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.
.
Better? The original iPhone was missing basic functionality that was standard on pre-existing smartphones, and has taken them until now to implement some of them.
Google proves itself once again to be THE new evil. They have borrowed (stolen) IP heavily from others, given it away for free, and then cry out that they are innovating and that its all about open source. The company is perpetuating a huge scam and myth when it comes to android, all the while harvesting our personal data without compensating us for it, and selling it's use to others for BILLIONS through their advertising model.
Google's lawyers state, and I quote, "A patent isn?t innovation. It?s the right to block someone else from innovating." Did these guys actually go to law school and are they licensed to practice law? They've got to be kidding. A patent is for the protection of innovation - of unique and innovative ideas - and to prevent others from stealing those ideas. If google wants to innovate, then they need to invent, not steal. Google is THE new evil.
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.
+1.
Drummond's sad little bleat is yet another example of the archetypical Big Lie characteristic of Google's PR machine, but Google has taken over the Great Copycat mantle formerly owned by MS. Predictably, a proportion of the populace swallow this fantasy whole and indiscriminately.
To try to conclude from the graph of R&D expenditure that Apple has taken any ideas from other companies is absurd beyond belief - simply, there is no evidence on which to conclude that from the figures. On the contrary, the fact that the least productive and successful company on the list - MS - is throwing away so many billions and achieving so little must be a clue about the part R&D really plays in a company's success. One of the reasons they are spending so much is to play catch up with Apple. That's working, not.
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.
Except they don't have patents on their Search algorithms. It's a trade secret, like the Coca cola or KFC recipe.
Better? The original iPhone was missing basic functionality that was standard on pre-existing smartphones, and has taken them until now to implement some of them.
And that's why they were critically panned and didn't sell... oh, wait.
I recently bought a Kia Soul. It doesn't have in-dash navigation, full climate control, it can't tow a thing, and has only a 4-speed automatic transmission. Doesn't mean it's not an awesome car that for myself and a heck of a lot of other people is a far better choice than most SUVs and hatchbacks on the market. A product doesn't need to do everything every prior comparable product did to be better.
Alas! Poor me! I have vowed to do no evil and what is my reward - patent infringement lawsuits from most of the larger high tech companies that compete in the same space. I must post a blog and complain about unfairly I am being treated. I attempt to innovate and move technology forward and all I get is legal harrassment.
Hmm? Could it be that I have knowingly and willingly stoled patently technology from others? Even if true, I give all my software away for free without profit to myself (Unless you count more clicks for my search engine. I will certainly call my friends in the Administration and get this rectified ASAP. I cannot stand being plundered by those evil executives at Microsoft, Apple and, Oracle. Vengeance will be mine!
Right. Because Google is the underdog, a victim of conspiracies against them.
That's what happens when you believe your own hype about not being evil
The real problem is what happens with a genuine underdog? Companies like Google and Apple can easily find a few billion dollars down the back of the sofa so losing a major patent case isn't going to make much of a dent.
But what about small companies with great ideas? Modern software and electronic devices are so complex and affected by so many different patents that it is almost guaranteed that whenever you build something new someone is going claim that you are infringing on a patent. But the small company doesn't have armies of lawyers, billions in case and a large portfolio of their own patents with which to fight back.
The current patent system allows big companies to do whatever they like whilst small companies are unable to compete.
Software patents are a nightmarish threat to innovation. Copyrights protect expression, that should be enough to protect a developer against blatant copying of the expression of an idea. Imagine if novels could be patented. No, sorry, you can't write about vampires - I patented that.
Click a button to buy something? That's patented. Ok fine, let's patent 'click a button to <insert any possible action that hasn't been patented yet>.
Just think of the brilliance and engineering - patenting a touch that does something on a touch screen. Wow! I think I will patent a six finger touch gesture, so if future six-fingered mutants appear I'll be able to sue anyone who tries to use it.
The name "PageRank" is a trademark of Google, and the PageRank process has been patented (U.S. Patent 6,285,999). However, the patent is assigned to Stanford University and not to Google. Google has exclusive license rights on the patent from Stanford University. The university received 1.8 million shares of Google in exchange for use of the patent; the shares were sold in 2005 for $336 million.
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.
Don't worry about it because, as I understand it, the "tools" that you're using to create this masterpiece are simply the letters of the alphabet and, as we all know, they have been around "forever" so therefore you cannot be accused of stealing.
Don't waste your time. A brief look at the posting history of "Apple v. Samsung" will tell you all you need to know about what one can expect from this character ..... and it isn't pretty.
Better? The original iPhone was missing basic functionality that was standard on pre-existing smartphones, and has taken them until now to implement some of them.
If the original iPhone was so bad in your opinion, why was everyone and their dog tripping all over themselves trying to copy it? ... and it's still going on .... and still not very successfully, I might add.
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.
Except that would be a copyright issue not a patent one.
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.
Too funny. That graph, if true shows MS need to fire a lot of ppl,
What nonsense. Look at who's on top of that list -- that alone tells you how valid this metric is.
What passes off under the "R&D" budget in many tech firms (similarly, big pharma firms) is a joke. Almost all of it is "D", not "R". And D covers a broad swathe, such as golf outings at pointless conferences......
That said, the most important missing piece of data from your chart is "A&D" -- acquisition & development. Apple does a brilliant job of identifying solid technologies early (e.g., Soundjam), acquiring them, nurturing them, and taking them to a different level.
Except that would be a copyright issue not a patent one.
I think you're just splitting hairs on that one. Ultimately trademark, copyright, patent, etc are all synonymous, use changing depending on the product being referred to (name, literal work, manufactured item).
Better? The original iPhone was missing basic functionality that was standard on pre-existing smartphones, and has taken them until now to implement some of them.
It must be full of despair to inhabit your world, given how remarkably successful Apple and the iPhone have become....
Comments
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.
.
Better? The original iPhone was missing basic functionality that was standard on pre-existing smartphones, and has taken them until now to implement some of them.
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.
+1.
Drummond's sad little bleat is yet another example of the archetypical Big Lie characteristic of Google's PR machine, but Google has taken over the Great Copycat mantle formerly owned by MS. Predictably, a proportion of the populace swallow this fantasy whole and indiscriminately.
To try to conclude from the graph of R&D expenditure that Apple has taken any ideas from other companies is absurd beyond belief - simply, there is no evidence on which to conclude that from the figures. On the contrary, the fact that the least productive and successful company on the list - MS - is throwing away so many billions and achieving so little must be a clue about the part R&D really plays in a company's success. One of the reasons they are spending so much is to play catch up with Apple. That's working, not.
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.
Except they don't have patents on their Search algorithms. It's a trade secret, like the Coca cola or KFC recipe.
Better? The original iPhone was missing basic functionality that was standard on pre-existing smartphones, and has taken them until now to implement some of them.
And that's why they were critically panned and didn't sell... oh, wait.
I recently bought a Kia Soul. It doesn't have in-dash navigation, full climate control, it can't tow a thing, and has only a 4-speed automatic transmission. Doesn't mean it's not an awesome car that for myself and a heck of a lot of other people is a far better choice than most SUVs and hatchbacks on the market. A product doesn't need to do everything every prior comparable product did to be better.
Google apparently turned down a partnership with Microsoft to bid on the Nortel patents.
I wonder who else they turned down while trying to figure out how to bid pi?
Except they don't have patents on their Search algorithms. It's a trade secret, like the Coca cola or KFC recipe.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1024-986204.html
They do have patents for part of it. Either way, the point stands.
Hmm? Could it be that I have knowingly and willingly stoled patently technology from others? Even if true, I give all my software away for free without profit to myself (Unless you count more clicks for my search engine. I will certainly call my friends in the Administration and get this rectified ASAP. I cannot stand being plundered by those evil executives at Microsoft, Apple and, Oracle. Vengeance will be mine!
Right. Because Google is the underdog, a victim of conspiracies against them.
That's what happens when you believe your own hype about not being evil
The real problem is what happens with a genuine underdog? Companies like Google and Apple can easily find a few billion dollars down the back of the sofa so losing a major patent case isn't going to make much of a dent.
But what about small companies with great ideas? Modern software and electronic devices are so complex and affected by so many different patents that it is almost guaranteed that whenever you build something new someone is going claim that you are infringing on a patent. But the small company doesn't have armies of lawyers, billions in case and a large portfolio of their own patents with which to fight back.
The current patent system allows big companies to do whatever they like whilst small companies are unable to compete.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radi...patents-attack
Software patents are a nightmarish threat to innovation. Copyrights protect expression, that should be enough to protect a developer against blatant copying of the expression of an idea. Imagine if novels could be patented. No, sorry, you can't write about vampires - I patented that.
Click a button to buy something? That's patented. Ok fine, let's patent 'click a button to <insert any possible action that hasn't been patented yet>.
Just think of the brilliance and engineering - patenting a touch that does something on a touch screen. Wow! I think I will patent a six finger touch gesture, so if future six-fingered mutants appear I'll be able to sue anyone who tries to use it.
Except they don't have patents on their Search algorithms. It's a trade secret, like the Coca cola or KFC recipe.
It actually is patented.
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6285999
From Wikipedia
The name "PageRank" is a trademark of Google, and the PageRank process has been patented (U.S. Patent 6,285,999). However, the patent is assigned to Stanford University and not to Google. Google has exclusive license rights on the patent from Stanford University. The university received 1.8 million shares of Google in exchange for use of the patent; the shares were sold in 2005 for $336 million.
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.
Don't worry about it because, as I understand it, the "tools" that you're using to create this masterpiece are simply the letters of the alphabet and, as we all know, they have been around "forever" so therefore you cannot be accused of stealing.
Am I reading this correctly?
Don't waste your time. A brief look at the posting history of "Apple v. Samsung" will tell you all you need to know about what one can expect from this character ..... and it isn't pretty.
Better? The original iPhone was missing basic functionality that was standard on pre-existing smartphones, and has taken them until now to implement some of them.
If the original iPhone was so bad in your opinion, why was everyone and their dog tripping all over themselves trying to copy it? ... and it's still going on .... and still not very successfully, I might add.
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.
Except that would be a copyright issue not a patent one.
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.
Too funny. That graph, if true shows MS need to fire a lot of ppl,
OH PLEASE
Apple isn't an R&D driven company, ......
What nonsense. Look at who's on top of that list -- that alone tells you how valid this metric is.
What passes off under the "R&D" budget in many tech firms (similarly, big pharma firms) is a joke. Almost all of it is "D", not "R". And D covers a broad swathe, such as golf outings at pointless conferences......
That said, the most important missing piece of data from your chart is "A&D" -- acquisition & development. Apple does a brilliant job of identifying solid technologies early (e.g., Soundjam), acquiring them, nurturing them, and taking them to a different level.
Except that would be a copyright issue not a patent one.
I think you're just splitting hairs on that one. Ultimately trademark, copyright, patent, etc are all synonymous, use changing depending on the product being referred to (name, literal work, manufactured item).
Better? The original iPhone was missing basic functionality that was standard on pre-existing smartphones, and has taken them until now to implement some of them.
It must be full of despair to inhabit your world, given how remarkably successful Apple and the iPhone have become....