Yes...I believe Slurpy asked me before or made a snarky comment about it so every time he does I'll make it more and more obnoxious. Its no more dumb than someone's stupid quote, or saying they're an Apple Shareholder like that makes them above the people who aren't, etc. This entire AI site is a joke anyways so what difference does it make.
This is about Motorola. Thats why there are no cross licenses. Google caved to make sure their deal to sell Motorola goes through. What company would be silly enough to buy a failing company who is tied up in court cases.
In response to the article: This is great news! It's good to see both sides taking a less aggressive stance with each other. It'll be interesting to see what comes of the patent reform talk (if anything).
The only thing AI is serious about is posting articles that have nothing to do with Apple (ie. Samsung this, Samsung that) and then failing to post the real Apple news, and/or rumors.
On the other note, yes I agree. Lets get this over with already and stop these stupid lawsuits.
This is about Motorola. Thats why there are no cross licenses. Google caved to make sure their deal to sell Motorola goes through. What company would be silly enough to buy a failing company who is tied up in court cases.
Euhmm... No, not only Motorola. The attached document is specific for the dismissal of the Motorola-Apple court case. The general agreement to dismiss all current court cases is an Apple-Google agreement.
It's interesting to watch opinions split down the middle. Google fans have consistently posted "concern" for Apple's alleged lack of innovation supposedly because Apple was spending it's money litigating ("innovate don't litigate" meme). These are the same people who are most excited over this news, NOT because they ever claimed the litigation prevented Google from innovating, but because (they claimed) it prevented Apple from innovating. But why would they care about Apple's self-destruction when they hate Apple products? Because they want Apple to create the next big thing for Google and their "partners" to copy. If that were not true, then all the handwringing "concern" expressed about Apple's lack of competitiveness was feigned, which is the very definition of concern trolling.
Because Apple is the only company in the world to come up with revolutionary products. Um, no. They have before but so has other companies.
Are you talking and replying to yourself?, because I've never claimed that Apple is the only company in the world to come up with revolutionary products, though Apple has come up with more such products than most other companies.
It's interesting to watch opinions split down the middle. Google fans have consistently posted "concern" for Apple's alleged lack of innovation supposedly because Apple was spending it's money litigating ("innovate don't litigate" meme). These are the same people who are most excited over this news, NOT because they ever claimed the litigation prevented Google from innovating, but because (they claimed) it prevented Apple from innovating. But why would they care about Apple's self-destruction when they hate Apple products? Because they want Apple to create the next big thing for Google and their "partners" to copy. If that were not true, then all the handwringing "concern" expressed about Apple's lack of competitiveness was feigned, which is the very definition of concern trolling.
You're projecting your extremist views onto others. Most Google fans (myself included) don't hate Apple or their products. Just like most Apple fans don't hate Google or their products. It's actually a small, vocal minority of people that fall into those extreme categories.
These are the same people who are most excited over this news
Of course they are. Now, let's get to work on reforming this whole "broken" patent system. Many of Apple's patents are ridiculous and should not have been granted in the first place. Slide to unlock? Rounded corners? Rubberbanding? What a joke! And did you know that Apple copied the iPhone from LG's Prada?
That wasn't me talking by the way. I was impersonating a random Fandroid.
Ha, what now to all those who claimed Apple would go for Google after they were done with Samsung. If anything though this makes Samsung look bad. They probably didn't settle on purpose because they wanted Apple to have to take them to court.
Of course they are. Now, let's get to work on reforming this whole "broken" patent system. Many of Apple's patents are ridiculous and should not have been granted in the first place. Slide to unlock? Rounded corners? Rubberbanding? What a joke! And did you know that Apple copied the iPhone from LG's Prada?
That wasn't me talking by the way. I was impersonating a random Fandroid.
The primary obstacle to a settlement on reasonable terms is not that Apple is obsessed with patent litigation. It's a strategic dilemma coupled with Apple's apparent inability to understand just how weak its patents -- at least the ones it has asserted in courts around the globe so far -- really are.
The strategic dilemma is that Apple's pricing and product strategy (including the way it restricts end users' freedom) is a great one if you want to occupy a lucrative niche, but it's not a strategy for having the market-leading platform -- in that regard I agree with Colin Gibbs, who expressed doubts about the sustainability of Apple's market capitalization. In network effects-driven markets, market leaders often build so much momentum behind their platforms that the collective innovative capacity of an ecosystem makes the most popular platform also the best one from an end user's perspective -- in which case even a premium-priced niche is in danger in the long run. Apple has, however, become used to having everything: high prices, high margins, huge profits, huge sales, and rapid growth (at least until not so long ago). This was possible because it revolutionized more than one market and virtually created a whole new market. It's just not possible when commoditization occurs. This is a law of nature, like gravity.
So Apple would like intellectual property to be an entrance barrier, at least to the extent that its products are truly different. You can't be different in functional -- only visual -- terms if everyone else is able to deliver the same functionality. On the design patent side, it's pretty much "mission accomplished": as a result of Apple's relentless enforcement, competitors don't dare to build iPhone or iPad lookalikes. But in functional terms, many hundreds of millions of dollars had to be wasted by Apple and the companies it sued on legal fees only to find out that, so far, Apple owns nothing besides rubberbanding.
According to Gatorguy there are no suits directly between the two companies.
Motorola was supposed to be an independent separate entity.
...and that's absolutely correct. Google initiated no lawsuits against Apple nor did Apple start any against Google (tho Rockstar activities might be questionable) I've also often said it would be a nice gesture on Google's part to direct Motorola Mobility to drop the litigation, tho it would be a pretty difficult and unlikely decision to make if Apple wouldn't reciprocate. Well here we go, both folded..
You've said several times Google should just tell MM to drop the lawsuits. Now they have. You should be happy. Without Apple's participation it probably wouldn't have happened.
Quick unrelated Q, but I simply must know. Why exactly do you think it's a great idea to have your setup and specs in your signature? How is it relevant, and how exactly do you think cares how much ram, clockspeed, harddrive space, videocard, etc your mac mini has- especially when it's something completely average? It just creates wasted space, extra noise, and extra scrolling on the forums. I can't stand signatures to begin with (there's nothing important or witty enough to have as a PERMANENT part of every single one of your posts) but spec signatures? Those I understand least of all. At least a statement can convey a giggle, inspiration, or a philosopy. What exactly is the purpose of your signature?
I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious as to your thought process- and others like you.
Comments
Yes...I believe Slurpy asked me before or made a snarky comment about it so every time he does I'll make it more and more obnoxious. Its no more dumb than someone's stupid quote, or saying they're an Apple Shareholder like that makes them above the people who aren't, etc. This entire AI site is a joke anyways so what difference does it make.
Simple solution: blocked
So why did Apple cave?
So then why are you here?
Because I can be
How dare you!? AI is serious business!
In response to the article: This is great news! It's good to see both sides taking a less aggressive stance with each other. It'll be interesting to see what comes of the patent reform talk (if anything).
The only thing AI is serious about is posting articles that have nothing to do with Apple (ie. Samsung this, Samsung that) and then failing to post the real Apple news, and/or rumors.
On the other note, yes I agree. Lets get this over with already and stop these stupid lawsuits.
Because I can be
Nice. Let me word it another way so you can be less evasive. If AI is a joke, why waste your and our time?
That's the real question, is it?
According to Gatorguy there are no suits directly between the two companies.
Motorola was supposed to be an independent separate entity.
Because Apple is the only company in the world to come up with revolutionary products. Um, no. They have before but so has other companies.
Are you talking and replying to yourself?, because I've never claimed that Apple is the only company in the world to come up with revolutionary products, though Apple has come up with more such products than most other companies.
It's interesting to watch opinions split down the middle. Google fans have consistently posted "concern" for Apple's alleged lack of innovation supposedly because Apple was spending it's money litigating ("innovate don't litigate" meme). These are the same people who are most excited over this news, NOT because they ever claimed the litigation prevented Google from innovating, but because (they claimed) it prevented Apple from innovating. But why would they care about Apple's self-destruction when they hate Apple products? Because they want Apple to create the next big thing for Google and their "partners" to copy. If that were not true, then all the handwringing "concern" expressed about Apple's lack of competitiveness was feigned, which is the very definition of concern trolling.
You're projecting your extremist views onto others. Most Google fans (myself included) don't hate Apple or their products. Just like most Apple fans don't hate Google or their products. It's actually a small, vocal minority of people that fall into those extreme categories.
These are the same people who are most excited over this news
Of course they are. Now, let's get to work on reforming this whole "broken" patent system. Many of Apple's patents are ridiculous and should not have been granted in the first place. Slide to unlock? Rounded corners? Rubberbanding? What a joke! And did you know that Apple copied the iPhone from LG's Prada?
That wasn't me talking by the way. I was impersonating a random Fandroid.
The primary obstacle to a settlement on reasonable terms is not that Apple is obsessed with patent litigation. It's a strategic dilemma coupled with Apple's apparent inability to understand just how weak its patents -- at least the ones it has asserted in courts around the globe so far -- really are.
The strategic dilemma is that Apple's pricing and product strategy (including the way it restricts end users' freedom) is a great one if you want to occupy a lucrative niche, but it's not a strategy for having the market-leading platform -- in that regard I agree with Colin Gibbs, who expressed doubts about the sustainability of Apple's market capitalization. In network effects-driven markets, market leaders often build so much momentum behind their platforms that the collective innovative capacity of an ecosystem makes the most popular platform also the best one from an end user's perspective -- in which case even a premium-priced niche is in danger in the long run. Apple has, however, become used to having everything: high prices, high margins, huge profits, huge sales, and rapid growth (at least until not so long ago). This was possible because it revolutionized more than one market and virtually created a whole new market. It's just not possible when commoditization occurs. This is a law of nature, like gravity.
So Apple would like intellectual property to be an entrance barrier, at least to the extent that its products are truly different. You can't be different in functional -- only visual -- terms if everyone else is able to deliver the same functionality. On the design patent side, it's pretty much "mission accomplished": as a result of Apple's relentless enforcement, competitors don't dare to build iPhone or iPad lookalikes. But in functional terms, many hundreds of millions of dollars had to be wasted by Apple and the companies it sued on legal fees only to find out that, so far, Apple owns nothing besides rubberbanding.
...and that's absolutely correct. Google initiated no lawsuits against Apple nor did Apple start any against Google (tho Rockstar activities might be questionable) I've also often said it would be a nice gesture on Google's part to direct Motorola Mobility to drop the litigation, tho it would be a pretty difficult and unlikely decision to make if Apple wouldn't reciprocate. Well here we go, both folded..
You've said several times Google should just tell MM to drop the lawsuits. Now they have. You should be happy. Without Apple's participation it probably wouldn't have happened.
Thermonuclear War inverted:
Quick unrelated Q, but I simply must know. Why exactly do you think it's a great idea to have your setup and specs in your signature? How is it relevant, and how exactly do you think cares how much ram, clockspeed, harddrive space, videocard, etc your mac mini has- especially when it's something completely average? It just creates wasted space, extra noise, and extra scrolling on the forums. I can't stand signatures to begin with (there's nothing important or witty enough to have as a PERMANENT part of every single one of your posts) but spec signatures? Those I understand least of all. At least a statement can convey a giggle, inspiration, or a philosopy. What exactly is the purpose of your signature?
I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious as to your thought process- and others like you.
Not as much as the education system