I haven't read ANY article that eludes that WP7 costs handset manufacturers $50+ per handset. In fact, B&N said that Microsoft demanded $15-20 per Nook which is TWICE the licensing cost of WP7 which means they are looking for $7.50-10 per device. $50 per phone/device for Android is waaay more money and as I said before, if the hardware companies are already losing money every quarter, why would they actually pay so much more just to run Google's OS?
I wasn't saying that WP7 was $50 per handset, i was saying that WP7 handsets are already the same price as Android handsets and yet nobody has any interest in them. Even if Android handsets all had their prices raised by say $20 ($50 is cloud cuckoo) still nobody would buy WP7, or WebOs.
The hardware companies would pay more for Android than WP7 for the same reason that they'd pay more for Android than their own Linux - because consumers actually want it. Not as much as consumers want iOS, but more than they want anything else.
If and when Apple enter the mid-market with a $300 phone the licensing fees might start to have an impact. If WP7, WebOs or some new entrant can get some market traction they might have an impact. But right now they won't have an impact - and by the time that they do Google may have been able to have removed all infringements.
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?
That's completely hypothetical though. You have no evidence that Google believed that all of Oracle's patents were valid, indeed there is considerable evidence that they believed the opposite. They chose to infringe the patents as they currently stand, that's true - but whether or not it's legally 'wilful infringement' it's certainly not immoral - which seems to be your contention.
I wasn't saying that WP7 was $50 per handset, i was saying that WP7 handsets are already the same price as Android handsets and yet nobody has any interest in them. Even if Android handsets all had their prices raised by say $20 ($50 is cloud cuckoo) still nobody would buy WP7, or WebOs.
The hardware companies would pay more for Android than WP7 for the same reason that they'd pay more for Android than their own Linux - because consumers actually want it. Not as much as consumers want iOS, but more than they want anything else.
If and when Apple enter the mid-market with a $300 phone the licensing fees might start to have an impact. If WP7, WebOs or some new entrant can get some market traction they might have an impact. But right now they won't have an impact - and by the time that they do Google may have been able to have removed all infringements.
I've read enough of your posts (which I personally enjoy and find insightful) to know that you know that the license would not be $50. My post was referring to the person saying that $50 per phone for handset makers wouldn't matter and I think I can safely say that you'd agree that yes it would matter a great deal. Nobody is buying WP7 or WebOS in droves NOW, but if Android's costs got that hight, it wouldn't matter if consumers had been buying the competition before anyway. Handset makers simply wouldn't produce android phones because "$50 is too damn high."
That last graphic is misleading and, knowing the author, intentionally so.
Daniel is implying that there were no touchscreen-only smartphones on the market before 2007. About 50% of all Windows Mobile devices were touchscreen-only but Daniel has decided to put none in his graphic. Instead of showing popular models like the touchscreen-only HTC Magician, Daniel has instead chosen to show some of the more left field Windows Mobile devices - such as the HP iPAQ hw6965 Mobile Messenger. It's a very poor representation of the market before 2007.
Daniel is a brilliant writer, his information is accurate and non biased, perhaps you should go back to the engadget forums. I don't recall any touch screen windows based phones gaining traction like the iPhone did after it's introduction in 2007.
That's completely hypothetical though. You have no evidence that Google believed that all of Oracle's patents were valid, indeed there is considerable evidence that they believed the opposite. They chose to infringe the patents as they currently stand, that's true - but whether or not it's legally 'wilful infringement' it's certainly not immoral - which seems to be your contention.
Previously, you were spinning fantasies to argue that Google didn't really lose the Nortel patents, but that their entire strategy was to force Apple to overpay for them, now you're spinning a tale that there's really nothing wrong with what Google did in stealing Java. In both cases, not only are you completely wrong, but you've managed to derail a thread and turn it into nonsense, so, job well done.
I've read enough of your posts (which I personally enjoy and find insightful) to know that you know that the license would not be $50. My post was referring to the person saying that $50 per phone for handset makers wouldn't matter and I think I can safely say that you'd agree that yes it would matter a great deal. Nobody is buying WP7 or WebOS in droves NOW, but if Android's costs got that hight, it wouldn't matter if consumers had been buying the competition before anyway. Handset makers simply wouldn't produce android phones because "$50 is too damn high."
Hmm, well $50 would be serious, maybe not a knockout, but it would require serious corner cutting on the part of the OEMs. If Apple brought out a $300 phone at the same time then it would be game over for Android.
Previously, you were spinning fantasies to argue that Google didn't really lose the Nortel patents, but that their entire strategy was to force Apple to overpay for them, now you're spinning a tale that there's really nothing wrong with what Google did in stealing Java. In both cases, not only are you completely wrong, but you've managed to derail a thread and turn it into nonsense, so, job well done.
When you have more than innuendo or ad hominems to offer, get back to us.
Hmm, well $50 would be serious, maybe not a knockout, but it would require serious corner cutting on the part of the OEMs. If Apple brought out a $300 phone at the same time then it would be game over for Android.
See, I personally don't think it would matter if Apple came out with a cheaper iPhone or not in that hypothetical case. When the poster stated that, I responded a few pages ago that such a cost would tack on an extra $50 million to produce just 1 million phones. OEMs simply couldn't afford that type of investment based on their current profits/losses.
See, I personally don't think it would matter if Apple came out with a cheaper iPhone or not in that hypothetical case. When the poster stated that, I responded a few pages ago that such a cost would tack on an extra $50 million to produce just 1 million phones. OEMs simply couldn't afford that type of investment based on their current profits/losses.
Hmm, well it's a bit of a tangent, but I think it's an interesting point. I think we have to remember that the Android market isn't homogenous, it's really a bunch of different markets. Suppose we segment it on price.
At the low end there are handsets costing up to say $150 dollars. These are a big portion of Android's volumes but not necessarily a big portion of the profits. Android phones in this bracket would simply cease to exist with a $50 bump. The OEMs would switch to things like Bada, custom JVM implementations etc. Most of the people buying in this bracket don't really know or care what a smartphone is anyway, so we might see a temporary increase in upper end feature phone sales.
$150->$300 is a different beast. A $50 bump would be very bad here but the OEMs could accomodate it by cutting corners on the phones and slightly increasing prices. Some consumers might prefer a good bada phone to a bad android, but many would go the other way. This is the market that S-E and Moto are mostly stuck in, so they're hit disproportionately hard if consumers switch. I may be wrong but I don't think that WP7 phones exist in this segment as yet, perhaps due to hardware requirements?
$300+ is where Android competes with WP7 and at the very top with the 3GS. In this bracket $50 can be managed with a combination of a price increase, a functionality decrease and a small cut in margins. For as long as consumers prefer Android to WP7 it would be. This bracket is where HTC and Samsung are making their profits. I'd estimate this segment is about 15% of the US smartphone market, but that's a pure guesstimate based on ASPs, if anybody has a sourced number that would be great.
So my contention is that in the hypothetical $50 scenario we'd see HTC and Samsung solidify their dominance of the US android handset market and focus it at the more expensive end. S-E and Moto would be doomed of course, but they're already doomed - they're zombie OEMs - this would just speed up the decomposition.
HTC and Samsung might try pushing WP7 or WebOs, but for as long as consumers stay focused on Android they would stay with it, and unless Apple decided to produce a phone at the $300-$400 price point it's hard to see anything changing in that segment.
'While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.'
This is a key point. Throwing out all that complexity and saying 'piracy is theft', or worse still 'patent infringement is theft', is a gross oversimplification.
Anyway it's an interesting article, though I disagree with the conclusion that the difference is purely academic. There's a reason that the republicans rebranded the estate tax as the 'death tax', and it's because it helped them politically. Rebranding infringement as theft likewise has a political impact. The thought experiment at the end is completely unconvincing - it introduces an obvious false dichotomy.
didn't apple just lose a patent case because they stole someone elses technology? not the first time either i think. jobs is the master at taking others ideas/tech and proclaiming it his/apples.
not that google is any better. both are giant corporations just looking to get more of your money. (well, also other companies money through lawsuits).
didn't apple just lose a patent case because they stole someone elses technology? not the first time either i think. jobs is the master at taking others ideas/tech and proclaiming it his/apples.
not that google is any better. both are giant corporations just looking to get more of your money. (well, also other companies money through lawsuits).
Atta boy... throw one more tangent into this thread... 400 here we come...
I would say that evil is a contradiction of what is considered morally right by a society, not a matter of some supernatural definition. The opposite of Good is Evil. While there may be different levels of "evilness", if you choose to take advantage of others for you own benefit...then I would classify you as Evil (or at least your actions).
While we're going all tangential, I'll add another. Suppose Oracle wins here and wins big, what might they do? Obviously it could just collect license fees, or it could totally kill off Android in spite, but there is a unmentioned 3rd option.
It could say, 'Nice platform, we'll take it.' and subsume android. What would this entail? Oracle would take the last open-sourced version of Android, which by the time this is all done could be Ice-cream-sandwich, and modify it a bit. Integrate some oracle web services, maybe bing, or what-have-you. Give it a new name, I propose CoffeeBot - with a coffee drinking Android as the visual. Then offer it to OEMs at a sensible license fee. Given the choice between jumping to a totally new platform and jumping to a fully licensed fork, what would the OEMs do?
After all, why take all the money from the platform when you can take all the money and all the control? Depending on Oracles cross license with MSFT they might even be able to provide OEMs with cover against the MS patents. Over time Oracle could move the platform onto a new version of Java ME and end up with a huge and profitable mid-market smartphone platform which they had deep IP rights over.
can you imagine adobe's approach to the smart phone market? (i kid here of course)
you can either buy the master phone suite of phones that do everything for $1,800 or an individual phone each able to do one thing for $695. The suite offers the adobe call phone, the adobe mapping phone, the adobe message phone, the adobe game phone ... And so on ... Each of the 27 phones in the suite all do a masterful job at their designed function and can be used stand alone. If you purchase the entire suite you also get the adobe systems phone that integrates all functions seamlessly into a single phone cleverly communicating with the other phones via another phone called the adobe comms phone. Each phone always calls adobe first to ensure you are the legal registrant of that phone before allowing any call or use of any kind. The entire suite will be updated yearly with high upgrade costs and minimal changes.
That's completely hypothetical though. You have no evidence that Google believed that all of Oracle's patents were valid, indeed there is considerable evidence that they believed the opposite. They chose to infringe the patents as they currently stand, that's true - but whether or not it's legally 'wilful infringement' it's certainly not immoral - which seems to be your contention.
LOL cloudgazer do you have a learning disability or something?
The evidence against Google is a slamdunk that's why they're trying so hard to have the emails redacted!
While we're going all tangential, I'll add another. Suppose Oracle wins here and wins big, what might they do? Obviously it could just collect license fees, or it could totally kill off Android in spite, but there is a unmentioned 3rd option.
It could say, 'Nice platform, we'll take it.' and subsume android. What would this entail? Oracle would take the last open-sourced version of Android, which by the time this is all done could be Ice-cream-sandwich, and modify it a bit. Integrate some oracle web services, maybe bing, or what-have-you. Give it a new name, I propose CoffeeBot - with a coffee drinking Android as the visual. Then offer it to OEMs at a sensible license fee. Given the choice between jumping to a totally new platform and jumping to a fully licensed fork, what would the OEMs do?
After all, why take all the money from the platform when you can take all the money and all the control? Depending on Oracles cross license with MSFT they might even be able to provide OEMs with cover against the MS patents. Over time Oracle could move the platform onto a new version of Java ME and end up with a huge and profitable mid-market smartphone platform which they had deep IP rights over.
Gee... I wish I'd thought of that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
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?
LOL cloudgazer do you have a learning disability or something?
The evidence against Google is a slamdunk that's why they're trying so hard to have the emails redacted!
they are in no way a 'slam dunk' just as oracles move to try and hide jon schwartz's sun blog entries was not a 'slam dunk' for google. both hurt the others case is all. it isn't definitive. unlike the Apple case with nokia where apple didn't feel it should have to pay 'high' license fees (sounds familiar?) and decided to just go ahead and 'steal' the IP from nokia. apple lost that one and settled by agreeing to pay license fees.
google may be ordered to pay more or less or none. have to wait and see.
they are in no way a 'slam dunk' just as oracles move to try and hide jon schwartz's sun blog entries was not a 'slam dunk' for google. both hurt the others case is all. it isn't definitive. unlike the Apple case with nokia where apple didn't feel it should have to pay 'high' license fees (sounds familiar?) and decided to just go ahead and 'steal' the IP from nokia. apple lost that one and settled by agreeing to pay license fees.
google may be ordered to pay more or less or none. have to wait and see.
Sorry but Apple refused to pay Nokia above FRAND rates which everyone else does all the while giving Nokia IP that Apple felt kept it's phone unique. Apple never said that Nokia's patents were invalid nor did they pretend that it owed Nokia nothing. That was a whole different kettle of fish but if you want to conflate the two instances to make you feel better then by all means. . .
Comments
I haven't read ANY article that eludes that WP7 costs handset manufacturers $50+ per handset. In fact, B&N said that Microsoft demanded $15-20 per Nook which is TWICE the licensing cost of WP7 which means they are looking for $7.50-10 per device. $50 per phone/device for Android is waaay more money and as I said before, if the hardware companies are already losing money every quarter, why would they actually pay so much more just to run Google's OS?
I wasn't saying that WP7 was $50 per handset, i was saying that WP7 handsets are already the same price as Android handsets and yet nobody has any interest in them. Even if Android handsets all had their prices raised by say $20 ($50 is cloud cuckoo) still nobody would buy WP7, or WebOs.
The hardware companies would pay more for Android than WP7 for the same reason that they'd pay more for Android than their own Linux - because consumers actually want it. Not as much as consumers want iOS, but more than they want anything else.
If and when Apple enter the mid-market with a $300 phone the licensing fees might start to have an impact. If WP7, WebOs or some new entrant can get some market traction they might have an impact. But right now they won't have an impact - and by the time that they do Google may have been able to have removed all infringements.
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?
That's completely hypothetical though. You have no evidence that Google believed that all of Oracle's patents were valid, indeed there is considerable evidence that they believed the opposite. They chose to infringe the patents as they currently stand, that's true - but whether or not it's legally 'wilful infringement' it's certainly not immoral - which seems to be your contention.
I wasn't saying that WP7 was $50 per handset, i was saying that WP7 handsets are already the same price as Android handsets and yet nobody has any interest in them. Even if Android handsets all had their prices raised by say $20 ($50 is cloud cuckoo) still nobody would buy WP7, or WebOs.
The hardware companies would pay more for Android than WP7 for the same reason that they'd pay more for Android than their own Linux - because consumers actually want it. Not as much as consumers want iOS, but more than they want anything else.
If and when Apple enter the mid-market with a $300 phone the licensing fees might start to have an impact. If WP7, WebOs or some new entrant can get some market traction they might have an impact. But right now they won't have an impact - and by the time that they do Google may have been able to have removed all infringements.
I've read enough of your posts (which I personally enjoy and find insightful) to know that you know that the license would not be $50. My post was referring to the person saying that $50 per phone for handset makers wouldn't matter and I think I can safely say that you'd agree that yes it would matter a great deal. Nobody is buying WP7 or WebOS in droves NOW, but if Android's costs got that hight, it wouldn't matter if consumers had been buying the competition before anyway. Handset makers simply wouldn't produce android phones because "$50 is too damn high."
That last graphic is misleading and, knowing the author, intentionally so.
Daniel is implying that there were no touchscreen-only smartphones on the market before 2007. About 50% of all Windows Mobile devices were touchscreen-only but Daniel has decided to put none in his graphic. Instead of showing popular models like the touchscreen-only HTC Magician, Daniel has instead chosen to show some of the more left field Windows Mobile devices - such as the HP iPAQ hw6965 Mobile Messenger. It's a very poor representation of the market before 2007.
Daniel is a brilliant writer, his information is accurate and non biased, perhaps you should go back to the engadget forums. I don't recall any touch screen windows based phones gaining traction like the iPhone did after it's introduction in 2007.
That's completely hypothetical though. You have no evidence that Google believed that all of Oracle's patents were valid, indeed there is considerable evidence that they believed the opposite. They chose to infringe the patents as they currently stand, that's true - but whether or not it's legally 'wilful infringement' it's certainly not immoral - which seems to be your contention.
Previously, you were spinning fantasies to argue that Google didn't really lose the Nortel patents, but that their entire strategy was to force Apple to overpay for them, now you're spinning a tale that there's really nothing wrong with what Google did in stealing Java. In both cases, not only are you completely wrong, but you've managed to derail a thread and turn it into nonsense, so, job well done.
I've read enough of your posts (which I personally enjoy and find insightful) to know that you know that the license would not be $50. My post was referring to the person saying that $50 per phone for handset makers wouldn't matter and I think I can safely say that you'd agree that yes it would matter a great deal. Nobody is buying WP7 or WebOS in droves NOW, but if Android's costs got that hight, it wouldn't matter if consumers had been buying the competition before anyway. Handset makers simply wouldn't produce android phones because "$50 is too damn high."
Hmm, well $50 would be serious, maybe not a knockout, but it would require serious corner cutting on the part of the OEMs. If Apple brought out a $300 phone at the same time then it would be game over for Android.
Previously, you were spinning fantasies to argue that Google didn't really lose the Nortel patents, but that their entire strategy was to force Apple to overpay for them, now you're spinning a tale that there's really nothing wrong with what Google did in stealing Java. In both cases, not only are you completely wrong, but you've managed to derail a thread and turn it into nonsense, so, job well done.
When you have more than innuendo or ad hominems to offer, get back to us.
Hmm, well $50 would be serious, maybe not a knockout, but it would require serious corner cutting on the part of the OEMs. If Apple brought out a $300 phone at the same time then it would be game over for Android.
See, I personally don't think it would matter if Apple came out with a cheaper iPhone or not in that hypothetical case. When the poster stated that, I responded a few pages ago that such a cost would tack on an extra $50 million to produce just 1 million phones. OEMs simply couldn't afford that type of investment based on their current profits/losses.
See, I personally don't think it would matter if Apple came out with a cheaper iPhone or not in that hypothetical case. When the poster stated that, I responded a few pages ago that such a cost would tack on an extra $50 million to produce just 1 million phones. OEMs simply couldn't afford that type of investment based on their current profits/losses.
Hmm, well it's a bit of a tangent, but I think it's an interesting point. I think we have to remember that the Android market isn't homogenous, it's really a bunch of different markets. Suppose we segment it on price.
At the low end there are handsets costing up to say $150 dollars. These are a big portion of Android's volumes but not necessarily a big portion of the profits. Android phones in this bracket would simply cease to exist with a $50 bump. The OEMs would switch to things like Bada, custom JVM implementations etc. Most of the people buying in this bracket don't really know or care what a smartphone is anyway, so we might see a temporary increase in upper end feature phone sales.
$150->$300 is a different beast. A $50 bump would be very bad here but the OEMs could accomodate it by cutting corners on the phones and slightly increasing prices. Some consumers might prefer a good bada phone to a bad android, but many would go the other way. This is the market that S-E and Moto are mostly stuck in, so they're hit disproportionately hard if consumers switch. I may be wrong but I don't think that WP7 phones exist in this segment as yet, perhaps due to hardware requirements?
$300+ is where Android competes with WP7 and at the very top with the 3GS. In this bracket $50 can be managed with a combination of a price increase, a functionality decrease and a small cut in margins. For as long as consumers prefer Android to WP7 it would be. This bracket is where HTC and Samsung are making their profits. I'd estimate this segment is about 15% of the US smartphone market, but that's a pure guesstimate based on ASPs, if anybody has a sourced number that would be great.
So my contention is that in the hypothetical $50 scenario we'd see HTC and Samsung solidify their dominance of the US android handset market and focus it at the more expensive end. S-E and Moto would be doomed of course, but they're already doomed - they're zombie OEMs - this would just speed up the decomposition.
HTC and Samsung might try pushing WP7 or WebOs, but for as long as consumers stay focused on Android they would stay with it, and unless Apple decided to produce a phone at the $300-$400 price point it's hard to see anything changing in that segment.
Commenting on my own post because I forgot to include the link: http://www.copyhype.com/2010/09/is-c...ngement-theft/
The quote which really stands out for me is
'While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.'
This is a key point. Throwing out all that complexity and saying 'piracy is theft', or worse still 'patent infringement is theft', is a gross oversimplification.
Anyway it's an interesting article, though I disagree with the conclusion that the difference is purely academic. There's a reason that the republicans rebranded the estate tax as the 'death tax', and it's because it helped them politically. Rebranding infringement as theft likewise has a political impact. The thought experiment at the end is completely unconvincing - it introduces an obvious false dichotomy.
This thread is still growing?
Google is screwed and will dole out in the end.
didn't apple just lose a patent case because they stole someone elses technology? not the first time either i think. jobs is the master at taking others ideas/tech and proclaiming it his/apples.
not that google is any better. both are giant corporations just looking to get more of your money. (well, also other companies money through lawsuits).
didn't apple just lose a patent case because they stole someone elses technology? not the first time either i think. jobs is the master at taking others ideas/tech and proclaiming it his/apples.
not that google is any better. both are giant corporations just looking to get more of your money. (well, also other companies money through lawsuits).
Atta boy... throw one more tangent into this thread... 400 here we come...
I would say that evil is a contradiction of what is considered morally right by a society, not a matter of some supernatural definition. The opposite of Good is Evil. While there may be different levels of "evilness", if you choose to take advantage of others for you own benefit...then I would classify you as Evil (or at least your actions).
Which society, then?
It could say, 'Nice platform, we'll take it.' and subsume android. What would this entail? Oracle would take the last open-sourced version of Android, which by the time this is all done could be Ice-cream-sandwich, and modify it a bit. Integrate some oracle web services, maybe bing, or what-have-you. Give it a new name, I propose CoffeeBot - with a coffee drinking Android as the visual. Then offer it to OEMs at a sensible license fee. Given the choice between jumping to a totally new platform and jumping to a fully licensed fork, what would the OEMs do?
After all, why take all the money from the platform when you can take all the money and all the control? Depending on Oracles cross license with MSFT they might even be able to provide OEMs with cover against the MS patents. Over time Oracle could move the platform onto a new version of Java ME and end up with a huge and profitable mid-market smartphone platform which they had deep IP rights over.
partial quote
can you imagine adobe's approach to the smart phone market? (i kid here of course)
you can either buy the master phone suite of phones that do everything for $1,800 or an individual phone each able to do one thing for $695. The suite offers the adobe call phone, the adobe mapping phone, the adobe message phone, the adobe game phone ... And so on ... Each of the 27 phones in the suite all do a masterful job at their designed function and can be used stand alone. If you purchase the entire suite you also get the adobe systems phone that integrates all functions seamlessly into a single phone cleverly communicating with the other phones via another phone called the adobe comms phone. Each phone always calls adobe first to ensure you are the legal registrant of that phone before allowing any call or use of any kind. The entire suite will be updated yearly with high upgrade costs and minimal changes.
priceless!!!!!
That's completely hypothetical though. You have no evidence that Google believed that all of Oracle's patents were valid, indeed there is considerable evidence that they believed the opposite. They chose to infringe the patents as they currently stand, that's true - but whether or not it's legally 'wilful infringement' it's certainly not immoral - which seems to be your contention.
LOL cloudgazer do you have a learning disability or something?
The evidence against Google is a slamdunk that's why they're trying so hard to have the emails redacted!
While we're going all tangential, I'll add another. Suppose Oracle wins here and wins big, what might they do? Obviously it could just collect license fees, or it could totally kill off Android in spite, but there is a unmentioned 3rd option.
It could say, 'Nice platform, we'll take it.' and subsume android. What would this entail? Oracle would take the last open-sourced version of Android, which by the time this is all done could be Ice-cream-sandwich, and modify it a bit. Integrate some oracle web services, maybe bing, or what-have-you. Give it a new name, I propose CoffeeBot - with a coffee drinking Android as the visual. Then offer it to OEMs at a sensible license fee. Given the choice between jumping to a totally new platform and jumping to a fully licensed fork, what would the OEMs do?
After all, why take all the money from the platform when you can take all the money and all the control? Depending on Oracles cross license with MSFT they might even be able to provide OEMs with cover against the MS patents. Over time Oracle could move the platform onto a new version of Java ME and end up with a huge and profitable mid-market smartphone platform which they had deep IP rights over.
Gee... I wish I'd thought of that...
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?
LOL cloudgazer do you have a learning disability or something?
The evidence against Google is a slamdunk that's why they're trying so hard to have the emails redacted!
they are in no way a 'slam dunk' just as oracles move to try and hide jon schwartz's sun blog entries was not a 'slam dunk' for google. both hurt the others case is all. it isn't definitive. unlike the Apple case with nokia where apple didn't feel it should have to pay 'high' license fees (sounds familiar?) and decided to just go ahead and 'steal' the IP from nokia. apple lost that one and settled by agreeing to pay license fees.
google may be ordered to pay more or less or none. have to wait and see.
they are in no way a 'slam dunk' just as oracles move to try and hide jon schwartz's sun blog entries was not a 'slam dunk' for google. both hurt the others case is all. it isn't definitive. unlike the Apple case with nokia where apple didn't feel it should have to pay 'high' license fees (sounds familiar?) and decided to just go ahead and 'steal' the IP from nokia. apple lost that one and settled by agreeing to pay license fees.
google may be ordered to pay more or less or none. have to wait and see.
Sorry but Apple refused to pay Nokia above FRAND rates which everyone else does all the while giving Nokia IP that Apple felt kept it's phone unique. Apple never said that Nokia's patents were invalid nor did they pretend that it owed Nokia nothing. That was a whole different kettle of fish but if you want to conflate the two instances to make you feel better then by all means. . .
Gee... I wish I'd thought of that...
Oh, Kudos - I didn't spot that you'd said it. Still, you have to give me credit for CoffeeBot.