Opening up the industry to wholesale copying does more to stifle innovation than patents do. There is no incentive to spend millions doing R&D when you can simply wait for someone else to do it for you. The resulting cost cutting race to the bottom does nothing to advance the industry.
The patent system punishes innovators while rewarding consortiums of giant corporations like the Apple-MS alliance.
Most of these patents Apple's claiming are infringed upon are clearly invalid yet Apple's lawyers and lobbies will find a way around that trust me. Every $million spent on a lawyer is another $million not spent on R&D or "advancing the industry."
Google did not copy iOS. The iphone was great phone but almost noting in it at release was new technology. Most of it was refined but little was new. Apple is infamous for taking other ideas and just improving them and taking credit for being the first with it.
Maybe no individual component was brand new, but ask any person who used a smartphone before iPhone came around and they will very gladly say Apple had something new and vastly better than anything in the industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobdillon69
The patent system punishes innovators while rewarding consortiums of giant corporations like the Apple-MS alliance.
Most of these patents Apple's claiming are infringed upon are clearly invalid yet Apple's lawyers and lobbies will find a way around that trust me. Every $million spent on a lawyer is another $million not spent on R&D or "advancing the industry."
And you know what happens if Apple doesn't defend them? They lose them, and set a precedent to lose other patents, regardless of whether they're valid or not.
Ah, the perfect time for me to launch my new site, Gaggle! It offers internet searches and, wow, this just came to me, I could sell these searches to the highest bidder. And they won't sue me!!!
None of this defensive patent buying would have happened, if Google had not stolen Apple's (patented) multi-touch user interface to begin with. Before the iPhone, Android phones looked like the Palm Treos and Blackberries with full keyboards. No one had conceived of a touch interface like iOS until Apple.
I think the "copying" is overstated. One year after iPhone, the first Android phone looked like this:
And it didn't get Pinch to zoom until an Eclair point release in 2010 . Windows mobile had been doing scrolling/sliding for a while, just not with a capacitive screen.
Quote:
If Android had invented their own unique touch interface, none of these patent disputes would have arisen. Granted, it would have been hard to come up with a truly original touch interface, as iOS's scroll, pinch, slide gestures seem so intuitive.
Opening up the industry to wholesale copying does more to stifle innovation than patents do. There is no incentive to spend millions doing R&D when you can simply wait for someone else to do it for you. The resulting cost cutting race to the bottom does nothing to advance the industry.
No one is copying apple. Android is infringing a couple of issues level patents from the 90s that are necessary for the creation of OS, however I am certain that the infringement is so deep its based on the linux kernel which is what android uses. The infringement are not based on iOS because looking like something does not mean you copied it.
Apple, Cisco, eBay, MS are also investors but they are not acting like whiny babies and acting all high and mighty preaching about how patents are destroying "innovation".
Apple isn't an R&D driven company, the reason they generate much more profit is because they are the ones "borrowing" from other's research and development, look at iOS 5.
Google is good at developing good technology, but failed miserably to protect their IP. Apple won at patents, they're playing the broken system to win while Google had its head up its a** innovating.
Google may be right but it doesn't matter, the law isn't on their side, Apple army of lawyers will find every way to piggy back on their success. Another win for MS/Apple duo.
That chart is certainly a breath of fresh air in a forum like this.
Having said that we all must remember that there's a huge difference between spending money and achieving results.
No one is copying apple. Android is infringing a couple of issues level patents from the 90s that are necessary for the creation of OS, however I am certain that the infringement is so deep its based on the linux kernel which is what android uses. The infringement are not based on iOS because looking like something does not mean you copied it.
I'm writing a screenplay, called "Stellar Wars", about a young farm boy who wields his father's laser axe in support of a rebellion against the evil Galactic Emirates.
I admit it sounds a lot like Star Wars but I assure you this is complete coincidence.
Google Denied Bid To Have Internal Android Memo Sealed
THE EMAIL GOOGLE DOESN'T WANT THE JURY TO SEE:
According to a transcript of a July 21 hearing, Google employee Tim Lindholm wrote in the internal email last year, about two weeks before the litigation with Oracle began, that Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin had asked "to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android."
"We have been over a bunch of these and think they all suck," the Google email continued, according to the transcript, adding, "We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java."
I think that this piece should have been clearly labeled as an editorial piece, as it does not seem to be balanced in the manner expected of responsible journalism.
That being said, the rage of the author came screaming through in pretty much every paragraph. Sheesh. Does Google keep him up at night? Does he toss and turn, muttering under his breath about Google and breaking into a cold sweat?
Entertainment? Maybe. Editorial opinions? Probably. Responsible journalism? No way.
I didn't read the AI version of the article, because I had already read it elsewhere....
But, your comments piqued my interest!
I opened the AI article...
Voila -- DED is back with (to use his own words) "jaw-dropping" bias!
Apple isn't an R&D driven company, the reason they generate much more profit is because they are the ones "borrowing" from other's research and development, look at iOS 5.
Google is good at developing good technology, but failed miserably to protect their IP. Apple won at patents, they're playing the broken system to win while Google had its head up its a** innovating.
Google may be right but it doesn't matter, the law isn't on their side, Apple army of lawyers will find every way to piggy back on their success. Another win for MS/Apple duo.
This looks like a company that has it's shit together, business wise. They are not using the scatter shot approach in R&D to bring new ideas to market. This is what the others should be copying.
I have to agree with google on this. I when you don't focus on who won and who lost and you think about what they plan to use the patents for then the story changes. Google spends more energy on developing technology then protecting their parents they are in the technology business not the legal business. Had google won it would have used the patents to defend from legal issues. However the winning group is almost certain to use the patents to place an expensive licensing fee on android to raise prices and make their OSs more favored with developers. Basically they are squeezing out the competition using pathetic methods. If they impose an outrageous license fee it will like htc said they cannot compete in the market so they chose to take it to court.
Google already sued MSFT Bing. This is just sour grapes. I don't think companies should be allowed to sell their IP only licensee it out.
...Most of it was refined but little was new. Apple is infamous for taking other ideas and just improving them and taking credit for being the first with it.
Though we may disagree on this, Apple did bring something to the table that changed the entire landscape of the smartphone platform. Blackberry was front runner before iPhone and everyone aped them. Apple, with the little they brought to the market is now the leader that they all want to copy. You can only copy so much of Apple before they ask you to stop.
I think that this piece should have been clearly labeled as an editorial piece, as it does not seem to be balanced in the manner expected of responsible journalism.
That being said, the rage of the author came screaming through in pretty much every paragraph. Sheesh. Does Google keep him up at night? Does he toss and turn, muttering under his breath about Google and breaking into a cold sweat?
Entertainment? Maybe. Editorial opinions? Probably. Responsible journalism? No way.
I think you may be reading with a bias. Seems spot on to me.
No one is copying apple. Android is infringing a couple of issues level patents from the 90s that are necessary for the creation of OS, however I am certain that the infringement is so deep its based on the linux kernel which is what android uses. The infringement are not based on iOS because looking like something does not mean you copied it.
Apple isn't an R&D driven company, the reason they generate much more profit is because they are the ones "borrowing" from other's research and development, look at iOS 5.
Google is good at developing good technology, but failed miserably to protect their IP. Apple won at patents, they're playing the broken system to win while Google had its head up its a** innovating.
Google may be right but it doesn't matter, the law isn't on their side, Apple army of lawyers will find every way to piggy back on their success. Another win for MS/Apple duo.
It is excellent diagram showing how efficient Google is in sinking billions in failed projects, just another evidence what we already know, that they had very few successfull ventures in recent years.
If Google is so "good at developing good technology" so why they have to copy everything around?
Why 97% of their income is from ads, not from "good technology? Why most their products are used only because they are for free? You know what, they are innovative in ads business only, because it earns money for them. They give products for free, because they don't care about them, only about ads income when people use product. This is why they don't like patents, it make impossible to give products for free.
I never said they would have, but they are far less likely to abuse it and more likely to be ridiculously cheap with licenses.
How much to license the patents behind Google's search algorithm? You're right that Google would probably be cheap with the Nortel and Novell patents, because they don't care about the mobile OS business per se. Its not where they make their money. But they sure get pissy when Bing copies their search results.
Comments
It's easier to steal everyone else's ideas without patents.
There's no legal problem with stealing people's ideas.
You can't, or shouldn't, be able to patent an idea.
Opening up the industry to wholesale copying does more to stifle innovation than patents do. There is no incentive to spend millions doing R&D when you can simply wait for someone else to do it for you. The resulting cost cutting race to the bottom does nothing to advance the industry.
The patent system punishes innovators while rewarding consortiums of giant corporations like the Apple-MS alliance.
Most of these patents Apple's claiming are infringed upon are clearly invalid yet Apple's lawyers and lobbies will find a way around that trust me. Every $million spent on a lawyer is another $million not spent on R&D or "advancing the industry."
Google did not copy iOS. The iphone was great phone but almost noting in it at release was new technology. Most of it was refined but little was new. Apple is infamous for taking other ideas and just improving them and taking credit for being the first with it.
Maybe no individual component was brand new, but ask any person who used a smartphone before iPhone came around and they will very gladly say Apple had something new and vastly better than anything in the industry.
The patent system punishes innovators while rewarding consortiums of giant corporations like the Apple-MS alliance.
Most of these patents Apple's claiming are infringed upon are clearly invalid yet Apple's lawyers and lobbies will find a way around that trust me. Every $million spent on a lawyer is another $million not spent on R&D or "advancing the industry."
And you know what happens if Apple doesn't defend them? They lose them, and set a precedent to lose other patents, regardless of whether they're valid or not.
I'm in the money . . .
None of this defensive patent buying would have happened, if Google had not stolen Apple's (patented) multi-touch user interface to begin with. Before the iPhone, Android phones looked like the Palm Treos and Blackberries with full keyboards. No one had conceived of a touch interface like iOS until Apple.
I think the "copying" is overstated. One year after iPhone, the first Android phone looked like this:
And it didn't get Pinch to zoom until an Eclair point release in 2010 . Windows mobile had been doing scrolling/sliding for a while, just not with a capacitive screen.
If Android had invented their own unique touch interface, none of these patent disputes would have arisen. Granted, it would have been hard to come up with a truly original touch interface, as iOS's scroll, pinch, slide gestures seem so intuitive.
You should save your applause for Fingerworks (http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics...ew/109212.html), which Apple went on to buy in 2005.
Opening up the industry to wholesale copying does more to stifle innovation than patents do. There is no incentive to spend millions doing R&D when you can simply wait for someone else to do it for you. The resulting cost cutting race to the bottom does nothing to advance the industry.
No one is copying apple. Android is infringing a couple of issues level patents from the 90s that are necessary for the creation of OS, however I am certain that the infringement is so deep its based on the linux kernel which is what android uses. The infringement are not based on iOS because looking like something does not mean you copied it.
Google major investor in PATENT TROLL Intellectual Ventures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/201...investors.html
Apple, Cisco, eBay, MS are also investors but they are not acting like whiny babies and acting all high and mighty preaching about how patents are destroying "innovation".
OH PLEASE
Apple isn't an R&D driven company, the reason they generate much more profit is because they are the ones "borrowing" from other's research and development, look at iOS 5.
Google is good at developing good technology, but failed miserably to protect their IP. Apple won at patents, they're playing the broken system to win while Google had its head up its a** innovating.
Google may be right but it doesn't matter, the law isn't on their side, Apple army of lawyers will find every way to piggy back on their success. Another win for MS/Apple duo.
That chart is certainly a breath of fresh air in a forum like this.
Having said that we all must remember that there's a huge difference between spending money and achieving results.
No one is copying apple. Android is infringing a couple of issues level patents from the 90s that are necessary for the creation of OS, however I am certain that the infringement is so deep its based on the linux kernel which is what android uses. The infringement are not based on iOS because looking like something does not mean you copied it.
I'm writing a screenplay, called "Stellar Wars", about a young farm boy who wields his father's laser axe in support of a rebellion against the evil Galactic Emirates.
I admit it sounds a lot like Star Wars but I assure you this is complete coincidence.
Google Denied Bid To Have Internal Android Memo Sealed
THE EMAIL GOOGLE DOESN'T WANT THE JURY TO SEE:
According to a transcript of a July 21 hearing, Google employee Tim Lindholm wrote in the internal email last year, about two weeks before the litigation with Oracle began, that Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin had asked "to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android."
"We have been over a bunch of these and think they all suck," the Google email continued, according to the transcript, adding, "We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java."
Do i hear WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente..._redacted.html
I think that this piece should have been clearly labeled as an editorial piece, as it does not seem to be balanced in the manner expected of responsible journalism.
That being said, the rage of the author came screaming through in pretty much every paragraph. Sheesh. Does Google keep him up at night? Does he toss and turn, muttering under his breath about Google and breaking into a cold sweat?
Entertainment? Maybe. Editorial opinions? Probably. Responsible journalism? No way.
I didn't read the AI version of the article, because I had already read it elsewhere....
But, your comments piqued my interest!
I opened the AI article...
Voila -- DED is back with (to use his own words) "jaw-dropping" bias!
OH PLEASE
Apple isn't an R&D driven company, the reason they generate much more profit is because they are the ones "borrowing" from other's research and development, look at iOS 5.
Google is good at developing good technology, but failed miserably to protect their IP. Apple won at patents, they're playing the broken system to win while Google had its head up its a** innovating.
Google may be right but it doesn't matter, the law isn't on their side, Apple army of lawyers will find every way to piggy back on their success. Another win for MS/Apple duo.
This looks like a company that has it's shit together, business wise. They are not using the scatter shot approach in R&D to bring new ideas to market. This is what the others should be copying.
First uh third
I have to agree with google on this. I when you don't focus on who won and who lost and you think about what they plan to use the patents for then the story changes. Google spends more energy on developing technology then protecting their parents they are in the technology business not the legal business. Had google won it would have used the patents to defend from legal issues. However the winning group is almost certain to use the patents to place an expensive licensing fee on android to raise prices and make their OSs more favored with developers. Basically they are squeezing out the competition using pathetic methods. If they impose an outrageous license fee it will like htc said they cannot compete in the market so they chose to take it to court.
Google already sued MSFT Bing. This is just sour grapes. I don't think companies should be allowed to sell their IP only licensee it out.
...Most of it was refined but little was new. Apple is infamous for taking other ideas and just improving them and taking credit for being the first with it.
Though we may disagree on this, Apple did bring something to the table that changed the entire landscape of the smartphone platform. Blackberry was front runner before iPhone and everyone aped them. Apple, with the little they brought to the market is now the leader that they all want to copy. You can only copy so much of Apple before they ask you to stop.
I think that this piece should have been clearly labeled as an editorial piece, as it does not seem to be balanced in the manner expected of responsible journalism.
That being said, the rage of the author came screaming through in pretty much every paragraph. Sheesh. Does Google keep him up at night? Does he toss and turn, muttering under his breath about Google and breaking into a cold sweat?
Entertainment? Maybe. Editorial opinions? Probably. Responsible journalism? No way.
I think you may be reading with a bias. Seems spot on to me.
Google already sued MSFT Bing. This is just sour grapes. I don't think companies should be allowed to sell their IP only licensee it out.
They did? I apparently missed the article. Link?
No one is copying apple. Android is infringing a couple of issues level patents from the 90s that are necessary for the creation of OS, however I am certain that the infringement is so deep its based on the linux kernel which is what android uses. The infringement are not based on iOS because looking like something does not mean you copied it.
Am I reading this correctly?
That chart is certainly a breath of fresh air in a forum like this.
Having said that we all must remember that there's a huge difference between spending money and achieving results.
You realize that includes pointless ventures that their employees research as they get a set amount of time for their "own" projects.
I bet if you took that number and compared it to actual investment in their products, it would be quite low.
Secondly, like Microsoft, Google is all over the place in their focus while Apple is very focused on their core products.
Just because you are spending money on R&D doesn't mean that it is in anyway related to Googles business.
OH PLEASE
Apple isn't an R&D driven company, the reason they generate much more profit is because they are the ones "borrowing" from other's research and development, look at iOS 5.
Google is good at developing good technology, but failed miserably to protect their IP. Apple won at patents, they're playing the broken system to win while Google had its head up its a** innovating.
Google may be right but it doesn't matter, the law isn't on their side, Apple army of lawyers will find every way to piggy back on their success. Another win for MS/Apple duo.
It is excellent diagram showing how efficient Google is in sinking billions in failed projects, just another evidence what we already know, that they had very few successfull ventures in recent years.
If Google is so "good at developing good technology" so why they have to copy everything around?
Why 97% of their income is from ads, not from "good technology? Why most their products are used only because they are for free? You know what, they are innovative in ads business only, because it earns money for them. They give products for free, because they don't care about them, only about ads income when people use product. This is why they don't like patents, it make impossible to give products for free.
I never said they would have, but they are far less likely to abuse it and more likely to be ridiculously cheap with licenses.
How much to license the patents behind Google's search algorithm? You're right that Google would probably be cheap with the Nortel and Novell patents, because they don't care about the mobile OS business per se. Its not where they make their money. But they sure get pissy when Bing copies their search results.