No, the reason they haven't sued yet is because they think that suing over software patents hurts the industry as a whole and stifles innovation.
In the blog post where they talked about this potential purchase they said as much. They're purchasing these patents for defensive purposes because too many companies are trying to use patents offensively and since Google is such a young company, and they're rather adverse to patents, they don't have a portfolio of their own to make companies think twice before trying to sue them.
This is BS.
Even if you are right about how "Google feels," Google is a corporation and how it "feels" about things change as the market changes and the people running it change. Admittedly they have a shot at being less evil now that Schmidtty is gone, but in a few years it will be all different people running it yet again. Corporations generally outlive the people running them betting on the "culture" of a corporation to stay the same (and above all to be altruistic), is foolish at best.
Google can be, and is just as evil as the next company when it comes to protecting their own stuff and they are just as "closed" as Apple is when it comes to the things that make them money.
I think RIM has always been more technology oriented than Apple. Apple's focus has been more product oriented. RIM just happened to make a few phones that work on their network. These patents would go a long way to ensure the company can survive. They need to get out of the consumer products business and get back to their core business
In the end, I see Apple buying this at the last second for 1.3 billion to prevent further lawsuits when their LTE iPhone 5 is released. I'm sure Apple will see this as saving money in the long run, rather than spending money in the short term ? and then they can start suing folks, instead of being sued by them
The reason I'm weary of a prediction Apple will buy this is the lack of precedence for Apple paying this much for IP. For example, in 2009 they let Google buy AdMob for $750M and then bought Quattro for $300M.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkgray
It's cute how RIM thinks it can survive.
Don't count RiM out juat yet they are still te 2nd(?) most profitable handset maker in the world as a long way to go before they'll have to close up shop or get bought out.
Apple was only had a market cap of $5B when finally figure it out and now they are making more than that in net profit per quarter. Michael Dell wasn't alone in his sentiment. I believe even Bill Gates had something pejorative to say about Apple's attempt to be relevant again.
PS: @ Gatorguy: Using mulitple paragraphs would make your posts more readable.
What RIMM has, just like GOOG, is identity crisis. Instead of trying to make their business phones better, RIMM is trying to get market shares in the consumer market, which IMO is the wrong move. RIMM should just make phones that's more and more useful for employees, at the same time market the phones as something that improves productivity and yet being able to restrict employees from wasting time on Apps (i.e. not iOS/Android), by tweaking their software. But now they're trying to do this PlayBook thing which is just silly.
The safest purchase, and the one best for the industry, would be one by Google IMO. Why? Google does not generally sue other players. Think they've sued a Government or two. But they don't wag patents around and file suit against everyone else in the business as a rule. The purchase of the Nortel patents would be a defensive move, intending to protect them from dubious suits. As the AI article hints, there's other potential purchasers who may see the portfolio as more patent infringement fodder, as tho there isn't already enough questionable use of the courts as a replacement for good business plans.
Google barely has any IP (especially in the mobile space, which is a very patent-lawsuit happy arena, even before Apple was even rumored to be entering smartphones). Their most famous patent is their Google Doodle.
If anything, apple barely sues anyone offensively. The only ones they have done in recent history is HTC...Not surprising considering the complete ripoff Apple thought Android was (as the recent book on Google further reveals).
Besides, its ridiculous to think Google is some sort of knight in shining armor. Even assuming they are absolutely "Dont be evil" right now (see their trademark legal actions, if you want evidence against that), it is impossible (in fact illegal) for that to last long. As a public company, if Google takes any actions, which knowingly hurt their shareholders profits, it would be illegal, since the executives would be betraying their fiduciary duties.
That stance was believable when they were private. Its silly since they've become public. I find it amazing how clueless some of the smartest people in the world (many of whom are in the tech arena) are about such basic financial/legal issues.
Do you really think Apple would buy it? They might have a go but they have generally been a bit frugal in the offering and lost the bid. Admob and Palm (allegedly) spring to mind.
Apple was simply outmaneuvered by Google in the Admob acquisition. I doubt frugality had anything to do with it. Its no surprise they went and hired a pretty senior lawyer to work on their acquisition strategy right after the loss of Admob. Not sure about the Palm acquisition, since there is very little information about it (including whether Apple had a serious offer to actually acquire Palm).
But I see your point. Apple has never really used its money to simply acquire patents, without any technology. That being said, they've not had a long history with billions in the bank, considering they spent most of the 90's simply trying not to go bankrupt.
Google barely has any IP. Their most famous patent is their Google Doodle.
If anything, apple barely sues anyone offensively. The only ones they have done in recent history is HTC...Not surprising considering the complete and obvious ripoff Android was (as the recent book on Google further reveals).
True. Having buckets full of money, Apple is the defendant more often than the plaintiff. Their recent suit against 3rd party accessory producers/sellers seems a tad offensive tho.
There's a pretty good history of Android found at TechRadar. More than a few posts here still demonstrate misconceptions regarding where Android came from, it's original goal, and who the key figure was and still is.
Their recent suit against 3rd party accessory producers/sellers seems a tad offensive tho.
I largely agree. However, the driving point in that lawsuit is not the patents themselves, but rather the fact that the "inferior" quality of those products damaged Apple's products, opening Apple to liability.
This was a direct response to "glassgate", where some badly produced 3rd party covers were damaging the iPhone, exposing the iPhone to a ton of negative publicity, and Apple to lawsuits. The lawsuit was an attempt to prevent the sales of these damaging products.
I don't mean to say Apple does not sue offensively (or will not sue offensively in the future). I expect them to. I think its ridiculous, as an earlier poster claimed, to think that ownership of the patents by 1 public company will be better than ownership by another public company, because the 1st one will not sue. My point is that any public company, if they think they will make more money than lose by suing, is required by law to sue.
True. Having buckets full of money, Apple is the defendant more often than the plaintiff. Their recent suit against 3rd party accessory producers/sellers seems a tad offensive tho.
It's offensive that Apple wants to protect its intellectual property? They spend billions on R&D and developing new products and technology. Why should any Tom, Dick, and Harry be able to come along and steal it?
I'd wager that you never created anything of enough value that people were willing to pay for it - or your viewpoint would almost certainly be different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
There's a pretty good history of Android found at TechRadar. More than a few posts here still demonstrate misconceptions regarding where Android came from, it's original goal, and who the key figure was and still is.
I hope Apple buys them. The idea that google is not evil is more marketing slogan than reality.... google is totally evil. They stole the iPhone multitouch design and produced a competing product while sitting on Apple's board!
It is my sincere hope that Apple defeats google to such an extent that they become a division of Apple.
Over the long term, it is best for justice to prevail, than for criminal organizations to succeed....
Dude, you must be a comics fan!!! And no slam for that, 'cos I've been one for over half a century, but from your starkly drawn moral landscape here.... ....I can totally see you chanting "In brightest day, in blackest night, no tech evil shall escape my sight, beware the power of Jessi's Light!"
Or, "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of corps....? The Jessi knows!"
Well, as Mary Jane would say, "Go get 'em, Tiger!!"
PS: if Steve Jobs was comics super-hero, his deux et machina tag-line - when hopelessly surrounded and out-gunned would be, "And, oh, by the way guys, there is... ...One More Thing....."
Larry Ellison would look like Patrick Stewart's 'taken-by-the-Borg outfit' as he rasped "assimilate or die" at his latest acquisition.
Steve Ballmer in spandex? Ewwwwww. No way. Wait! The Toad!!
Woz is already Segway Guy - or "the Lone Segway Ranger" - if better cast as the gadget go to guy in the garage for someone like the Punisher out in the field.... ....i.e., the role he actually played for iSteve....
But where did all the colorful characters from the earlier days of the "pre-post-PC era" go? Hard to assemble a full team of heroes or villains even the people on these boards would know, these days, let alone the gen'l public..... ...and Carly Fiorina flopped at becoming Power Girl.
Coupla' of slogans suggest themselves tho'... "Anti-trusters Assemble!" ... "It's Acquirin' Time!" ... "To the patent cave, my trolls!" Or as Larry Page recently said to Eric Schmidt, "ehhhhh, so what's up, Doc?"
I largely agree. However, the driving point in that lawsuit is not the patents themselves, but rather the fact that the "inferior" quality of those products damaged Apple's products, opening Apple to liability.
This was a direct response to "glassgate", where some badly produced 3rd party covers were damaging the iPhone, exposing the iPhone to a ton of negative publicity, and Apple to lawsuits. The lawsuit was an attempt to prevent the sales of these damaging products.
I don't mean to say Apple does not sue offensively (or will not sue offensively in the future). I expect them to. I think its ridiculous, as an earlier poster claimed, to think that ownership of the patents by 1 public company will be better than ownership by another public company, because the 1st one will not sue. My point is that any public company, if they think they will make more money than lose by suing, is required by law to sue.
I find the idea of "offensive" vs. "defensive" "patent suing" a bit ridiculous.
The main reason entities are "nice" about patents and don't sue unless it's to protect themselves, is because patent suits cost huge amounts of money and are very hard to win, not because of defensive/offensive strategy.
Thus you see Apple, which has patents on all kinds of things that it's competitors are ripping off is loathe to sue and only does so when it feels it has to. Similarly, most of RIM's new playbook OS is a direct rip-off of WebOS, but HP knows better than to sue about it because it's a fight they might easily lose even though they clearly have patents and clearly were first with the design.
Even if you are right about how "Google feels," Google is a corporation and how it "feels" about things change as the market changes and the people running it change. Admittedly they have a shot at being less evil now that Schmidtty is gone, but in a few years it will be all different people running it yet again. Corporations generally outlive the people running them betting on the "culture" of a corporation to stay the same (and above all to be altruistic), is foolish at best.
Google can be, and is just as evil as the next company when it comes to protecting their own stuff and they are just as "closed" as Apple is when it comes to the things that make them money.
You're right, companies do change, but Google has been a voice against Patent litigation for quite awhile, and Larry Page even moreso than Schmidt.
And this isn't a "Closed V Open" debate. There are very closed companies, with huge patent portfolios (IBM) that rarely, if ever go after others with lawsuits.
So yes, while they CAN change, there is no way for you to know that they will, and so all we can do is go off of what they're saying now, and what they've done historically.
The news that Google was showing Android handset prototypes as an example of what it could do date to 2006, a year before a picture of one leaked out and before the iPhone ever came to market.
There was no surprise that Google hoped to have a piece of the mobile market, and Steve Jobs wasn't blindsided by it either. Google happily shared details, even allowing it's engineers to be questioned and consulted by Apple's according to industry sources. Speculation on the plans for Android began almost as soon as Google bought the company in 2005, tho it was founded back in 2003, a full 4 years before the iPhone shipped. It didn't magically develop from the iPhone.
Comments
No, the reason they haven't sued yet is because they think that suing over software patents hurts the industry as a whole and stifles innovation.
In the blog post where they talked about this potential purchase they said as much. They're purchasing these patents for defensive purposes because too many companies are trying to use patents offensively and since Google is such a young company, and they're rather adverse to patents, they don't have a portfolio of their own to make companies think twice before trying to sue them.
This is BS.
Even if you are right about how "Google feels," Google is a corporation and how it "feels" about things change as the market changes and the people running it change. Admittedly they have a shot at being less evil now that Schmidtty is gone, but in a few years it will be all different people running it yet again. Corporations generally outlive the people running them betting on the "culture" of a corporation to stay the same (and above all to be altruistic), is foolish at best.
Google can be, and is just as evil as the next company when it comes to protecting their own stuff and they are just as "closed" as Apple is when it comes to the things that make them money.
In the end, I see Apple buying this at the last second for 1.3 billion to prevent further lawsuits when their LTE iPhone 5 is released. I'm sure Apple will see this as saving money in the long run, rather than spending money in the short term ? and then they can start suing folks, instead of being sued by them
The reason I'm weary of a prediction Apple will buy this is the lack of precedence for Apple paying this much for IP. For example, in 2009 they let Google buy AdMob for $750M and then bought Quattro for $300M.
It's cute how RIM thinks it can survive.
Don't count RiM out juat yet they are still te 2nd(?) most profitable handset maker in the world as a long way to go before they'll have to close up shop or get bought out.
Apple was only had a market cap of $5B when finally figure it out and now they are making more than that in net profit per quarter. Michael Dell wasn't alone in his sentiment. I believe even Bill Gates had something pejorative to say about Apple's attempt to be relevant again.
PS: @ Gatorguy: Using mulitple paragraphs would make your posts more readable.
The safest purchase, and the one best for the industry, would be one by Google IMO. Why? Google does not generally sue other players. Think they've sued a Government or two. But they don't wag patents around and file suit against everyone else in the business as a rule. The purchase of the Nortel patents would be a defensive move, intending to protect them from dubious suits. As the AI article hints, there's other potential purchasers who may see the portfolio as more patent infringement fodder, as tho there isn't already enough questionable use of the courts as a replacement for good business plans.
Google barely has any IP (especially in the mobile space, which is a very patent-lawsuit happy arena, even before Apple was even rumored to be entering smartphones). Their most famous patent is their Google Doodle.
If anything, apple barely sues anyone offensively. The only ones they have done in recent history is HTC...Not surprising considering the complete ripoff Apple thought Android was (as the recent book on Google further reveals).
Besides, its ridiculous to think Google is some sort of knight in shining armor. Even assuming they are absolutely "Dont be evil" right now (see their trademark legal actions, if you want evidence against that), it is impossible (in fact illegal) for that to last long. As a public company, if Google takes any actions, which knowingly hurt their shareholders profits, it would be illegal, since the executives would be betraying their fiduciary duties.
That stance was believable when they were private. Its silly since they've become public. I find it amazing how clueless some of the smartest people in the world (many of whom are in the tech arena) are about such basic financial/legal issues.
Do you really think Apple would buy it? They might have a go but they have generally been a bit frugal in the offering and lost the bid. Admob and Palm (allegedly) spring to mind.
Apple was simply outmaneuvered by Google in the Admob acquisition. I doubt frugality had anything to do with it. Its no surprise they went and hired a pretty senior lawyer to work on their acquisition strategy right after the loss of Admob. Not sure about the Palm acquisition, since there is very little information about it (including whether Apple had a serious offer to actually acquire Palm).
But I see your point. Apple has never really used its money to simply acquire patents, without any technology. That being said, they've not had a long history with billions in the bank, considering they spent most of the 90's simply trying not to go bankrupt.
Please bid 1.2 billion.
Thanks,
GF147
Google barely has any IP. Their most famous patent is their Google Doodle.
If anything, apple barely sues anyone offensively. The only ones they have done in recent history is HTC...Not surprising considering the complete and obvious ripoff Android was (as the recent book on Google further reveals).
True. Having buckets full of money, Apple is the defendant more often than the plaintiff. Their recent suit against 3rd party accessory producers/sellers seems a tad offensive tho.
There's a pretty good history of Android found at TechRadar. More than a few posts here still demonstrate misconceptions regarding where Android came from, it's original goal, and who the key figure was and still is.
http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-...android-470327
Their recent suit against 3rd party accessory producers/sellers seems a tad offensive tho.
I largely agree. However, the driving point in that lawsuit is not the patents themselves, but rather the fact that the "inferior" quality of those products damaged Apple's products, opening Apple to liability.
This was a direct response to "glassgate", where some badly produced 3rd party covers were damaging the iPhone, exposing the iPhone to a ton of negative publicity, and Apple to lawsuits. The lawsuit was an attempt to prevent the sales of these damaging products.
I don't mean to say Apple does not sue offensively (or will not sue offensively in the future). I expect them to. I think its ridiculous, as an earlier poster claimed, to think that ownership of the patents by 1 public company will be better than ownership by another public company, because the 1st one will not sue. My point is that any public company, if they think they will make more money than lose by suing, is required by law to sue.
It's cute how RIM thinks it can survive.
I nominate this as "Best Post of the week!"
Best
True. Having buckets full of money, Apple is the defendant more often than the plaintiff. Their recent suit against 3rd party accessory producers/sellers seems a tad offensive tho.
It's offensive that Apple wants to protect its intellectual property? They spend billions on R&D and developing new products and technology. Why should any Tom, Dick, and Harry be able to come along and steal it?
I'd wager that you never created anything of enough value that people were willing to pay for it - or your viewpoint would almost certainly be different.
There's a pretty good history of Android found at TechRadar. More than a few posts here still demonstrate misconceptions regarding where Android came from, it's original goal, and who the key figure was and still is.
http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-...android-470327
If by 'pretty good' you mean 'grossly biased'.
The facts are quite simple:
1. Google didn't have a mobile product before the iPhone came out.
2. Google's CEO sat on Apple's board and had access to Apple's pre-release products
3. Apple then released the iPhone
4. Some time after that, Google released Android - which had an enormous number of similarities to the Apple product.
Now, you can reach any conclusions you wish, but the facts are pretty clear.
I hope Apple buys them. The idea that google is not evil is more marketing slogan than reality.... google is totally evil. They stole the iPhone multitouch design and produced a competing product while sitting on Apple's board!
It is my sincere hope that Apple defeats google to such an extent that they become a division of Apple.
Over the long term, it is best for justice to prevail, than for criminal organizations to succeed....
Dude, you must be a comics fan!!! And no slam for that, 'cos I've been one for over half a century, but from your starkly drawn moral landscape here.... ....I can totally see you chanting "In brightest day, in blackest night, no tech evil shall escape my sight, beware the power of Jessi's Light!"
Or, "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of corps....? The Jessi knows!"
Well, as Mary Jane would say, "Go get 'em, Tiger!!"
PS: if Steve Jobs was comics super-hero, his deux et machina tag-line - when hopelessly surrounded and out-gunned would be, "And, oh, by the way guys, there is... ...One More Thing....."
Larry Ellison would look like Patrick Stewart's 'taken-by-the-Borg outfit' as he rasped "assimilate or die" at his latest acquisition.
Steve Ballmer in spandex? Ewwwwww. No way. Wait! The Toad!!
Woz is already Segway Guy - or "the Lone Segway Ranger" - if better cast as the gadget go to guy in the garage for someone like the Punisher out in the field.... ....i.e., the role he actually played for iSteve....
But where did all the colorful characters from the earlier days of the "pre-post-PC era" go? Hard to assemble a full team of heroes or villains even the people on these boards would know, these days, let alone the gen'l public..... ...and Carly Fiorina flopped at becoming Power Girl.
Coupla' of slogans suggest themselves tho'... "Anti-trusters Assemble!" ... "It's Acquirin' Time!" ... "To the patent cave, my trolls!" Or as Larry Page recently said to Eric Schmidt, "ehhhhh, so what's up, Doc?"
Happy Saturday......
I largely agree. However, the driving point in that lawsuit is not the patents themselves, but rather the fact that the "inferior" quality of those products damaged Apple's products, opening Apple to liability.
This was a direct response to "glassgate", where some badly produced 3rd party covers were damaging the iPhone, exposing the iPhone to a ton of negative publicity, and Apple to lawsuits. The lawsuit was an attempt to prevent the sales of these damaging products.
I don't mean to say Apple does not sue offensively (or will not sue offensively in the future). I expect them to. I think its ridiculous, as an earlier poster claimed, to think that ownership of the patents by 1 public company will be better than ownership by another public company, because the 1st one will not sue. My point is that any public company, if they think they will make more money than lose by suing, is required by law to sue.
I find the idea of "offensive" vs. "defensive" "patent suing" a bit ridiculous.
The main reason entities are "nice" about patents and don't sue unless it's to protect themselves, is because patent suits cost huge amounts of money and are very hard to win, not because of defensive/offensive strategy.
Thus you see Apple, which has patents on all kinds of things that it's competitors are ripping off is loathe to sue and only does so when it feels it has to. Similarly, most of RIM's new playbook OS is a direct rip-off of WebOS, but HP knows better than to sue about it because it's a fight they might easily lose even though they clearly have patents and clearly were first with the design.
4. Some time after that, Google released Android - which had an enormous number of similarities to the Apple product.
I think its amazing that people still try to deny this.
This was the Dec 2007, Google Android prototype...
http://gizmodo.com/#!334909/google-a...pe-in-the-wild
This is BS.
Even if you are right about how "Google feels," Google is a corporation and how it "feels" about things change as the market changes and the people running it change. Admittedly they have a shot at being less evil now that Schmidtty is gone, but in a few years it will be all different people running it yet again. Corporations generally outlive the people running them betting on the "culture" of a corporation to stay the same (and above all to be altruistic), is foolish at best.
Google can be, and is just as evil as the next company when it comes to protecting their own stuff and they are just as "closed" as Apple is when it comes to the things that make them money.
You're right, companies do change, but Google has been a voice against Patent litigation for quite awhile, and Larry Page even moreso than Schmidt.
And this isn't a "Closed V Open" debate. There are very closed companies, with huge patent portfolios (IBM) that rarely, if ever go after others with lawsuits.
So yes, while they CAN change, there is no way for you to know that they will, and so all we can do is go off of what they're saying now, and what they've done historically.
There was no surprise that Google hoped to have a piece of the mobile market, and Steve Jobs wasn't blindsided by it either. Google happily shared details, even allowing it's engineers to be questioned and consulted by Apple's according to industry sources. Speculation on the plans for Android began almost as soon as Google bought the company in 2005, tho it was founded back in 2003, a full 4 years before the iPhone shipped. It didn't magically develop from the iPhone.