It has been suggested elsewhere that Apple's internal statistics are not optimistic or that something is askew for the future, suggesting that Apple feels threatened to the point of cutting off competition with litigation.
This is certainly credible, reflecting as it does a suggestion elsewhere of Apple's own internal statistics. Anyway, the facts speak for themselves. Apple is going to the extreme of obtaining and now actually seeking to enforce US letters patent on its inventions, I suppose to avoid bankruptcy.
By the way, I missed the original source reference. Who spilled the beans?
Seriously, do you even know what sophistry is, ...?
Why, yes, I believe I do. Here's an example below.
Quote:
I could post the "facts" of what the Google Books case really is and what the differences are between Patent, Copyright, and Trademark are, but it would fill up an entire discussion page and I'm sure no one else really wants to bother...
Opera Mini or Mobile ? I have seen phones use these things, and honestly, it looked useless. Not saying mobile safari is the best or only, but I believe it was the first one implemented in a smart way with tab to zoom and analysis of the page content.
Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a specious argument used for deceiving someone.
Which is the context I am assuming your trying to imply?
So how does my comment, with it's supporting research links, deceive someone?
The only one trying to deceive here is you with your intent to flame Google for a violation that has yet to be determined. The only thing that has been decided is that Google does owe the publishing industry a sum to compensate them for the use of their works. The fact that they can use the works is not at issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Why, yes, I believe I do. Here's an example below.
If worse comes to worse, I fear Google pulling out of iPhone OS and supporting full steam their own mobile platform. They already have exclusive programs that won't come to the App store due to the Google Voice conflict. Casual iPhone/iPod Touch users that have no particular emotional investment to Apple will be hurt the most with the loss of Google/Map/Youtube services, as those services are very commonly used by the casual consumer. It may even turn off people considering buying those products.
On the other hand, users with emotional investments with Apple will justify and accept any alternative service that is introduced. During the rumored Google to Bing switchover, some people actually accepted and supported the possibility of a switchover out of spite for Google.
Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a specious argument used for deceiving someone.
I think we've pretty well established that your argument is entirely specious, so exactly what point are you trying to make now? Or are you just trying to obfuscate your sophistry?
Better than reading a bunch of media spin, I read the actual patents at issue. None of which are unique to computing devices. The first half-dozen or so have to do with multi-touch or gesture-based computing, which as I pointed out in an earlier post was invented in 1986 by R.K. McConnell, well before Apple.
Most of the others have to do with object-oriented programming concepts, for which their are plenty of prior-art for going all the way back to the 1960s with Simula 67:
One other notable claim was on reducing processor power for certain instructions, which I imagine Intel might have some prior-art to...
So yeah, I do know what I am talking about and can bring some actual research to the discussion to expand upon my points. No trolling going on here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Kind of ironic for you to post this troll post that calls Apple a "patent troll."
Seriously though, you don't have a clue what you are talking about (which is why i cut out most of your post), and are just looking like a fool here.
Apple has already explicitly stated (in the linked article which you obviously didn't read), that they will *not* licence their technology to anyone, period. They play a win/lose game and they don't dissemble about what they are after. They want HTC to stop using the patented technology and they will fight to the very end about this you can be certain. They aren't doing it for "leverage" or "cross-licensing" or any of that BS because they don't believe in that sort of thing and have said so explicitly many times over.
In the case of Nokia and others suing Apple, the counter-suit could be at least partially a bargaining position, but this case is one of those rare times when Apple actually outright attacks someone else. They don't do it casually (or at all mostly), and they mean it when they do it.
Most of the patents they cite are fairly ironclad, low-level OS patents that HTC will likely not be able to get out of. I'm sure they, like you, are probably expecting this is a tactic of some kind as it would be coming from almost any other company, but I'd bet money that it isn't.
Again, both Tim Cook and Steve Jobs have made explicit statements to that effect and based on their past behaviour, I believe them.
One of the problems with Google is that they don't respect the law, particularly IP law, and act like it doesn't apply to them.
While I use Google search, since it is the default with most of the browsers I use, it is Google's lack of respect of privacy for its users, as well as what you stated above that dissuaded me from depending too much on Google (email, etc.)
[Not that other companies are much better, but that is the reason why I am not too much enthused with social networking sites either.]
I am especially concerned about how they have tried to interpret "fair use" of presenting copyrighted books for example. They essentially just randomly delete pages here and there..... but you have pages and pages of verbatim copies of the book.
I believe Amazon does the same, but I am not really a fan of Amazon either. I still buy most of my books locally, especially here in Boston, where you can get better selection -- and even read them while at the store with encouragement from the staff before you buy in places like the Harvard Store (no connection to Harvard), The Coop (Harvard's bookstore). Alas, Amazon has bankrupted many of the other small bookstores in the area.
Google is directly profiting from sales of the Nexus One, which is manufactured by HTC and is at issue in this lawsuit. Further, Google is indirectly profiting from search on other Android phones, which is the primary motive for providing the OS. Google could be liable under patent theories, it is just Apple is choosing to go after Google indirectly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reliason
That is a key point to understand. The whole concept is to prevent someone from PROFITING from your patent.
As Android is open source, Google is not directly profiting from phone. Now that is not to say that Apple won't go after Google in the future, but my guess is that they are using this action to shape what competitors can and can't do with with the Android interface.
It is hard, immensely hard, to go after Google/Android directly because the patents in question are all related to interface, how that interface interacts with the OS, and the developmental frameworks underlying the interface. Both iPhone and Android are descended from open-source. But the UI and frameworks to bridge between the UI and the kernal are Apples. Google just has to say that it didn't write the UI pieces and then they are 'off the hook'.
HTC built a UI that is surprisingly iPhone like. That has been it's selling point. This will end in either HTC redesigning their interface or HTC licensing technology from Apple [which I doubt will happen].
If worse comes to worse, I fear Google pulling out of iPhone OS and supporting full steam their own mobile platform. They already have exclusive programs that won't come to the App store due to the Google Voice conflict. Casual iPhone/iPod Touch users that have no particular emotional investment to Apple will be hurt the most with the loss of Google/Map/Youtube services, as those services are very commonly used by the casual consumer. It may even turn off people considering buying those products.
When I first heard of Google doing this Android business, one of the first things I wondered was how is Google going to make money. Of course, more Google searches and more Google advertising came to mine, but what nags me is how the hell does Google quantify how much money they make with Android? It will get complicated as other companies can use Android without using Google services.
It's gotta be a net-loss right now. Developing Android isn't cheap. They spent 750m on a mobile advertising company. They bought a lot of their Android resources starting 4 or 5 years ago. Their spend rate has to be on the order of 50m a year or so (and a $100m a year of iPhone! Allegedly). It's only the good graces of their search monopoly that lets them continue on with money losing ventures.
At some point in time, if Apple is successful in blunting Android, Google has to wonder whether going the operating system route was worth it compared to cooperating route.
Quote:
On the other hand, users with emotional investments with Apple will justify and accept any alternative service that is introduced. During the rumored Google to Bing switchover, some people actually accepted and supported the possibility of a switchover out of spite for Google.
True. Actually, Bing is fine with me. Bing maps did a better job for me than Google maps a couple of times. What would be interesting is if Google decides to uncooperative with Youtube, Apple decides to use Flash!
At some point in time, if Apple is successful in blunting Android, Google has to wonder whether going the operating system route was worth it compared to cooperating route.
Hubris, combined with a very Microsoft-like desire to control everything and tendency to overreach.
Sorry, I don't get your point with this. Could you please be more clear ?
iPhone is an amazing device, has been sold like cakes in Europe, it has been a success. Butit has been sold like any other phone here, it doesn't had changed anything about carriers. At least the countries I know, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shubidua
Opera Mini or Mobile ? I have seen phones use these things, and honestly, it looked useless. Not saying mobile safari is the best or only, but I believe it was the first one implemented in a smart way with tab to zoom and analysis of the page content.
Opera Mobile, not Mini, it had full browsing experience back in 2.006. As it had Netfront.
Comments
The invention of PageRank is not something that can or should be dismissed willy-nilly.
Nobody did. Move along.... (again, don't change the premise of my question so that you can provide the answer you want to).
It has been suggested elsewhere that Apple's internal statistics are not optimistic or that something is askew for the future, suggesting that Apple feels threatened to the point of cutting off competition with litigation.
This is certainly credible, reflecting as it does a suggestion elsewhere of Apple's own internal statistics. Anyway, the facts speak for themselves. Apple is going to the extreme of obtaining and now actually seeking to enforce US letters patent on its inventions, I suppose to avoid bankruptcy.
By the way, I missed the original source reference. Who spilled the beans?
Seriously, do you even know what sophistry is, ...?
Why, yes, I believe I do. Here's an example below.
I could post the "facts" of what the Google Books case really is and what the differences are between Patent, Copyright, and Trademark are, but it would fill up an entire discussion page and I'm sure no one else really wants to bother...
Serious question: Is there an example of an original Google creation that is successful in the marketplace?
Perhaps my question was poorly stated: Are those original creations?[...]
Nobody did. Move along.... (again, don't change the premise of my question so that you can provide the answer you want to).
OK. I'll move along.
http://www.merl.com/papers/TR94-03/
Opera Mini or Mobile ? I have seen phones use these things, and honestly, it looked useless. Not saying mobile safari is the best or only, but I believe it was the first one implemented in a smart way with tab to zoom and analysis of the page content.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/a...epth-analysis/
Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a specious argument used for deceiving someone.
Which is the context I am assuming your trying to imply?
So how does my comment, with it's supporting research links, deceive someone?
The only one trying to deceive here is you with your intent to flame Google for a violation that has yet to be determined. The only thing that has been decided is that Google does owe the publishing industry a sum to compensate them for the use of their works. The fact that they can use the works is not at issue.
Why, yes, I believe I do. Here's an example below.
On the other hand, users with emotional investments with Apple will justify and accept any alternative service that is introduced. During the rumored Google to Bing switchover, some people actually accepted and supported the possibility of a switchover out of spite for Google.
I am predicting that Google will buy Palm and start a patent war with Apple:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/a...epth-analysis/
If this happens, I predict Apple will destroy Palm in a patent war. Apple will have counter patents for all things related to Palm.
the Borjan and the space shuttle
First of all, Buran, not Borjan. Second, are you kidding? They have totally different approaches and technologies
Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a specious argument used for deceiving someone.
I think we've pretty well established that your argument is entirely specious, so exactly what point are you trying to make now? Or are you just trying to obfuscate your sophistry?
Most of the others have to do with object-oriented programming concepts, for which their are plenty of prior-art for going all the way back to the 1960s with Simula 67:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-...amming#History
One other notable claim was on reducing processor power for certain instructions, which I imagine Intel might have some prior-art to...
So yeah, I do know what I am talking about and can bring some actual research to the discussion to expand upon my points. No trolling going on here...
Kind of ironic for you to post this troll post that calls Apple a "patent troll."
Seriously though, you don't have a clue what you are talking about (which is why i cut out most of your post), and are just looking like a fool here.
Apple has already explicitly stated (in the linked article which you obviously didn't read), that they will *not* licence their technology to anyone, period. They play a win/lose game and they don't dissemble about what they are after. They want HTC to stop using the patented technology and they will fight to the very end about this you can be certain. They aren't doing it for "leverage" or "cross-licensing" or any of that BS because they don't believe in that sort of thing and have said so explicitly many times over.
In the case of Nokia and others suing Apple, the counter-suit could be at least partially a bargaining position, but this case is one of those rare times when Apple actually outright attacks someone else. They don't do it casually (or at all mostly), and they mean it when they do it.
Most of the patents they cite are fairly ironclad, low-level OS patents that HTC will likely not be able to get out of. I'm sure they, like you, are probably expecting this is a tactic of some kind as it would be coming from almost any other company, but I'd bet money that it isn't.
Again, both Tim Cook and Steve Jobs have made explicit statements to that effect and based on their past behaviour, I believe them.
One of the problems with Google is that they don't respect the law, particularly IP law, and act like it doesn't apply to them.
While I use Google search, since it is the default with most of the browsers I use, it is Google's lack of respect of privacy for its users, as well as what you stated above that dissuaded me from depending too much on Google (email, etc.)
[Not that other companies are much better, but that is the reason why I am not too much enthused with social networking sites either.]
I am especially concerned about how they have tried to interpret "fair use" of presenting copyrighted books for example. They essentially just randomly delete pages here and there..... but you have pages and pages of verbatim copies of the book.
I believe Amazon does the same, but I am not really a fan of Amazon either. I still buy most of my books locally, especially here in Boston, where you can get better selection -- and even read them while at the store with encouragement from the staff before you buy in places like the Harvard Store (no connection to Harvard), The Coop (Harvard's bookstore). Alas, Amazon has bankrupted many of the other small bookstores in the area.
CGC
That is a key point to understand. The whole concept is to prevent someone from PROFITING from your patent.
As Android is open source, Google is not directly profiting from phone. Now that is not to say that Apple won't go after Google in the future, but my guess is that they are using this action to shape what competitors can and can't do with with the Android interface.
It is hard, immensely hard, to go after Google/Android directly because the patents in question are all related to interface, how that interface interacts with the OS, and the developmental frameworks underlying the interface. Both iPhone and Android are descended from open-source. But the UI and frameworks to bridge between the UI and the kernal are Apples. Google just has to say that it didn't write the UI pieces and then they are 'off the hook'.
HTC built a UI that is surprisingly iPhone like. That has been it's selling point. This will end in either HTC redesigning their interface or HTC licensing technology from Apple [which I doubt will happen].
If worse comes to worse, I fear Google pulling out of iPhone OS and supporting full steam their own mobile platform. They already have exclusive programs that won't come to the App store due to the Google Voice conflict. Casual iPhone/iPod Touch users that have no particular emotional investment to Apple will be hurt the most with the loss of Google/Map/Youtube services, as those services are very commonly used by the casual consumer. It may even turn off people considering buying those products.
When I first heard of Google doing this Android business, one of the first things I wondered was how is Google going to make money. Of course, more Google searches and more Google advertising came to mine, but what nags me is how the hell does Google quantify how much money they make with Android? It will get complicated as other companies can use Android without using Google services.
It's gotta be a net-loss right now. Developing Android isn't cheap. They spent 750m on a mobile advertising company. They bought a lot of their Android resources starting 4 or 5 years ago. Their spend rate has to be on the order of 50m a year or so (and a $100m a year of iPhone! Allegedly). It's only the good graces of their search monopoly that lets them continue on with money losing ventures.
At some point in time, if Apple is successful in blunting Android, Google has to wonder whether going the operating system route was worth it compared to cooperating route.
On the other hand, users with emotional investments with Apple will justify and accept any alternative service that is introduced. During the rumored Google to Bing switchover, some people actually accepted and supported the possibility of a switchover out of spite for Google.
True. Actually, Bing is fine with me. Bing maps did a better job for me than Google maps a couple of times. What would be interesting is if Google decides to uncooperative with Youtube, Apple decides to use Flash!
At some point in time, if Apple is successful in blunting Android, Google has to wonder whether going the operating system route was worth it compared to cooperating route.
Hubris, combined with a very Microsoft-like desire to control everything and tendency to overreach.
Hubris, combined with a very Microsoft-like desire to control everything and tendency to overreach.
Sorry, I don't get your point with this. Could you please be more clear ?
iPhone is an amazing device, has been sold like cakes in Europe, it has been a success. Butit has been sold like any other phone here, it doesn't had changed anything about carriers. At least the countries I know, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Germany.
Opera Mini or Mobile ? I have seen phones use these things, and honestly, it looked useless. Not saying mobile safari is the best or only, but I believe it was the first one implemented in a smart way with tab to zoom and analysis of the page content.
Opera Mobile, not Mini, it had full browsing experience back in 2.006. As it had Netfront.
You mean other than Google Search, Map/Reduce, Google Maps and Ad Sense?
Search wasn't new... there were lots of search engines before Google.
Google Maps is a copy of MapQuest, among others.
AdSense was another idea they stole. They went through lots of litigation over that.
Google doesn't do anything original. But very few companies do.