or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google's current stance on patents with Android would have prevented Google from ever having existed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google's current stance on patents with Android would have prevented Google from ever having existed - Page 2

post #41 of 122

Agreed, I like DED's angle on things but I do wish he wouldn't go around the houses.

There's only a certain amount of padding you can put in to a report such as this before people just selectively scan the piece.

Keep it short, sweet and to the point.

post #42 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

Hey, why don't you refute using examples, rather than the usual mish mash of vagaries given by those with no real answers.

 

Exactly.  DED takes the time to learn the history of technology and lays out his arguments rationally (in perhaps an overly dramatic way, but logically consistent nonetheless) and I'm supposed to be dissuaded by a horde of people crying fowl without anything to back it up?  How exactly is that any different than kids yelling things on a playground?

 

Please, take a course in logic, do some homework, and come back when you have some intelligent debate.  Note that I'm partial to historical materialism (relevant, material examples from history) and logical cause-and-effect (scientific method) based arguments.


Edited by auxio - 5/26/14 at 9:01am
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #43 of 122

If you're going to delete people's posts, AI moderators, it's polite at least to explain why you've done it. 

 

The only clue I have is an infraction for 'inappropriate language'. This in spite of the fact that I didn't use any language which isn't used on this forum to describe Android / Google / Samsung / non-Apple users, day in day out, without a hint of moderator intervention.

 

This forum has a curious concept of 'moderation'. Moderators are not supposed to delete posts based on the poster's viewpoint on substantive issues. I can only assume that it is easier to abuse one's power by deleting posts you don't like than it is to refute them.

post #44 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

I'm supposed to be dissuaded by a horde of people crying fowl without anything to back it up?
Chicken!

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #45 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post
 

Keep it short, sweet and to the point.

 

I agree that DED can be somewhat verbose.  However, being someone who has studied and debated at a college level, I appreciate when someone takes the time to research and utilize a number of relevant historical examples to back up their central argument.  That, to me, is the highest form of argumentation.  Even if the attention span of the average person on the internet isn't long enough to allow for it.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #46 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You had me until your bolded text. If Google owns Moto and is suing a competitor then that is Google suing a competitor.

Google isn't sueing anyone outside of British Telecom. Nor is there a single new Motorola Mobility patent suit since Google bought them AFAIK. So no, neither Google nor a Google-owned MM sued any competitor for patent infringement.

If you believe either Google or a Google-owned Motorola Mobility has initiated some patent infringement you've misunderstood something you've read or heard. perhaps here at AI. Perhaps you've confused some 3 of 4 year old Motorola/General Dynamics lawsuits that even pre-dated Motorola Mobility and certainly pre-Google with remaining issues in appeal. Even most of those have been disposed of. There's nothing new Soli.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #47 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Google isn't sueing anyone outside of British Telecom. Nor is there a single new Motorola Mobility patent suit since Google bought them AFAIK. So no, neither Google nor a Google-owned MM sued any competitor for patent infringement.

If you believe either Google or a Google-owned Motorola Mobility has initiated some patent infringement you've misunderstood something you've read or heard. perhaps here at AI. Perhaps you've confused some 3 of 4 year old Motorola/General Dynamics lawsuits that even pre-dated Motorola Mobility and certainly pre-Google with remaining issues in appeal. Even most of those have been disposed of. There's nothing new Soli.

If Google doesn't drop the cases that Motorola has or any other company that they acquire in full, not just one of many investment partners, then I would call that pursing the lawsuit because they have the option to drop the case but aren't.

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 #48 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post
 

If you're going to delete people's posts, AI moderators, it's polite at least to explain why you've done it. 

 

The only clue I have is an infraction for 'inappropriate language'. This in spite of the fact that I didn't use any language which isn't used on this forum to describe Android / Google / Samsung / non-Apple users, day in day out, without a hint of moderator intervention.

 

This forum has a curious concept of 'moderation'. Moderators are not supposed to delete posts based on the poster's viewpoint on substantive issues. I can only assume that it is easier to abuse one's power by deleting posts you don't like than it is to refute them.

Euphonious, as I said in my reply to your post it seems that DED/Corrections got b**thurt and decided to delete not only my post but yours as well. Sadly he has long history of not being able to accept criticism and deletes, ignores or responds with childish insults to just about anybody he disagrees with. Ironically he's been corrected a number of times and always responds in such a predictable fashion.

post #49 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post
 

Euphonious, as I said in my reply to your post it seems that DED/Corrections got b**thurt and decided to delete not only my post but yours as well. Sadly he has long history of not being able to accept criticism and deletes, ignores or responds with childish insults to just about anybody he disagrees with. Ironically he's been corrected a number of times and always responds in such a predictable fashion.

 

When I first read the comments, the only negative ones I could find with any sort of substance behind them were Gatorguy's (a nice debate which is still going).  The rest were just insults, scripted mantras I read everywhere about DED, and the usual nit-picking about run-on sentences.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #50 of 122

It's interesting to see how you try to attack what I write by going off on wild tangents.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Article problem number one: It's not Google's Pagerank patent. They've licensed it from Stanford just as any other company can do if it wishes.
Did you even read the article's headings? Also, you are wrong: Stanford exclusively licensed PageRank to Google. The company wouldn't have gotten any funding from VCs if it did not have exclusive patent rights to something of value. 


Problem two. The author makes the leap to argue Google search could not have been created except by the grace of a patent. Microsoft, IBM and Apple all became viable companies without the assistance of a single software patent. Trade secrets and the laws applicable to them are powerful

Problem three: Google has never maintained that "it and its Android partners should be able to infringe upon any patents Apple has related to iOS". Another leap.
That's exactly what Google does. Take, then feign outrage afterward that some patent holder would dare take it to court over evil IP. For a company that owes its existence to patents, this is pretty incredibly hypocritical. 
​Apple and IBM had hardware businesses. They didn't need a software patent to get initial funding. Apple was built out of a garage, not a patent-protected college startup.


Finally, it's completely possible other search providers have infringed on Google IP. Not only possible but considering there's 10's of thousands it becomes quite likely. That Google hasn't ever sued a direct competitor makes any claim of Google's attitude towards wielding IP to fend off competition as being disingenuous . . . well disingenuous.

In Google's case patents appear to serve only defensive purposes and not generally used to block competition. Simply being a better, harder working and more creative search provider is what made them successful. For that matter Apple's revenue doesn't ride on the back of software patents either. Those pertaining to iOS have hardly been strong enough to get much if any credit for iDevice success. That success comes from being better, harder working and more creative than their competitors.
You don't get it. Google doesn't sue companies because nobody else is as cavalier about infringing its patents. People are suing Google and its licensees because Google has a policy of stealing and then acting like its the victim because well, "patents!" It's complete BS, just like everything you write.
You might as well say, "Google can't be a thief because... nobody is stealing its stuff!"
post #51 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

If Google doesn't drop the cases that Motorola has or any other company that they acquire in full, not just one of many investment partners, then I would call that pursing the lawsuit because they have the option to drop the case but aren't.

Is there anything still actively being litigated that Google hasn't dropped? There might still be something with Microsoft or perhaps not but otherwise I can't think of one.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #52 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Article problem number one: It's not Google's Pagerank patent. They've licensed it from Stanford just as any other company can do if it wishes..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

. you are wrong: Stanford exclusively licensed PageRank to Google. The company wouldn't have gotten any funding from VCs if it did not have exclusive patent rights to something of value.

I'm !00% correct ,which you yourself admit. It's Stanford's patent. Google also hasn't had exclusive licensing rights for years. There may be other licensees. If you want a license to Pagerank go talk to Stanford. You can have one for the right price as can Yahoo or Microsoft or DuckDuckGo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

.
Also, you are wrong: Stanford exclusively licensed PageRank to Google. The company wouldn't have gotten any funding from VCs if it did not have exclusive patent rights to something of value. Apple and IBM had hardware businesses. They didn't need a software patent to get initial funding

What about Microsoft? 1hmm.gif
And here's a fun fact: When Google got it's first round of funding, $25M in 1999, there was no Pagerank patent to license. There was only an application with no assurance a patent would ever issue. That tends to disprove your theory sir. Heck, the hiring of Schmidt was probably more important to the early financial backers, pre-IPO, IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

You don't get it. Google doesn't sue companies because nobody else is as cavalier about infringing its patents. People are suing Google and its licensees because Google has a policy of stealing

So why is Apple sued even more often than Google? When you figure out the answer to that you'll get the reason behind many of the lawsuits targeting Google too.
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/26/14 at 10:47am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #53 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So why is Apple sued even more often than Google? When you figure out the answer to that you'll get the reason behind many of the lawsuits targeting Google too.

 

Let's do an apples-to-apples comparison.  List the lawsuits filed against Apple by technology companies which have actually released products to market using the infringed technology.  Then do the same for the ones filed against Google or against companies using Google's technology which are directly related to that technology (i.e. Samsung).  To me, those are the ones which really matter because there's material losses involved.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #54 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

Let's do an apples-to-apples comparison.  List the lawsuits filed against Apple by technology companies which have actually released products to market using the infringed technology.  Then do the same for the ones filed against Google or against companies using Google's technology which are directly related to that technology (i.e. Samsung).  To me, those are the ones which really matter because there's material losses involved.

Here's a start you can build on.
Apple:
Nokia, Cisco, Xerox, Kodak, Motorola, Creative. . .

Google:
Microsoft, Oracle, Viacomm., Yahoo . .
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #55 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

Let's do an apples-to-apples comparison.  List the lawsuits filed against Apple by technology companies which have actually released products to market using the infringed technology.  Then do the same for the ones filed against Google or against companies using Google's technology which are directly related to that technology (i.e. Samsung).  To me, those are the ones which really matter because there's material losses involved.

So you're saying it's fair game for any other company to infringe on patents that Apple owns but does not currently have a product associated with?
post #56 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Google isn't sueing anyone outside of British Telecom. Nor is there a single new Motorola Mobility patent suit since Google bought them AFAIK. So no, neither Google nor a Google-owned MM sued any competitor for patent infringement.

If you believe either Google or a Google-owned Motorola Mobility has initiated some patent infringement you've misunderstood something you've read or heard. perhaps here at AI. Perhaps you've confused some 3 of 4 year old Motorola/General Dynamics lawsuits that even pre-dated Motorola Mobility and certainly pre-Google with remaining issues in appeal. Even most of those have been disposed of. There's nothing new Soli.

Google is suing Apple through MM. Clawing anything else is a lie. Likewise, your three points were equally off base since Google had exclusive right to PageRank and no other company is allowed to use it.

Normally your posts are at least factual but this time, they are simply wrong.
post #57 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post


So you're saying it's fair game for any other company to infringe on patents that Apple owns but does not currently have a product associated with?

 

Not at all.  I'm just trying to eliminate the cases where companies simply sit on patents and wait for others to infringe, or companies which buy up patents at firesale prices when other companies go out of business and do the same.  I think most people can agree that these cases aren't beneficial to the industry.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #58 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Here's a start you can build on.
Apple:
Nokia, Cisco, Xerox, Kodak, Motorola, Creative. . .

Google:
Microsoft, Oracle, Viacomm., Yahoo . .

 

And the companies who license Android from Google and have infringement cases related to that: Samsung, HTC, Motorola, etc

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #59 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by blewis727 View Post

@Peterbob: Which of his assertions are you questioning? Or did you just not like the "feeling" this article gave you?

You should really try to keep Hitchens Razor in mind before you post: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

And, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
post #60 of 122
OK, I loved the article because it makes a strong case that the media has it wrong, focusing on low-end, ultimately money-losing machines with Android instead of the high-end, technically superior iOS platform. (Was that sentence too long?) I buy everything Apple and have never been disappointed. Great article on Apple's comeback in the last 10 years!
post #61 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Article problem number one: It's not Google's Pagerank patent. They've licensed it from Stanford just as any other company can do if it wishes.

Problem two. The author makes the leap to argue Google search could not have been created except by the grace of a patent. Microsoft, IBM and Apple all became viable companies without the assistance of a single software patent. Trade secrets and the laws applicable to them are powerful

Problem three: Google has never maintained that "it and its Android partners should be able to infringe upon any patents Apple has related to iOS". Another leap.

Finally, it's completely possible other search providers have infringed on Google IP. Not only possible but considering there's 10's of thousands it becomes quite likely. That Google hasn't ever sued a direct competitor makes any claim of Google's attitude towards wielding IP to fend off competition as being disingenuous . . . well disingenuous.

In Google's case patents appear to serve only defensive purposes and not generally used to block competition. Simply being a better, harder working and more creative search provider is what made them successful. For that matter Apple's revenue doesn't ride on the back of software patents either. Those pertaining to iOS have hardly been strong enough to get much if any credit for iDevice success. That success comes from being better, harder working and more creative than their competitors.

Of course Google  wouldn't admit to it - you are a tad naive dude - jeez

Originally by Rickers - 2014 : Cook & will bury Apple.  They can only ride Steve's ghost so long.



 Originally Posted by  thataveragejoe :  Next week  Korea Times, "I'm gay too"-Samsung



 



Reply

Originally by Rickers - 2014 : Cook & will bury Apple.  They can only ride Steve's ghost so long.



 Originally Posted by  thataveragejoe :  Next week  Korea Times, "I'm gay too"-Samsung



 



Reply
post #62 of 122

Gatorguy must rate as the most revisionist, liar on apple insider?

Originally by Rickers - 2014 : Cook & will bury Apple.  They can only ride Steve's ghost so long.



 Originally Posted by  thataveragejoe :  Next week  Korea Times, "I'm gay too"-Samsung



 



Reply

Originally by Rickers - 2014 : Cook & will bury Apple.  They can only ride Steve's ghost so long.



 Originally Posted by  thataveragejoe :  Next week  Korea Times, "I'm gay too"-Samsung



 



Reply
post #63 of 122

funny how the "now", "instant gratification" crowd can't stand DED, well it's not funny it makes perfect sense, actual having to take more than 10 seconds looking at something or taking the time to actually read omg READ something put them into physical discomfort. YES! DED please write  more please, Nothing like actual facts to make these idiots squirm. All they know how to do is skim and knee jerk react with the usual lies, which us after all the norm nowadays. so be it.

Originally by Rickers - 2014 : Cook & will bury Apple.  They can only ride Steve's ghost so long.



 Originally Posted by  thataveragejoe :  Next week  Korea Times, "I'm gay too"-Samsung



 



Reply

Originally by Rickers - 2014 : Cook & will bury Apple.  They can only ride Steve's ghost so long.



 Originally Posted by  thataveragejoe :  Next week  Korea Times, "I'm gay too"-Samsung



 



Reply
post #64 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul94544 View Post

Gatorguy must rate as the most revisionist, liar on apple insider?
Typically if you call someone out as a liar you'd be expected to specify the lie and state what the truth is. You seem to have missed those parts. I guess what you really meant is you don't agree with the post.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #65 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Google is suing Apple through MM. Clawing anything else is a lie. Likewise, your three points were equally off base since Google had exclusive right to PageRank and no other company is allowed to use it.

Normally your posts are at least factual but this time, they are simply wrong.

Neither Google nor Motorola Mobility has a single active lawsuit against Apple (nor Apple against either one) and none of the old ones, not a single patent lawsuit, were filed during Google's ownership. And no Google does not have an exclusive license to Pagerank. Once upon a time they did but that time is long past. Anyone can license it from Stanford. it's not controlled by Google. Your really should check your facts before being so cavalier with claims of lying.
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/26/14 at 11:55am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by habi View Post


What??? When I still used Google a few years back it had tons of adds when you search. I checked and i still get these annoying links that i never ever use. Usually it gives them because of one search term that has nothing to do with the multiparameter search I wanted lol.gif

Then they did some optimizations to the search functions and I stopped using it because it fu)(/&&ed up my search results because it wasn't what I expected and was used to. I think they can keep that door jam for themselves. It only works better for some no US termed searches is my opinion.

What part of "HOME PAGE" didn't you understand? Before you do a search not after.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #67 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

If there has ever been an author at AppleInsider more in need of an editor, I'd like to meet them.

"Looking backward, the patented concept of PageRank (like most any other patent ever filed) might be viewed as a trivial, obvious and inevitable discovery. It is the very kind of thing that Google and its most strident fans commonly insist shouldn't be patented at all: a software concept built upon a series of algorithms."

Dilger's writing is a real shame. That paragraph is typical of his run-on sentence style that has led me to believe he is paid by the word.

I don't claim to be a particularly gifted writer, however I do recognize that "brevity is the soul of wit" and essential to writing well.

If you don't like long form work, can't handle sentence complexity and want to be told things you already think, there are any number of vapid blogs you can skim.

It's not that hard to steer clear of AppleInsider on Sunday if you can't handle Daniel Eran Dilger.
post #68 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


If you don't like long form work, can't handle sentence complexity and want to be told things you already think, there are any number of vapid blogs you can skim.

It's not that hard to steer clear of AppleInsider on Sunday if you can't handle Daniel Eran Dilger.


Speaking of things people can't handle. Can you handle one bit of criticism DED/Corrections without degenerating your reply into insults & belittlement? This is getting old and tiresome. Grow up.


Edited by Lord Amhran - 5/26/14 at 1:04pm
post #69 of 122
Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul94544 View Post

 

YES! DED please write  more please, Nothing like actual facts to make these idiots squirm. All they know how to do is skim and knee jerk react with the usual lies, which us after all the norm nowadays. so be it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The absolute inability of Android's enthusiasts to recognize Apple as anything other than a evil amalgamation of fallacious badness has few parallels outside of North Korea's official stance on the United States. The difference is that Android users have the facts in front of them. They're not really operating within a insane fiction erected by a censoring dictatorship. They are voluntarily choosing to live inside an iron curtain of hypocrisy and doublespeak, and suffering for it with shoddy technology experience. How ruthlessly absurd!
 

 

Can you point out the facts for me in the above? I can't see a single fact there which could be backed up by an independent source. All I can see is an angry diatribe against a group of people whose sole crime is to use a different mobile operating system. That isn't an 'editorial', it's just foaming-from-the mouth propaganda.

post #70 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Nothing in this mathematics is unique and/or original. Pathetic. Every Mechanical Engineer and grad student of advanced Engineering has used these applications Larry Page has done quite routinely.

He implemented towards the concept of a URL Ranking system and presto! He got his patented first.

Truly pathetic that this has yet to be tossed on its ass.

Every single bit of these algorithms are routine in Linear Algebra and common in Mechanical Engineering dealing with Eigenvalue/Eigenvector applications.

Fields: Heat Transfer, Thermal Systems, Dynamic Control Systems, Wave Propagation, etc.

Fracking hypocrites, every single POS Android lover and GPL fanatics who want to do away with Software Patents.


This reminded me of an incident at a shop I worked at about 17 years ago, which was my first foray into the seedy patent world.  A couple of co-workers devised a way to more efficiently handle work orders of $1M+ machines as they traveled through the pipeline.  I assisted in taking their concept, and implementing it in our ERP system.  All of us thought nothing of it.  We always brainstormed about ways to make our production system more efficient.

Long story short, at the time we had an individual working there that had nothing to do with the process, was not included (ever) in any of the meetings, and I never spoken to him.  He always came across to me as a slick-talking used-car salesman, talks a lot, says little, and never to be trusted.  We found out he was asking all kinds of questions about what we did - we never hid it as it was just common efficiency ideas - and decided to patent the process, listing himself as the sole "inventor".

We ripped him a new a$$hole.  We took basic common ideas and concepts that everyone knew and tweaked it a bit for our particular circumstances, and then this guy comes out of nowhere to essentially attempt to profit from other people's work.  Talk about seedy.  We never thought about "patenting" an algorithm, or process simply because it basic stuff.  Thankfully, he was later fired.  Apparently, he couldn't get along with anyone, what a shocker.  I don't know if he ever was able to capitalize on that patent, not that we'd be the first out there screaming prior art.

Google's foray into the search arena with Pagerank, and how they are handling themselves now just reeks of seediness and hypocrisy.  They take a free ride on everyone else's work - provided as common knowledge, and in other cases flat out takes it and with the hope it can ride it out and rake in the profit in order to fight it later leaves no respect from me.  They are just the modern version of a train robber.

post #71 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post
 

Can you point out the facts for me in the above? I can't see a single fact there which could be backed up by an independent source. All I can see is an angry diatribe against a group of people whose sole crime is to use a different mobile operating system. That isn't an 'editorial', it's just foaming-from-the mouth propaganda.

 

You selectively chose one of the "dramatic" paragraphs and, from that selective choice, declared the whole article as being propaganda.  What about the parts dealing with the history of PageRank technology?  Are those propaganda too?

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #72 of 122

I found this quote from WIkipedia's entry on cognitive dissonance insightful:

 

Quote:
If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in restoring consonance through misperception, rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others.[4]

 

Question: does Google's behavior contravene its own image as a do-gooder and principled tech company beloved by geeks and open source fans? And if so, how do they deal with that?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #73 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post


Speaking of things people can't handle. Can you handle one bit of criticism DED/Corrections without degenerating your reply into insults & belittlement? This is getting old and tiresome. Grow up.

If you can't handle it, you shouldn't dish it out.
post #74 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


If you can't handle it, you shouldn't dish it out.


I have no issues. You're the one who can't deal with anyone critical of your articles based on the insults you hurl rather than address the poster's issue(s) with your articles.

post #75 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I found this quote from WIkipedia's entry on cognitive dissonance insightful:


Question: does Google's behavior contravene its own image as a do-gooder and principled tech company beloved by geeks and open source fans? And if so, how do they deal with that?

How does Google deal with it or the fans. The fans just look past the silly notion that a company who has responsibilities to it's many shareholders and employees isn't capable of the Jesus like mentality you are suggesting they adhere too. They instead focus on the narcissists way of thinking of what can they do for me that we are all guilty of. If any of us actually new the real internal workings of any of these billion dollar companies it would probably make even the most staunch user of their products shake their head in disgust, that is until they turned on one of their device or use one of their services 10 seconds later. It's fun to to poke around these forums and discuss who is more righteous, shake our fingers at others and say look, look, their not so special after all. Just don't loose site of the fact that we're just being biased, having chosen sides with one inherently evil corporate entity for another. A corporation that wouldn't give you a glass of water if they found you dying in the desert unless you signed a user agreement. If any of us actually truly had any integrity we would all be using FreeBSD installed on products from the host country that they were actually developed and produced from that included a free bumper sticker on ever box stating, "Free the Tibetans".
Edited by Relic - 5/26/14 at 2:04pm
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #76 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


It's not that hard to steer clear of AppleInsider on Sunday if you can't handle Daniel Eran Dilger.

 

Did he just refer to himself in the third person posting as a forum alt?

post #77 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Neither Google nor Motorola Mobility has a single active lawsuit against Apple (nor Apple against either one) and none of the old ones, not a single patent lawsuit, were filed during Google's ownership. And no Google does not have an exclusive license to Pagerank. Once upon a time they did but that time is long past. Anyone can license it from Stanford. it's not controlled by Google. Your really should check your facts before being so cavalier with claims of lying.

So Google dropped the MM suit as soon as Google bought MM?

I didn't think so.

Google had a 100% lock on Pagerank through 2011 (not the long past that you fantasize about). In 2010, Larry was awarded the pagerank 2 patent and assigned that to Standford as well with most industries insiders thinking this included the exclusive extension of pagerank to Google for all search.

Again, all 3 of your points border on lies.
post #78 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

How does Google deal with it or the fans. The fans just look past the silly notion that a company who has responsibilities to it's many shareholders and employees isn't capable of the Jesus like mentality you are suggesting they adhere too. They instead focus on the narcissists way of thinking of what can they do for me that we are all guilty of. If any of us actually new the real internal workings of any of these billion dollar companies it would probably make even the most staunch user of their products shake their head in disgust, that is until they turned on one of their device or use one of their services 10 seconds later. It's fun to to poke around these forums and discuss who is more righteous, shake our fingers at others and say look, look, their not so special after all. Just don't loose site of the fact that we're just being biased, having chosen sides with one inherently evil corporate entity for another. A corporation that wouldn't give you a glass of water if they found you dying in the desert unless you signed a user agreement. If any of us actually truly had any integrity we would all be using FreeBSD installed on products from the host country that they were actually developed and produced from that included a free bumper sticker on ever box stating, "Free the Tibetans".

...and you stand clearly above the fray, don't you? Is that why you, Swiss-timepiece-wise, shun Apple-branded products? Sort of taking evasive actions in the sparsely inhabited high-grounds are you?

One certainly wouldn't wish Apple's ruffling zeitgeist to rub off on one's moral clockwork, would one...!?
post #79 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

yada yada .

Since you've now changed your claims just a tad you're getting closer to the facts. 1wink.gif
" Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.

Google is suing Apple through MM. Clawing anything else is a lie. Likewise, your three points were equally off base since Google had exclusive right to PageRank and no other company is allowed to use it.

So with that out of the way here;s the post you claim is "bordering on lies". Perhaps you can point them out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Google isn't sueing anyone outside of British Telecom. Nor is there a single new Motorola Mobility patent suit since Google bought them AFAIK. So no, neither Google nor a Google-owned MM sued any competitor for patent infringement.

If you believe either Google or a Google-owned Motorola Mobility has initiated some patent infringement you've misunderstood something you've read or heard. perhaps here at AI. Perhaps you've confused some 3 of 4 year old Motorola/General Dynamics lawsuits that even pre-dated Motorola Mobility and certainly pre-Google with remaining issues in appeal. Even most of those have been disposed of. There's nothing new Soli.

Edited by Gatorguy - 5/26/14 at 4:26pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #80 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


If you don't like long form work, can't handle sentence complexity and want to be told things you already think, there are any number of vapid blogs you can skim.

It's not that hard to steer clear of AppleInsider on Sunday if you can't handle Daniel Eran Dilger.

 

I can handle his highly editorialized dreck, but I shouldn't call 'em the way I see 'em? I've been here quite a long time and I don't think his editorializing helps the credibility of this site. He's a polemicist for Apple who actually manages to offend me.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google's current stance on patents with Android would have prevented Google from ever having existed
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google's current stance on patents with Android would have prevented Google from ever having existed