A Foxconn factory worker has a better chance of getting paid $10 an hour or getting to take a vacation than Apple has at getting the Galaxy Nexus banned.
Something strikes me as off about Google's patent in regards to being able to sue Apple but I can't quite express it in words. If it comes to me I'll try to state it clearly.
Google has no history of using patents offensively in the first place, unlike Apple or MS, so I don't personally think they'd sue Apple first anyway. Perhaps that's why we haven't seen a direct suit against Google from one of those two.
To be clear I don't see any issue with striking the first blow as Apple has been doing, and think it's naive and starry-eyed for Google to think that they should be the "nice guy", different from Microsoft, Apple or any other big tech player.
At some point they'll strike back and then everyone will start the accusations of Google saying one thing about unfair patent practices but climbing right in with their own attacks.
EDIT2: Could Google have applied for a patent on voice search on a smartphone prior to Siri? Certainly looks possible, and potentially problematic if so.
No. Apple has had been detecting speech on the iPhone well before that filing date. Apple has had speech detection on Mac OS since the 1980s. Siri's voice recognition is done by Nuance.
If this patent has anything unique it appears to be gestures that can active the system to detect speech. I don't know of any gestures for Siri or other systems that would not be defined as pressing a physical or virtual button.
What if Samsung stops making the A4, A5 and A6? Wont this pretty much halt all Apple sales? this is getting out of hands.
It's base designs from other companies that Apple tweaks and then has other's fab. Samsung is not the only company that do the work. They may be the fastest or cheapest at producing Apple's quota but they aren't the only ones. On top of that i it hurt Samsung's bottom line then it's not a smart move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Google has no history of using patents offensively in the first place, unlike Apple or MS, so I don't personally think they'd sue Apple first anyway. Perhaps that's why we haven't seen a direct suit against Google from one of those two.
To be clear I don't see any issue with striking the first blow as Apple has been doing, and think it's naive and starry-eyed for Google to think that they should be the "nice guy", different from Microsoft, Apple or any other big tech player.
At some point they'll strike back and then everyone will start the accusations of Google saying one thing about unfair patent practices but climbing right in with their own attacks.
Google has no history because Google has no history. As Google acquires more patents they will get offensive, especially if their patents are worth protecting.
No. Apple has had been detecting speech on the iPhone well before that filing date. Apple has had speech detection on Mac OS since the 1980s. Siri's voice recognition is done by Nuance.
If this patent has anything unique it appears to be gestures that can active the system to detect speech. I don't know of any gestures for Siri or other systems that would not be defined as pressing a physical or virtual button.
Google's application wasn't just about voice detection. It was targeting search by voice as a possible use, activated by a gesture as simple as raising the phone to your head. At least that's what I read in it. (Nearest coffee shop anyone?)
Google has no history because Google has no history. As Google acquires more patents they will get offensive, especially if their patents are worth protecting.
14 years in, and still no offensive patent infringement lawsuits (Thanks for mentioning the awkward wording Soli). I'd consider that more than a bit unusual for the market they're playing in, but perhaps you don't.
Google's application wasn't just about voice detection. It was targeting search by voice as a possible use, activated by a gesture as simple as raising the phone to your head. At least that's what I read in it. (Nearest coffee shop anyone?)
1) You make the patent sound convoluted. If it's about all those things at once I think Apple is in the clear.
2) Now that I think about Siri does activate partly by a gesture, but it still needs the proximity sensor in place in order to perceive the action is raising it to your ear to speak.
1) You make the patent sound convoluted. If it's about all those things at once I think Apple is in the clear.
2) Now that I think about Siri does activate partly by a gesture, but it still needs the proximity sensor in place in order to perceive the action is raising it to your ear to speak.
You really think it's more convoluted than Apple's exercise in heuristics with the "Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system" patent? Read it and take an aspirin. .
... But I find it hard to see someone 'blatantly' snatching 45-65% more money for the products in the name of aesthetic patents. If Apple considers reducing this margin even a bit lesser, they dont have to chase Android OEMs, but would see the Apple customer base further increase exponentially. Patents are good, but only as long as they dont hurt the customers of the reach to good technology on time and at reasonable price.
They are production limited. They would sell the same number of phones but simply make less on each one.
14 years in, and still no offensive patent filings. I'd consider that more than a bit unusual for the market they're playing in, but perhaps you don't.
Offensive patent fillings? All patents fillings are defensive. Google hasn't been in the handset business for 14 years. Most of their still very limited history has been with search and ads. Let's see how Android fares when there growth rate drops from 1.1% to the naughts or even starts to shrink.
Why are triumphing a company you think has valid patents that spent time and money filing that they aren't defending? There is no altruism. There is no "don't be evil" mantra" There is the goal of survival, of success, of profits.
Offensive patent fillings? All patents fillings are defensive. Google hasn't been in the handset business for 14 years. Most of their still very limited history has been with search and ads. Let's see how Android fares when there growth rate drops from 1.1% to the naughts or even starts to shrink.
Why are triumphing a company you think has valid patents that spent time and money filing that they are defending? There is no altruism. There is no "don't be evil" mantra" There is the goal of survival, of success, of profits.
You know what I meant, and why are you limiting them to the handset business?
Plus I did say I don't have an issue with first attacks. It's Google's avoidance of them that's silly.
I could have crafted the verbiage a bit more clearly tho. Of course a filling is defensive. Gotta keep those nasty cavities at bay.
What if Samsung stops making the A4, A5 and A6? Wont this pretty much halt all Apple sales? this is getting out of hands.
Pretty much a stupid move. What kind of message does that send to the rest of Samsungs customers? Meanwhile Apple takes some of their 100 billion and ramps up production with TSMC or another chip maker.
Is that set in stone? I didn't think it was, instead just an "early as" date.
EDIT:
BTW, this probably had Larry spitting bullets. Not real helpful to have one of your damages experts and a top Oracle engineer say Google isn't using JavaME.
Standard Groklaw spin. You have to understand Groklaw's motives to understand that they are as "clean" as Florian Mueller's.
Everyone knows that Android uses Dalvik. That is not a revelation. It is claimed that Dalvik infringes on Suns's (now Oracle's) IP. That is the point of the suit.
Standard Groklaw spin. You have to understand Groklaw's motives to understand that they are as "clean" as Florian Mueller's.
Everyone knows that Android uses Dalvik. That is not a revelation. It is claimed that Dalvik infringes on Suns's (now Oracle's) IP. That is the point of the suit.
I fully understand that one of the Groklaw's admin's has a bone to pick with Florian, and with a somewhat valid reason IMO after a dishonest accusation against her when he was advocating for MS a few years back. . .
Pretty much a stupid move. What kind of message does that send to the rest of Samsungs customers? Meanwhile Apple takes some of their 100 billion and ramps up production with TSMC or another chip maker.
The reason why they didn't go to TSMC for the A6 is because they didn't meet specs. Samsung is the most reliable manufacturer in the business.
But it's doubtful Samsung will do anything drastic because they've already made investments in their Austin factory to ramp up production for Apple.
We all talk about the patent system needing to be reformed but I hear very little talk about what needs to be changed, and even less about what it needed to be changed to.
Personally I think code should be patentable. However, I think that it also has a lot in common with copyrighted material and therefore needs it's own system -or- it's own set of rules within the patent system. Beyond that I have no opinion stupid or otherwise about what this should be or how this should be enacted.
We all talk about the patent system needing to be reformed but I hear very little talk about what needs to be changed, and even less about what it needed to be changed to.
Personally I think code should be patentable. However, I think that it also has a lot in common with copyrighted material and therefore needs it's own system -or- it's own set of rules within the patent system. Beyond that I have no opinion stupid or otherwise about what this should be or how this should be enacted.
They already reformed it last year as much as they're going to. They just didn't improve it IMO
Yes but come at me and get what for the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ trouble?
Hint $0.01 on the dollar. The bigger fines and penalties are reserved for those selling Beatle bootlegs. Unless of course you're live in Hong Kong.
It's going to be a challenge cutting through Google's books looking for a profit instead of a loss.
That is Google's business model and it is not the responsibility of Oracle to adjust their licensing to suit Google's business model. Just saying this is Oracle's stance.
Comments
Something strikes me as off about Google's patent in regards to being able to sue Apple but I can't quite express it in words. If it comes to me I'll try to state it clearly.
Google has no history of using patents offensively in the first place, unlike Apple or MS, so I don't personally think they'd sue Apple first anyway. Perhaps that's why we haven't seen a direct suit against Google from one of those two.
To be clear I don't see any issue with striking the first blow as Apple has been doing, and think it's naive and starry-eyed for Google to think that they should be the "nice guy", different from Microsoft, Apple or any other big tech player.
At some point they'll strike back and then everyone will start the accusations of Google saying one thing about unfair patent practices but climbing right in with their own attacks.
EDIT2: Could Google have applied for a patent on voice search on a smartphone prior to Siri? Certainly looks possible, and potentially problematic if so.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20100121636.pdf
No. Apple has had been detecting speech on the iPhone well before that filing date. Apple has had speech detection on Mac OS since the 1980s. Siri's voice recognition is done by Nuance.
If this patent has anything unique it appears to be gestures that can active the system to detect speech. I don't know of any gestures for Siri or other systems that would not be defined as pressing a physical or virtual button.
What if Samsung stops making the A4, A5 and A6? Wont this pretty much halt all Apple sales? this is getting out of hands.
It's base designs from other companies that Apple tweaks and then has other's fab. Samsung is not the only company that do the work. They may be the fastest or cheapest at producing Apple's quota but they aren't the only ones. On top of that i it hurt Samsung's bottom line then it's not a smart move.
Google has no history of using patents offensively in the first place, unlike Apple or MS, so I don't personally think they'd sue Apple first anyway. Perhaps that's why we haven't seen a direct suit against Google from one of those two.
To be clear I don't see any issue with striking the first blow as Apple has been doing, and think it's naive and starry-eyed for Google to think that they should be the "nice guy", different from Microsoft, Apple or any other big tech player.
At some point they'll strike back and then everyone will start the accusations of Google saying one thing about unfair patent practices but climbing right in with their own attacks.
Google has no history because Google has no history. As Google acquires more patents they will get offensive, especially if their patents are worth protecting.
No. Apple has had been detecting speech on the iPhone well before that filing date. Apple has had speech detection on Mac OS since the 1980s. Siri's voice recognition is done by Nuance.
If this patent has anything unique it appears to be gestures that can active the system to detect speech. I don't know of any gestures for Siri or other systems that would not be defined as pressing a physical or virtual button.
Google's application wasn't just about voice detection. It was targeting search by voice as a possible use, activated by a gesture as simple as raising the phone to your head. At least that's what I read in it. (Nearest coffee shop anyone?)
Google has no history because Google has no history. As Google acquires more patents they will get offensive, especially if their patents are worth protecting.
14 years in, and still no offensive patent infringement lawsuits (Thanks for mentioning the awkward wording Soli). I'd consider that more than a bit unusual for the market they're playing in, but perhaps you don't.
Google's application wasn't just about voice detection. It was targeting search by voice as a possible use, activated by a gesture as simple as raising the phone to your head. At least that's what I read in it. (Nearest coffee shop anyone?)
1) You make the patent sound convoluted. If it's about all those things at once I think Apple is in the clear.
2) Now that I think about Siri does activate partly by a gesture, but it still needs the proximity sensor in place in order to perceive the action is raising it to your ear to speak.
http://bookgrill.com/?geteb.html
Get free books
1) You make the patent sound convoluted. If it's about all those things at once I think Apple is in the clear.
2) Now that I think about Siri does activate partly by a gesture, but it still needs the proximity sensor in place in order to perceive the action is raising it to your ear to speak.
You really think it's more convoluted than Apple's exercise in heuristics with the "Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system" patent? Read it and take an aspirin. .
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8086604.html
... But I find it hard to see someone 'blatantly' snatching 45-65% more money for the products in the name of aesthetic patents. If Apple considers reducing this margin even a bit lesser, they dont have to chase Android OEMs, but would see the Apple customer base further increase exponentially. Patents are good, but only as long as they dont hurt the customers of the reach to good technology on time and at reasonable price.
They are production limited. They would sell the same number of phones but simply make less on each one.
Why would they do that?
14 years in, and still no offensive patent filings. I'd consider that more than a bit unusual for the market they're playing in, but perhaps you don't.
Offensive patent fillings? All patents fillings are defensive. Google hasn't been in the handset business for 14 years. Most of their still very limited history has been with search and ads. Let's see how Android fares when there growth rate drops from 1.1% to the naughts or even starts to shrink.
Why are triumphing a company you think has valid patents that spent time and money filing that they aren't defending? There is no altruism. There is no "don't be evil" mantra" There is the goal of survival, of success, of profits.
Offensive patent fillings? All patents fillings are defensive. Google hasn't been in the handset business for 14 years. Most of their still very limited history has been with search and ads. Let's see how Android fares when there growth rate drops from 1.1% to the naughts or even starts to shrink.
Why are triumphing a company you think has valid patents that spent time and money filing that they are defending? There is no altruism. There is no "don't be evil" mantra" There is the goal of survival, of success, of profits.
You know what I meant, and why are you limiting them to the handset business?
Plus I did say I don't have an issue with first attacks. It's Google's avoidance of them that's silly.
I could have crafted the verbiage a bit more clearly tho. Of course a filling
What if Samsung stops making the A4, A5 and A6? Wont this pretty much halt all Apple sales? this is getting out of hands.
Pretty much a stupid move. What kind of message does that send to the rest of Samsungs customers? Meanwhile Apple takes some of their 100 billion and ramps up production with TSMC or another chip maker.
Is that set in stone? I didn't think it was, instead just an "early as" date.
EDIT:
BTW, this probably had Larry spitting bullets. Not real helpful to have one of your damages experts and a top Oracle engineer say Google isn't using JavaME.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20210080453710
Standard Groklaw spin. You have to understand Groklaw's motives to understand that they are as "clean" as Florian Mueller's.
Everyone knows that Android uses Dalvik. That is not a revelation. It is claimed that Dalvik infringes on Suns's (now Oracle's) IP. That is the point of the suit.
Standard Groklaw spin. You have to understand Groklaw's motives to understand that they are as "clean" as Florian Mueller's.
Everyone knows that Android uses Dalvik. That is not a revelation. It is claimed that Dalvik infringes on Suns's (now Oracle's) IP. That is the point of the suit.
I fully understand that one of the Groklaw's admin's has a bone to pick with Florian, and with a somewhat valid reason IMO after a dishonest accusation against her when he was advocating for MS a few years back. . .
Pretty much a stupid move. What kind of message does that send to the rest of Samsungs customers? Meanwhile Apple takes some of their 100 billion and ramps up production with TSMC or another chip maker.
The reason why they didn't go to TSMC for the A6 is because they didn't meet specs. Samsung is the most reliable manufacturer in the business.
But it's doubtful Samsung will do anything drastic because they've already made investments in their Austin factory to ramp up production for Apple.
Personally I think code should be patentable. However, I think that it also has a lot in common with copyrighted material and therefore needs it's own system -or- it's own set of rules within the patent system. Beyond that I have no opinion stupid or otherwise about what this should be or how this should be enacted.
We all talk about the patent system needing to be reformed but I hear very little talk about what needs to be changed, and even less about what it needed to be changed to.
Personally I think code should be patentable. However, I think that it also has a lot in common with copyrighted material and therefore needs it's own system -or- it's own set of rules within the patent system. Beyond that I have no opinion stupid or otherwise about what this should be or how this should be enacted.
They already reformed it last year as much as they're going to. They just didn't improve it IMO
Yes but come at me and get what for the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ trouble?
Hint $0.01 on the dollar. The bigger fines and penalties are reserved for those selling Beatle bootlegs. Unless of course you're live in Hong Kong.
It's going to be a challenge cutting through Google's books looking for a profit instead of a loss.
That is Google's business model and it is not the responsibility of Oracle to adjust their licensing to suit Google's business model. Just saying this is Oracle's stance.