Sorry but posting an image of keyboard driven phone doesn't prove Android wasn't capable to work in touch-driven phone (which it was). This was just one of the prototypes. Yet you make claim that they were totally clueless and without Apple, there would never be a touch phone.
Wow I'M GLAD SOMEONE has common sense here. This is ridiculous. We live in a very broad world. Many people make computers but HP doesn't blame Apple for copying laptops, Ford doesnt blame GM for making a muscle car, they compete. This is the most ridiculous fight. Apple looks stupid, and everyone of you sticking up for them are stupid.
Things evolve. Look how landlines went from the spinner, to the regular buttons, to wireless handsets. Many brands made them, but did they all do the same thing, with similar appearance and carry out the same function?
Most people defending for Apple need to move to China and live with communism. They can put their loyalty in something there, but here it is suppose to be a free market. One where companies can COMPETE for rights to a customer.
You idiots don't understand all this licensing a power button on the top of a phone, or home button at the bottom, or mic at the top for background noise assistance is RAISING YOUR CONSUMER paid prices. Lets all pay more because these greedy ass companies want to have a piss fight.
I love Apple. I am a web developer, all of my computers are apple. Everyone in my family has an iPhone. I own ipods, apple tv, I'm a huge advocate. THIS is taking it too far, defending saying androids are copying the iPhone.. lol
Thanks, this is pretty much my point. I have nothing against Apple, I love the company, all my computers are Apple too, some of my phones and tablets are Apple too (being a mobile developer). I don't understand why so many people wants Android or anyone else to fail. What's the benefit for you ? It will only stall the innovation, and will drive the price for the consumer up, exactly the same way as those lawsuits do, as you correctly pointed out.
Hope the other guy who said you are wrong will try to come with some arguments, but I am afraid that we won't hear any.
Google's approach to IP is different, partly because they are primarily a server side firm. Mostly rather than patent something such as their search-rank algorithm, they will prefer to keep it as a trade secret. They do have patents for example on MapReduce, but most of their IP crown jewels like BigTable and GFS are closely held secrets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
Did you ever use any of those other search engines? Most were slow, all had horrible visual design. Many included advertisers paid links in the search results, along with banner ads and big slow-to-load ads along the side panels. Relevancy was atrocious. Google transformed the search experience with both exceptional speed, exceptionally relevant results and a better advertising model.
Lots of sites had webmail sure, but GMail was transformative - not so much because it has labels instead of folders - but because it gave orders of magnitude more email space. Back when GMail launched it gave users 1GB of mail space, hotmail back then I believe offered 2MB and Yahoo 4MB.
Innovation doesn't just mean making something wholly new, it means making something transformatively better. Much of Google's innovation is in its infrastructure, which allows it to deliver web services with unequalled scale, reliability and performance.
There are plenty of bad things that can be reasonably said about Google, but claiming that they have never innovated isn't one of them.
A true voice of reason, as usual. BTW, I believe they have patents pertaining to Bigtable, search and GFS. Will try and look them up. This is not straight forward because Google does not have a habit of listing the company affiliations of inventors on their patents, making the search a bit trickier.
Here's a quote from a book studying Google Patents: "Google’s database inventions by themselves make it clear that Google’s research unit has superseded Bell Labs and Xerox PARC as the place for technical innovation in the U.S., if not the world." Interesting that Apple is not mentioned.
I use Macs and Windows PCs (along with Linux), and prefer Macs by a long shot. I bought one of the first Macs ever. I have iPhones and Android, but use iP4 as my primary device. I have purchased both iPad and iPad2. Despite this, I feel it is only fair to recognize that Apple's innovation is in integration rather than in fundamental technology development. Multitouch, smartphones, tablets, all-in-one computers, music players etc. have all existed before Apple. If Apple didn't exist, different forms of these products would still be around. Arguably, no one would have made the final package as user friendly as Apple. And perhaps no one could have popularized them the way Apple has done. But still, Apple has NOT developed any fundamental innovations.
Google, on the other hand, has done things at a fundamental level that Apple has not, cannot and will not. In fact, so has Microsoft. It's a tough pill to swallow for those who want to believe Apple shines across the board. But the innovations from Apple and Google are simply very different. Despite all the money I have spent on Apple products, I'd say Google's influence on my life, both personally and as an engineer, has been far more profound.
Thanks, this is pretty much my point. I have nothing against Apple, I love the company, all my computers are Apple too, some of my phones and tablets are Apple too (being a mobile developer). I don't understand why so many people wants Android or anyone else to fail. What's the benefit for you ? It will only stall the innovation, and will drive the price for the consumer up, exactly the same way as those lawsuits do, as you correctly pointed out.
Post this on a pro-Android forum where people are always rooting against Apple and wishing for their failure. Tell them that competition is good for them and that if Apple fails, it will stall innovation.
I love Apple. I am a web developer, all of my computers are apple. Everyone in my family has an iPhone. I own ipods, apple tv, I'm a huge advocate. THIS is taking it too far, defending saying androids are copying the iPhone.. lol
Who's defending Apple. As was announced, they won the lawsuit, which means they infringed on Apple's patents. Just like any court case, HTC can appeal it or get it reviewed, but unless there is a glaring mistake in the judgement, I doubt it'll be changed.
I think Google and HTC are the ones to laugh at, they doth protest to much. They look stupid protesting AFTER losing the case. They're just trying to calm their shareholders.
Wow I'M GLAD SOMEONE has common sense here. This is ridiculous. We live in a very broad world. Many people make computers but HP doesn't blame Apple for copying laptops, Ford doesnt blame GM for making a muscle car, they compete. This is the most ridiculous fight. Apple looks stupid, and everyone of you sticking up for them are stupid.
Things evolve. Look how landlines went from the spinner, to the regular buttons, to wireless handsets. Many brands made them, but did they all do the same thing, with similar appearance and carry out the same function?
Most people defending for Apple need to move to China and live with communism. They can put their loyalty in something there, but here it is suppose to be a free market. One where companies can COMPETE for rights to a customer.
You idiots don't understand all this licensing a power button on the top of a phone, or home button at the bottom, or mic at the top for background noise assistance is RAISING YOUR CONSUMER paid prices. Lets all pay more because these greedy ass companies want to have a piss fight.
I love Apple. I am a web developer, all of my computers are apple. Everyone in my family has an iPhone. I own ipods, apple tv, I'm a huge advocate. THIS is taking it too far, defending saying androids are copying the iPhone.. lol
Actually, Nick, if you would stay on topic then it wouldn't look like you're as much an ass as anyone else in the who copied who fight.
The original news story was about Schmidt's comments... not about who copies who.
Maybe Schmidt could have been closer to the truth by saying that Apple "is" competing in the market place as is Google, that Apple is still innovating as is Google, but also saying that he "feels" that Apple is "unfairly"* fighting some of its battles in the courtroom with patent litigation. [*not that I feel that all of Apple's litigaiton is senseless. ]
So the hassle comes down to Schmidt's words. I'm not sure how Page and Brin feel about those words but when you look at what Schmidt said it sounds fairly silly to say (if this is indeed what he meant) that Apple has stopped innovating and competing fairly and now the only thing left in Apple's arsenal is fighting in the courtroom to gain the upper hand.
Schmidt's comments echo those made a week ago by a spokesperson for HTC, who said officials at the company are "disappointed" that Apple is suing competitors "instead of competing fairly in the market."
OMG, this is beyond funny. How you explain that ES got to the Apple's Board of Directors ? Do you think he bribed Jobs or something, or perhaps wore an invisible suit, sitting in the corner and recorded everything ? It was move of Apple as they thought it might help them...as you probably know, Apple was deep in trouble in that time.
Information about Google acquiring Android was public, so it was no secret to Apple that Google was creating their own mobile OS...yet Apple decided to do no move, and it is Schmidt who takes all the blame, even if it is not clear if he really "stole" anything during his BOD stay ?
There is a positive thing about these lawsuits, that those ridiculous patents, that clearly cover insane broad concepts or prior art, hopefully get examined by the court and get voided as a result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Actually, Nick, if you would stay on topic then it wouldn't look like you're as much an ass as anyone else in the who copied who fight.
The original news story was about Schmidt's comments... not about who copies who.
Maybe Schmidt could have been closer to the truth by saying that Apple "is" competing in the market place as is Google, that Apple is still innovating as is Google, but also saying that he "feels" that Apple is "unfairly"* fighting some of its battles in the courtroom with patent litigation. [*not that I feel that all of Apple's litigaiton is senseless. ]
So the hassle comes down to Schmidt's words. I'm not sure how Page and Brin feel about those words but when you look at what Schmidt said it sounds fairly silly to say (if this is indeed what he meant) that Apple has stopped innovating and competing fairly and now it is only fighting in the courtroom in order to gain the upper hand.
Doesn't really matter where this started, I am fighting for what the United States and free market stand for. I'd clearly label this a suitable topic, and I think they are suing competition away and charging me the lawyer fee's.
Doesn't really matter where this started, I am fighting for what the United States and free market stand for. I'd clearly label this a suitable topic, and I think they are suing competition away and charging me the lawyer fee's.
Oh bullshit... now you sound just as stupid as Schmidt.
Surely, if Apple felt so strongly about Schmidt acting unethically, they would have been rather dumb to keep him as a director for two years after the launch of the iPhone, particularly since Google acquired Android a few years earlier. In fact, the evidence suggests that Apple was not particularly smart in keeping Schmidt on. If indeed Google learned a few tricks via this relationship, shouldn't Apple shoulder the blame at least in part for missing the obvious? To repeat, Google bought Android in 2005!!!
That's an interesting point. If we keep dwelling on Schmidt stealing secrets at Apple board meetings, we are just calling out Apple for being stupid. Can a company be both innovative and stupid? Apparently so! :LOL:
Let the insults come. Just remember that I didn't raise this point first!
That's an interesting point. If we keep dwelling on Schmidt stealing secrets at Apple board meetings, we are just calling out Apple for being stupid. Can a company be both innovative and stupid? Apparently so! :LOL:
Let the insults come. Just remember that I didn't raise this point first!
I often wonder if Steve made the error of believing that he and Schmidt were a team, collaborating against the rest of the pack. Then Steve got super pissed when he found out that Google was also developing a mobile OS... something that Schmidt may have forgotten to mention.
Oh bullshit... now you sound just as stupid as Schmidt.
Eric Schmidt has a PhD from Berkeley in computer science. He was the co-author of lex. He has worked at PARC and Sun, and was hired to two companies to be CEO. Stupid? How many of us qualify to label him as that? I wish I were so stupid.
I often wonder if Steve made the error of believing that he and Schmidt were a team, collaborating against the rest of the pack. Then Steve got super pissed when he found out that Google was also developing a mobile OS... something that Schmidt may have forgotten to mention.
A little 80s deja vu...
[I'm speculating]
Google bought Android in 2005. If Apple couldn't figure out their intentions until 2009, shame on them. In all the rants ensuing the breakup between Schmidt and Apple, the issue of Schmidt lying to Apple about Google's mobile intentions was never, ever raised. Until there's such evidence, I don't see how we can accuse Schmidt of being deliberately deceptive. And if deception was involved, why has Apple not taken Google to court? They have not been afraid to go after everyone else?
Here and elsewhere, Google has been criticized for not defending their Android licensees. Now they are finally speaking up and vowing to defend their allies, as they should. Yet, Schmidt is not only being criticized but is in fact trashed for it.
I guess you haven't bothered to read the forum. 95% of what Schmidt is being trashed for is his inane accusation that Apple is litigating INSTEAD OF innovating. Also, he's being trashed for his unethical position of remaining on Apple's board while meanwhile stealing Apple's design ideas. Finally, he's being trashed for just plain stupidity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artificialintel
Google isn't really worried about the legal threats to android, because they don't make any money from android. They make money from ads on android - and other phones - so all they care about is that they have good ad-serving access. They have to at least make the appearance of defending their partners, of course, because being papa GOOG is part of what guarantees them entree, but HTC suffers a huge financial setback it doesn't cost them anything.
They don't want android to crater, of course, because it's a critical source of leverage in mobil advertising, but I'm not sure they really care as long as it remains a player.
But, unfortunately for Google, the fact that they don't make money directly from Android is not a defense. They could still end up paying out millions of dollars in fines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
Google, because it prospers from searching, does not respect intellectual property.
Google NEVER respected intellectual property from anyone but themselves. At one point, they seriously proposed scanning every printed work ever made and putting it online for sale - without permission (or even knowledge) of the authors.
Imagine the stink you'd have if you put the source code to Google search online without permission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
This seems like a pretty reckless thing to say, although not atypical for Schmidt. Google can throw money at litigation but they can't guarantee victory
Even worse, by saying that Google will guarantee that HTC doesn't lose, Google is potentially liable for any damages HTC might face - not just the legal costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
I wonder if Google has a patent on its search engine. And will it defend its patent.
Not a patent, but a whole slew of copyrights. And, of course they will defend it. They just went after Microsoft not too long ago for what they considered to be illegal use of Google's search.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickmccally
Wow I'M GLAD SOMEONE has common sense here. This is ridiculous. We live in a very broad world. Many people make computers but HP doesn't blame Apple for copying laptops, Ford doesnt blame GM for making a muscle car, they compete. This is the most ridiculous fight. Apple looks stupid, and everyone of you sticking up for them are stupid.
The difference, of course, is that none of the examples you cite are as blatant in the theft of intellectual property as the iPhone examples.
Comments
Sorry i thought you were joking.
Have you tried to read what I wrote ?
Sorry but posting an image of keyboard driven phone doesn't prove Android wasn't capable to work in touch-driven phone (which it was). This was just one of the prototypes. Yet you make claim that they were totally clueless and without Apple, there would never be a touch phone.
BTW, have you ever seen this ?
http://bit.ly/mZCtDB
Looks like prior art to me, perhaps it was Apple who was stealing..what you say ?
Wow I'M GLAD SOMEONE has common sense here. This is ridiculous. We live in a very broad world. Many people make computers but HP doesn't blame Apple for copying laptops, Ford doesnt blame GM for making a muscle car, they compete. This is the most ridiculous fight. Apple looks stupid, and everyone of you sticking up for them are stupid.
Things evolve. Look how landlines went from the spinner, to the regular buttons, to wireless handsets. Many brands made them, but did they all do the same thing, with similar appearance and carry out the same function?
Most people defending for Apple need to move to China and live with communism. They can put their loyalty in something there, but here it is suppose to be a free market. One where companies can COMPETE for rights to a customer.
You idiots don't understand all this licensing a power button on the top of a phone, or home button at the bottom, or mic at the top for background noise assistance is RAISING YOUR CONSUMER paid prices. Lets all pay more because these greedy ass companies want to have a piss fight.
I love Apple. I am a web developer, all of my computers are apple. Everyone in my family has an iPhone. I own ipods, apple tv, I'm a huge advocate. THIS is taking it too far, defending saying androids are copying the iPhone.. lol
Thanks, this is pretty much my point. I have nothing against Apple, I love the company, all my computers are Apple too, some of my phones and tablets are Apple too (being a mobile developer). I don't understand why so many people wants Android or anyone else to fail. What's the benefit for you ? It will only stall the innovation, and will drive the price for the consumer up, exactly the same way as those lawsuits do, as you correctly pointed out.
Hope the other guy who said you are wrong will try to come with some arguments, but I am afraid that we won't hear any.
I never thought you were seriously suggesting it
No, I don't work for Google. Good to see you staying in character tho, ever the funny little guy.
Forgive me if I believe you are construing "work for" in the narrowest sense.
Google's approach to IP is different, partly because they are primarily a server side firm. Mostly rather than patent something such as their search-rank algorithm, they will prefer to keep it as a trade secret. They do have patents for example on MapReduce, but most of their IP crown jewels like BigTable and GFS are closely held secrets.
Did you ever use any of those other search engines? Most were slow, all had horrible visual design. Many included advertisers paid links in the search results, along with banner ads and big slow-to-load ads along the side panels. Relevancy was atrocious. Google transformed the search experience with both exceptional speed, exceptionally relevant results and a better advertising model.
Lots of sites had webmail sure, but GMail was transformative - not so much because it has labels instead of folders - but because it gave orders of magnitude more email space. Back when GMail launched it gave users 1GB of mail space, hotmail back then I believe offered 2MB and Yahoo 4MB.
Innovation doesn't just mean making something wholly new, it means making something transformatively better. Much of Google's innovation is in its infrastructure, which allows it to deliver web services with unequalled scale, reliability and performance.
There are plenty of bad things that can be reasonably said about Google, but claiming that they have never innovated isn't one of them.
A true voice of reason, as usual. BTW, I believe they have patents pertaining to Bigtable, search and GFS. Will try and look them up. This is not straight forward because Google does not have a habit of listing the company affiliations of inventors on their patents, making the search a bit trickier.
Here's a quote from a book studying Google Patents: "Google’s database inventions by themselves make it clear that Google’s research unit has superseded Bell Labs and Xerox PARC as the place for technical innovation in the U.S., if not the world." Interesting that Apple is not mentioned.
I use Macs and Windows PCs (along with Linux), and prefer Macs by a long shot. I bought one of the first Macs ever. I have iPhones and Android, but use iP4 as my primary device. I have purchased both iPad and iPad2. Despite this, I feel it is only fair to recognize that Apple's innovation is in integration rather than in fundamental technology development. Multitouch, smartphones, tablets, all-in-one computers, music players etc. have all existed before Apple. If Apple didn't exist, different forms of these products would still be around. Arguably, no one would have made the final package as user friendly as Apple. And perhaps no one could have popularized them the way Apple has done. But still, Apple has NOT developed any fundamental innovations.
Google, on the other hand, has done things at a fundamental level that Apple has not, cannot and will not. In fact, so has Microsoft. It's a tough pill to swallow for those who want to believe Apple shines across the board. But the innovations from Apple and Google are simply very different. Despite all the money I have spent on Apple products, I'd say Google's influence on my life, both personally and as an engineer, has been far more profound.
Thanks, this is pretty much my point. I have nothing against Apple, I love the company, all my computers are Apple too, some of my phones and tablets are Apple too (being a mobile developer). I don't understand why so many people wants Android or anyone else to fail. What's the benefit for you ? It will only stall the innovation, and will drive the price for the consumer up, exactly the same way as those lawsuits do, as you correctly pointed out.
Post this on a pro-Android forum where people are always rooting against Apple and wishing for their failure. Tell them that competition is good for them and that if Apple fails, it will stall innovation.
I love Apple. I am a web developer, all of my computers are apple. Everyone in my family has an iPhone. I own ipods, apple tv, I'm a huge advocate. THIS is taking it too far, defending saying androids are copying the iPhone.. lol
Who's defending Apple. As was announced, they won the lawsuit, which means they infringed on Apple's patents. Just like any court case, HTC can appeal it or get it reviewed, but unless there is a glaring mistake in the judgement, I doubt it'll be changed.
I think Google and HTC are the ones to laugh at, they doth protest to much. They look stupid protesting AFTER losing the case. They're just trying to calm their shareholders.
Wow I'M GLAD SOMEONE has common sense here. This is ridiculous. We live in a very broad world. Many people make computers but HP doesn't blame Apple for copying laptops, Ford doesnt blame GM for making a muscle car, they compete. This is the most ridiculous fight. Apple looks stupid, and everyone of you sticking up for them are stupid.
Things evolve. Look how landlines went from the spinner, to the regular buttons, to wireless handsets. Many brands made them, but did they all do the same thing, with similar appearance and carry out the same function?
Most people defending for Apple need to move to China and live with communism. They can put their loyalty in something there, but here it is suppose to be a free market. One where companies can COMPETE for rights to a customer.
You idiots don't understand all this licensing a power button on the top of a phone, or home button at the bottom, or mic at the top for background noise assistance is RAISING YOUR CONSUMER paid prices. Lets all pay more because these greedy ass companies want to have a piss fight.
I love Apple. I am a web developer, all of my computers are apple. Everyone in my family has an iPhone. I own ipods, apple tv, I'm a huge advocate. THIS is taking it too far, defending saying androids are copying the iPhone.. lol
Actually, Nick, if you would stay on topic then it wouldn't look like you're as much an ass as anyone else in the who copied who fight.
The original news story was about Schmidt's comments... not about who copies who.
Maybe Schmidt could have been closer to the truth by saying that Apple "is" competing in the market place as is Google, that Apple is still innovating as is Google, but also saying that he "feels" that Apple is "unfairly"* fighting some of its battles in the courtroom with patent litigation. [*not that I feel that all of Apple's litigaiton is senseless. ]
So the hassle comes down to Schmidt's words. I'm not sure how Page and Brin feel about those words but when you look at what Schmidt said it sounds fairly silly to say (if this is indeed what he meant) that Apple has stopped innovating and competing fairly and now the only thing left in Apple's arsenal is fighting in the courtroom to gain the upper hand.
Schmidt's comments echo those made a week ago by a spokesperson for HTC, who said officials at the company are "disappointed" that Apple is suing competitors "instead of competing fairly in the market."
Says the mole.
Getting insider info by being an Apple director, then stealing that info to make a product - innovative crime imho. Schmidt is a scumbag.
I couldn't agree more! What a nerve talking about Apple's need to innovate. Google's innovation is in industrial espionage!
OMG, this is beyond funny. How you explain that ES got to the Apple's Board of Directors ? Do you think he bribed Jobs or something, or perhaps wore an invisible suit, sitting in the corner and recorded everything ? It was move of Apple as they thought it might help them...as you probably know, Apple was deep in trouble in that time.
Information about Google acquiring Android was public, so it was no secret to Apple that Google was creating their own mobile OS...yet Apple decided to do no move, and it is Schmidt who takes all the blame, even if it is not clear if he really "stole" anything during his BOD stay ?
There is a positive thing about these lawsuits, that those ridiculous patents, that clearly cover insane broad concepts or prior art, hopefully get examined by the court and get voided as a result.
Actually, Nick, if you would stay on topic then it wouldn't look like you're as much an ass as anyone else in the who copied who fight.
The original news story was about Schmidt's comments... not about who copies who.
Maybe Schmidt could have been closer to the truth by saying that Apple "is" competing in the market place as is Google, that Apple is still innovating as is Google, but also saying that he "feels" that Apple is "unfairly"* fighting some of its battles in the courtroom with patent litigation. [*not that I feel that all of Apple's litigaiton is senseless. ]
So the hassle comes down to Schmidt's words. I'm not sure how Page and Brin feel about those words but when you look at what Schmidt said it sounds fairly silly to say (if this is indeed what he meant) that Apple has stopped innovating and competing fairly and now it is only fighting in the courtroom in order to gain the upper hand.
Doesn't really matter where this started, I am fighting for what the United States and free market stand for. I'd clearly label this a suitable topic, and I think they are suing competition away and charging me the lawyer fee's.
Doesn't really matter where this started, I am fighting for what the United States and free market stand for. I'd clearly label this a suitable topic, and I think they are suing competition away and charging me the lawyer fee's.
Oh bullshit... now you sound just as stupid as Schmidt.
Surely, if Apple felt so strongly about Schmidt acting unethically, they would have been rather dumb to keep him as a director for two years after the launch of the iPhone, particularly since Google acquired Android a few years earlier. In fact, the evidence suggests that Apple was not particularly smart in keeping Schmidt on. If indeed Google learned a few tricks via this relationship, shouldn't Apple shoulder the blame at least in part for missing the obvious? To repeat, Google bought Android in 2005!!!
That's an interesting point. If we keep dwelling on Schmidt stealing secrets at Apple board meetings, we are just calling out Apple for being stupid. Can a company be both innovative and stupid? Apparently so! :LOL:
Let the insults come. Just remember that I didn't raise this point first!
That's an interesting point. If we keep dwelling on Schmidt stealing secrets at Apple board meetings, we are just calling out Apple for being stupid. Can a company be both innovative and stupid? Apparently so! :LOL:
Let the insults come. Just remember that I didn't raise this point first!
I often wonder if Steve made the error of believing that he and Schmidt were a team, collaborating against the rest of the pack. Then Steve got super pissed when he found out that Google was also developing a mobile OS... something that Schmidt may have forgotten to mention.
A little 80s deja vu...
[I'm speculating]
Oh bullshit... now you sound just as stupid as Schmidt.
Eric Schmidt has a PhD from Berkeley in computer science. He was the co-author of lex. He has worked at PARC and Sun, and was hired to two companies to be CEO. Stupid? How many of us qualify to label him as that? I wish I were so stupid.
Not innovating = Android. Very, very much an iOS clone.
(Colleagues using Android phones have no problem admitting this.)
2.
When announcing the iPhone 4,5 years ago Steve Jobs said "and boy have we patented it."
Now Apple is protecting their IP. Surprised? Really?
3. Let's not even talk about Schmidt having been an Apple board member at the "right" time.
Ridiculous.
I often wonder if Steve made the error of believing that he and Schmidt were a team, collaborating against the rest of the pack. Then Steve got super pissed when he found out that Google was also developing a mobile OS... something that Schmidt may have forgotten to mention.
A little 80s deja vu...
[I'm speculating]
Google bought Android in 2005. If Apple couldn't figure out their intentions until 2009, shame on them. In all the rants ensuing the breakup between Schmidt and Apple, the issue of Schmidt lying to Apple about Google's mobile intentions was never, ever raised. Until there's such evidence, I don't see how we can accuse Schmidt of being deliberately deceptive. And if deception was involved, why has Apple not taken Google to court? They have not been afraid to go after everyone else?
Here and elsewhere, Google has been criticized for not defending their Android licensees. Now they are finally speaking up and vowing to defend their allies, as they should. Yet, Schmidt is not only being criticized but is in fact trashed for it.
I guess you haven't bothered to read the forum. 95% of what Schmidt is being trashed for is his inane accusation that Apple is litigating INSTEAD OF innovating. Also, he's being trashed for his unethical position of remaining on Apple's board while meanwhile stealing Apple's design ideas. Finally, he's being trashed for just plain stupidity.
Google isn't really worried about the legal threats to android, because they don't make any money from android. They make money from ads on android - and other phones - so all they care about is that they have good ad-serving access. They have to at least make the appearance of defending their partners, of course, because being papa GOOG is part of what guarantees them entree, but HTC suffers a huge financial setback it doesn't cost them anything.
They don't want android to crater, of course, because it's a critical source of leverage in mobil advertising, but I'm not sure they really care as long as it remains a player.
But, unfortunately for Google, the fact that they don't make money directly from Android is not a defense. They could still end up paying out millions of dollars in fines.
Google, because it prospers from searching, does not respect intellectual property.
Google NEVER respected intellectual property from anyone but themselves. At one point, they seriously proposed scanning every printed work ever made and putting it online for sale - without permission (or even knowledge) of the authors.
Imagine the stink you'd have if you put the source code to Google search online without permission.
This seems like a pretty reckless thing to say, although not atypical for Schmidt. Google can throw money at litigation but they can't guarantee victory
Even worse, by saying that Google will guarantee that HTC doesn't lose, Google is potentially liable for any damages HTC might face - not just the legal costs.
I wonder if Google has a patent on its search engine. And will it defend its patent.
Not a patent, but a whole slew of copyrights. And, of course they will defend it. They just went after Microsoft not too long ago for what they considered to be illegal use of Google's search.
Wow I'M GLAD SOMEONE has common sense here. This is ridiculous. We live in a very broad world. Many people make computers but HP doesn't blame Apple for copying laptops, Ford doesnt blame GM for making a muscle car, they compete. This is the most ridiculous fight. Apple looks stupid, and everyone of you sticking up for them are stupid.
The difference, of course, is that none of the examples you cite are as blatant in the theft of intellectual property as the iPhone examples.
When announcing the iPhone 4,5 years ago Steve Jobs said "and boy have we patented it."
Now Apple is protecting their IP. Surprised? Really?
...
Ridiculous.
Google acquired Android in 2005. Surprised about them releasing a mobile OS in 2008 ? Really?
Ridiculous.
The only surprise is that it took them so long.