Google just hired Tim Bray, who introduced himself by slamming Apple's vision of the mobile internet.
Bray coming from Sun, a company with proprietary overpriced hardware and closed system (based on unix but not open). I would not call him credible to critize my dear apple.
Bray coming from Sun, a company with proprietary overpriced hardware and closed system (based on unix but not open). I would not call him credible to critize my dear apple.
Nicely said!!
Looking at Bray's comments he's plainly wrong anyhow.
"The iPhone vision of the mobile Internet?s future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what. It?s a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord?s pleasure and fear his anger."
The thing is that mobile internet on the iPhone omits none of the things he lists whatsover.
Perhaps MS thinks "sorting it out all out" will end up in their favor, with Apple paying them royalties.
NO.
MS is totally transparent on this one. HTC is moving away from WinMo into Android, and Android is a gun pointed at WinMo's head right now. If Apple wins and Android has to go back to the drawing board on all those points, HTC and others will come crawling back to MS for a couple years. Maybe long enough for WinMo to solidify it's position and leave Android as a fringe player for the duration.
MS will be doing enough things just a little differently and be able to use prior defensive patents to dissuade Apple from taking WinMo on in court. MS knows this. Apple knows this.
So the suit against HTC can only help MS. Either WinMo gets more business if Android gets it's little metal nose tweaked, or if Apple loses WinMo can be more blatant in copying without fear.
If Microsoft may be getting favourable licensing deals for Apple's technology (as this Microsoft official is strongly hinting) Android will be left out in the cold, possibly negating all their gains at the expense of Windows Mobile and Apple.
On the other hand, as Steve Jobs believes, Google is already an unavoidable force in the mobile industry with Maps, Search and advertising pretty much locked down across all mobile platforms.
Why they had to go that bit further, first with Android, then with the Nexus, thereby alienating "those who wish to be their partners" is really beyond me. It may turn out to be one power-play too far, given the risk of fragmentation of the Android platform (some brand-new handsets are still shipping with 1.4 for example) and the antagonism of Apple in the mobile advertising space in addition to Bing and Yahoo in the mobile search, mapping and advertising space.
All speculation really. What's for sure is that the new raft of smartphone technologies in the wake of the iPhone and its "equivalents" needs patent standardisation just like the radio, bluetooth and Wi-Fi ones have.
All this makes one think that Nokia's patent lawsuit against Apple was a pre-emptive strike in anticipation of all this litigation.
Google is nothing but treacherous parasites. They do not produce any content but free loads on the work of others like NYT, books, etc. Worse is that their CEO was in the board of Apple and allegedly breached fiduciary responsibility by pirating the IPRs backed by patents from Apple. Then he got a look at the strategic plans, etc of what was going with Apple.
Yes, Google deserves to get sued along with the guy who sat on the board of Apple. They already had most of the mobile search business. Why did they have to be Judas?
Google is the most evil. They are the ones trying to kill Apple.
If evil is defined as no-taste and horrible UI, then I'd agree with that. I haven't really found myself hating Microsoft lately outside of the usual complexity arguments with the OS - which OSX isn't that far behind (which is why I'm in the iPad fanboy camp - simplify my sh!t PLEASE). In the last 10 years they HAVE been trying to make things look and work better.
Zune's an also-ran and the new windows mobile 7 (or whatever it's called) has some odd "features" (app buttons that look more like banner ads - are you kidding me?), but they don't look BAD - they're just not my BAG. Actually the latest Zune looks decent. If rumors didn't persist on subscriber music with Apple, I'd probably get one.
I think a new alliance might help both (certainly their stocks would bump) - and perhaps scare the hell out of Google into getting it's crap together on the usability side.
Too many perhaps - perhaps - but fun to think about.
If Microsoft may be getting favourable licensing deals for Apple's technology (as this Microsoft official is strongly hinting) Android will be left out in the cold, possibly negating all their gains at the expense of Windows Mobile and Apple.
On the other hand, as Steve Jobs believes, Google is already an unavoidable force in the mobile industry with Maps, Search and advertising pretty much locked down across all mobile platforms.
Why they had to go that bit further, first with Android, then with the Nexus, thereby alienating "those who wish to be their partners" is really beyond me. It may turn out to be one power-play too far, given the risk of fragmentation of the Android platform (some brand-new handsets are still shipping with 1.4 for example) and the antagonism of Apple in the mobile advertising space in addition to Bing and Yahoo in the mobile search, mapping and advertising space.
All speculation really. What's for sure is that the new raft of smartphone technologies in the wake of the iPhone and its "equivalents" needs patent standardisation just like the radio, bluetooth and Wi-Fi ones have.
All this makes one think that Nokia's patent lawsuit against Apple was a pre-emptive strike in anticipation of all this litigation.
No such thing as 1.4. There might be a few phones out there still on 1.5 (cliq?), but most are either on 1.6 or 2.0/2.1. Either way fragmentation in the Android Market isn't as big a deal as people make it. Some apps have less features in older versions, but most still run. Only a little different than app fragmentation in 3g and 3gs (Android dev's have to deal with a little more hardware fragmentation because of the different phone manufacturers). No big deal, this issue needs to be put to rest already.
Either way, I think Microsoft is just sitting back and letting it's two biggest threats just duke it out. I think some of these patents are dumb, and just a natural evolution of mobile technology, but I'm sure it'll all work itself out in the 2-5 years it'll be held up in court.
In the meantime, I'm submitting my patent to unlocking phones with my brain so I can sue everyone in the future.
Google is the most evil. They are the ones trying to kill Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPdiddy
MS top brass in support of Apple's actions and complimentary... something is up. I can't stand monkey boy but ..Down with Google (traitors) and their partners yeah you HTC!
Quote:
Why did they have to be Judas?
It's called business, people. Grow up a little. Evil? Traitors? Judas? Morals would have to play some in part in business for such terms to apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjitMD
Google is nothing but treacherous parasites. They do not produce any content but free loads on the work of others like NYT, books, etc.
So what content does Apple produce? Isn't Apple just freeloading off all the developers who add value to the iPhone by producing apps for it? Or all the music, movies, books, etc. that have helped sell iPods?
It's called business, people. Grow up a little. Evil? Traitors? Judas? Morals would have to play some in part in business for such terms to apply.
So true! In the same sense, I've never understood why Google try and paint themselves as holier than thou and indirectly portray others badly. No companies (or governments) are holy. They just do what has to be done.
You mean that a lawsuit is required for you to figure out whether you are the owner of something?
Sometimes, yes. Especially in fields like software patents. The USPTO examiners are generally not the cream of the crop in terms of experts in the field of the inventions they're granting patents on. (If they were, then they'd be the inventors instead of the bureaucrats.) So they generally depend upon the inventor to do most of the legwork of identifying and listing any relevant prior art.
The inventors, then, have to sift through millions of pieces of prior art to determine whether any of it is relevant to their inventions. With that much information to sift through, it's almost inevitable that occasionally, something is going to be missed along the way.
And at that stage of the game, even if there is anybody out there who has a vested interest in the field (for example, they own a prior patent in the same field, or already sell an openly published, unpatented public domain invention that precedes the new patent), there can be no practical mechanism to guarantee that they are always automatically "pushed" a notification of the patent application to allow them to object to it.
So the best you can hope for when you make a patent application, is that you have a "very good chance" of owning the invention. It's only after you test the patent in court that you can say you own it with certainty.
Comments
Google just hired Tim Bray, who introduced himself by slamming Apple's vision of the mobile internet.
Bray coming from Sun, a company with proprietary overpriced hardware and closed system (based on unix but not open). I would not call him credible to critize my dear apple.
Bray coming from Sun, a company with proprietary overpriced hardware and closed system (based on unix but not open). I would not call him credible to critize my dear apple.
Nicely said!!
Looking at Bray's comments he's plainly wrong anyhow.
"The iPhone vision of the mobile Internet?s future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what. It?s a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord?s pleasure and fear his anger."
The thing is that mobile internet on the iPhone omits none of the things he lists whatsover.
Perhaps MS thinks "sorting it out all out" will end up in their favor, with Apple paying them royalties.
NO.
MS is totally transparent on this one. HTC is moving away from WinMo into Android, and Android is a gun pointed at WinMo's head right now. If Apple wins and Android has to go back to the drawing board on all those points, HTC and others will come crawling back to MS for a couple years. Maybe long enough for WinMo to solidify it's position and leave Android as a fringe player for the duration.
MS will be doing enough things just a little differently and be able to use prior defensive patents to dissuade Apple from taking WinMo on in court. MS knows this. Apple knows this.
So the suit against HTC can only help MS. Either WinMo gets more business if Android gets it's little metal nose tweaked, or if Apple loses WinMo can be more blatant in copying without fear.
Google just hired Tim Bray, who introduced himself by slamming Apple's vision of the mobile internet.
Google is the most evil. They are the ones trying to kill Apple.
Me thinks something is afoot.
And it doesn't look good for Google...
If Microsoft may be getting favourable licensing deals for Apple's technology (as this Microsoft official is strongly hinting) Android will be left out in the cold, possibly negating all their gains at the expense of Windows Mobile and Apple.
On the other hand, as Steve Jobs believes, Google is already an unavoidable force in the mobile industry with Maps, Search and advertising pretty much locked down across all mobile platforms.
Why they had to go that bit further, first with Android, then with the Nexus, thereby alienating "those who wish to be their partners" is really beyond me. It may turn out to be one power-play too far, given the risk of fragmentation of the Android platform (some brand-new handsets are still shipping with 1.4 for example) and the antagonism of Apple in the mobile advertising space in addition to Bing and Yahoo in the mobile search, mapping and advertising space.
All speculation really. What's for sure is that the new raft of smartphone technologies in the wake of the iPhone and its "equivalents" needs patent standardisation just like the radio, bluetooth and Wi-Fi ones have.
All this makes one think that Nokia's patent lawsuit against Apple was a pre-emptive strike in anticipation of all this litigation.
Why these people say anything is beyond me. Better to just stay quiet.
Your own contribution excepted, of course.
Google is the most evil. They are the ones trying to kill Apple.
Have you considered apple is killing themselves? They don't own these patents. This is Publicity.
Yes, Google deserves to get sued along with the guy who sat on the board of Apple. They already had most of the mobile search business. Why did they have to be Judas?
Your own contribution excepted, of course.
Which is why I am going to be vocal about being silent.
But this is what I've sad already: who owns what will be clarified. Everyone's IP position will be made clear.
Google is the most evil. They are the ones trying to kill Apple.
If evil is defined as no-taste and horrible UI, then I'd agree with that. I haven't really found myself hating Microsoft lately outside of the usual complexity arguments with the OS - which OSX isn't that far behind (which is why I'm in the iPad fanboy camp - simplify my sh!t PLEASE). In the last 10 years they HAVE been trying to make things look and work better.
Zune's an also-ran and the new windows mobile 7 (or whatever it's called) has some odd "features" (app buttons that look more like banner ads - are you kidding me?), but they don't look BAD - they're just not my BAG. Actually the latest Zune looks decent. If rumors didn't persist on subscriber music with Apple, I'd probably get one.
I think a new alliance might help both (certainly their stocks would bump) - and perhaps scare the hell out of Google into getting it's crap together on the usability side.
Too many perhaps - perhaps - but fun to think about.
And it doesn't look good for Google...
If Microsoft may be getting favourable licensing deals for Apple's technology (as this Microsoft official is strongly hinting) Android will be left out in the cold, possibly negating all their gains at the expense of Windows Mobile and Apple.
On the other hand, as Steve Jobs believes, Google is already an unavoidable force in the mobile industry with Maps, Search and advertising pretty much locked down across all mobile platforms.
Why they had to go that bit further, first with Android, then with the Nexus, thereby alienating "those who wish to be their partners" is really beyond me. It may turn out to be one power-play too far, given the risk of fragmentation of the Android platform (some brand-new handsets are still shipping with 1.4 for example) and the antagonism of Apple in the mobile advertising space in addition to Bing and Yahoo in the mobile search, mapping and advertising space.
All speculation really. What's for sure is that the new raft of smartphone technologies in the wake of the iPhone and its "equivalents" needs patent standardisation just like the radio, bluetooth and Wi-Fi ones have.
All this makes one think that Nokia's patent lawsuit against Apple was a pre-emptive strike in anticipation of all this litigation.
No such thing as 1.4. There might be a few phones out there still on 1.5 (cliq?), but most are either on 1.6 or 2.0/2.1. Either way fragmentation in the Android Market isn't as big a deal as people make it. Some apps have less features in older versions, but most still run. Only a little different than app fragmentation in 3g and 3gs (Android dev's have to deal with a little more hardware fragmentation because of the different phone manufacturers). No big deal, this issue needs to be put to rest already.
Either way, I think Microsoft is just sitting back and letting it's two biggest threats just duke it out. I think some of these patents are dumb, and just a natural evolution of mobile technology, but I'm sure it'll all work itself out in the 2-5 years it'll be held up in court.
In the meantime, I'm submitting my patent to unlocking phones with my brain so I can sue everyone in the future.
Google is the most evil. They are the ones trying to kill Apple.
MS top brass in support of Apple's actions and complimentary... something is up. I can't stand monkey boy but ..Down with Google (traitors) and their partners yeah you HTC!
Why did they have to be Judas?
It's called business, people. Grow up a little. Evil? Traitors? Judas? Morals would have to play some in part in business for such terms to apply.
Google is nothing but treacherous parasites. They do not produce any content but free loads on the work of others like NYT, books, etc.
So what content does Apple produce? Isn't Apple just freeloading off all the developers who add value to the iPhone by producing apps for it? Or all the music, movies, books, etc. that have helped sell iPods?
Microsoft never innovates. They just copy Apple.
That's not true at all. There's lots of people they copy from
It's called business, people. Grow up a little. Evil? Traitors? Judas? Morals would have to play some in part in business for such terms to apply.
So true! In the same sense, I've never understood why Google try and paint themselves as holier than thou and indirectly portray others badly. No companies (or governments) are holy. They just do what has to be done.
Which is why I am going to be vocal about being silent.
Touché.
Google just hired Tim Bray, who introduced himself by slamming Apple's vision of the mobile internet.
Tim Bray is known for one area: XML.
We just went through 10 years of everything must be based in XML and now we're moving forward with HTML5 and XML has found it's niche.
That was a painful 10 years.
You mean that a lawsuit is required for you to figure out whether you are the owner of something?
Sometimes, yes. Especially in fields like software patents. The USPTO examiners are generally not the cream of the crop in terms of experts in the field of the inventions they're granting patents on. (If they were, then they'd be the inventors instead of the bureaucrats.) So they generally depend upon the inventor to do most of the legwork of identifying and listing any relevant prior art.
The inventors, then, have to sift through millions of pieces of prior art to determine whether any of it is relevant to their inventions. With that much information to sift through, it's almost inevitable that occasionally, something is going to be missed along the way.
And at that stage of the game, even if there is anybody out there who has a vested interest in the field (for example, they own a prior patent in the same field, or already sell an openly published, unpatented public domain invention that precedes the new patent), there can be no practical mechanism to guarantee that they are always automatically "pushed" a notification of the patent application to allow them to object to it.
So the best you can hope for when you make a patent application, is that you have a "very good chance" of owning the invention. It's only after you test the patent in court that you can say you own it with certainty.
....and on stupid patents like unlocking a phone with your finger ..
It looks like Microsoft wants to licence some Apple IP.