I meant in this case, based on Google's own "I shall not do these" list, they have already admitted that they did abuse the SEPs, stole verticals' content, etc.
They chose to drop the SEP suit against Apple, and settle with FTC for a quick exit.
Saying they are not guilty or won is meaningless because they have already owned up. It is FTC that is being kind to Google for not fining them at all. EU is stricter.
It should also be noted that the FTC would not go so far as to bar Google, or any company for that matter, from seeking injunctions based on SEP's in all cases. If a company is deemed to be an unwilling licensee the FTC may not object to an injunction as a cure. In addition a company, for instance Apple, may be be required to commit to binding arbitration if they are unable to reach agreement with the patent holder on an appropriate royalty or risk being deemed as an unwilling licensee, at least as I read it. That's something Apple has found unacceptable so far. Too, the FTC did not find Google had done anything wrong with regard to SEP's so far.
Overall it's sounds like a fair resolution IMO, and the proper way to go forward.
After a 19-month investigation and despite much prodding from Microsoft, the Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement with Google that basically amounts to a slap on the wrist.
This is a crushing blow to Microsoft, which has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists and phony grassroots groups over the past several years hoping to land Google in hot water.
Indeed, Microsoft’s obsession with Google doesn’t just border on crazy. It iscrazy, and not just a little tiny bit crazy but full-blown, bunny-boiling, Ahab-versus-the-whale nutso.
After a 19-month investigation and despite much prodding from Microsoft, the Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement with Google that basically amounts to a slap on the wrist.
This is a crushing blow to Microsoft, which has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists and phony grassroots groups over the past several years hoping to land Google in hot water.
Indeed, Microsoft’s obsession with Google doesn’t just border on crazy. It iscrazy, and not just a little tiny bit crazy but full-blown, bunny-boiling, Ahab-versus-the-whale nutso.
Originally Posted by Gatorguy If a company is deemed to be an unwilling licensee the FTC may not object to an injunction as a cure. In addition a company, for instance Apple, may be be required to commit to binding arbitration if they are unable to reach agreement with the patent holder on an appropriate royalty or risk being deemed as an unwilling licensee, at least as I read it. That's something Apple has found unacceptable so far.
Florian Mueller has come to the same conclusion that when this situation comes up again for Apple or other potential SEP-licensees they will have to accept the court's royalty determination or that of an arbitrator without qualification (ie, we'll accept it only if it's less than a dollar) or be deemed an "unwilling licensee". IMO the FTC does look to have made a fair agreement that both draws a line for Google while putting SEP-infringers on notice that it's not a one-way street. There has to be honest negotiations by SEP-licensees or injunctions are back on the table per the settlement.
At the same time someone had to make a clear rule on just what it would take to be deemed "unwilling to take a license". Product injunctions, particularly at the ITC, should not be available so freely for minor or honestly disputed infringement of software claims. That applies doubly so for essential IP where injunctions should almost never be available as a cure.
Florian Mueller has come to the same conclusion that when this situation comes up again for Apple or other potential SEP-licensees they will have to accept the court's royalty determination (or that of an arbitrator) without qualification or be deemed an "unwilling licensee". IMO the FTC does look to have made a fair agreement that both draws a line for Google while putting SEP-infringers on notice that it's not a one-way street. There has to be honest negotiations by SEP-licensees or injunctions are back on the table per the settlement. At the same time someone had to make a clear rule on just what it would take to be deemed "unwilling to take a license". Product injunctions, particularly at the ITC, should not be available so freely for minor or honestly disputed infringement of software IP. That applies doubly so for essential IP.
If they can't agree on a number, the court decides the final price regardless of whether it's licensed by Apple or other companies. It is non-discriminatory. Or Apple can go look for alternatives. End of story. It won't come to injunction.
What is the specific dollar figure for lobbying you would characterize as the distinction between ethical and unethical behavior?
If you can, ask the companies that contribute the money. I doubt this sort of info will be provided knowingly and voluntarily.
All I did was Google for lobbyist spending. It is unfortunate that Google had to spend so much on the lobbyists to educate the government on privacy issues, and then turn around to ignore the do-not-track user policy. Did they think that Google wouldn't get fined ?
In other words, Google agreed to follow the law...
Almost exactly the thought that occurred to me, but I my full thought was . . .
"Google agreed to stop breaking the law, so the FTC agreed to stop looking for Google's wrong doing."
As far as the FTC saying, "The evidence did not demonstrate that Google's actions in this area stifled competition in violation of U.S. law." It seems to me that covertly bypassing privacy settings on iOS, stealing content from rivals, and illegally using SEP's to disrupt rivals are all stifling and disruptive. Comparred to they gains Google got from these practices, $27M is spit in the ocean for Google. And far from what the FTC concluded, these hardly seem like actions taken "simply to improve the user experience." The fact that two different users get two different results for the same search terms is proof enough that Google's "search" has been manipulated, favors advertisers over users, and is just marketing rather than search!
It seems a very small step from these practices to noncompetitive practices.
I don't like Google, but I don't see them as all that different from similar companies in other areas (particularly thinking of cable, media, telecoms, ISP.) The FTC is intentionally clueless, toothless, and in the pocket of business interests.
Hm ? #25 simply pointed out that Google outspent MS in lobbying significantly. The original post made a few claims on MS. I don't see why MS's spending is an issue if Google's not. No one knows their breakdown anyway.
Yes, I think we're all in agreement on this. If lobbying is unethical, it doesn't matter whether you're at the top of the list or the middle.
As for "stealing verticals' content", what's the difference between Google and all the Deep Web search engines? What is allowable as indexed content, and what is prohibited? I suspect that part of the outcome will have implications for years to come, with Google being the least affected in the long run.
Personally I wouldn't mind if the final outcome from all that were that robots.txt became a legally enforced protocol. But oh that's one giant can of worms to open....
Lobbying ? This forum is probably not suitable to conclude whether it's ethical or unethical. Generally speaking, they are used for addressing controversial issues like privacy and DRM. The more you dwell in these areas, the more you need to defend your position. If a company doesn't need to spend much in lobbying for these areas, it's probably because it steers clear from these issues. e.g., I still don't understand why Google feels that it could ignore do-not-track user policies, and want to fight it.
Whether copying vertical contents is alright, that's not for Google to decide. When Yelp, the owner, requests Google to stop using/scrapping their content, they should just follow strictly. Yelp should not have to scream at FTC to enforce this simple request. Google is clearly at fault here.
The thing is Google has already benefited from Yelp's scrapping for so long, and Yelp has potentially suffered the consequences. Yet FTC does not stipulate any compensation for Yelp. The settlement seems unfair to these victims. I wonder if these verticals will try to get back at Google now that it has acknowledged the wrongdoing.
Robot.txt or whatever are just low level tech issues/excuses. It must not be used as an excuse to harm vertical content providers.
Florian Mueller has come to the same conclusion that when this situation comes up again for Apple or other potential SEP-licensees they will have to accept the court's royalty determination or that of an arbitrator without qualification (ie, we'll accept it only if it's less than a dollar) or be deemed an "unwilling licensee". IMO the FTC does look to have made a fair agreement that both draws a line for Google while putting SEP-infringers on notice that it's not a one-way street. There has to be honest negotiations by SEP-licensees or injunctions are back on the table per the settlement.
At the same time someone had to make a clear rule on just what it would take to be deemed "unwilling to take a license". Product injunctions, particularly at the ITC, should not be available so freely for minor or honestly disputed infringement of software claims. That applies doubly so for essential IP where injunctions should almost never be available as a cure.
So I guess Google/Motorola can just reinstate the licences of the patents paid by the makers of chips sold to Apple and Microsoft, as they were doing before making extortionate demands?
btw the cases are still ongoing, this doesn't change much, just shows that Apple and Microsoft were in the right to dispute what Google was attempting to do.
In general I agree that all content should be similarly protectable, and if Yelp doesn't want to be included in the Google SERPs that's their right.
But is it just Yelp, or other verticals? And will Yelp complain when Google reduces their indexing to just Yelp's front page?
This is where robots.txt comes in, but it's not enforced and there is no equivalent for APIs.
This is why I don't think we've heard the last of that issue quite yet. It's going to have to evolve, and will ultimately affect all search engines.
Since the dawn of search engine, many premium content providers have already complained about search engine undermining them. So it can't be just Yelp. Citing robot.txt limitations may be irrelevant because a suitable technology can always be invented to honor the arrangement.
Yelp and others may talk to FTC about their follow up resolution with Google regarding past offenses. It seems that earlier on, Google scrapped Yelp info to use in its own data set. This is already beyond search engine indexing. Google may already have benefited from Yelp's info.
Yelp and others may talk to FTC about their follow up resolution with Google regarding past offenses. It seems that earlier on, Google scrapped Yelp info to use in its own data set. This is already beyond search engine indexing.
According to the FTC, there are no offenses for Yelp to discuss with them. I'm quite sure that Microsoft, Yelp and whoever else had LOTS of conversations to make their cases with the FTC before today's press conference.
According to the FTC, there are no offenses for Yelp to discuss with them. I'm quite sure that Microsoft, Yelp and whoever else had LOTS of conversations to make their cases with the FTC before today's press conference.
That doesn't seem right. Perhaps they will open new investigation into specific areas after this broad settlement. If the allegations have been acknowledged, it sounds like there will be follow up by the sites affected. I guess we will know in a few months after the businesses have time to rationalize.
Comments
deleted
They chose to drop the SEP suit against Apple, and settle with FTC for a quick exit.
Saying they are not guilty or won is meaningless because they have already owned up. It is FTC that is being kind to Google for not fining them at all. EU is stricter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
It should also be noted that the FTC would not go so far as to bar Google, or any company for that matter, from seeking injunctions based on SEP's in all cases. If a company is deemed to be an unwilling licensee the FTC may not object to an injunction as a cure. In addition a company, for instance Apple, may be be required to commit to binding arbitration if they are unable to reach agreement with the patent holder on an appropriate royalty or risk being deemed as an unwilling licensee, at least as I read it. That's something Apple has found unacceptable so far. Too, the FTC did not find Google had done anything wrong with regard to SEP's so far.
Overall it's sounds like a fair resolution IMO, and the proper way to go forward.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1210120/130103googlemotorolado.pdf
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/11/googles-motorola-says-it-wants-binding.html
EDIT: I suspect Microsoft is fuming.
I'm not the only one mentioning Microsoft as seen from this article:
http://readwrite.com/2013/01/03/googles-ftc-settlement-is-an-epic-fail-for-microsoft
After a 19-month investigation and despite much prodding from Microsoft, the Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement with Google that basically amounts to a slap on the wrist.
This is a crushing blow to Microsoft, which has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists and phony grassroots groups over the past several years hoping to land Google in hot water.
Indeed, Microsoft’s obsession with Google doesn’t just border on crazy. It iscrazy, and not just a little tiny bit crazy but full-blown, bunny-boiling, Ahab-versus-the-whale nutso.
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I'm not the only one mentioning Microsoft as seen from this article:
http://readwrite.com/2013/01/03/googles-ftc-settlement-is-an-epic-fail-for-microsoft
After a 19-month investigation and despite much prodding from Microsoft, the Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement with Google that basically amounts to a slap on the wrist.
This is a crushing blow to Microsoft, which has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists and phony grassroots groups over the past several years hoping to land Google in hot water.
Indeed, Microsoft’s obsession with Google doesn’t just border on crazy. It iscrazy, and not just a little tiny bit crazy but full-blown, bunny-boiling, Ahab-versus-the-whale nutso.
According to this:
http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/google-lobbying-spending-leads-tech-pack-142114
Google spent the most on lobbying among tech companies.
I remember Apple is one of those companies that don't spend a whole lot on lobbyists.
OTOH, Samsung spent feverishly on marketing.
And people wonder why Apple has good profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
I love how AI can make a headline out of one corner of the case, and miss the bigger antitrust issue - here's how the outside world reported this:
(snip)
Nothing but spin here. If anyone comes here expecting real news... I...uh... got news for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Florian Mueller has come to the same conclusion that when this situation comes up again for Apple or other potential SEP-licensees they will have to accept the court's royalty determination or that of an arbitrator without qualification (ie, we'll accept it only if it's less than a dollar) or be deemed an "unwilling licensee". IMO the FTC does look to have made a fair agreement that both draws a line for Google while putting SEP-infringers on notice that it's not a one-way street. There has to be honest negotiations by SEP-licensees or injunctions are back on the table per the settlement.
At the same time someone had to make a clear rule on just what it would take to be deemed "unwilling to take a license". Product injunctions, particularly at the ITC, should not be available so freely for minor or honestly disputed infringement of software claims. That applies doubly so for essential IP where injunctions should almost never be available as a cure.
If they can't agree on a number, the court decides the final price regardless of whether it's licensed by Apple or other companies. It is non-discriminatory. Or Apple can go look for alternatives. End of story. It won't come to injunction.
deleted
If you can, ask the companies that contribute the money. I doubt this sort of info will be provided knowingly and voluntarily.
All I did was Google for lobbyist spending. It is unfortunate that Google had to spend so much on the lobbyists to educate the government on privacy issues, and then turn around to ignore the do-not-track user policy. Did they think that Google wouldn't get fined ?
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_sanders_aia
In other words, Google agreed to follow the law...
Almost exactly the thought that occurred to me, but I my full thought was . . .
"Google agreed to stop breaking the law, so the FTC agreed to stop looking for Google's wrong doing."
As far as the FTC saying, "The evidence did not demonstrate that Google's actions in this area stifled competition in violation of U.S. law." It seems to me that covertly bypassing privacy settings on iOS, stealing content from rivals, and illegally using SEP's to disrupt rivals are all stifling and disruptive. Comparred to they gains Google got from these practices, $27M is spit in the ocean for Google. And far from what the FTC concluded, these hardly seem like actions taken "simply to improve the user experience." The fact that two different users get two different results for the same search terms is proof enough that Google's "search" has been manipulated, favors advertisers over users, and is just marketing rather than search!
It seems a very small step from these practices to noncompetitive practices.
I don't like Google, but I don't see them as all that different from similar companies in other areas (particularly thinking of cable, media, telecoms, ISP.) The FTC is intentionally clueless, toothless, and in the pocket of business interests.
deleted
Lobbying ? This forum is probably not suitable to conclude whether it's ethical or unethical. Generally speaking, they are used for addressing controversial issues like privacy and DRM. The more you dwell in these areas, the more you need to defend your position. If a company doesn't need to spend much in lobbying for these areas, it's probably because it steers clear from these issues. e.g., I still don't understand why Google feels that it could ignore do-not-track user policies, and want to fight it.
Whether copying vertical contents is alright, that's not for Google to decide. When Yelp, the owner, requests Google to stop using/scrapping their content, they should just follow strictly. Yelp should not have to scream at FTC to enforce this simple request. Google is clearly at fault here.
The thing is Google has already benefited from Yelp's scrapping for so long, and Yelp has potentially suffered the consequences. Yet FTC does not stipulate any compensation for Yelp. The settlement seems unfair to these victims. I wonder if these verticals will try to get back at Google now that it has acknowledged the wrongdoing.
Robot.txt or whatever are just low level tech issues/excuses. It must not be used as an excuse to harm vertical content providers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Florian Mueller has come to the same conclusion that when this situation comes up again for Apple or other potential SEP-licensees they will have to accept the court's royalty determination or that of an arbitrator without qualification (ie, we'll accept it only if it's less than a dollar) or be deemed an "unwilling licensee". IMO the FTC does look to have made a fair agreement that both draws a line for Google while putting SEP-infringers on notice that it's not a one-way street. There has to be honest negotiations by SEP-licensees or injunctions are back on the table per the settlement.
At the same time someone had to make a clear rule on just what it would take to be deemed "unwilling to take a license". Product injunctions, particularly at the ITC, should not be available so freely for minor or honestly disputed infringement of software claims. That applies doubly so for essential IP where injunctions should almost never be available as a cure.
So I guess Google/Motorola can just reinstate the licences of the patents paid by the makers of chips sold to Apple and Microsoft, as they were doing before making extortionate demands?
btw the cases are still ongoing, this doesn't change much, just shows that Apple and Microsoft were in the right to dispute what Google was attempting to do.
deleted
Since the dawn of search engine, many premium content providers have already complained about search engine undermining them. So it can't be just Yelp. Citing robot.txt limitations may be irrelevant because a suitable technology can always be invented to honor the arrangement.
Yelp and others may talk to FTC about their follow up resolution with Google regarding past offenses. It seems that earlier on, Google scrapped Yelp info to use in its own data set. This is already beyond search engine indexing. Google may already have benefited from Yelp's info.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu
Yelp and others may talk to FTC about their follow up resolution with Google regarding past offenses. It seems that earlier on, Google scrapped Yelp info to use in its own data set. This is already beyond search engine indexing.
According to the FTC, there are no offenses for Yelp to discuss with them. I'm quite sure that Microsoft, Yelp and whoever else had LOTS of conversations to make their cases with the FTC before today's press conference.
That doesn't seem right. Perhaps they will open new investigation into specific areas after this broad settlement. If the allegations have been acknowledged, it sounds like there will be follow up by the sites affected. I guess we will know in a few months after the businesses have time to rationalize.