Google hasn't yet sued anyone despite a large number of patents in its portfolio both home-grown and acquired, including one filed for the notification bar back in 2009...Google has a completely different attitude towards initiating litigation against it's tech neighbors than any of it's competitors.
Well, Apple hasn't sued Google either, for that matter.
And it would be kind of silly (or take a lot of chutzpah) to sue a competitor whose product came out a year before yours.
And besides, why do you personally care if Google infringes on Apple? Is your pension 100% invested in Apple shares? If it isn't, I bet a portion of the Large Cap portion of your 401k (or 403b) is invested in Samsung.
I take care of my own finances and I mainly only trade AAPL. No Samsung is allowed in my portfolio. If I were to have companies which I don't care for in my portfolio, it would only be for shorting purposes.
To me, this is a bigger concern for Google than Samsung.
I don't know what are the exact terms and conditions for Android licensing, but since Galaxy Nexus uses Pure Google experience, anything related to core Android functionality would and should be indemnified by Google.
Google better pour money and support Samsung in this litigation, or else Apple basically can ban any Android smartphones "infringing" on the same patent.
Update: Reuters reports that Judge Koh, "scheduled a hearing on Monday to consider whether to put the Galaxy Nexus injunction on hold pending appeal." In a decision earlier this week, Koh also granted Apple a pre-trial ban on the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Koh said she might rule on Sunday whether to hold that injunction pending appeal.
So she made an decision, then quickly decided to reconsider.
Google hasn't yet sued anyone despite a large number of patents in its portfolio both home-grown and acquired, including one filed for the notification bar back in 2009. They controlled thousands of them even before the MM purchase. Google has a completely different attitude towards initiating litigation against it's tech neighbors than any of it's competitors.
Right. Their attitude is get someone on the board of another company and rip off all the IP you can.
All of you can laugh at yourselves. Rah, Rah, Team, Rah, Rah, Team. What a bunch of idiots. Tech is not Apple, Microsoft or Google. Tech is what makes our lives funner, it does not all come from our apparent software overlords. Make of it what you can with what you have. I do get a lot of popcorn reading from both sides, so, I have to thank you for that lol, stupid sheep (both sides).
Well they have to since they don't have much in the technical non-search space. Just about everything they have outside of the search space is bought after the fact or just hoping to not get sued over. That's a significant part of why they purchased Moto Mobile.
I think that's just an assumption that's no longer true. Outside of the search space they actually have thousands of patents, some reportedly targeting Apple directly including specific IBM transfers.
They own patents for computer architecture, encryption, networking, multi-thread processing, 3-dimensional modeling. Others are in the area of fiber-optics, the Google Glasses project, self-driving cars, voice search, audio and video. They've cherry-picked network patents and data center patents among others from HP, a few thousand more hand-selected IBM patents, even IP from "patent-troll" MOSAID. No doubt that if Google wanted to go on offense they could make quite a commotion at the minimum. Even in the search space where they've played and innovated for years they've not sued any competitor even tho it's clear they have IP to do so.
Every comment they've made in the past says that's not what they're about, and their actions to date have mirrored that attitude. That's the way I see it at least. It's not that they can't sue, lacking IP of their own. IMO, it's that they've made a policy decision not to.
It has already started unraveling:
Update: Reuters reports that Judge Koh, "scheduled a hearing on Monday to consider whether to put the Galaxy Nexus injunction on hold pending appeal." In a decision earlier this week, Koh also granted Apple a pre-trial ban on the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Koh said she might rule on Sunday whether to hold that injunction pending appeal.
So she made an decision, then quickly decided to reconsider.
Well, no.
A decision to stay the injunction pending appeal is not 'reconsidering'. Rather, it is "I made my decision, but I'm willing to wait to hear if the appeals court agrees before letting my decision go into effect."
Not that it matters. In the earlier Samsung case, the appeals court sent it back with a clear message that her refusal to issue an injunction was not acceptable. It's not like they're going to overturn it now.
The 4 patents are listed above in the article I believe the biggest one was regarding Siri. The tablet that they got the injunction against already has a newer version out, but I believe that their is a fee for Samsung to have to pay Apple now. Samsung won a case last week where Apple will have to pay them money. Now this Samsung Google Nexus phone, when I looked it up all I could find is an older phone from last year, from October of 2011. Not being familiar with android personally is there a newer version of this out? Color me confused with so many android phones and names. I keep seeing news articles saying Nexus "device" which isn't right from what I can find it's only the phone.
No that was posted in the original news articles along with the ban would be in effect as soon as Apple posted the $96 bond. It's very confusing i know
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Google hasn't yet sued anyone despite a large number of patents in its portfolio both home-grown and acquired, including one filed for the notification bar back in 2009...Google has a completely different attitude towards initiating litigation against it's tech neighbors than any of it's competitors.
Well, Apple hasn't sued Google either, for that matter.
And it would be kind of silly (or take a lot of chutzpah) to sue a competitor whose product came out a year before yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lubernabei
And besides, why do you personally care if Google infringes on Apple? Is your pension 100% invested in Apple shares? If it isn't, I bet a portion of the Large Cap portion of your 401k (or 403b) is invested in Samsung.
I take care of my own finances and I mainly only trade AAPL. No Samsung is allowed in my portfolio. If I were to have companies which I don't care for in my portfolio, it would only be for shorting purposes.
To me, this is a bigger concern for Google than Samsung.
I don't know what are the exact terms and conditions for Android licensing, but since Galaxy Nexus uses Pure Google experience, anything related to core Android functionality would and should be indemnified by Google.
Google better pour money and support Samsung in this litigation, or else Apple basically can ban any Android smartphones "infringing" on the same patent.
effing rotten apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon
And where is a NYT article to report this ruling? Is this not major news?
They're probably too busy preparing some other article full of lies about Apple, as they have done in the past.
Quote:
Originally posted by GatorGuy
Google hasn't yet sued anyone...
Also, for what it's worth, Google has indeed sued someone, which also took a lot of chutzpah...
As it should be. Innovate, don't recreate.
Google literally has dozens of pending lawsuits of which this is only one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist
android isn't going anywhere so go take your meds.
That's probably exactly what RIM and Nokia said a few years ago too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist
or else Apple basically can ban any Android smartphones "infringing" on the same patent.
Now we're talking! That's the bigger picture, or I sure hope that it is.
Apple has enough money to sue everybody who deserves to get sued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eksodos
This is definitely a great win for our Apple family. The fandroids will be hurting real bad over this judgment.
It sure is, and they sure are. And it will also only get worse, I'm thrilled!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
It has already started unraveling:
Update: Reuters reports that Judge Koh, "scheduled a hearing on Monday to consider whether to put the Galaxy Nexus injunction on hold pending appeal." In a decision earlier this week, Koh also granted Apple a pre-trial ban on the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Koh said she might rule on Sunday whether to hold that injunction pending appeal.
So she made an decision, then quickly decided to reconsider.
Don't see this on Reuters website.
Right. Their attitude is get someone on the board of another company and rip off all the IP you can.
Could you possibly post info on the touch user interface and virtual keyboard Android had pre iPhone?
All of you can laugh at yourselves. Rah, Rah, Team, Rah, Rah, Team. What a bunch of idiots. Tech is not Apple, Microsoft or Google. Tech is what makes our lives funner, it does not all come from our apparent software overlords. Make of it what you can with what you have. I do get a lot of popcorn reading from both sides, so, I have to thank you for that lol, stupid sheep (both sides).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
Well they have to since they don't have much in the technical non-search space. Just about everything they have outside of the search space is bought after the fact or just hoping to not get sued over. That's a significant part of why they purchased Moto Mobile.
I think that's just an assumption that's no longer true. Outside of the search space they actually have thousands of patents, some reportedly targeting Apple directly including specific IBM transfers.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/08/guest-post-google-is-packing-heat-with-sights-on-apple-1.html
http://www.seobythesea.com/2012/01/ibm-assigns-patent-filings-to-google/#more-7107
They own patents for computer architecture, encryption, networking, multi-thread processing, 3-dimensional modeling. Others are in the area of fiber-optics, the Google Glasses project, self-driving cars, voice search, audio and video. They've cherry-picked network patents and data center patents among others from HP, a few thousand more hand-selected IBM patents, even IP from "patent-troll" MOSAID. No doubt that if Google wanted to go on offense they could make quite a commotion at the minimum. Even in the search space where they've played and innovated for years they've not sued any competitor even tho it's clear they have IP to do so.
Every comment they've made in the past says that's not what they're about, and their actions to date have mirrored that attitude. That's the way I see it at least. It's not that they can't sue, lacking IP of their own. IMO, it's that they've made a policy decision not to.
Well, no.
A decision to stay the injunction pending appeal is not 'reconsidering'. Rather, it is "I made my decision, but I'm willing to wait to hear if the appeals court agrees before letting my decision go into effect."
Not that it matters. In the earlier Samsung case, the appeals court sent it back with a clear message that her refusal to issue an injunction was not acceptable. It's not like they're going to overturn it now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Right. Their attitude is get someone on the board of another company and rip off all the IP you can.
That only worked once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq2
Also, for what it's worth, Google has indeed sued someone, which also took a lot of chutzpah...
Thanks for pointing that out. I'll modify my statement then: Google has never sued any competitor.
The 4 patents are listed above in the article I believe the biggest one was regarding Siri. The tablet that they got the injunction against already has a newer version out, but I believe that their is a fee for Samsung to have to pay Apple now. Samsung won a case last week where Apple will have to pay them money. Now this Samsung Google Nexus phone, when I looked it up all I could find is an older phone from last year, from October of 2011. Not being familiar with android personally is there a newer version of this out? Color me confused with so many android phones and names. I keep seeing news articles saying Nexus "device" which isn't right from what I can find it's only the phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Thanks for pointing that out. I'll modify my statement then: Google has never sued any competitor.
"Google sues tiny indie label"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/06/google_sues_blues_label/
No that was posted in the original news articles along with the ban would be in effect as soon as Apple posted the $96 bond. It's very confusing i know