Google argues popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential

189101214

Comments

  • Reply 221 of 275
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member
    A hit! A palpable hit! :) I'm sure it won't be too long before "the fredster" pulls out yet another alias so the fun can continue. Maybe there could be a contest - see who can detect his latest alias the soonest?

    Hrmm I assume you are talking about me and I find this funny from a poster with only 4 posts. Ask any of the mods if I have had other accounts before or after this one if you want to know.
  • Reply 222 of 275
    bmason1270 wrote: »
    Does Google even have a "Notification Center" without iOS?
    Regardless you can't "steal" what is "open source" anyway.

    Does Apple have a notification center without Android?

    And yes...you can steal open source...
  • Reply 223 of 275
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

    Does Apple have a notification center without Android?


     


    iOS certainly did. If people are going to keep repeating idiocy, they shouldn't expect respect.

  • Reply 224 of 275
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    freediverx wrote: »
    The fact that you support and admire Intellectual Ventures' business model places you at the most extreme position of this discussion. This company and its business model are despised by a tremendous majority. The laws need to be changed to prevent this misuse of patent law - as it is clearly a violation of the law's prime objective - to encourage innovation, not to enrich corporate leeches who add zero value.

    Your argument is simply begging the question along with hasty generalization. You are arguing that defending IV is bad because IV is bad. Then you argue that everyone knows that IV is bad.

    Neither argument holds up to scrutiny. In reality, what IV is doing is completely legal and ethical. They buy property from willing sellers and they then have the right to do whatever they want with that property. If I sell my widget factory to a real estate broker, do you have the right to move in and start making widgets if the broker doesn't immediately rent it to someone? Obviously not. So why would intellectual property be any different?
  • Reply 225 of 275
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,885member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Your argument is simply begging the question along with hasty generalization. You are arguing that defending IV is bad because IV is bad. Then you argue that everyone knows that IV is bad.

    Neither argument holds up to scrutiny. In reality, what IV is doing is completely legal and ethical. They buy property from willing sellers and they then have the right to do whatever they want with that property. If I sell my widget factory to a real estate broker, do you have the right to move in and start making widgets if the broker doesn't immediately rent it to someone? Obviously not. So why would intellectual property be any different?


     


    Because intellectual property is different. Intellectual Vultures is a patent troll, gaming the system with unimplemented patents. They are the poster boy for patent reform and mucking up what is a good thing for those who actually play by the spirit, not just the letter, of the rules. They contribute absolutely nothing to society in exchange for the grant of property, given for the purpose of advancing society. They are leaches, sucking the life blood out of innovation.

  • Reply 226 of 275

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by macarena View Post





    I actually agree with Google on this one - that Apple should be forced to license. 


     


    One could also argue that if you want to use my car and I won't let you, that when you take it and drive cross country, I forced you to steal it. After all, cars are way too critical to be held only for the use of one person.

    It would be a really stupid argument, and it wouldn't get you very far in court, but you could argue it.


     


    This is an improvement. In the past, fandroid arguments have been all over the map, a desperate grab bag of self-contradicting positions on the topic. From denial ("Apple didn't invent such and such! Here's prior art from ancient Greece showing the existence of rectanglez"), to attacking the patent system ("those misinformed morons at the patent office should never have granted Apple this patent"), to calling the kettle black ("Oh yeah? Well Apple stole Android notifications!"), to finally admitting that yes, Google steals from Apple, and Apple did invent this, and Apple does have a patent, but that Apple has no "rights" to have that patent because it's too awesome of an idea. That's the official new argument from Google, and the fandroids have more or less lined up behind it like...GSheep, I suppose. At least the anti-Apple rhetoric is starting to sound coherent, instead of spewing in every which direction they can shake a straw man at.


     


    With this admission, we can finally focus on the real issue: Apple has patents that Google wants, and Google feels it is entitled to access it (and indeed, to give it away to everyone). And the fandroids agree, or at least "macarena", from the quote above: "Apple should be forced to license" -- oh really? Forced. What justifies force? Just because Google and a bunch of knock-off handset makers want their products to look and feel as much like Apple's iOS devices as possible? Are you seriously saying that is a valid reason to force Apple to license? Wow, that's just... wow. Make no mistake: that is precisely what the fandroids on these forums mean when they say "Apple doesn't want competition." The fandroids mean that Apple doesn't want Google or Samsung to steal their patents and use them against Apple. We've turned a corner in these forums. Google has officially made clear its intention. They might as well say, "Let's be evil." And to my shock, the GSheep support this.
  • Reply 227 of 275
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    anonymouse wrote: »
    Because intellectual property is different. Intellectual Vultures is a patent troll, gaming the system with unimplemented patents. They are the poster boy for patent reform and mucking up what is a good thing for those who actually play by the spirit, not just the letter, of the rules. They contribute absolutely nothing to society in exchange for the grant of property, given for the purpose of advancing society. They are leaches, sucking the life blood out of innovation.

    Again, I see a lot of accusations but no facts or evidence.
  • Reply 228 of 275
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    Translation: "Apple patents are de facto standard essential therefore we can just rip off whatever we want". "What's that? even if patents are standards essential you have to license them? Nah, no worries, we're Google, we do no evil, so we don't have to license anything, we just rip it off. Better yet, we'll use patsies like Motorola, HTC and Samsung to take the heat so we can continue our illegal and unethical behaviour."
  • Reply 229 of 275
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    Because intellectual property is different. Intellectual Vultures is a patent troll, gaming the system with unimplemented patents. They are the poster boy for patent reform and mucking up what is a good thing for those who actually play by the spirit, not just the letter, of the rules. They contribute absolutely nothing to society in exchange for the grant of property, given for the purpose of advancing society. They are leaches, sucking the life blood out of innovation.



     


    They contribute a way for inventors, particularly smaller one's with less resources, a way to monetize their inventions, while taking on most of the risks.

  • Reply 230 of 275
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    freediverx wrote: »
    My hatred of Google is growing daily.

    Standards Essential Patents are established by the patent holder and other companies, who agree in advance to cross license the patents at fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates. They are not established by lame, backstabbing, copycat companies who unilaterally decide that a competitor's private patents, upon which no standards have been established, must be shared with others whether they like it or not.

    Google is following Microsoft's footsteps as a predatory company with few original ideas, and I hope that this leads them to their fall just as it did Microsoft.
    rioviva wrote: »
    I actually agree with Google. On that note, I think their search algorithms have become essential for the industry. As much as I've tried switching to Bing or Yahoo, I keep coming back to Google's engine.
    Those algorithms should be de facto standards and licensed under FRAND

    Thank you. Y'all beat me to it. I couldn't have put it better. And, karma's a bitch. The chickens have come home to roost for Microsoft, as they will for Google too... You can count on it.

    BTW for Yahoo and Bing, their uselessness is mind-boggling. I use Duck Duck Go and while not superb, is enough without me having to use Yahoo or Bing.
  • Reply 231 of 275
    macarenamacarena Posts: 365member
    anonymouse wrote: »
    One could also argue that if you want to use my car and I won't let you, that when you take it and drive cross country, I forced you to steal it. After all, cars are way too critical to be held only for the use of one person.
    It would be a really stupid argument, and it wouldn't get you very far in court, but you could argue it.

    Totally irrelevant reply. If you steal my car, I can't use it anymore. If Google uses Apple's IP and is willing to compensate Apple for it, Apple can still use it's IP.

    The point is simply this - the whole point of the patent system is to encourage people to share their knowledge, so that further knowledge gains can be made. If not for this goal, everything could just be a trade secret and no one can build on top of others work. While it is legal to deny licensing, I believe that denying licensing is not a sensible strategy.

    Jobs said something to the effect of - I don't want your money, even if you offer $5B. Just stop copying my ideas. That is clearly denying licensing at any rate. Nothing wrong with it per se. But this is one of the reasons for the current mess.

    Read my post fully. What I said is that while Apple SHOULD license, the rate at which they license should also be entirely upto Apple. And if Apple chooses to license only at rates that are deterrent, then Apple runs the risk that people will go ahead anyway, in the hope that the outcome of the legal case would not be as damaging as Apple's fees. This is classic game theory.
  • Reply 232 of 275
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    macarena wrote: »

    The point is simply this - the whole point of the patent system is to encourage people to share their knowledge, so that further knowledge gains can be made. If not for this goal, everything could just be a trade secret and no one can build on top of others work. While it is legal to deny licensing, I believe that denying licensing is not a sensible strategy.
    I thought that the patent system was designed to define and protect intellectual property.
  • Reply 233 of 275
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    macarena wrote: »
    Totally irrelevant reply. If you steal my car, I can't use it anymore. If Google uses Apple's IP and is willing to compensate Apple for it, Apple can still use it's IP.

    Perhaps, but they lose the value because they no longer have a proprietary, exclusive product - so they lose the value of their invention.
    macarena wrote: »
    The point is simply this - the whole point of the patent system is to encourage people to share their knowledge, so that further knowledge gains can be made.

    That's misleading. The whole point of the patent system is to grant inventors an exclusive right to their invention for a limited period of time THEN for it to become public. It is the exclusive right to the invention which is intended to spur innovation. WIthout exclusivity, there's no incentive to innovate.
  • Reply 234 of 275
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,885member
    macarena wrote: »
    While it is legal to deny licensing, I believe that denying licensing is not a sensible strategy.
    Jobs said something to the effect of - I don't want your money, even if you offer $5B. Just stop copying my ideas. That is clearly denying licensing at any rate. Nothing wrong with it per se. But this is one of the reasons for the current mess.

    No, this is not, "one of the reasons for the current mess." The "current mess" as you call it came about because Google is lazy, ruthless and unethical, and has, over the years, methodically stolen other people's IP, created cheap imitations of other peoples products, and given them away for free in order to destroy the market for those seeking profits through selling innovative products, so that Google can earn advertising revenues off the backs of the people who did the actual heavy lifting.

    They followed this exact strategy with Android, initially copying market leader RIM, but quickly shifting their copying efforts to iOS when it became apparent that Apple had created something revolutionary and unique with the iPhone.

    So, the "current mess" came about because Google wasn't interested in investing the effort to attempt to develop something new and unique themselves, but intentionally created a cheap knockoff of iOS to be given away for free in order to make the smartphone market commercially unviable for anyone else. So far, because Apple has been able to stay so far ahead of them, and fended them off to some degree with legal challenges, they've been unsuccessful in destroying the market. Now they want the government to change the law and reward them for their lack of original work by making their chief competitor's original work public domain property.

    Apple creates. Google steals and destroys. The difference between the two companies could not be starker. Without Apple's original work, Android as it is today would not even exist, because Google would not have had anything to copy it from. If Google is worried they can't keep Android viable without infringing Apple's IP, they should either do the hard work to develop an alternate paradigm for the smartphone, like Apple did*, or they should drop out of the market. What must not happen is that Google be rewarded for being lazy and dishonest.


    * Apple didn't whine that RIM's technology should be made public domain, they created something wholly new that surpasses it. There's no reason other than laziness and lack of genius in their engineers that Google couldn't do the same. The iPhone paradigm is not the only viable smartphone universe. It's just the only one we know today and that Google's limited imagination can conceive. Android is not an achievement of Google, it's an indictment of them, and an embarrassing example of their complete inability to do anything original.
  • Reply 235 of 275
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    macarena wrote: »
    Totally irrelevant reply. If you steal my car, I can't use it anymore. If Google uses Apple's IP and is willing to compensate Apple for it, Apple can still use it's IP.

    Er, dude... It's still stealing, like, you know, a crime... in both instances. By your reasoning I can take anything non-physical as I wish and simply "compensate" others for it.
  • Reply 236 of 275
    sennensennen Posts: 1,472member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post





    No, this is not, "one of the reasons for the current mess." The "current mess" as you call it came about because Google is lazy, ruthless and unethical, and has, over the years, methodically stolen other people's IP, created cheap imitations of other peoples products, and given them away for free in order to destroy the market for those seeking profits through selling innovative products, so that Google can earn advertising revenues off the backs of the people who did the actual heavy lifting.

    They followed this exact strategy with Android, initially copying market leader RIM, but quickly shifting their copying efforts to iOS when it became apparent that Apple had created something revolutionary and unique with the iPhone.

    So, the "current mess" came about because Google wasn't interested in investing the effort to attempt to develop something new and unique themselves, but intentionally created a cheap knockoff of iOS to be given away for free in order to make the smartphone market commercially unviable for anyone else. So far, because Apple has been able to stay so far ahead of them, and fended them off to some degree with legal challenges, they've been unsuccessful in destroying the market. Now they want the government to change the law and reward them for their lack of original work by making their chief competitor's original work public domain property.

    Apple creates. Google steals and destroys. The difference between the two companies could not be starker. Without Apple's original work, Android as it is today would not even exist, because Google would not have had anything to copy it from. If Google is worried they can't keep Android viable without infringing Apple's IP, they should either do the hard work to develop an alternate paradigm for the smartphone, like Apple did*, or they should drop out of the market. What must not happen is that Google be rewarded for being lazy and dishonest.

    * Apple didn't whine that RIM's technology should be made public domain, they created something wholly new that surpasses it. There's no reason other than laziness and lack of genius in their engineers that Google couldn't do the same. The iPhone paradigm is not the only viable smartphone universe. It's just the only one we know today and that Google's limited imagination can conceive. Android is not an achievement of Google, it's an indictment of them, and an embarrassing example of their complete inability to do anything original.


    Very nicely put.

  • Reply 237 of 275
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member
    sr2012 wrote: »
    Er, dude... It's still stealing, like, you know, a crime... in both instances. By your reasoning I can take anything non-physical as I wish and simply "compensate" others for it.

    Exactly - except that Google in this instance argues that it doesn't have to compensate at all. They're so fcuked up and arrogant they make themselves look to be ridiculous.
    cheers r
  • Reply 238 of 275
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,885member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    They contribute a way for inventors, particularly smaller one's with less resources, a way to monetize their inventions, while taking on most of the risks.



     


    What they do is create a cottage industry for creating meaningless patents that aren't intended to be implemented, but only used for extorting money out of companies who develop successful products.


     


    These activities violate the intent of patent law and contribute absolutely nothing to the advancement of society. Intellectual Vultures has no intention of ever bringing any product to market. They are the problem with patent law that needs to be reformed and gives patents a bad name among those who can't distinguish between legitimate patent defense, such as in Apple's suits against Android, and leaches like IV who are gaming the system.


     


    As I wrote earlier, and this is particularly true with software patents, if you can't produce an implementation, if there's no concrete definition of the invention, then it's not really possible to distinguish between an invention and an idea. (And, anyone who can't produce an implementation of a software system isn't an inventor, they are simply filling out patent applications.) The way to stop this nonsense, this gaming of the system, is to go back to a patent system where for a patent to be issued, an implementation of the patent must be submitted. This solves 2 problems that tend to put companies like IV out of business: 1. By requiring an implementation it makes it more difficult to shape shift the meaning of the patent into whatever target the troll wants to go after, by making the invention unambiguous. 2. It puts patent writers (as opposed to actual inventors) out of business and allows the law to better serve the purpose it was created for.

  • Reply 239 of 275
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member


    I have long argued that this would be the outcome.


     


    When you can sue for one patent and ban a product that is compliance with thousands of other patents and that patent is for all intents and purposes essential to the success of the product in a given product category...well at that point, it's time to discuss whether those patents are de facto standards.


     


    Lawmakers will not and should not tolerate giving any company a de facto monopoly based on a single patent like slide-to-unlock....especially if the holder of that patent argues that a single press is a zero-length slide and that the patent is broad enough to cover any action on the lockscreen.  If the patent is going to be that broad, it should be licensed.


     


    This goes not just for Apple, but for Google, MS, etc.


     


    It will go along way towards reducing patent trolling and frivolous lawsuits.

  • Reply 240 of 275
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    jetz wrote: »
    I have long argued that this would be the outcome.

    Considering that we don't know the outcome yet, you're a little premature.

    All we know is that Google ASKED FOR something ridiculous and completely outside the intent of the Constitution and the laws that have been passed since then.
Sign In or Register to comment.