...and there you go. That's the issue with software patents. A company holding the rights may have the honest intent of only protecting their specific innovation in their specific product. Another may have the intent of using vaguely written IP to strongly discourage new entrants and block serious competitors in "their" market, stifling innovation and creative product ideas.
"Wow. those guys really came up with a great idea. Heck of a crew they've got. You have to admire them" "What they've done has really got me excited about our own product line and has me thinking outside our own box. Take their latest idea"
" While it's a great start, and they should be commended, I don't think they understand where they've limited it. If you begin with what they've done and look at it with (whatever) in mind instead of (whatever) then you could do this. Change the interface to allow (whatever), add the ability to work with the (whatever) as well as tweak the idea that you should be able to (whatever) and you end up with a feature that truly works for a whole range of uses."
Why should thinking about ways to improve another's ideas be stifled by fears that your bigger richer competitor is going to bring every courtroom attack they can. How does it help innovation if your competitor can find one interpretation of some previously unknown software IP claim to see that your "better mousetrap" is banished or at least delayed long enough that your innovative improvements in a device that competitor may not be interested in building anyway don't matter anymore?
Why are software patents any different than other patents? You could say exactly the same thing about a patent for a device. A company might write the patent narrowly or broadly - same as with software patents.
Why are software patents any different than other patents?
As current US patent law is written it isn't any different. Thus the problems. Do you see any "patent troll" claims for hardware?
EDIT: Here's one on my favorite examples. Could anyone build a smartphone without using this company's patent? f they refused to license it, as you would say they have the right to, could every smartphone manufacturer including Apple be guillty of "stealing their IP" and potentially enjoined from selling their product in the US?
So, you're saying that Android lags because Google made bad engineering choices to allow the OS to get bogged down running non-essential processes and that Apple had good technical reasons for not implementing eye-candy resource hogs? That sounds reasonable.
Wrong.
GOOGLE, you know the ones who bought Android and released it are the ones who claimed butter, a part of Jellybean is specifically being added to address the lag issue inherent to Android due to it being a JVM with no real time access to the custom Linux kernel upon which it runs.
Even the Galaxy S III has this issue, it's only a few tenths of a second but it sure is noticeable.
Hence Google's continuing efforts to address it.
Stop living in denial, it's an inherent flaw no amount of tweaking stuff will get rid of it.
Don't be mad, I am not suggesting anything about Google. You just keep reading me wrong. My Galaxy Nexus does not lag.
Why should thinking about ways to improve another's ideas be stifled by fears that your bigger richer competitor is going to bring every courtroom attack they can. How does it help innovation if your competitor can find one interpretation of some previously unknown software IP claim to see that your "better mousetrap" is banished or at least delayed long enough that your innovative improvements in a device that competitor may not be interested in building anyway don't matter anymore?
Oh, I see he's edited...
While it's admirable the gallant attempts he makes to pretend that Google is just trying to make things better, the underlying truth is that, with Android, Google, with intent to do so, engaged in a wholesale ripoff of the entire design of the iPhone and iOS. (Just as, up until the day the iPhone was announced, they were engaged in creating a wholesale ripoff of the Blackberry.)
Let's be clear, this isn't innovation. This is no different than "knockoff" fashions where they use pictures from fashion shows to knock off the latest designer styles. This represents zero innovation, just the process of creating cheap copies of designs stolen from someone else. Google isn't innovating anything with Android. They are simply knocking off the design of the iPhone.
This is what the suits are about: The utter lack of innovation and the blatant copying.
You may hate Windows Phone 7's UI, but at least it was innovative. There is absolutely nothing innovative about the design and implementation of Android phones. By suing to protect their IP, Apple isn't stifling innovation, they are defending it. Defending it from the robbers and thieves we know as Google.
Don't be mad, I am not suggesting anything about Google. You just keep reading me wrong. My Galaxy Nexus does not lag.
BTW, what was I wrong about?
You weren't wrong, you said your Android phone lags because of widgets and wallpapers, which is probably true, among other reasons. Now you're contradicting yourself, though, so it's the old, where you wrong then or are you wrong now....
I gave you a very, very clear case. You simply chose to ignore it because it does not fit your world view. So Motorola suing Apple as a Google subsidary really does not count to you? That just makes you delusional. Stop fighting for a cause you already lost.
The litigation was not active when the acquisition started, it did not even start until January 2012. Do you really think that litigation was initiated without Google's knowledge? Show me where someone from Motorola was fired for doing that. Have you ever been involved in an acquisition? Things like that simply do not happen. The January lawsuit was a Google lawsuit.
Google did not own Motorola in January of 2012 and it wasn't any "subsidiary".. Guessing that Google must have told Moto to sue Apple is just that. . . a guess. Assuming that Google had control over that particular case is just a guess. Projecting that Google 100% approved of all Moto's legal efforts is just a guess. When you find where Google has filed suit against a competitor as a fact then post it and I'll acknowledge it.
Well, urban anthropologists believe that cell phone display has become, especially for certain subsets of male geeks, a ritualized substitute for penile display, so, bigger is better.
Of course, as usual, screamingfist presents his usual rambling, incoherent arguments that confuse not only facts but time lines and barely maintain any grip on reality.
So, by "extension", bigger dicks are an innovation too? Of course, one would say the process of trying to innovate is a form of dicking around.
Google did not own Motorola in January of 2012 and it wasn't any "subsidiary".. Guessing that Google must have told Moto to sue Apple is just that. . . a guess. Assuming that Google had control over that particular case is just a guess. Projecting that Google 100% approved of all Moto's legal efforts is just a guess. When you find where Google has filed suit against a competitor as a fact then post it and I'll acknowledge it.
I agree that this distinction is proper. The question is, will Google discontinue legal proceedings now that Moto is indeed under its proper control? If not, then it would be guilty of hypocrisy.
I agree that this distinction is proper. The question is, will Google discontinue legal proceedings now that Moto is indeed under its proper control? If not, then it would be guilty of hypocrisy.
I would imagine they'll let anything already underway when they took over play out. Apple and Microsoft also have claims against Moto in those same cases that they show no inclination of dropping.
As for filing new lawsuits neither Google being reluctant to, nor Google feeling they have no choice but to would surprise me. If 6 months from now Google still hasn't initiated any action against it's tech community competitors than it should be pretty a pretty good indication what their attitude towards using the courts for competitive advantage is.
Google did not own Motorola in January of 2012 and it wasn't any "subsidiary"..
You are technically correct. There is no denying that, but the merger was approved months before and I know that the dominate company does oversee actions between the time of approval and finalization. The point to make sure the company doesn't do anything to shoot itself in the foot. This is even without considering the strategic maneuvering of suing one company after you control another company but before the deal is official thus creating a barrier between you and the company being sued. Regardless of whether you want to believe it or not — again, you are technically correct — but Google controlled this suit against Apple. Don't deny Google their credit for being clever and shrewd.
PS: If you still want to say it's a guess that Google had any influence because they didn't officially own MM at that point then you'd have to say that Apple getting Disney's umbrella of studios on onboard with the iTS first had nothing to do with influence coming from Apple because Apple doesn't officially own Disney. See the dilemma with thinking? You know damn well that Steve Job was a board member at Disney and largest shareholder, and CEO of Apple without allowed for a great deal of pull that otherwise would have been more difficult if not for the excessively large $$$ connecting the two.
You weren't wrong, you said your Android phone lags because of widgets and wallpapers, which is probably true, among other reasons. Now you're contradicting yourself, though, so it's the old, where you wrong then or are you wrong now....
I disagree. The reason for UI lag in Android is rooted in its low level architecture. In iOS, UI handling is given its own dedicated thread given real-time interrupt handling (i.e. higher priority than other threads). Therefore, when you touch the screen, response is instantaneous even if screen rendering is not complete. In Android, UI handling does not have its own thread and is not given highest priority. The OS multitasks handling of your touches with other tasks, thus creating the lag. This has improved with multicore processors but it will never be as smooth as in iOS unless Google is willing to change the architecture. But changing it means turning the ground over under existing apps. In a way, this may be clear evidence that multitouch was an added feature, an afterthought, and not part of fundamental design of Android.
You are technically correct. There is no denying that, but the merger was approved months before and I know that the dominate company does oversee actions between the time of approval and finalization. The point to make sure the company doesn't do anything to shoot itself in the foot. This is even without considering the strategic maneuvering of suing one company after you control another company but before the deal is official thus creating a barrier between you and the company being sued. Regardless of whether you want to believe it or not — again, you are technically correct — but Google controlled this suit against Apple. Don't deny Google their credit for being clever and shrewd.
PS: If you still want to say it's a guess that Google had any influence because they didn't officially own MM at that point then you'd have to say that Apple getting Disney's umbrella of studios on onboard with the iTS first had nothing to do with influence coming from Apple because Apple doesn't officially own Disney. See the dilemma with thinking? You know damn well that Steve Job was a board member at Disney and largest shareholder, and CEO of Apple without allowed for a great deal of pull that otherwise would have been more difficult if not for the excessively large $$$ connecting the two.
I wouldn't at all deny that Steve Jobs had influence at Disney.That would be silly. He certainly didn't call the shots tho even as a director of the company. Disney hasn't always seen fit to comply with Apple wishes. Why would you feel that conflicts with my thoughts on this? I don't know that I ever had comments on Disney and Apple.
But changing it means turning the ground over under existing apps. In a way, this may be clear evidence that multitouch was an added feature, an afterthought, and not part of fundamental design of Android.
IIRC, Google engineers acknowledged that sometime back. They were more about allowing the user to do more than one thing at a time. Initial coding for Android didn't prioritize for touchscreen response, with the obvious need for it coming later. Apple on the other hand planned the iPhone around touch control from the beginning.
I would imagine they'll let anything already underway when they took over play out. Apple and Microsoft also have claims against Moto in those same cases that they show no inclination of dropping.
As for filing new lawsuits neither Google being reluctant to, nor Google feeling they have no choice but to would surprise me. If 6 months from now Google still hasn't initiated any action against it's tech community competitors than it should be pretty a pretty good indication what their attitude towards using the courts for competitive advantage is.
I don't harbor the notion is Google is fundamentally evil. I believe that Page and Brin are brilliant computer scientists. At the same time, I think allowing a Motorola lawsuit to play out is stretching the principle of not initiating litigation. It's like an NFL team saying it does not condone steroid use but will sign a free agent known to be a user, and not ask him to stop.
I wouldn't at all deny that Steve Jobs had influence at Disney.That would be silly. He certainly didn't call the shots tho even as a director of the company. Disney hasn't always seen fit to comply with Apple wishes. Why would you feel that conflicts with my thoughts on this? I don't know that I ever had comments on Disney and Apple.
With Jobs being a huge fan of Walt Disney (the man, not the company), I'd have loved to see him live long enough to change the Disney company. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Judging from Cars II and Brave, not to mention re-release of Finding Nemo in 3D, I am concerned that Disney has changed Pixar rather than the other way around.
On the other hand, Disney has been more supportive of iTunes than most (all?) other studios. Will this continue without Jobs? Hopefully, with Disney's CEO being an Apple director.
I don't harbor the notion is Google is fundamentally evil. I believe that Page and Brin are brilliant computer scientists. At the same time, I think allowing a Motorola lawsuit to play out is stretching the principle of not initiating litigation. It's like an NFL team saying it does not condone steroid use but will sign a free agent known to be a user, and not ask him to stop.
Not really an accurate comparison but I understand the point you're trying to make. I think the best approach myself would be to publicly announce that if Apple and Microsoft will also waive their competing actions against Motorola then Google is prepared to drop theirs, even those not FRAND-pledged (They're not all essential patents). Does that sound reasonable, then everyone can get back to work?
Why would you feel that conflicts with my thoughts on this? I don't know that I ever had comments on Disney and Apple.
What conflicts is you suggesting that one has influence and the other doesn't. You say it's just a guess that Google had influence over MM months after the merger was accepted but you automatically accept as canon that Apple had influence over Disney through Jobs. The latter is considerably less direct on paper and yet you accept this without question even though Apple doesn't technically own Disney in any way, shape, or form. That's the conflict! You are standing by a technicality on the former without looking at the reality of it like you are with the latter.
As current US patent law is written it isn't any different. Thus the problems. Do you see any "patent troll" claims for hardware?
EDIT: Here's one on my favorite examples. Could anyone build a smartphone without using this company's patent? f they refused to license it, as you would say they have the right to, could every smartphone manufacturer including Apple be guillty of "stealing their IP" and potentially enjoined from selling their product in the US? http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/24/ultra-vague-accelerometer-patent-filed-in-2006-seems-to-cover-ev/
Do you have an example of any similarly vague patent for hardware from the past 10 years or so?
Sure. I've seen it in my own job in the past.
It's not as common with hardware patents, but it happens. They really simply need to hire some software engineers as patent examiners.
Not really an accurate comparison but I understand the point you're trying to make. I think the best approach myself would be to publicly announce that if Apple and Microsoft will also waive their competing actions against Motorola then Google is prepared to drop theirs, even those not FRAND-pledged (They're not all essential patents). Does that sound reasonable, then everyone can get back to work?
Of course you'd suggest something like that-but it's absurd. Apple has led the industry in innovation and has a mountain of useful patents. Motorola's (and, now, Google's) patents are mostly FRAND and the ones which aren't FRAND are not particularly useful.
Your scheme would allow them to continue copying Apple products with impunity. Exactly what Google would love.
What conflicts is you suggesting that one has influence and the other doesn't. You say it's just a guess that Google had influence over MM months after the merger was accepted but you automatically accept as canon that Apple had influence over Disney through Jobs. The latter is considerably less direct on paper and yet you accept this without question even though Apple doesn't technically own Disney in any way, shape, or form. That's the conflict! You are standing by a technicality on the former without looking at the reality of it like you are with the latter.
Soli, I never said that Google had no influence with Moto. That would be just as silly as claiming that Apple had no influence at Disney. What I said it was just was guessing to claim that Google had control over Moto's legal cases. Where's the conflict?
Comments
Why are software patents any different than other patents? You could say exactly the same thing about a patent for a device. A company might write the patent narrowly or broadly - same as with software patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Why are software patents any different than other patents?
As current US patent law is written it isn't any different. Thus the problems. Do you see any "patent troll" claims for hardware?
EDIT: Here's one on my favorite examples. Could anyone build a smartphone without using this company's patent? f they refused to license it, as you would say they have the right to, could every smartphone manufacturer including Apple be guillty of "stealing their IP" and potentially enjoined from selling their product in the US?
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/24/ultra-vague-accelerometer-patent-filed-in-2006-seems-to-cover-ev/
Do you have an example of any similarly vague patent for hardware from the past 10 years or so?
Don't be mad, I am not suggesting anything about Google. You just keep reading me wrong. My Galaxy Nexus does not lag.
BTW, what was I wrong about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Why should thinking about ways to improve another's ideas be stifled by fears that your bigger richer competitor is going to bring every courtroom attack they can. How does it help innovation if your competitor can find one interpretation of some previously unknown software IP claim to see that your "better mousetrap" is banished or at least delayed long enough that your innovative improvements in a device that competitor may not be interested in building anyway don't matter anymore?
Oh, I see he's edited...
While it's admirable the gallant attempts he makes to pretend that Google is just trying to make things better, the underlying truth is that, with Android, Google, with intent to do so, engaged in a wholesale ripoff of the entire design of the iPhone and iOS. (Just as, up until the day the iPhone was announced, they were engaged in creating a wholesale ripoff of the Blackberry.)
Let's be clear, this isn't innovation. This is no different than "knockoff" fashions where they use pictures from fashion shows to knock off the latest designer styles. This represents zero innovation, just the process of creating cheap copies of designs stolen from someone else. Google isn't innovating anything with Android. They are simply knocking off the design of the iPhone.
This is what the suits are about: The utter lack of innovation and the blatant copying.
You may hate Windows Phone 7's UI, but at least it was innovative. There is absolutely nothing innovative about the design and implementation of Android phones. By suing to protect their IP, Apple isn't stifling innovation, they are defending it. Defending it from the robbers and thieves we know as Google.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb
Don't be mad, I am not suggesting anything about Google. You just keep reading me wrong. My Galaxy Nexus does not lag.
BTW, what was I wrong about?
You weren't wrong, you said your Android phone lags because of widgets and wallpapers, which is probably true, among other reasons. Now you're contradicting yourself, though, so it's the old, where you wrong then or are you wrong now....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
I gave you a very, very clear case. You simply chose to ignore it because it does not fit your world view. So Motorola suing Apple as a Google subsidary really does not count to you? That just makes you delusional. Stop fighting for a cause you already lost.
The litigation was not active when the acquisition started, it did not even start until January 2012. Do you really think that litigation was initiated without Google's knowledge? Show me where someone from Motorola was fired for doing that. Have you ever been involved in an acquisition? Things like that simply do not happen. The January lawsuit was a Google lawsuit.
Google did not own Motorola in January of 2012 and it wasn't any "subsidiary".. Guessing that Google must have told Moto to sue Apple is just that. . . a guess. Assuming that Google had control over that particular case is just a guess. Projecting that Google 100% approved of all Moto's legal efforts is just a guess. When you find where Google has filed suit against a competitor as a fact then post it and I'll acknowledge it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270
Larger screens? Really? That is innovation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Well, urban anthropologists believe that cell phone display has become, especially for certain subsets of male geeks, a ritualized substitute for penile display, so, bigger is better.
Of course, as usual, screamingfist presents his usual rambling, incoherent arguments that confuse not only facts but time lines and barely maintain any grip on reality.
So, by "extension", bigger dicks are an innovation too? Of course, one would say the process of trying to innovate is a form of dicking around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Google did not own Motorola in January of 2012 and it wasn't any "subsidiary".. Guessing that Google must have told Moto to sue Apple is just that. . . a guess. Assuming that Google had control over that particular case is just a guess. Projecting that Google 100% approved of all Moto's legal efforts is just a guess. When you find where Google has filed suit against a competitor as a fact then post it and I'll acknowledge it.
I agree that this distinction is proper. The question is, will Google discontinue legal proceedings now that Moto is indeed under its proper control? If not, then it would be guilty of hypocrisy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
I agree that this distinction is proper. The question is, will Google discontinue legal proceedings now that Moto is indeed under its proper control? If not, then it would be guilty of hypocrisy.
I would imagine they'll let anything already underway when they took over play out. Apple and Microsoft also have claims against Moto in those same cases that they show no inclination of dropping.
As for filing new lawsuits neither Google being reluctant to, nor Google feeling they have no choice but to would surprise me. If 6 months from now Google still hasn't initiated any action against it's tech community competitors than it should be pretty a pretty good indication what their attitude towards using the courts for competitive advantage is.
You are technically correct. There is no denying that, but the merger was approved months before and I know that the dominate company does oversee actions between the time of approval and finalization. The point to make sure the company doesn't do anything to shoot itself in the foot. This is even without considering the strategic maneuvering of suing one company after you control another company but before the deal is official thus creating a barrier between you and the company being sued. Regardless of whether you want to believe it or not — again, you are technically correct — but Google controlled this suit against Apple. Don't deny Google their credit for being clever and shrewd.
PS: If you still want to say it's a guess that Google had any influence because they didn't officially own MM at that point then you'd have to say that Apple getting Disney's umbrella of studios on onboard with the iTS first had nothing to do with influence coming from Apple because Apple doesn't officially own Disney. See the dilemma with thinking? You know damn well that Steve Job was a board member at Disney and largest shareholder, and CEO of Apple without allowed for a great deal of pull that otherwise would have been more difficult if not for the excessively large $$$ connecting the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
You weren't wrong, you said your Android phone lags because of widgets and wallpapers, which is probably true, among other reasons. Now you're contradicting yourself, though, so it's the old, where you wrong then or are you wrong now....
I disagree. The reason for UI lag in Android is rooted in its low level architecture. In iOS, UI handling is given its own dedicated thread given real-time interrupt handling (i.e. higher priority than other threads). Therefore, when you touch the screen, response is instantaneous even if screen rendering is not complete. In Android, UI handling does not have its own thread and is not given highest priority. The OS multitasks handling of your touches with other tasks, thus creating the lag. This has improved with multicore processors but it will never be as smooth as in iOS unless Google is willing to change the architecture. But changing it means turning the ground over under existing apps. In a way, this may be clear evidence that multitouch was an added feature, an afterthought, and not part of fundamental design of Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You are technically correct. There is no denying that, but the merger was approved months before and I know that the dominate company does oversee actions between the time of approval and finalization. The point to make sure the company doesn't do anything to shoot itself in the foot. This is even without considering the strategic maneuvering of suing one company after you control another company but before the deal is official thus creating a barrier between you and the company being sued. Regardless of whether you want to believe it or not — again, you are technically correct — but Google controlled this suit against Apple. Don't deny Google their credit for being clever and shrewd.
PS: If you still want to say it's a guess that Google had any influence because they didn't officially own MM at that point then you'd have to say that Apple getting Disney's umbrella of studios on onboard with the iTS first had nothing to do with influence coming from Apple because Apple doesn't officially own Disney. See the dilemma with thinking? You know damn well that Steve Job was a board member at Disney and largest shareholder, and CEO of Apple without allowed for a great deal of pull that otherwise would have been more difficult if not for the excessively large $$$ connecting the two.
I wouldn't at all deny that Steve Jobs had influence at Disney.That would be silly. He certainly didn't call the shots tho even as a director of the company. Disney hasn't always seen fit to comply with Apple wishes. Why would you feel that conflicts with my thoughts on this? I don't know that I ever had comments on Disney and Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
But changing it means turning the ground over under existing apps. In a way, this may be clear evidence that multitouch was an added feature, an afterthought, and not part of fundamental design of Android.
IIRC, Google engineers acknowledged that sometime back. They were more about allowing the user to do more than one thing at a time. Initial coding for Android didn't prioritize for touchscreen response, with the obvious need for it coming later. Apple on the other hand planned the iPhone around touch control from the beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I would imagine they'll let anything already underway when they took over play out. Apple and Microsoft also have claims against Moto in those same cases that they show no inclination of dropping.
As for filing new lawsuits neither Google being reluctant to, nor Google feeling they have no choice but to would surprise me. If 6 months from now Google still hasn't initiated any action against it's tech community competitors than it should be pretty a pretty good indication what their attitude towards using the courts for competitive advantage is.
I don't harbor the notion is Google is fundamentally evil. I believe that Page and Brin are brilliant computer scientists. At the same time, I think allowing a Motorola lawsuit to play out is stretching the principle of not initiating litigation. It's like an NFL team saying it does not condone steroid use but will sign a free agent known to be a user, and not ask him to stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I wouldn't at all deny that Steve Jobs had influence at Disney.That would be silly. He certainly didn't call the shots tho even as a director of the company. Disney hasn't always seen fit to comply with Apple wishes. Why would you feel that conflicts with my thoughts on this? I don't know that I ever had comments on Disney and Apple.
With Jobs being a huge fan of Walt Disney (the man, not the company), I'd have loved to see him live long enough to change the Disney company. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Judging from Cars II and Brave, not to mention re-release of Finding Nemo in 3D, I am concerned that Disney has changed Pixar rather than the other way around.
On the other hand, Disney has been more supportive of iTunes than most (all?) other studios. Will this continue without Jobs? Hopefully, with Disney's CEO being an Apple director.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
I don't harbor the notion is Google is fundamentally evil. I believe that Page and Brin are brilliant computer scientists. At the same time, I think allowing a Motorola lawsuit to play out is stretching the principle of not initiating litigation. It's like an NFL team saying it does not condone steroid use but will sign a free agent known to be a user, and not ask him to stop.
Not really an accurate comparison but I understand the point you're trying to make. I think the best approach myself would be to publicly announce that if Apple and Microsoft will also waive their competing actions against Motorola then Google is prepared to drop theirs, even those not FRAND-pledged (They're not all essential patents). Does that sound reasonable, then everyone can get back to work?
What conflicts is you suggesting that one has influence and the other doesn't. You say it's just a guess that Google had influence over MM months after the merger was accepted but you automatically accept as canon that Apple had influence over Disney through Jobs. The latter is considerably less direct on paper and yet you accept this without question even though Apple doesn't technically own Disney in any way, shape, or form. That's the conflict! You are standing by a technicality on the former without looking at the reality of it like you are with the latter.
Sure. I've seen it in my own job in the past.
It's not as common with hardware patents, but it happens. They really simply need to hire some software engineers as patent examiners.
Of course you'd suggest something like that-but it's absurd. Apple has led the industry in innovation and has a mountain of useful patents. Motorola's (and, now, Google's) patents are mostly FRAND and the ones which aren't FRAND are not particularly useful.
Your scheme would allow them to continue copying Apple products with impunity. Exactly what Google would love.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
What conflicts is you suggesting that one has influence and the other doesn't. You say it's just a guess that Google had influence over MM months after the merger was accepted but you automatically accept as canon that Apple had influence over Disney through Jobs. The latter is considerably less direct on paper and yet you accept this without question even though Apple doesn't technically own Disney in any way, shape, or form. That's the conflict! You are standing by a technicality on the former without looking at the reality of it like you are with the latter.
Soli, I never said that Google had no influence with Moto. That would be just as silly as claiming that Apple had no influence at Disney. What I said it was just was guessing to claim that Google had control over Moto's legal cases. Where's the conflict?