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

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 136
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    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.



     


     


    I am not a Google fan by any means, but the whole Google books program is an example of where I think Google was in the right. You see copyright was never intended to be an absolute right. It was a right granted in order to encourage the development of creative works for the benefit of the public. Copyright was always supposed to be balanced against the First Amendment. So, to protect the public's first amendment rights, fair use is always a defense to copyright infringement claims. To qualify as fair use one has to show the work benefitted the public in a way that wasn't likely to deprive the copyright holder significant money. For instance, when Sony first came out with its Beta Max players that allowed people to record live broadcasts to be viewed later the networks sued Sony for using their content. Sony won because the copying of the content benefitted the public (allowed them to watch the content later) in a way that didn't significantly injure the copyright holders.


     


    Google copied the books so that people could search for content within books. It was an amazing undertaking. Google hired people to scan the entire libraries of several Universities. This undertaking can only help the copyright holders involved because Google's goal was to let users view a little bit of the copyrighted works (e.g. much the same way as you can do in a book store) and then facilitate the purchase and/or borrowing from the library of said books. Considering many of the books are older, that would be a boom for those books. It would have also allowed people to easily obtain works that were now in the public domain. Had Google taken this all the way, it should have easily won on a fair use defense. Nonetheless, this is an incidence where Google was in the right. Considering the fines for losing are massive, Google really has little choice to at least consider a settlement. 


     


    People talk about patent reform, but it really is copyright reform we should be talking about. Patent protection only lasts for twenty years, and to be granted a patent your creation has to indeed be truly novel and original. To be granted a copyright it merely has to be mildly creative. Even though the standard for being granted a copyright is much lower, copyright protection lasts over  a hundred years.  The length of protection at the time the Constitution was created was the same at ten years. Copyright has been extended so much longer than patent because the public doesn't have a very good lobby. 

  • Reply 82 of 136

    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.


    Because it's business.


     


    And google isn't paying that 5-15... it's the OEM.  


     


    Google is developing an OS that ensure that a majority of mobile eyeballs use Google so they can sell ads or demographics to sell ads.   The key issue is that Apple's walled garden controlled iOS eyeballs.  Google saw that Apple could get rid of Google (through the App Store review process), and panicked, designed a OS that looked like iOS, and knowing that Apple doesn't license, tried to build up a patent warchest so their could be a trade.


     


    Apple doesn't want Google to pay royalties, they want the HW makers to pay for the mistake of trying short cut the innovation cycle.   It wants Google to be a search engine, not an enabler of Apple's competition.


     


    Google wants access to inApp advertising... Apple doesn't want to give them that, as they 'own the eyeballs', the experience, and most of all, the AppleID credit card numbers.

  • Reply 83 of 136

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


     


     


    I am not a Google fan by any means, but the whole Google books program is an example of where I think Google was in the right. You see copyright was never intended to be an absolute right. It was a right granted in order to encourage the development of creative works for the benefit of the public. Copyright was always supposed to be balanced against the First Amendment. So, to protect the public's first amendment rights, fair use is always a defense to copyright infringement claims. To qualify as fair use one has to show the work benefitted the public in a way that wasn't likely to deprive the copyright holder significant money. For instance, when Sony first came out with its Beta Max players that allowed people to record live broadcasts to be viewed later the networks sued Sony for using their content. Sony won because the copying of the content benefitted the public (allowed them to watch the content later) in a way that didn't significantly injure the copyright holders.


     


    Google copied the books so that people could search for content within books. This can only help the copyright holders because Google's goal was to let users view a little bit of the copyrighted works (e.g. much the same way as you can do in a book store) and then facilitate the purchase of said books. Considering many of the books are older, that would be a boom for those books. It would have also allowed people to easily obtain works that were now in the public domain. Had Google taken this all the way, it should have won on a fair use defense. Nonetheless, this is an incidence where Google was in the right. 



     


    Your entire argument is mistaken. Fair use does not allow use for commercial purposes. There was no First Amendment issue involved here. This was Google simply setting itself up as a publisher by essentially usurping copyrights for thousands and thousands of books. A clear violation of copyright law on all points. (And public domain books are beside the point, so a red herring in this discussion.) A fair use defense would have fallen on its face and Google would have been found liable for billions in damages. This is an instance where Google was acting as a criminal enterprise pure and simple.


     


    The utterly insane aspect part of this misguided "fair use" defense of Google is that the Google Books program represents exactly the reason that copyright laws were put in place in the first place. Before this, a published work, particularly a popular one, would quickly be copied and sold by any number of "publishers" with which the author had no relationship, and thus received no money from for their work. It was practically impossible to earn a living as an independent writer because so many "publishers" were "making your work available to the public". Copyright law put a stop to this practice. The Google Books Program sought to completely undermine the very foundations of copyright law -- i.e.., to undermine the protections authors enjoy to prevent people from stealing their work.


     


    So, Google wants to undermine and abolish copyright law. They was to undermine and abolish patent law. They want to undermine and abolish privacy. And they want to undermine and abolish freedom of access to information but filtering search results to their advantage. It's all about taking whatever they want, regardless of the wider effects, regardless of the law, regardless of the consequences for the rest of us.


     


    What a great company.

  • Reply 84 of 136

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


     


     


    I am not a Google fan by any means, but the whole Google books program is an example of where I think Google was in the right. You see copyright was never intended to be an absolute right. It was a right granted in order to encourage the development of creative works for the benefit of the public. Copyright was always supposed to be balanced against the First Amendment. So, to protect the public's first amendment rights, fair use is always a defense to copyright infringement claims. To qualify as fair use one has to show the work benefitted the public in a way that wasn't likely to deprive the copyright holder significant money. For instance, when Sony first came out with its Beta Max players that allowed people to record live broadcasts to be viewed later the networks sued Sony for using their content. Sony won because the copying of the content benefitted the public (allowed them to watch the content later) in a way that didn't significantly injure the copyright holders.


     


    Google copied the books so that people could search for content within books. This can only help the copyright holders because Google's goal was to let users view a little bit of the copyrighted works (e.g. much the same way as you can do in a book store) and then facilitate the purchase of said books. Considering many of the books are older, that would be a boom for those books. It would have also allowed people to easily obtain works that were now in the public domain. Had Google taken this all the way, it should have won on a fair use defense. Nonetheless, this is an incidence where Google was in the right. 



    The problem is Google has to 'pay' for these benevolent projects.  that's requires capturing eyeballs, and information on eyeballs, in their current model.  the realization that most people will do most of their 'web' on mobile devices, and if the iPod model held true, Apple would have a majority of eyeballs, could switchout of google search, and definitely eliminate ad revenue, as applications moved from being 'searched' to being downloaded from the Apple controlled app store.

  • Reply 85 of 136
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post


     


    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.



     


     


    Make no mistake. Google is still a search company. To be an effective search company, you need effective data. The problem is the ethical lines Google has stooped to gain that data. Before it just mined the web for said data. Now it creates various free to the public services to get additional data. The users of said products mistakenly think they are Google's customers when in fact they are the product. Google's real customers are advertisers. It gets data from the users of its products so that advertisers can better search for customers. 


     


    For users, what used to make Google search so great, was that it separated paid advertising from the search results. Now, Google has blurred that line. It now is no different than what other big search engines used to be. 


     


    I have been happily using Bing for a while. The results are now very comparable. I like Bing's start page better. I also like the image search better, which Google changed its own image search to emulate. More importantly, Microsoft gives me points to search. I redeem the points for credit on the X-Box, Amazon and Starbucks gift certificates. 

  • Reply 86 of 136
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post


    The problem is Google has to 'pay' for these benevolent projects.  that's requires capturing eyeballs, and information on eyeballs, in their current model.  the realization that most people will do most of their 'web' on mobile devices, and if the iPod model held true, Apple would have a majority of eyeballs, could switchout of google search, and definitely eliminate ad revenue, as applications moved from being 'searched' to being downloaded from the Apple controlled app store.



     


     


    Not sure what you mean exactly. Google certainly expected to make money from copying the books. This is no different than Sony expecting to make money when it allowed purchasers of its beta max players to copy the copyrighted works of others. The issue is does Google's actions deprive the copyright holders of money, and does what Google did benefit the public. I'd say Google's action in copying the books was likely to make the book publishers money, and it definitely would have benefitted the public. 


     


    It is worth noting that one of the biggest critics of Google copying the books, was Microsoft. This is because for Microsoft to be competitive here, it too would have had to go copy all the books. 

  • Reply 87 of 136

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    Not sure what you mean exactly. Google certainly expected to make money from copying the books. This is no different than Sony expecting to make money when it allowed purchasers of its beta max players to copy the copyrighted works of others. The issue is does Google's actions deprive the copyright holders of money, and does what Google did benefit the public. I'd say Google's action in copying the books was likely to make the book publishers money, and it definitely would have benefitted the public. 



     


     


    The analogy with Betamax is hopelessly flawed. In this instance, the manufacturer(s) of the scanners Google used to pirate books are in the position Sony was in in that case. Google is the guy using Sony's recorders to produce and sell pirated copies of copyright holders' works. Making the recorders wasn't illegal, because they had legitimate uses. But the guy selling pirated copies was still breaking the law.


     


    And the answers to your questions are yes and no, respectively. It's ridiculous -- and either disingenuous or clueless -- to even ask if copyright holders were deprived of money. And, no the public does not benefit by undermining intellectual property law, particularly not copyright law.


     


    Quote:


    It is worth noting that one of the biggest critics of Google copying the books, was Microsoft. This is because for Microsoft to be competitive here, it too would have had to go copy all the books. 



     


    This is a red herring & ad hominem that has absolutely nothing to do with the legitimate issues here. So, no, it's not worth noting.

  • Reply 88 of 136
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    Your entire argument is mistaken. Fair use does not allow use for commercial purposes. There was no First Amendment issue involved here. This was Google simply setting itself up as a publisher by essentially usurping copyrights for thousands and thousands of books. A clear violation of copyright law on all points. (And public domain books are beside the point, so a red herring in this discussion.) A fair use defense would have fallen on its face and Google would have been found liable for billions in damages. This is an instance where Google was acting as a criminal enterprise pure and simple.


     


    The utterly insane aspect part of this misguided "fair use" defense of Google is that the Google Books program represents exactly the reason that copyright laws were put in place in the first place. Before this, a published work, particularly a popular one, would quickly be copied and sold by any number of "publishers" with which the author had no relationship, and thus received no money from for their work. It was practically impossible to earn a living as an independent writer because so many "publishers" were "making your work available to the public". Copyright law put a stop to this practice. The Google Books Program sought to completely undermine the very foundations of copyright law -- i.e.., to undermine the protections authors enjoy to prevent people from stealing their work.


     


    So, Google wants to undermine and abolish copyright law. They was to undermine and abolish patent law. They want to undermine and abolish privacy. And they want to undermine and abolish freedom of access to information but filtering search results to their advantage. It's all about taking whatever they want, regardless of the wider effects, regardless of the law, regardless of the consequences for the rest of us.


     


    What a great company.



     


     


    Forgive me, perhaps I have it wrong. I only took about 10 IP classes in law school. My copyright professor teaches at one of the top law schools in the country.


     


    Now that that is out of the way. You are over looking the Sony case in which Fair-Use was established. Sony made a product that allowed the public to copy copyrighted works. Sony made money on selling it's product that it did not share with the copyright holders. The Supreme Court held that what Sony did was Fair-Use. It was OK Sony was making money on selling a product that used the copyrighted works of others. 


     


    I am not going to explain to you the interplay between the First Amendment and Fair-Use, but I found this article to give you an idea of how the two work together.


     


    Finally, you act like Google was giving the works away for anybody to read. It simply was not going to do that (unless the works were already in the public domian). It copied the books so people could search for a topic. Google would than show people what books discussed those topics.  It would let you read a couple of pages (like Amazon already does) and point you to where you could get the book. This would have helped both the public and publishers. 

  • Reply 89 of 136
    blah64blah64 Posts: 986member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    I have been happily using Bing for a while. The results are now very comparable. I like Bing's start page better. I also like the image search better, which Google changed its own image search to emulate. More importantly, Microsoft gives me points to search. I redeem the points for credit on the X-Box, Amazon and Starbucks gift certificates. 



     


    A "points" system attached to a search engine is just as scary as Google's model.  It shows quite explicitly that Microsoft/Bing is in the business of gathering your personal data, likes/dislikes, etc., just like Google.  Worse yet, by tying to real-world services that you can't take advantage of anonymously (like XBox [I'm assuming XBox Live], Amazon, etc.), now Microsoft has a direct tie between Bing usage and the real-world you.  No anonymous accounts.

  • Reply 90 of 136
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


     


    The analogy with Betamax is hopelessly flawed. In this instance, the manufacturer(s) of the scanners Google used to pirate books are in the position Sony was in in that case. Google is the guy using Sony's recorders to produce and sell pirated copies of copyright holders' works. Making the recorders wasn't illegal, because they had legitimate uses. But the guy selling pirated copies was still breaking the law.


     


    And the answers to your questions are yes and no, respectively.


     


     


    This is a red herring & ad hominem that has absolutely nothing to do with the legitimate issues here. So, no, it's not worth noting.



     


     


    I admit the situation is not exact, but the analogy is not flawed. Sony was being sued for contributory copyright infringement. Namely, assisting the true copyright infringers. The Supreme Court ruled that the people doing the copying were not liable for copyright infringement on fair-use grounds, and therefore Sony was not liable as a contributory infringer. Some people are suggesting that because Google's intent was to make money by copying the books, it can't claim a fair-use defense. That simple is not the case. Like in the Sony case, Google can successfully raise a Fair-Use defense if what it did benefits the public and doesn't substantially deprive the right holders money. Here is an article explaining Fair-use. Google would likely win this test. 


     


     


    Pointing out Microsoft's involvement is not a red herring and/or ad hominem attack. It goes to motive and is useful for understanding the forces at work. I will agree that shouldn't be looked at when evaluating the Fair-Use argument. 

  • Reply 91 of 136
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post


     


    A "points" system attached to a search engine is just as scary as Google's model.  It shows quite explicitly that Microsoft/Bing is in the business of gathering your personal data, likes/dislikes, etc., just like Google.  Worse yet, by tying to real-world services that you can't take advantage of anonymously (like XBox [I'm assuming XBox Live], Amazon, etc.), now Microsoft has a direct tie between Bing usage and the real-world you.  No anonymous accounts.



     


     


    I don't see it that way. Microsoft is trying to get people to use its search business. In return, it is paying people points based on the number of searches they perform. That clearly is the focus.  For people using X-Box, Microsoft already knows their address and names. Apple already knows my address and name as well. 


     


    Further, Google already indexes search results and ties that to an IP address. It then shows people ads based on those searches in places like their Gmail account. Google doesn't even let you use a fake name on its G+ Facebook competitor.


     


    Microsoft can't do anything different. Moreover, I could care less if Microsoft knows I drink Starbucks and shop at Amazon. I choose to give it that information. I certainly haven't noticed any consequence of providing my address to redeem those rewards. To each their own, I suppose. I am enjoying my free Starbucks. :O)

  • Reply 92 of 136

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


     


     


    I admit the situation is not exact, but the analogy is not flawed. Sony was being sued for contributory copyright infringement. Namely, assisting the true copyright infringers. The Supreme Court ruled that the people doing the copying were not liable for copyright infringement on fair-use grounds, and therefore Sony was not liable as a contributory infringer. Some people are suggesting that because Google's intent was to make money by copying the books, it can't claim a fair-use defense. That simple is not the case. Like in the Sony case, Google can successfully raise a Fair-Use defense if what it did benefits the public and doesn't substantially deprive the right holders money. Here is an article explaining Fair-use. Google would likely win this test. 



     


    It's completely flawed, for the reasons given above, which you've conveniently ignored in your "rebuttal". You apparently need to go back to school, because your understanding of fair use is completely flawed too.


     


    Google was stealing books to publish and otherwise use them -- to sell advertising, for example -- without any grant of any license, solely for commercial gain. Under no interpretation of fair use is this legal. It's piracy.


     


    And, rather than an article "explaining Fair-use", let's look at the actual law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107


     


    Particularly this,


    Quote:


    ... the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. ...



     


    which outlines the types of purposes fair-use applies to. Google's copying and use don't fall under any of these purposes, nor any similar purpose. There is simply no viable argument that Google's Books Program falls under fair use, not unless we simply throw reason to the winds and declare it does because we want it to.

  • Reply 93 of 136

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


     


    Further, Google already indexes search results and ties that to an IP address. It then shows people ads based on those searches in places like their Gmail account. Google doesn't even let you use a fake name on its G+ Facebook competitor.


     



     


    Last week, I searched for floor liners for my car to catch the winter slop and sound bars for home theatre. I did the search from home. Today I get targeted ads for floor liners and sound bars AT WORK. It must be tied to more than an IP address.


     


    Edit: Or maybe that was just coincidence.

  • Reply 94 of 136
    Once again there were some pretty savvy opinions here, specifically regarding Fair Use vs. Copyright infringement.

    Just for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate:

    [B]How would (many of) you go about trying to monetize and financially support the massive amount of energy, bandwidth, hardware, services, etc. that Google provides for "free".[/B]

    Yes "free" in quotes, because I'm aware and have stated here in these Forums re: Android/Google years ago, that the "free beer" strategy has it's drawbacks and I'm personally wary of it and it's "reach".

    However, to deny that Google offers services that are beneficial to all of us, is to admit to blind hatred... or possibly simple jealousy and loathing that we actually need Google's services more than we would like to admit.

    Anyone care to remember Internet search before Google?

    Think of an internet today dominated by MS (no not Bing, since they would never have upgraded without Google being around) or Yahoo search. Maybe an AltaVista or Excite would still be around, but I sort of doubt it. Google has definitely over-stretched our personally defined "natural bounds and limits" to what they should be allowed to archive, store, and/or sell. Then again, there is no law against it either.

    Love 'em, hate 'em, or loath the main characters, Google is and does provide services that the world uses. Those loathsome characters are still beholden to the true owners of the company, it's shareholders. Also required by law (within limits) and to the best of their ability to safeguard the investor's money and hopefully, allow it to generate more income than traditional savings.

    So. What is the best way to go about that?

    Lest we forget: we are talking about an "Original American Success Story and Company" here that provides plenty of high paying jobs. Unlike those that took Google's enabler and Apple's IP to steal and create a bastardized iPhone (names escape me ;)

    * Disclaimer: I use about the same amount of Google's services as I would guess most people. Android Nexus 7** was recently purchased for curiosities sake and web development. Personal go-to-devices are all Apple, but search, images, and RSS services are all Google. What to do about that?
    ** Same exact experience and opinion as Chris Prillo/Lockergnome; Google it...:smokey:
  • Reply 95 of 136
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,626member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post



    Once again there were some pretty savvy opinions here, specifically regarding Fair Use vs. Copyright infringement.

    Just for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate:

    How would (many of) you go about trying to monetize and financially support the massive amount of energy, bandwidth, hardware, services, etc. that Google provides for "free".

    Yes "free" in quotes, because I'm aware and have stated here in these Forums re: Android/Google years ago, that the "free beer" strategy has it's drawbacks and I'm personally wary of it and it's "reach".

    However, to deny that Google offers services that are beneficial to all of us, is to admit to blind hatred... or possibly simple jealousy and loathing that we actually need Google's services more than we would like to admit.

    Anyone care to remember Internet search before Google?

    Think of an internet today dominated by MS (no not Bing, since they would never have upgraded without Google being around) or Yahoo search. Maybe an AltaVista or Excite would still be around, but I sort of doubt it. Google has definitely over-stretched our personally defined "natural bounds and limits" to what they should be allowed to archive, store, and/or sell. Then again, there is no law against it either.

    Love 'em, hate 'em, or loath the main characters, Google is and does provide services that the world uses. Those loathsome characters are still beholden to the true owners of the company, it's shareholders. Also required by law (within limits) and to the best of their ability to safeguard the investor's money and hopefully, allow it to generate more income than traditional savings.

    So. What is the best way to go about that?

    Lest we forget: we are talking about an "Original American Success Story and Company" here that provides plenty of high paying jobs. Unlike those that took Google's enabler and Apple's IP to steal and create a bastardized iPhone (names escape me image

    * Disclaimer: I use about the same amount of Google's services as I would guess most people. Android Nexus 7** was recently purchased for curiosities sake and web development. Personal go-to-devices are all Apple, but search, images, and RSS services are all Google. What to do about that?

    ** Same exact experience and opinion as Chris Prillo/Lockergnome; Google it...image


     


    Sorry, but the argument that we'd have squat if Google hadn't given it to us is apologist nonsense. There's no reason to think someone else might not have come along and offered us everything Google did. In fact, it's likely more accurate to see Google as a roadblock to innovation and better systems than what they provide. Their monopoly in search and dominance in other areas acts as a barrier to prevent others from even attempting to enter the market. So, it's just as easy, and perhaps more plausible, to argue we'd be better off if Google had never been.

  • Reply 96 of 136
    Man, his mom dresses him funny.
  • Reply 97 of 136
    bilbo63bilbo63 Posts: 285member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post



    Man, his mom dresses him funny.


    Thanks for that. image

  • Reply 98 of 136
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    HUH? Google demands 4Billion a year from Apple for a license to their patents? I think you might be exaggerating just a tad there sir,



     


    2.4% of gross sales for Wifi SEP's plus 2.4% of gross sales for phone network protocol SEP's.


     


    So how much is that?

  • Reply 99 of 136
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post



    Google offers services that are beneficial to all of us, 

     


     


    Google and their supporters use this argument to support limiting of choice.


     


    So what is wrong with choosing NOT to participate?


     


    Which is very difficult, Google want absolute dominance of everything web based, they want to be everywhere, watching, gathering, selling collected data for their own benefit.


     


    They are a colonial power of the 21st century.

  • Reply 100 of 136
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Looks like Obama is going to stick Schmdit in his cabinet. God help us.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/treasury-secretary-google/article/2515054

    I sort of understand, because every time I see a photo of Schmidt, I feel like stuffing him into a locker.
Sign In or Register to comment.