiece of engineering and design that I can't even begin to fathom that sort of focus and genius.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #71 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Did Google not buy Android, which had no shipping OS, in August 2005?

Did Apple not announce and demo a working iPhone in January 2007?

Apparently not. That was the first press mention of it, not the date Android was acquired according to the story.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #72 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apparently not. That was the first press mention of it, not the date Android was acquired according to the story.

So what was the date Android was acquired if not August 17th, 2005?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #73 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So what was the date Android was acquired if not August 17th, 2005?
According to interviews of those involved it was very late 2004/very early 2005, approximately two weeks after Samsung laughed them away.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #74 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


...but that would also mean that Apple is even more impressive of a company than I've ever given them credit for because that creation in under 1.5 (or 2) years would be such a monumental masterpiece of engineering and design that I can't even begin to fathom that sort of focus and genius.

I'd agree with you.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #75 of 92

IIRC, Judge Koh limited Apple and Samsung to 5 claims each (and 25 hours of trial time). Apple reduced their list to 5 patents, asserting infringement of one claim in each. Samsung reduced their list to 4 patents, then dropped 2 which were standard-essential patents (SEPs).  

 

Note: Apple itself doesn't practice every one of the five asserted claims from these five patents, altho it does practice at least one claim in each of the asserted patents. (There are multiple claims in each patent.)  During the trial, Samsung tried to make this into a big deal in an attempt to paint Apple as a patent troll (non-practicing entity (NPE)).

"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #76 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

IIRC, Judge Koh limited Apple and Samsung to 5 claims each (and 25 hours of trial time). Apple reduced their list to 5 patents, asserting infringement of one claim in each. Samsung reduced their list to 4 patents, then dropped 2 which were standard-essential patents (SEPs).  

Note: Apple itself doesn't practice every one of the five asserted claims from these five patents, altho it does practice at least one claim in each of the asserted patents. (There are multiple claims in each patent.)  During the trial, Samsung tried to make this into a big deal in an attempt to paint Apple as a patent troll (non-practicing entity (NPE)).
Nice post. . .

It would also have probably been more "fair" to both sides too if Judge Koh had also barred Apple from stressing each of the patent claims' validity in front of the jury when she properly prevented Samsung from even mentioning that some of the asserted claims were being reexamined by the USPTO. Other judges have done so when the issue of re-examinations/validity has come up in pre-trial.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #77 of 92
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post
IIRC, Judge Koh limited Apple and Samsung to 5 claims each

 

Which, I’ll say again, cannot be legal. :mad:

post #78 of 92
WRT Apple's numerous other patent infringement claims against Samsung which were forcibly dropped by Koh... am I wrong in assuming there will be future trials resurrecting each and every infringed patent claim? I see no reason to allow infringements go unaddressed.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #79 of 92
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
I see no reason to allow infringements go unaddressed.

 

I see no legal justification for allowing them to go unaddressed here

post #80 of 92

My guess is Apple will sue again if both Apple-Samsung I and Apple-Samsung II don't result in an injunction against Samsung, and if the legal decisions don't make it nearly impossible to get one.  (Apple-Samsung I is on appeal at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.)  It would probably take an injunction to get Samsung to agree to any settlement acceptable to Apple. 

 

If there is another lawsuit, Apple would choose its infringed claims/patents that it thought had the best chance of winning an injunction against the set of Samsung products currently being sold, and not necessarily those that were previously dropped.  Some of the claims/patents from I/II may have expired by then, or are no longer infringed in newer Samsung products.  Since Apple wants an injunction and not money, it may not be worth suing over older products.

"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google agreed to pick up tab for some Samsung legal fees, take on liability in case of loss