Apple's choice not to sue Google directly 'extremely curious,' says Schmidt

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 136

    Rob Bonner would have to be an idiot in the first place to think his brand new mobile OS would gain any traction... unless one of the major players bought it and incorporated it into its existing mobile OS.

    ... and your point being?

    sooo...don't even try?
  • Reply 62 of 136
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,626member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post




    Rob Bonner would have to be an idiot in the first place to think his brand new mobile OS would gain any traction... unless one of the major players bought it and incorporated it into its existing mobile OS.


     


    ... and your point being?


     


    I mean, come off it. It's always been this way no matter what product it is.



     


    I think his point was that it's OK to steal IP if you are doing it to enrich yourself. That and the implication that Google is the champion of independent IP thieves and a place where they can find safe haven if they steal something really good.

  • Reply 63 of 136
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 22,899member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post





    Patents are about intellectual property rights, not marketshare. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the "innovate don't litigate" trolls.


    Could applying for a patent on every minor improvement be a significant marketshare protection mechanism? Would the possibility of a patent infringement suit, even one unlikely to apply or succeed, be enough to keep some smaller players from even trying? Without fairly deep pockets can any company afford to get in Microsoft or <insert your favorite litigant> crosshairs?


     


    IMO patents can certainly be intended only for marketshare protection.

  • Reply 64 of 136
    anonymouse wrote: »
    Oh, GG, I love it when you feign ignorance. Just to recap, though, he's referring to the thousands and thousands of books Google stole as part of their Google Books program.

    Intellectual property Robin Hood.
  • Reply 65 of 136
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Marvin wrote: »
    That's a pretty impressive rounding error. Did you overload the circuit breaker by cranking your RDF up to the max?
    Apple is selling a lot of phones:
    http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/11/27/iphone-5-doubles-apples-share-of-us-smartphone-sales-to-surpass-android
    Android exceeds Apple's overall marketshare but not even by 100% let alone 900%.

    Google has nearly zero percent marketshare of smartphones because the Google NExus branded devices don't sell in high volumes. I would guess koop considers a smartphone OS as an actual device but clearly doesn't based on that 90% value he pulled from somewhere.
  • Reply 66 of 136

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers View Post




    and in 3 years he will defect to Canada and give them all the US' secrets. in 5 more years 57% of the United States will be Canadian provinces.



    Can we please just have the blue ones?

  • Reply 67 of 136
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 22,899member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post




    Rob Bonner would have to be an idiot in the first place to think his brand new mobile OS would gain any traction... unless one of the major players bought it and incorporated it into its existing mobile OS.


     


    ... and your point being?


     


    I mean, come off it. It's always been this way no matter what product it is.



    The point being that there is now some tech companies with no interest in licensing their IP, with the billions to be made by keeping others out of the market altogether. Even companies that traditionally licensed on supposedly-consistent terms like Motorola, Nokia, Ericsson, etc now use their IP as weapons. It's not that way in every successful industry, nor historically been a major issue in mobile.

  • Reply 68 of 136

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Could applying for a patent on every minor improvement be a significant marketshare protection mechanism? Would the possibility of a patent infringement suit, even one unlikely to apply or succeed, be enough to keep some smaller players from even trying? Without fairly deep pockets can any company afford to get in Microsoft or <insert your favorite litigant> crosshairs?


     


    IMO patents can certainly be intended only for marketshare protection.





    It's always been that way.

  • Reply 69 of 136
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post




    I wasn't aware he worked at Apple. I just looked it up Which patent are you referring to there? I was just reading this bio piece. Wiki suggests he was at Apple from 1989-1992, but the discussions on here usually revolve around a much later period. Most of the time when the name comes up on here, it's in reference to a later time period. Also if we're talking about something from the late 80s or early 90s, it should have recently expired.



     


     


    This explains it fairly well from Apple's perspective. It is the 263 patent. The patent was filed on 02-01-1996. It expires 20 years after that. 

  • Reply 70 of 136

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post





    sooo...don't even try?




    What? you haven't seen any new companies or products recently. There are still products out there to be invented that don't infringe on anyone's patents and/or have intellectual property rights that are within reason for even a new player.


     


    Besides, there is always the chance of being bought out, making a big haul of loot and starting on the next project.

  • Reply 71 of 136
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rob Bonner View Post



    "There's a young [Android and Danger co-founder] Andy Rubin trying to form a new version of Danger," Schmidt explained. "How is he or she going to be able to get the patent coverage necessary to offer version one of their product? That's the real consequence of this."

    Yeah, but you he should be more worried about Google stealing the idea. Apple would just purchase you if they like it.


     


     


    Funny, because it rings true. Seriously, though neither company would care until there was market penetration. Nobody sued Apple over FRAM patents until Apple started selling a lot of phones. Apple also didn't start suing until a lot of iPhone knock offs were being sold. 

  • Reply 72 of 136
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 22,899member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post




    It's always been that way.



    You and I completely agree.

  • Reply 73 of 136
    blah64blah64 Posts: 986member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by shompa View Post



    I don't understand Google. Its ok to pay MSFT 5-15 dollar for each Android device. But when Apple wants them to stop copying iOS/or pay some royalties = no.

    In Sweden we have legal right to know what a company store about it's users. Only Google refuses to release the data. Why? What are they hiding?

    They refuse to delete the data. I want to be able to pay Google for its great services, but that they stop to index everything. I personally hate that people who use Gmail: If I email them, Google indexes my email. I have not given Google permission to do that!. I don't use Gmail..

    This is what Google knows about you and store forever:

    What you think: Your interests, desires, needs, and intentions: Google.com searches, etc.

    What you read: News, commentary, and books: Google News, Book Search, DoubleClick, etc.

    What you watch: YouTube, Google TV

    What you write/receive: Gmail and Google Docs

    Who you%u2019ve communicated with, what you talked about: Groups, Buzz, Gmail, Voice, etc.

    What you believe: Politics and religion: search, News, YouTube, Groups, Gmail, Buzz, etc.

    Everywhere you go on the Internet: DoubleClick ad-tracking, Chrome, search, etc.

    What you plan to do or where you%u2019re going: Calendar, Maps, Streetview, Android, etc.

    Where your home, work, commutes and hangouts are: Android, Maps, Street View, etc.

    You and your family%u2019s voiceprints and faceprints: Voice, Picasa, translation, etc.

    You and your family%u2019s medical history and health status: Search, Google Health, Gmail, etc.

    Your financial worth, status, and purchases: Search, Google Checkout, etc.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post





    @ shompa, nice list. First time I've had to contemplate the term "faceprint." In this context, it's very Brave New World-ish.


     


    I agree, fantastic list shompa.  People who think "I don't have anything to hide" or "I'm not worth their interest" are completely missing the point.  This level of data shouldn't be in any one party's hands, let alone an unregulated commercial company.

  • Reply 74 of 136



    Apple's choice not to sue Google directly 'extremely curious,' says Schmidt



     


    Schmidt truly is the Troll's Troll; he says what they're all thinking!

  • Reply 75 of 136
    blah64blah64 Posts: 986member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Timbit View Post





    I think Google should go back to their search engine. They made a really good one, but should leave it at that


     


    I would love to see that as well, but the problem is that Google is not a search engine company anymore.  They started off as one, but their value now is based in large part on the amount of data they gather about their users.  They are mostly an intel-gathering-and-analyzing company.  They'll never admit this in public, but it's true.

  • Reply 76 of 136
    blah64blah64 Posts: 986member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post


    No, Mac123's point was spot on. Google DOES in fact make money off of Android, albeit in a back-hand kind of way. Why else would they be pumping money into something and then just give it away? Just to be nice? Of course not! Their revenue model is search and Google makes gobs of money off of it. Their goal is to have their greasy little fingers in every corner of our lives so they can use our data on what we search for, where we go and what we do, to line their pockets with $$$$  and so far it's worked out really well for them.


     


    The thing is, we allow Google's greasy fingers in our lives when we use their free or nearly free services or every time we use Google search, or Google Maps. Hell I can't even use the RSS app Reeder (which as far as I know, is not a Google product and I paid for, by the way) unless I have a Google account. Why should that be? Clearly Google have an arrangement with the publisher so they can find out what topics interest me, "for my file". You know what? It's not their freaking business and it pisses me off. Everything Google does, everything they offer "for free" is a hook into our lives so they can harvest information on us. The more data that they collect on us ripples down into more advertising revenue. That is Google's business model and Eric Schmidt is as greasy as they come.


     


    I'm not suggesting that Google "sells" my personal info to outsiders, but make no mistake, Google has a file on all of us so they can deliver targeted ads and charge more money to their real customers, the advertisers. I don't have a problem with "a little" targeted advertising, but Google need to take their freaking microscope out of our colons! 


     


    So no, Google doesn't make money in the front door with Android, but it's coming in the back door by the truck loads. If they weren't making money on Android in some way why would they bother, why would they care? Why would Google intentionally circumvent my Safari privacy controls? It's all about money. I say again, Mac123's comments were spot on.



     


    Another nice post.  It's encouraging to see that more people are thinking through Google's business model these days.


     


    It's the little things around the edges that clue you into how evil Google has become, like the Safari fiasco.  It's impossible to "accidentally" write code that circumvents user preferences in their browser like they did (like "accidentally" stealing WiFi data in-transit).  When a company comes up with bullshit reasons for how these things come to be and fighting, rather than 'fessing up and saying "Sorry, someone screwed up. They've been sacked.  Won't happen again.", that's when you know they've crossed into the "evil" category.

  • Reply 77 of 136
    Every. Single. Word. That. Comes. Out. Of. This. Mans. Mouth. Is. Stupid.
  • Reply 78 of 136

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post



    Every. Single. Word. That. Comes. Out. Of. This. Mans. Mouth. Is. A. Lie.


     


    There, I fixed it for you.

  • Reply 79 of 136

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drewyboy View Post



    They don't sue directly so they can starve them out. It's basically like laying siege to a castle. (1) Cut off their partners and (2) for the partners into licensing agreements and/or win small battles against them so precedence is set for larger and large cases.


    point of definition.


     


    It's less a siege, than destroy your vassals.   In the feudal system, the king's castle has hundreds of small castles who have vowed alliance with the king.  Threaten all the vassals and if the King doesn't come in defense, they either either are killed or are coopted, in the end weakening the king to the point the king has to reach for a conditional peace offering, often making the king subservient to the new master.


     


    The 'siege' you see is the removal of all things google from the iOS system.  stop the ads, stop eyeball monitoring, stop the money.  Starve them out, or drive them to strike alliances that are long term failures (propping up a weak vassal just sucks the life out of the monarchy).


     


    Apple's choice not to sue Google was purely to attack the 'point of sale'  Google didn't sell a phone.  They commissioned others to make theirs, and freely (sort of) licensed others to make phones.   Samsung and HTC are making x00's of dollars a transaction... Google.  pennies.  And in any Game of thrones sort of battle, once you show one Lord how flimsy their defense is, and if the King, who really doesn't need you (in the end, they can strike a deal with Apple, kill off Android development, and just go back to competing with google apps on iOS devices), doesn't rise up his considerable strength (none), in your defense, you may as well, submit, and say you'll sell Windows phones.

  • Reply 80 of 136

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post


     


    Another nice post.  It's encouraging to see that more people are thinking through Google's business model these days.


     


    It's the little things around the edges that clue you into how evil Google has become, like the Safari fiasco.  It's impossible to "accidentally" write code that circumvents user preferences in their browser like they did (like "accidentally" stealing WiFi data in-transit).  When a company comes up with bullshit reasons for how these things come to be and fighting, rather than 'fessing up and saying "Sorry, someone screwed up. They've been sacked.  Won't happen again.", that's when you know they've crossed into the "evil" category.



     


    Indeed. It's passed well beyond credibility when, every time Google is caught breaking the law or violating consent decrees and court orders, their excuse is that it was "inadvertent", especially when, for example, we find out that in the Street View WiFi Data Collection Program investigation they even lied ("inadvertently", of course) to regulators about how much data they had collected. Illegal drug sales, Mocality, conspiracy to violate copyright law, patent law, any law that gets in the way of their intentions, and on and on. Frankly, at this point, it's not at all a stretch to wonder why the Feds aren't going after them under RICO statutes. Google is a criminal enterprise and their profits are ill-gotten gains.

Sign In or Register to comment.