Google's current stance on patents with Android would have prevented Google from ever having existed

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 136
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Adrayven View Post



    Do you know why Google is my goto? has nothing to do with the search algorithm..



    ITS THAT THE HOME PAGE IS FREE OF CCCRRAP! It's simple, no ads, right to the search homepage..



    I'm willing to bet thats why MOST people use it.. Yahoo and Bing overLOAD you with junk on their respective home pages..



    THAT was Googles genius.. a simple, no frills home page.. If someone did that.. I'd be there in a blink..

     

    Sorry, I haven't seen a search engine homepage this decade.

     

    You mean they still exist?

  • Reply 42 of 136
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

     

    It must be really hard to write such a pieces of fiction like this. It must bend reality so hard that perhaps it can create a singularity.


     

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post



    Man DED I have to give it to you. How far did you have to reach for this article. You're soul, your heart, your bowels, a parallel universe? I can feel the desperation and vague connections. This is your masterpiece, well done my good man. There is no way you can top this incoherent piece a fiction. I challege you DED. Moar reaching. Reach until your brain is no longer attached to reality.

     

    Hey, why don't you refute using examples, rather than the usual mish mash of vagaries given by those with no real answers.

  • Reply 43 of 136
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,867moderator
    Whatever you think of DED, just watch what happens over the next year. Google is getting into robotics, bioscience, Internet of things in a hurried manner because Google knows its business better than anyone and that means Google understands what is happening in the realm of digital advertising and its concerned about its future revenue and profit from that business. Watch the next several quarterly results to see how this plays out. Google also knows it's lost control of Android's destiny and that Android's destiny is bleak and shallow. So Google has restructured its shares to allow the management team to embark upon what will soon be recognized as a tough road to transforming itself into a significantly different business than you see today without having to answer to shareholders along the way. The next several years will present a significant risk to Google's valuation as it goes through this transformation and there's no guarantee the company will succeed in its necessary reinvention of itself. Meanwhile, Apple has a much more clear path ahead and a proven business model to take itself along that path. The narratives surrounding these two companies is going to become much more interesting. Samsung, for its part, will soon be pushed back to the status of commodity producer shared by so many others in the industries within which it competes. Off the front page like Nokia, Blackberry, HP, Dell, Sony, and others swept under the rug by the rise of Apple.
  • Reply 44 of 136
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post

     

     

    Wow. You just compared people who support Android to a government which shoots its own people.  Even for you, DED, that is special.

     

    AppleInsider - it is time to admit that this guy is a liability and an embarrassment to your website, and take away his poison pen. When people (wrongly) stereotype Apple users as mindless, sanctimonious or dogmatic, this sort of thing is why. DED's absurd comparisons, indiscriminate slurs at anyone whose favourite technology company isn't Apple, and ridiculous use of phrases like 'iron curtain' and 'evil amalgamation of fallacious badness' are the sort of thing which gives Apple users a bad name.

     

    Face it - this guy is an incorrigible, paid-up fanboy, and for the good of the wider Apple community he needs to be told to tone it down or put down the pen.


     

    I expect you'll be leaving then?

     

    Why expose your sensitive nature to such things when I am sure you can find some other site worth passing your time on.

  • Reply 45 of 136
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    hill60 wrote: »
    I expect you'll be leaving then?

    Why expose your sensitive nature to such things when I am sure you can find some other site worth passing your time on.

    Dilger's work is not above criticism. In fact, because so many here are either fans, customers or stock owners of Apple, articles designed to interest or involve us should also display a similar level of care and finish that we have come to expect from Apple. Do you agree?

    Why settle for the poorly written works of a polemicist instead of the fairly written works of an author one could recommend to a family member?
  • Reply 46 of 136
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Dilger's work is not above criticism. In fact, because so many here are either fans, customers or stock owners of Apple, articles designed to interest or involve us should also display a similar level of care and finish we have come to expect from Apple. Do you agree?

     

    Nah, I just like the way Dilger takes a club to the bullshitters.

  • Reply 47 of 136
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Article problem number one: It's not Google's Pagerank patent. They've licensed it from Stanford just as any other company can do if it wishes.

    Problem two. The author makes the leap to argue Google search could not have been created except by the grace of a patent. Microsoft, IBM and Apple all became viable companies without the assistance of a single software patent. Trade secrets and the laws applicable to them are powerful

    Problem three: Google has never maintained that "it and its Android partners should be able to infringe upon any patents Apple has related to iOS". Another leap.

    Finally, it's completely possible other search providers have infringed on Google IP. Not only possible but considering there's 10's of thousands it becomes quite likely. That Google hasn't ever sued a direct competitor makes any claim of Google's attitude towards wielding IP to fend off competition as being disingenuous . . . well disingenuous.

    In Google's case patents appear to serve only defensive purposes and not generally used to block competition. Simply being a better, harder working and more creative search provider is what made them successful. For that matter Apple's revenue doesn't ride on the back of software patents either. Those pertaining to iOS have hardly been strong enough to get much if any credit for iDevice success. That success comes from being better, harder working and more creative than their competitors.

    So giggle doesn't own the patent,
    and it doesn't sue companies who infringe on the patent
    They don't own.

    Outstanding!

    Furthermore, giggle's special sauce is a TRADE SECRET
    Which is sort of like a patent
    Except it works better.

    Well trade secrets all around!
  • Reply 48 of 136
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Article problem number one: It's not Google's Pagerank patent. They've licensed it from Stanford just as any other company can do if it wishes.

    Problem two. The author makes the leap to argue Google search could not have been created except by the grace of a patent. Microsoft, IBM and Apple all became viable companies without the assistance of a single software patent. Trade secrets and the laws applicable to them are powerful

    Problem three: Google has never maintained that "it and its Android partners should be able to infringe upon any patents Apple has related to iOS". Another leap.

    Finally, it's completely possible other search providers have infringed on Google IP. Not only possible but considering there's 10's of thousands it becomes quite likely. That Google hasn't ever sued a direct competitor makes any claim of Google's attitude towards wielding IP to fend off competition as being disingenuous . . . well disingenuous.

    In Google's case patents appear to serve only defensive purposes and not generally used to block competition. Simply being a better, harder working and more creative search provider is what made them successful. For that matter Apple's revenue doesn't ride on the back of software patents either. Those pertaining to iOS have hardly been strong enough to get much if any credit for iDevice success. That success comes from being better, harder working and more creative than their competitors.

    You had me until your bolded text. If Google owns Moto and is suing a competitor then that is Google suing a competitor.
  • Reply 49 of 136
    . Google also knows it's lost control of Android's destiny and that Android's destiny is bleak and shallow..

    So the gigglites are finally aware that
    the big G
    Is going to take a knee
    in the big game against Oracle U.

    But not to worry
    They are in trade secret talks with OmniCorp
    to produce robocops....

    Nice!
  • Reply 50 of 136
    evilutionevilution Posts: 1,399member

    Agreed, I like DED's angle on things but I do wish he wouldn't go around the houses.

    There's only a certain amount of padding you can put in to a report such as this before people just selectively scan the piece.

    Keep it short, sweet and to the point.

  • Reply 51 of 136
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,744member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

     

    Hey, why don't you refute using examples, rather than the usual mish mash of vagaries given by those with no real answers.


     

    Exactly.  DED takes the time to learn the history of technology and lays out his arguments rationally (in perhaps an overly dramatic way, but logically consistent nonetheless) and I'm supposed to be dissuaded by a horde of people crying fowl without anything to back it up?  How exactly is that any different than kids yelling things on a playground?

     

    Please, take a course in logic, do some homework, and come back when you have some intelligent debate.  Note that I'm partial to historical materialism (relevant, material examples from history) and logical cause-and-effect (scientific method) based arguments.

  • Reply 52 of 136
    euphoniouseuphonious Posts: 303member

    If you're going to delete people's posts, AI moderators, it's polite at least to explain why you've done it. 

     

    The only clue I have is an infraction for 'inappropriate language'. This in spite of the fact that I didn't use any language which isn't used on this forum to describe Android / Google / Samsung / non-Apple users, day in day out, without a hint of moderator intervention.

     

    This forum has a curious concept of 'moderation'. Moderators are not supposed to delete posts based on the poster's viewpoint on substantive issues. I can only assume that it is easier to abuse one's power by deleting posts you don't like than it is to refute them.

  • Reply 53 of 136
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    auxio wrote: »
    I'm supposed to be dissuaded by a horde of people crying fowl without anything to back it up?
    Chicken!
  • Reply 54 of 136
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,744member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

     

    Keep it short, sweet and to the point.


     

    I agree that DED can be somewhat verbose.  However, being someone who has studied and debated at a college level, I appreciate when someone takes the time to research and utilize a number of relevant historical examples to back up their central argument.  That, to me, is the highest form of argumentation.  Even if the attention span of the average person on the internet isn't long enough to allow for it.

  • Reply 55 of 136
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,363member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    You had me until your bolded text. If Google owns Moto and is suing a competitor then that is Google suing a competitor.

    Google isn't sueing anyone outside of British Telecom. Nor is there a single new Motorola Mobility patent suit since Google bought them AFAIK. So no, neither Google nor a Google-owned MM sued any competitor for patent infringement.

    If you believe either Google or a Google-owned Motorola Mobility has initiated some patent infringement you've misunderstood something you've read or heard. perhaps here at AI. Perhaps you've confused some 3 of 4 year old Motorola/General Dynamics lawsuits that even pre-dated Motorola Mobility and certainly pre-Google with remaining issues in appeal. Even most of those have been disposed of. There's nothing new Soli.
  • Reply 56 of 136
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Google isn't sueing anyone outside of British Telecom. Nor is there a single new Motorola Mobility patent suit since Google bought them AFAIK. So no, neither Google nor a Google-owned MM sued any competitor for patent infringement.

    If you believe either Google or a Google-owned Motorola Mobility has initiated some patent infringement you've misunderstood something you've read or heard. perhaps here at AI. Perhaps you've confused some 3 of 4 year old Motorola/General Dynamics lawsuits that even pre-dated Motorola Mobility and certainly pre-Google with remaining issues in appeal. Even most of those have been disposed of. There's nothing new Soli.

    If Google doesn't drop the cases that Motorola has or any other company that they acquire in full, not just one of many investment partners, then I would call that pursing the lawsuit because they have the option to drop the case but aren't.
  • Reply 57 of 136
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post

     

    If you're going to delete people's posts, AI moderators, it's polite at least to explain why you've done it. 

     

    The only clue I have is an infraction for 'inappropriate language'. This in spite of the fact that I didn't use any language which isn't used on this forum to describe Android / Google / Samsung / non-Apple users, day in day out, without a hint of moderator intervention.

     

    This forum has a curious concept of 'moderation'. Moderators are not supposed to delete posts based on the poster's viewpoint on substantive issues. I can only assume that it is easier to abuse one's power by deleting posts you don't like than it is to refute them.


    Euphonious, as I said in my reply to your post it seems that DED/Corrections got b**thurt and decided to delete not only my post but yours as well. Sadly he has long history of not being able to accept criticism and deletes, ignores or responds with childish insults to just about anybody he disagrees with. Ironically he's been corrected a number of times and always responds in such a predictable fashion.

  • Reply 58 of 136
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,744member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post

     

    Euphonious, as I said in my reply to your post it seems that DED/Corrections got b**thurt and decided to delete not only my post but yours as well. Sadly he has long history of not being able to accept criticism and deletes, ignores or responds with childish insults to just about anybody he disagrees with. Ironically he's been corrected a number of times and always responds in such a predictable fashion.


     

    When I first read the comments, the only negative ones I could find with any sort of substance behind them were Gatorguy's (a nice debate which is still going).  The rest were just insults, scripted mantras I read everywhere about DED, and the usual nit-picking about run-on sentences.

  • Reply 59 of 136
    Dan_DilgerDan_Dilger Posts: 1,584member

    It's interesting to see how you try to attack what I write by going off on wild tangents.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    Article problem number one: It's not Google's Pagerank patent. They've licensed it from Stanford just as any other company can do if it wishes.


    Did you even read the article's headings? Also, you are wrong: Stanford exclusively licensed PageRank to Google. The company wouldn't have gotten any funding from VCs if it did not have exclusive patent rights to something of value. 






    Problem two. The author makes the leap to argue Google search could not have been created except by the grace of a patent. Microsoft, IBM and Apple all became viable companies without the assistance of a single software patent. Trade secrets and the laws applicable to them are powerful



    Problem three: Google has never maintained that "it and its Android partners should be able to infringe upon any patents Apple has related to iOS". Another leap.


    That's exactly what Google does. Take, then feign outrage afterward that some patent holder would dare take it to court over evil IP. For a company that owes its existence to patents, this is pretty incredibly hypocritical. 


    ?Apple and IBM had hardware businesses. They didn't need a software patent to get initial funding. Apple was built out of a garage, not a patent-protected college startup.






    Finally, it's completely possible other search providers have infringed on Google IP. Not only possible but considering there's 10's of thousands it becomes quite likely. That Google hasn't ever sued a direct competitor makes any claim of Google's attitude towards wielding IP to fend off competition as being disingenuous . . . well disingenuous.



    In Google's case patents appear to serve only defensive purposes and not generally used to block competition. Simply being a better, harder working and more creative search provider is what made them successful. For that matter Apple's revenue doesn't ride on the back of software patents either. Those pertaining to iOS have hardly been strong enough to get much if any credit for iDevice success. That success comes from being better, harder working and more creative than their competitors.


    You don't get it. Google doesn't sue companies because nobody else is as cavalier about infringing its patents. People are suing Google and its licensees because Google has a policy of stealing and then acting like its the victim because well, "patents!" It's complete BS, just like everything you write.


    You might as well say, "Google can't be a thief because... nobody is stealing its stuff!"

  • Reply 60 of 136
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,363member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    If Google doesn't drop the cases that Motorola has or any other company that they acquire in full, not just one of many investment partners, then I would call that pursing the lawsuit because they have the option to drop the case but aren't.

    Is there anything still actively being litigated that Google hasn't dropped? There might still be something with Microsoft or perhaps not but otherwise I can't think of one.
Sign In or Register to comment.