And that's why that post about "$50 bucks? So what?" is absurd. Even with that ASP chart, why in the world would handset makers (most of which are losing money every quarter) buy into android at that price when every one of them could get another OS for much less? Android isn't driving customers as much as it is a more purvasive alternative with little "stickiness" thus far (look at Android's tablet sales for partial evidence). If the cost gets too high due to lawsuits or licensing agreements, then I see little reason companies that make the hardware would continue utilizing Google's OS.
But what would be cheaper? WP7? It's already an equivalent price and consumers are simply not interested - MS's brand value in the mobile space appears to be negative. Android isn't as compelling an OS as iOS but it is currently head and shoulders above the non-apple platforms, and another $20 per handset isn't going to meaningfully change that.
Now if WebOs or WP manage to take off and get serious penetration then the additional cost might start to have an impact, but as the market stands right now? No.
Interesting that I'm a troll because I've posted so much, but you attack this guy in a personal and completely unsubstantive fashion because his first post disagrees with you. Nice way of encouraging an honest exchange of thoughts man, classy.
I am talking about your quote above: "It is not theft. When you infringe IP you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved. "
This is going around in circles already.
Q. I use some one's invention (patent) without licensing it. What part of the invention does the inventor no longer have? That is, what part of the invention have I thieved?
A. I have not thieved anything. The original inventor still has the invention, and still has the rights to the invention.
It is *convenient* to think of such an act as theft because it projects our physical understanding of things into the non-physical domain of intellectual property. It is also wrong to characterise it in such a way.
The fact that Copyright, Design and Patent statutes *exist in the first place* recognises that theft of these things *cannot* occur: that there is a gap in the law. If it is theft, as you maintain, the common law should be ably equipped to handle these situations. The truth is that the common law cannot do so.
Additionally, the statutes never mention the word 'theft', 'larceny', 'steal' because they simply are not words appropriate to the situation. They use the word infringement because that is what occurring. Your rights to license, sell, or whatver are being infringed. Don't confuse it with 'stealing', because your rights to possession of the thing are never touched.
Which do you want to us and how much will you pay for the privilege?
I suspect that Android at a cost of $0 is quite a different question than Android Cost >= WP7 or WebOS.
But again that assumes the Oracle does push the total price beyond that of the competition, but if they do that it really is the equivalent of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Java ultimately loses.
There is also the question of how much the ability to customize Android and differentiate phones from the competition is worth to manufacturers. We seen this with Windows desktop. The OS is identical so people just buy the cheapest PC; the only company making real profits is Microsoft. All WP7 phones look the same so why buy an HTC phone over an LG? But on Android they have HTC Sense so there is something that differentiates them.
Infringement is theft because it's 'morally equivalent'. Infringement is immoral because it's theft. Everybody knows infringement is theft. People who don't think infringement is immoral think that only criminal acts are immoral! Theft is Theft! The arguments just get more and more bizarre.
We've had appeal to majority, straw man, ad hominems, appeal to authority and circular reasoning. What fallacy is next? Shall we place a side-bet?
like it or not, it's simply not okay to rip off someone's protected intellectual property, slap an open-source license on it, and then give it away for free. If google wants to give away android for free that badly, let them build it from the ground up and expend some resources. Google knew that java was protected ip. They chose to not license it. Instead, they used java in android and distributed it under the guise of an open-source license.
I wonder how google would feel if someone were to figure out google's search-engine algorithm and use that to create their own search engine. They will gladly use any tools at their disposal to defend that algorithm, as they should. I wouldn't blame them for it. That algorithm is the fruits of their hard work, and others shouldn't be able to piggyback off of it and make money on it. On the same token, google should not cry foul when others try to defend the fruits of their hard work.
Also, there is this weird notion that a patent harms innovation. Suppose entity a has a patent on x technology. That means other entities cannot make things that use x technology, unless entity a says it's okay to do that. But what prevents others from innovating around entity a's patent on x technology? Why not invest resources in coming up with something that renders entity a's patent obsolete? This is the intent of patents.
Some cultures have no concept of ownership. As such, the concept of theft is not understood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Theft is evil in every religion, as far as I know. It doesn't matter whether it's criminal or civil. The people doing it are still stealing property that isn't theirs, and they are doing it willfully.
And has been brought up a couple of posts ago, Google has their own definition of evil, and their actions should be measured against the standards they set up for themselves.
Well at least you stopped claiming that all the patents were unequivocally valid, though the continued attempts to redefine the word theft are certainly tedious.
Boy, you are really getting confused -- click on my name & review my posts! I never made any claims about any patents -- an area in which I have little knowledge or experience.
Sht!! I have enough trouble talking about things I understand -- than to waste time pontificating on things I don't!
I am basing what I post on what I read, carefully, research, carefully and the opinions of others more qualified than I -- whose opinions and reasoning I respect. Your opponent @mellgross is one of these ( though we've had our set to's).
Just because someone criticizes your posts does not mean that we criticize the facts.
Seriously -- there is a discussion going on here and many people have things to contribute -- that, mas o menos, aligns with their particular area of expertise,
I would hope that we all contribute honestly, reasonably, factually on a best effort basis.
Please join us -- as you certainly have things to contribute!
Infringement is theft because it's 'morally equivalent'. Infringement is immoral because it's theft. Everybody knows infringement is theft. People who don't think infringement is immoral think that only criminal acts are immoral! Theft is Theft! The arguments just get more and more bizarre.
We've had appeal to majority, straw man, ad hominems, appeal to authority and circular reasoning. What fallacy is next? Shall we place a side-bet?
But again that assumes the Oracle does push the total price beyond that of the competition, but if they do that it really is the equivalent of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Java ultimately loses.
There is also the question of how much the ability to customize Android and differentiate phones from the competition is worth to manufacturers. We seen this with Windows desktop. The OS is identical so people just buy the cheapest PC; the only company making real profits is Microsoft. All WP7 phones look the same so why buy an HTC phone over an LG? But on Android they have HTC Sense so there is something that differentiates them.
Those are very good points! I doubt that anyone knows what Oracle's intentions are. Conceivably, Oracle could end up owning Android (or its replacement) and become a major player in the mobile marketplace -- Larry Ellison has had some forays into the thin-client workspace. What is more thin-client than today's Tablet?
Boy, you are really getting confused -- click on my name & review my posts! I never made any claims about any patents -- an area in which I have little knowledge or experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
We aren't discussing invalid patents here -- or anything that was unclear.
Google had no doubts that the patents were valid and deliberately chose to infringe them.
So yes, you did, you stated that Google had no doubt that the patents were valid, which is actually stronger than simply claiming that the patents are valid. Then you ad hominemed, Was a great post really all told.
So yes, you did, you stated that Google had no doubt that the patents were valid, which is actually stronger than simply claiming that the patents are valid. Then you ad hominemed, Was a great post really all told.
If the participants at Google felt the patents were valid and chose to proceed anyway -- doesn't that make their action willful infringement -- even if the patents could, later, be invalidated,
They chose to violate the law as they understood it!
Let's use facts as such, and identify opinions as such.
I am in CA and we will have dinner soon -- so I may be away for a bit!
But I have an iPad thet [mostly\\ lets me keep up!
'K?
Before you chaps return to battle read this article on the subject of theft - if only for the Helicopter joke. I think you will both recognize your own and the other's viewpoints and realize it's not such a clear cut case as 'theft is theft', or ' infringement cannot be theft'.
No it wasn't doing it for the greater good. It was doing it for the same reason it does everything. Namely, to make more advertising dollars associated with the search of books. However, that doesn't make Google's actions a copyright violation.
Look at the famous Sony Betamax copyright case. Sony was sued by the content holders for selling a device that allowed purchasers of that device to make a copy of the content holders content (that was broadcast over the television airwaves) without permission so that the users of the device could view the content at their leisure. Under the sentiment expressed by you, that sounds like a copyright violation to me. Copying without permission. Doing it to make money. Not paying the content holders. Sound familiar?
The Supreme Court held Sony's actions were fair use under the copyright laws because Sony's actions served the public good and didn't substantially deprive the content holders of their income from the content.
Under the copyright laws, Google can make money off of another's copyrighted works provided it doesn't significantly deprive the content holders their method of making money. Google's service didn't interfere with their ability to sell books. In fact, it might even increase book sales. It definitely would have benefitted the public good.
Luckily for the authors' guild, Google didn't push the matter further in the Courts. It likely would have won without having to pay the authors anything (at least on copyright grounds).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
So? You expect me to believe that Google was doing the whole project for the greater good? If that's the case then why were they putting advertising on the book search results?
Let's cut the crap - they were absconding with other people's work to leverage it to show ads to make money (their primary business!).
To be blunt, they were trying to get something (ad revenue) for nothing (willful copyright infringement). Unfortunately with the Authors Guild half-assed settlement they kind of got away with it \
Larry is no Authors Guild - they had better watch out!
I find this quote particularly entertaining when applied to Android:
"We just want everyone to know the truth about how Microsoft operates as a search engine, which is by taking the hard work of others and presenting it as their own," said Amit Singhal, a Google fellow who oversees the company's closely guarded search formulas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qualia
One of those cultures is apparently the one germinating in Google campus.
Comments
Infringement is closer to murder than theft, because it kills the creative spirit. As such, the death penalty is appropriate.
Yep. I agree.
And that's why that post about "$50 bucks? So what?" is absurd. Even with that ASP chart, why in the world would handset makers (most of which are losing money every quarter) buy into android at that price when every one of them could get another OS for much less? Android isn't driving customers as much as it is a more purvasive alternative with little "stickiness" thus far (look at Android's tablet sales for partial evidence). If the cost gets too high due to lawsuits or licensing agreements, then I see little reason companies that make the hardware would continue utilizing Google's OS.
But what would be cheaper? WP7? It's already an equivalent price and consumers are simply not interested - MS's brand value in the mobile space appears to be negative. Android isn't as compelling an OS as iOS but it is currently head and shoulders above the non-apple platforms, and another $20 per handset isn't going to meaningfully change that.
Now if WebOs or WP manage to take off and get serious penetration then the additional cost might start to have an impact, but as the market stands right now? No.
Larry... Is that you?
Congrats on a classic 1st post!
Interesting that I'm a troll because I've posted so much, but you attack this guy in a personal and completely unsubstantive fashion because his first post disagrees with you. Nice way of encouraging an honest exchange of thoughts man, classy.
I am talking about your quote above: "It is not theft. When you infringe IP you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved. "
This is going around in circles already.
Q. I use some one's invention (patent) without licensing it. What part of the invention does the inventor no longer have? That is, what part of the invention have I thieved?
A. I have not thieved anything. The original inventor still has the invention, and still has the rights to the invention.
It is *convenient* to think of such an act as theft because it projects our physical understanding of things into the non-physical domain of intellectual property. It is also wrong to characterise it in such a way.
The fact that Copyright, Design and Patent statutes *exist in the first place* recognises that theft of these things *cannot* occur: that there is a gap in the law. If it is theft, as you maintain, the common law should be ably equipped to handle these situations. The truth is that the common law cannot do so.
Additionally, the statutes never mention the word 'theft', 'larceny', 'steal' because they simply are not words appropriate to the situation. They use the word infringement because that is what occurring. Your rights to license, sell, or whatver are being infringed. Don't confuse it with 'stealing', because your rights to possession of the thing are never touched.
Exactly! Theft is theft -- by any definition!
1 == 1. I don't get what you're saying.
I guess the questions for manufacturers will be:
Here are three OSes Android, WP7, and WebOS
Which do you want to us and how much will you pay for the privilege?
I suspect that Android at a cost of $0 is quite a different question than Android Cost >= WP7 or WebOS.
But again that assumes the Oracle does push the total price beyond that of the competition, but if they do that it really is the equivalent of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Java ultimately loses.
There is also the question of how much the ability to customize Android and differentiate phones from the competition is worth to manufacturers. We seen this with Windows desktop. The OS is identical so people just buy the cheapest PC; the only company making real profits is Microsoft. All WP7 phones look the same so why buy an HTC phone over an LG? But on Android they have HTC Sense so there is something that differentiates them.
1 == 1. I don't get what you're saying.
Infringement is theft because it's 'morally equivalent'. Infringement is immoral because it's theft. Everybody knows infringement is theft. People who don't think infringement is immoral think that only criminal acts are immoral! Theft is Theft! The arguments just get more and more bizarre.
We've had appeal to majority, straw man, ad hominems, appeal to authority and circular reasoning. What fallacy is next? Shall we place a side-bet?
like it or not, it's simply not okay to rip off someone's protected intellectual property, slap an open-source license on it, and then give it away for free. If google wants to give away android for free that badly, let them build it from the ground up and expend some resources. Google knew that java was protected ip. They chose to not license it. Instead, they used java in android and distributed it under the guise of an open-source license.
I wonder how google would feel if someone were to figure out google's search-engine algorithm and use that to create their own search engine. They will gladly use any tools at their disposal to defend that algorithm, as they should. I wouldn't blame them for it. That algorithm is the fruits of their hard work, and others shouldn't be able to piggyback off of it and make money on it. On the same token, google should not cry foul when others try to defend the fruits of their hard work.
Also, there is this weird notion that a patent harms innovation. Suppose entity a has a patent on x technology. That means other entities cannot make things that use x technology, unless entity a says it's okay to do that. But what prevents others from innovating around entity a's patent on x technology? Why not invest resources in coming up with something that renders entity a's patent obsolete? This is the intent of patents.
+++ qft
Theft is evil in every religion, as far as I know. It doesn't matter whether it's criminal or civil. The people doing it are still stealing property that isn't theirs, and they are doing it willfully.
And has been brought up a couple of posts ago, Google has their own definition of evil, and their actions should be measured against the standards they set up for themselves.
Well at least you stopped claiming that all the patents were unequivocally valid, though the continued attempts to redefine the word theft are certainly tedious.
Boy, you are really getting confused -- click on my name & review my posts! I never made any claims about any patents -- an area in which I have little knowledge or experience.
Sht!! I have enough trouble talking about things I understand -- than to waste time pontificating on things I don't!
I am basing what I post on what I read, carefully, research, carefully and the opinions of others more qualified than I -- whose opinions and reasoning I respect. Your opponent @mellgross is one of these ( though we've had our set to's).
Just because someone criticizes your posts does not mean that we criticize the facts.
Seriously -- there is a discussion going on here and many people have things to contribute -- that, mas o menos, aligns with their particular area of expertise,
I would hope that we all contribute honestly, reasonably, factually on a best effort basis.
Please join us -- as you certainly have things to contribute!
Infringement is theft because it's 'morally equivalent'. Infringement is immoral because it's theft. Everybody knows infringement is theft. People who don't think infringement is immoral think that only criminal acts are immoral! Theft is Theft! The arguments just get more and more bizarre.
We've had appeal to majority, straw man, ad hominems, appeal to authority and circular reasoning. What fallacy is next? Shall we place a side-bet?
Appeal to reason and logic!
But again that assumes the Oracle does push the total price beyond that of the competition, but if they do that it really is the equivalent of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Java ultimately loses.
There is also the question of how much the ability to customize Android and differentiate phones from the competition is worth to manufacturers. We seen this with Windows desktop. The OS is identical so people just buy the cheapest PC; the only company making real profits is Microsoft. All WP7 phones look the same so why buy an HTC phone over an LG? But on Android they have HTC Sense so there is something that differentiates them.
Those are very good points! I doubt that anyone knows what Oracle's intentions are. Conceivably, Oracle could end up owning Android (or its replacement) and become a major player in the mobile marketplace -- Larry Ellison has had some forays into the thin-client workspace. What is more thin-client than today's Tablet?
Some cultures have no concept of ownership. As such, the concept of theft is not understood.
One of those cultures is apparently the one germinating in Google campus.
Boy, you are really getting confused -- click on my name & review my posts! I never made any claims about any patents -- an area in which I have little knowledge or experience.
We aren't discussing invalid patents here -- or anything that was unclear.
Google had no doubts that the patents were valid and deliberately chose to infringe them.
So yes, you did, you stated that Google had no doubt that the patents were valid, which is actually stronger than simply claiming that the patents are valid. Then you ad hominemed, Was a great post really all told.
Appeal to reason and logic!
Whenever you're ready!
Whenever you're ready!
Ready!
Let's use facts as such, and identify opinions as such.
I am in CA and we will have dinner soon -- so I may be away for a bit!
But I have an iPad thet [mostly\\ lets me keep up!
'K?
Ready!
Let's use facts as such, and identify opinions as such.
I am in CA and we will have dinner soon -- so I may be away for a bit!
But I have an iPad thet [mostly\\ lets me keep up!
'K?
I'm in the UK so it's bedtime, if you post something tonight I'll get back to it tomorrow.
So yes, you did, you stated that Google had no doubt that the patents were valid, which is actually stronger than simply claiming that the patents are valid. Then you ad hominemed, Was a great post really all told.
If the participants at Google felt the patents were valid and chose to proceed anyway -- doesn't that make their action willful infringement -- even if the patents could, later, be invalidated,
They chose to violate the law as they understood it!
How can you not understand that?
Ready!
Let's use facts as such, and identify opinions as such.
I am in CA and we will have dinner soon -- so I may be away for a bit!
But I have an iPad thet [mostly\\ lets me keep up!
'K?
Before you chaps return to battle read this article on the subject of theft - if only for the Helicopter joke. I think you will both recognize your own and the other's viewpoints and realize it's not such a clear cut case as 'theft is theft', or ' infringement cannot be theft'.
Look at the famous Sony Betamax copyright case. Sony was sued by the content holders for selling a device that allowed purchasers of that device to make a copy of the content holders content (that was broadcast over the television airwaves) without permission so that the users of the device could view the content at their leisure. Under the sentiment expressed by you, that sounds like a copyright violation to me. Copying without permission. Doing it to make money. Not paying the content holders. Sound familiar?
The Supreme Court held Sony's actions were fair use under the copyright laws because Sony's actions served the public good and didn't substantially deprive the content holders of their income from the content.
Under the copyright laws, Google can make money off of another's copyrighted works provided it doesn't significantly deprive the content holders their method of making money. Google's service didn't interfere with their ability to sell books. In fact, it might even increase book sales. It definitely would have benefitted the public good.
Luckily for the authors' guild, Google didn't push the matter further in the Courts. It likely would have won without having to pay the authors anything (at least on copyright grounds).
So? You expect me to believe that Google was doing the whole project for the greater good? If that's the case then why were they putting advertising on the book search results?
Let's cut the crap - they were absconding with other people's work to leverage it to show ads to make money (their primary business!).
To be blunt, they were trying to get something (ad revenue) for nothing (willful copyright infringement). Unfortunately with the Authors Guild half-assed settlement they kind of got away with it
Larry is no Authors Guild - they had better watch out!
I find this quote particularly entertaining when applied to Android:
"We just want everyone to know the truth about how Microsoft operates as a search engine, which is by taking the hard work of others and presenting it as their own," said Amit Singhal, a Google fellow who oversees the company's closely guarded search formulas.
One of those cultures is apparently the one germinating in Google campus.