None of the patents in the complaint were FRAND, and some of them were actually pretty good. In my opinion, Motorola had a somewhat strong case there, so this does strike me as odd.
Alderud hasn't deigned to provide his own references for his claims, but what your link only shows that he's paid by Google's competitor (which has been public info since at least April) not that he is either a Google hater or a fraud.
I'm sure the fact that they are on Google's payroll would have an impact on how the individuals comment. However, there is a very big difference between someone who receives money from Google and ALSO comments on the side, and someone who receives money for the sole reason TO comment. The former scenario is reality, but jragosta was implying the later. He has a long history of distorting truths here...
That's pretty clever. You lie about what I said (or implied) in a post accusing me of being a liar.
Google explicitly stated that they do not pay any bloggers to write articles in their favor. When they added that there may be individuals who receive money from Google via other channels (e.g. AdSense), the judge asked for more details in which Google complied. Even with the more detailed report, there was nothing along the same lines as Oracle paying Mueller to write 'propaganda' for them. You suggesting otherwise is completely disingenuous....
I do agree with other comments though...very sad that AI continues to quote this discredited blogger.
The article I read about the court filings didn't link the actual filings for me to read (I believe it was PCMag or ComputerWorld) and it was also before they made their subsequent filing listing people who had received money. So my comments may have been ill-informed but they were not disingenuous.
It's kind of funny for you to throw around claims of being disingenuous and then call Mueller a discredited blogger without any evidence or justification. Does being a consultant for Oracle (or supposedly Microsoft at one time) make him discredited or are you referring to something else? In the court filing linked by Majjo above http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraclevGoogle-1236.pdf it clearly says that Oracle did not hire him to comment on their case. He was hired as a consultant because of his legal expertise. If we're going to start disbelieving Oracle's court filings then we should do the same with Google...
Alderud hasn't deigned to provide his own references for his claims, but what your link only shows that he's paid by Google's competitor (which has been public info since at least April) not that he is either a Google hater or a fraud.
Seeing all the usual idiots getting so pissed off over Motorola dropping their case is priceless.
I thought you people weren't supposed to be so emotionally attached to a company? The fact is you're attached to Apple even though you hate them. Your emotional state rises and falls in time with Apple related news. And since most Apple news is good for Apple/bad for competitors it leaves you pathetic individuals in a perpetual state of despair.
And that emotional rant helps your case because.....
It seems like you yourself is just as emotional (if not more so) than the "usual idiots".
I would think that calling people "usual idiots" would not be tolerated in this board.
I guess I was wrong.
Seems like the double standards are the norm in this part of the world.
That's pretty clever. You lie about what I said (or implied) in a post accusing me of being a liar.
I called you out for stating the article I quoted contained something it didn't. Specifically the following:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Google admits that they pay a number of people to comment on their products
When in reality, what Google stated and was mentioned in the article was the exact OPPOSITE of your comment.
Originally Posted by Google
Google again states that neither it nor its counsel has paid an author, journalist, commentator or blogger to report or comment on any issues in this case.
Google did not pay for comments from any of the commenters listed in this disclosure. Nor did Google cite or rely on any of these commenters in its briefing in this case.
It could only be a peace offering if they were going to win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Baloney. The removal of Google Maps for iOS is a gut punch, hitting Google directly in the pocket book. You seem to forget how Google makes money and it ain't by giving stuff away free. Google needs its apps on iOS more than Apple needs Google Maps and smart people know it. I agree with others that this may be a peace offering. If it is it means Google blinked first. Gonna be interesting to watch.
The article I read about the court filings didn't link the actual filings for me to read (I believe it was PCMag or ComputerWorld) and it was also before they made their subsequent filing listing people who had received money. So my comments may have been ill-informed but they were not disingenuous.It's kind of funny for you to throw around claims of being disingenuous and then call Mueller a discredited blogger without any evidence or justification. Does being a consultant for Oracle (or supposedly Microsoft at one time) make him discredited or are you referring to something else? In the court filing linked by Majjo above http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraclevGoogle-1236.pdf it clearly says that Oracle did not hire him to comment on their case. He was hired as a consultant because of his legal expertise. If we're going to start disbelieving Oracle's court filings then we should do the same with Google...
One doesn't have to look far to see the bias in Mueller's articles. He constantly speaks of gloom and doom for Google, with virtually none of his predictions coming to fruition. Did even a single prediction/assessment that he made for the Oracle v. Google case actually happen??? According to him, Android was certain to be a goner after the Oracle Java lawsuit. Many times, his suppositions are in stark contrast to those of the mainstream (all anti-Google..go figure), and have been criticized by many others...including Groklaw.
As I see it, he is either a paid shill, or a horrible analyst...both of which discredit him as an authoritative commentator.
And that emotional rant helps your case because.....
It seems like you yourself is just as emotional (if not more so) than the "usual idiots".
I would think that calling people "usual idiots" would not be tolerated in this board.
I guess I was wrong.
Seems like the double standards are the norm in this part of the world.
Any moderators wanna chime in?
Why would you post a link to 136 page PDF as evidence of something and not make any reference to which part is relevant? Are you surprised that the rational people on here occasionally fall into ad-hom attacks?
Why should the moderators do anything to Eric when they still let you post...
^ LOL, I forgot I had Galbi blocked (likely because he was spewing garbage in the past) and didn't even know he responded until you quoted him.
That said, I never called a specific person an "idiot". I used a general term just as if I said "haters" or "fandroids". And I'm referring to the internet forums in general, not only AI posters.
What's more interesting is seeing who jumps out of the woodwork and responds to my post. I mean, if you're not the type of person I'm describing, why do you need to jump on what I said? Something to think about.
Is it OK to comment on the actual content of this topic? Yeah?
I assume that the contract between Apple and Google regarding Google as the default search engine in iOS/OSX is being re-negotiated. And with iOS, Apple can do to search what it has done to YouTube and Maps -- force users to use Safari for Google search. Such a move by Apple could have some adverse effect on Google. Google compromises by withdrawing certain complaints.
Or...
Google/Motorola feel their claim against Apple is so strong that they would prefer to take their case via the courts rather than the ITC.
What is needed is a statement from the horse's mouth. Failing that, it's simply a wait-and-see scenario over what happens in the next twelve months leading up to iOS7 and even possibly OSX 10.9.
What's more interesting is seeing who jumps out of the woodwork and responds to my post. I mean, if you're not the type of person I'm describing, why do you need to jump on what I said? Something to think about.
Nice point. Someone felt might defensive all of a sudden.
Baloney. The removal of Google Maps for iOS is a gut punch, hitting Google directly in the pocket book. You seem to forget how Google makes money and it ain't by giving stuff away free. Google needs its apps on iOS more than Apple needs Google Maps and smart people know it. I agree with others that this may be a peace offering. If it is it means Google blinked first. Gonna be interesting to watch.
Is it OK to comment on the actual content of this topic? Yeah?
I assume that the contract between Apple and Google regarding Google as the default search engine in iOS/OSX is being re-negotiated. And with iOS, Apple can do to search what it has done to YouTube and Maps -- force users to use Safari for Google search. Such a move by Apple could have some adverse effect on Google. Google compromises by withdrawing certain complaints.
Or...
Google/Motorola feel their claim against Apple is so strong that they would prefer to take their case via the courts rather than the ITC.
What is needed is a statement from the horse's mouth. Failing that, it's simply a wait-and-see scenario over what happens in the next twelve months leading up to iOS7 and even possibly OSX 10.9.
Apple has a trump card and most likely after further research the legal staff for Google, I mean Moto Mobility, gave their assessment to the board and they voted to pull the plug on this action.
a trump card? You mean like Apple's shrinking smartphone worldwide marketshare? How about Apple Maps disaster?
Why would you post a link to 136 page PDF as evidence of something and not make any reference to which part is relevant? Are you surprised that the rational people on here occasionally fall into ad-hom attacks?
Why should the moderators do anything to Eric when they still let you post...
You've just conveniently bypassed all the other links just to point out the lone PDF file?
Are you okay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
^ LOL, I forgot I had Galbi blocked (likely because he was spewing garbage in the past) and didn't even know he responded until you quoted him.
That said, I never called a specific person an "idiot". I used a general term just as if I said "haters" or "fandroids". And I'm referring to the internet forums in general, not only AI posters.
What's more interesting is seeing who jumps out of the woodwork and responds to my post. I mean, if you're not the type of person I'm describing, why do you need to jump on what I said? Something to think about.
Those who cant take a little criticism and continue to live the yes-man life, never accomplished anything.
It's for the greater good to have people, like myself, to be the voice of reason and perspective. Groupthink wont get you anywhere. You need critics like me (no matter how much you dont like to read my words) .
Comments
None of the patents in the complaint were FRAND, and some of them were actually pretty good. In my opinion, Motorola had a somewhat strong case there, so this does strike me as odd.
There's a difference between a rumor which may or may not stem from an authoritative source and speculation that is known to be baseless.
Has there been a verdict for the appeal yet?
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraclevGoogle-1236.pdf
Alderud hasn't deigned to provide his own references for his claims, but what your link only shows that he's paid by Google's competitor (which has been public info since at least April) not that he is either a Google hater or a fraud.That's pretty clever. You lie about what I said (or implied) in a post accusing me of being a liar.
Google explicitly stated that they do not pay any bloggers to write articles in their favor. When they added that there may be individuals who receive money from Google via other channels (e.g. AdSense), the judge asked for more details in which Google complied. Even with the more detailed report, there was nothing along the same lines as Oracle paying Mueller to write 'propaganda' for them. You suggesting otherwise is completely disingenuous....
I do agree with other comments though...very sad that AI continues to quote this discredited blogger.
The article I read about the court filings didn't link the actual filings for me to read (I believe it was PCMag or ComputerWorld) and it was also before they made their subsequent filing listing people who had received money. So my comments may have been ill-informed but they were not disingenuous.It's kind of funny for you to throw around claims of being disingenuous and then call Mueller a discredited blogger without any evidence or justification. Does being a consultant for Oracle (or supposedly Microsoft at one time) make him discredited or are you referring to something else? In the court filing linked by Majjo above http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraclevGoogle-1236.pdf it clearly says that Oracle did not hire him to comment on their case. He was hired as a consultant because of his legal expertise. If we're going to start disbelieving Oracle's court filings then we should do the same with Google...
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf
The hell? Eric Schmidt found Jesus?
No, he found Psy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alderud
Please provide references for your claims
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20110605163439627
http://www.dailytech.com/Top+AntiAndroid+Blogger+Florian+Mueller+is+Being+Paid+by+Oracle/article24633.htm
http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096.pdf
http://paidcontent.org/2011/10/18/419-is-patent-expertblogger-florian-mueller-getting-too-cozy-with-microsoft/
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
Alderud hasn't deigned to provide his own references for his claims, but what your link only shows that he's paid by Google's competitor (which has been public info since at least April) not that he is either a Google hater or a fraud.He's not a lawyer but rather a "patent analyst"
http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/study-on-worldwide-use-of-frand.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
LOL.
Seeing all the usual idiots getting so pissed off over Motorola dropping their case is priceless.
I thought you people weren't supposed to be so emotionally attached to a company? The fact is you're attached to Apple even though you hate them. Your emotional state rises and falls in time with Apple related news. And since most Apple news is good for Apple/bad for competitors it leaves you pathetic individuals in a perpetual state of despair.
And that emotional rant helps your case because.....
It seems like you yourself is just as emotional (if not more so) than the "usual idiots".
I would think that calling people "usual idiots" would not be tolerated in this board.
I guess I was wrong.
Seems like the double standards are the norm in this part of the world.
Any moderators wanna chime in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's pretty clever. You lie about what I said (or implied) in a post accusing me of being a liar.
I called you out for stating the article I quoted contained something it didn't. Specifically the following:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Google admits that they pay a number of people to comment on their products
When in reality, what Google stated and was mentioned in the article was the exact OPPOSITE of your comment.
Originally Posted by Google
Google again states that neither it nor its counsel has paid an author, journalist, commentator or blogger to report or comment on any issues in this case.
Google did not pay for comments from any of the commenters listed in this disclosure. Nor did Google cite or rely on any of these commenters in its briefing in this case.
So...I'm sorry, who is the liar again jragosta?
It just occurred to me.
Al Gore (advisor to Google and Apple Board member) must have told Larry Page to "knock it off."
It could only be a peace offering if they were going to win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Baloney. The removal of Google Maps for iOS is a gut punch, hitting Google directly in the pocket book. You seem to forget how Google makes money and it ain't by giving stuff away free. Google needs its apps on iOS more than Apple needs Google Maps and smart people know it. I agree with others that this may be a peace offering. If it is it means Google blinked first. Gonna be interesting to watch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
The article I read about the court filings didn't link the actual filings for me to read (I believe it was PCMag or ComputerWorld) and it was also before they made their subsequent filing listing people who had received money. So my comments may have been ill-informed but they were not disingenuous.It's kind of funny for you to throw around claims of being disingenuous and then call Mueller a discredited blogger without any evidence or justification. Does being a consultant for Oracle (or supposedly Microsoft at one time) make him discredited or are you referring to something else? In the court filing linked by Majjo above http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraclevGoogle-1236.pdf it clearly says that Oracle did not hire him to comment on their case. He was hired as a consultant because of his legal expertise. If we're going to start disbelieving Oracle's court filings then we should do the same with Google...One doesn't have to look far to see the bias in Mueller's articles. He constantly speaks of gloom and doom for Google, with virtually none of his predictions coming to fruition. Did even a single prediction/assessment that he made for the Oracle v. Google case actually happen??? According to him, Android was certain to be a goner after the Oracle Java lawsuit. Many times, his suppositions are in stark contrast to those of the mainstream (all anti-Google..go figure), and have been criticized by many others...including Groklaw.
As I see it, he is either a paid shill, or a horrible analyst...both of which discredit him as an authoritative commentator.
Why would you post a link to 136 page PDF as evidence of something and not make any reference to which part is relevant? Are you surprised that the rational people on here occasionally fall into ad-hom attacks?
Why should the moderators do anything to Eric when they still let you post...
^ LOL, I forgot I had Galbi blocked (likely because he was spewing garbage in the past) and didn't even know he responded until you quoted him.
That said, I never called a specific person an "idiot". I used a general term just as if I said "haters" or "fandroids". And I'm referring to the internet forums in general, not only AI posters.
What's more interesting is seeing who jumps out of the woodwork and responds to my post. I mean, if you're not the type of person I'm describing, why do you need to jump on what I said? Something to think about.
Is it OK to comment on the actual content of this topic? Yeah?
I assume that the contract between Apple and Google regarding Google as the default search engine in iOS/OSX is being re-negotiated. And with iOS, Apple can do to search what it has done to YouTube and Maps -- force users to use Safari for Google search. Such a move by Apple could have some adverse effect on Google. Google compromises by withdrawing certain complaints.
Or...
Google/Motorola feel their claim against Apple is so strong that they would prefer to take their case via the courts rather than the ITC.
What is needed is a statement from the horse's mouth. Failing that, it's simply a wait-and-see scenario over what happens in the next twelve months leading up to iOS7 and even possibly OSX 10.9.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
What's more interesting is seeing who jumps out of the woodwork and responds to my post. I mean, if you're not the type of person I'm describing, why do you need to jump on what I said? Something to think about.
Nice point. Someone felt might defensive all of a sudden.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Baloney. The removal of Google Maps for iOS is a gut punch, hitting Google directly in the pocket book. You seem to forget how Google makes money and it ain't by giving stuff away free. Google needs its apps on iOS more than Apple needs Google Maps and smart people know it. I agree with others that this may be a peace offering. If it is it means Google blinked first. Gonna be interesting to watch.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }I probably won't get any answers, but I wonder how much the licensing fees were for google maps. My estimate would be in the $1 per handset range...
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by sip
Is it OK to comment on the actual content of this topic? Yeah?
I assume that the contract between Apple and Google regarding Google as the default search engine in iOS/OSX is being re-negotiated. And with iOS, Apple can do to search what it has done to YouTube and Maps -- force users to use Safari for Google search. Such a move by Apple could have some adverse effect on Google. Google compromises by withdrawing certain complaints.
Or...
Google/Motorola feel their claim against Apple is so strong that they would prefer to take their case via the courts rather than the ITC.
What is needed is a statement from the horse's mouth. Failing that, it's simply a wait-and-see scenario over what happens in the next twelve months leading up to iOS7 and even possibly OSX 10.9.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }I can't really see how Google makes that much money from iPhone searches (due to limited ad real estate).
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen
It just occurred to me.
Al Gore (advisor to Google and Apple Board member) must have told Larry Page to "knock it off."
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Because all the legal hot air is environmentally unfriendly?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
That would be the person who thinks that "google didn't pay anyone IN THIS CASE" refutes "Google pays people".
I.e., you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Apple has a trump card and most likely after further research the legal staff for Google, I mean Moto Mobility, gave their assessment to the board and they voted to pull the plug on this action.
a trump card? You mean like Apple's shrinking smartphone worldwide marketshare? How about Apple Maps disaster?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
Why would you post a link to 136 page PDF as evidence of something and not make any reference to which part is relevant? Are you surprised that the rational people on here occasionally fall into ad-hom attacks?
Why should the moderators do anything to Eric when they still let you post...
You've just conveniently bypassed all the other links just to point out the lone PDF file?
Are you okay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
^ LOL, I forgot I had Galbi blocked (likely because he was spewing garbage in the past) and didn't even know he responded until you quoted him.
That said, I never called a specific person an "idiot". I used a general term just as if I said "haters" or "fandroids". And I'm referring to the internet forums in general, not only AI posters.
What's more interesting is seeing who jumps out of the woodwork and responds to my post. I mean, if you're not the type of person I'm describing, why do you need to jump on what I said? Something to think about.
Those who cant take a little criticism and continue to live the yes-man life, never accomplished anything.
It's for the greater good to have people, like myself, to be the voice of reason and perspective. Groupthink wont get you anywhere. You need critics like me (no matter how much you dont like to read my words) .