Google paid 12.5 billion for a company that is losing money. It now appears their entire patent portfolio is tied up in industry standards. Add to this the fact that they are driving the largest Android maker to use their own OS, and I think it is pretty clear that it is one of the worst acquisitions in recent years.
google BOD meetings must use a clown car for transportation.
Apple is way better than any religion. Apple is a company that makes the coolest and most innovative computer products and devices in the world. Apple brings joy to hundreds of millions of people every day. Apple is also a hugely successful business which generates a lot of cash for it's many shareholders.
You're damn right that Apple is not a religion. Religion is a bunch of crap which directly kills many people each and every day and is responsible for much of the suffering and conflicts taking place across the globe. Apple has a lot of devoted followers, not because they're brainwashed iSheep like some unintelligent people claim, but because Apple continuously releases one killer product after another.
Apple improves people's lives, unlike most religions.
You guys crack me up. Even when MS do something in support of Apple you still bad mouth them. I am positive that if MS found the cure for all worlds diseases and gave it to the world for free you lot would have something bad to say.
Apple, Google and MS are companies not religions!
How is M$ doing anyone a favor here? Micorosoft continues to stiffle innovation, use underhanded/illegal tactics to undermine others (boy how quickly people forget about the MSOOXML ISO debacle, i mean why not just support a real standard in ODF?), use patent FUD to attack Linux, force their crappy services like Bing onto people unfortunate enough to be forced to use their horrid OS, etc... I could go on all day.
Microsoft gets bashed because they deserve to be bashed. To say otherwise is completely absurd...you either work for Microsoft or are paid to astro-turf forums.
Ask me the question straight out and I will answer it straight out.
If you refer to the fairness question, then my answer is that no, I do not give Microsoft the benefit of any doubt. That is not unfair, given their history.
I don't know enough about the matter at hand to formulate concrete opinions but based on what I've read I do wish Motorola(Google) would find better tactics to enact some sort of cross licensing
The issues aren't as cut-and-dried as Microsoft would have you believe either.
The W3C has been hard at work attempting to set standards (that FRAND licensing will then apply to) for the next gen web video standards under HTML5. So guess who is accused of obstructing those open standards? Not Google or even Microsoft, both of whom contributed to an initial standards doc published today
Rather than contribute IP that can't be worked around under the same terms as the other members of W3C, Apple wants to retain the right to sue others over those patents. In essence Apple wants the right to sue over standards patents. That's according to Florian Mueller at FOSSPatents.
Fair use of patents deemed essential to a standard? If it was Motorola doing this I imagine I know the answer here. In this case it's Apple. Still of the same opinion?
Granted neither the Motorola or Apple situation may be as clearly defined as some bloggers would make it out to be. Still, failure to adhere to your agreement to contribute IP the W3C has deemed essential so that FRAND licensing for the standards package can be put together doesn't sound like Apple is honoring the spirit of their agreement.
The web is more tangled than Apple and Microsoft want you to know.
The issues aren't as cut-and-dried as Microsoft would have you believe either.
The W3C has been hard at work attempting to set standards (that FRAND licensing will then apply to) for the next gen web video standards under HTML5. So guess who is accused of obstructing those open standards? Not Google or even Microsoft, both of whom contributed to an initial standards doc published today
Rather than contribute IP that can't be worked around under the same terms as the other members of W3C, Apple wants to retain the right to sue others over those patents. In essence Apple wants the right to sue over standards patents. That's according to Florian Mueller at FOSSPatents.
Fair use of patents deemed essential to a standard? If it was Motorola doing this I imagine I know the answer here. In this case it's Apple. Still of the same opinion?
Granted neither the Motorola or Apple situation may be as clearly defined as some bloggers would make it out to be. Still, failure to adhere to your agreement to contribute IP the W3C has deemed essential so that FRAND licensing for the standards package can be put together doesn't sound like Apple is honoring the spirit of their agreement.
The web is more tangled than Apple and Microsoft want you to know.
Slanted Against Apple ____________________________________________ Objective ____________________________________________ Slanted For Apple
Both of the links? I don't think so Solipsism. You must be rushed today and not taking the time to read the replies completely. You do see FOSSPatents on this link don't you?
Both of the links? I don't think so Solipsism. You must be rushed today and not taking the time to read the replies completely. You do see FOSSPatents on this link don't you?
Ah, yeah, mea culpa. I didn't read the third link. Just the first two. You lost me when I read Florian's name in the 4th paragraph that I actually forget I read his name and decided to stop reading at that point. By then I had formed an opinion about Moody's article.
The issues aren't as cut-and-dried as Microsoft would have you believe either.
The W3C has been hard at work attempting to set standards (that FRAND licensing will then apply to) for the next gen web video standards under HTML5. So guess who is accused of obstructing those open standards? Not Google or even Microsoft, both of whom contributed to an initial standards doc published today
Rather than contribute IP that can't be worked around under the same terms as the other members of W3C, Apple wants to retain the right to sue others over those patents. In essence Apple wants the right to sue over standards patents. That's according to Florian Mueller at FOSSPatents.
Fair use of patents deemed essential to a standard? If it was Motorola doing this I imagine I know the answer here. In this case it's Apple. Still of the same opinion?
Granted neither the Motorola or Apple situation may be as clearly defined as some bloggers would make it out to be. Still, failure to adhere to your agreement to contribute IP the W3C has deemed essential so that FRAND licensing for the standards package can be put together doesn't sound like Apple is honoring the spirit of their agreement.
The web is more tangled than Apple and Microsoft want you to know.
Big difference between using patents *already* part of an industry standard that is essential for use, and withholding a patent from being incorporated into a "free" standard. The former obstructs innovation (this Mueller's "beef", as he seems to be against the overuse or misuse of patents in general); the latter is a malicious effort to keep a specific hated competitor out of a specific industry, or extract heavy licensing fees that discriminate against said competitor.
Big difference between using patents *already* part of an industry standard that is essential for use, and withholding a patent from being incorporated into a "free" standard. The former obstructs innovation (this Mueller's "beef", as he seems to be against the overuse or misuse of patents in general); the latter is a malicious effort to keep a specific hated competitor out of a specific industry, or extract heavy licensing fees that discriminate against said competitor.
It's easy to claim you're committed to not seeking injunctions (first) for FRAND-pledged but infringed IP. Just don't honor your commitment to contribute patents deemed essential by the institutions you're a member of in the first place. Then you're free to sue over the IP essential to the standard while still honoring your pledge.
If this was an EU standards-setting agency then Apple could be compelled to contribute the essential IP whether they agreed or not. In the US they don't have the same rule apparently.
So yes, Apple has the legal right to withhold their IP (in the US) no matter what the commitment to W3C or how essential it is to the proposed standard. They can even use it to block the standards from ever being adopted if W3C can't have them invalidated. And there's the out. . .
Seems like the right hand is waving in the air, "look here!" while the left is under the table out of sight. At best disingenuous considering their claim of commitment to fair and open standards IMHO.
Video codecs and wireless technology are so fraught with patent landmines, that it seems that the only reason to patent anything at all is simply to prevent a patent troll (See Unisys, Eolas) to come out of nowhere and sue once the patented algorithm is in widespread use (See Motorola Mobility.)
Or in other words, a lot of software that is available now, likely sits on top of patent quicksand should it ever become popular and/or profitable. The FRAND licences solves this problem when the licence covers every possible use of a standard.
The best outcome that can come out of a lawsuit involving patents related to standards that should be subject to FRAND, is invalidation of the patent due to misrepresentation. Ideally some precedent should be set that transfers all rights except ownership of the patent directly to the standards body, in return for whatever share of the patent pool when the standard is licensed to third parties.
Personally I don't care who does it, but if a standards patent can be rendered unenforceable, it benefits everyone.
Comments
As far as I can see, there is only one way to sort out these patent battles.
CAGE FIGHTING!
THUNDERDOME!
Two companies enter one company leaves!
google BOD meetings must use a clown car for transportation.
Keep the straw men out of it. I never suggested such a thing.
Yeah, and shamelessly avoid the question I asked you.
Apple, Google and MS are companies not religions!
No shit, sherlock.
Apple is way better than any religion. Apple is a company that makes the coolest and most innovative computer products and devices in the world. Apple brings joy to hundreds of millions of people every day. Apple is also a hugely successful business which generates a lot of cash for it's many shareholders.
You're damn right that Apple is not a religion. Religion is a bunch of crap which directly kills many people each and every day and is responsible for much of the suffering and conflicts taking place across the globe. Apple has a lot of devoted followers, not because they're brainwashed iSheep like some unintelligent people claim, but because Apple continuously releases one killer product after another.
Apple improves people's lives, unlike most religions.
You guys crack me up. Even when MS do something in support of Apple you still bad mouth them. I am positive that if MS found the cure for all worlds diseases and gave it to the world for free you lot would have something bad to say.
Apple, Google and MS are companies not religions!
How is M$ doing anyone a favor here? Micorosoft continues to stiffle innovation, use underhanded/illegal tactics to undermine others (boy how quickly people forget about the MSOOXML ISO debacle, i mean why not just support a real standard in ODF?), use patent FUD to attack Linux, force their crappy services like Bing onto people unfortunate enough to be forced to use their horrid OS, etc... I could go on all day.
Microsoft gets bashed because they deserve to be bashed. To say otherwise is completely absurd...you either work for Microsoft or are paid to astro-turf forums.
Yeah, and shamelessly avoid the question I asked you.
Perhaps Steve and I share an attribute.
http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1...iw=863&bih=479
Perhaps Steve and I share an attribute.
http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1...iw=863&bih=479
You avoided it again.
You avoided it again.
Ask me the question straight out and I will answer it straight out.
If you refer to the fairness question, then my answer is that no, I do not give Microsoft the benefit of any doubt. That is not unfair, given their history.
As if Microsoft is blameless when it comes to Antitrust. Microsoft is a very sleazy company.
The irony from their standpoint is that if they got their asses kicked over this kind of behavior, why doesn't the next guy? I agree.
I don't like MS. But I grant that they of all people have a right to demand evenness in enforcement of that kind of thing.
The W3C has been hard at work attempting to set standards (that FRAND licensing will then apply to) for the next gen web video standards under HTML5. So guess who is accused of obstructing those open standards? Not Google or even Microsoft, both of whom contributed to an initial standards doc published today
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw...ted-media.html
It's Apple that's accused of standing in the way.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...standard.shtml
Rather than contribute IP that can't be worked around under the same terms as the other members of W3C, Apple wants to retain the right to sue others over those patents. In essence Apple wants the right to sue over standards patents. That's according to Florian Mueller at FOSSPatents.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...-wide-web.html
Fair use of patents deemed essential to a standard? If it was Motorola doing this I imagine I know the answer here. In this case it's Apple. Still of the same opinion?
Granted neither the Motorola or Apple situation may be as clearly defined as some bloggers would make it out to be. Still, failure to adhere to your agreement to contribute IP the W3C has deemed essential so that FRAND licensing for the standards package can be put together doesn't sound like Apple is honoring the spirit of their agreement.
The web is more tangled than Apple and Microsoft want you to know.
The issues aren't as cut-and-dried as Microsoft would have you believe either.
The W3C has been hard at work attempting to set standards (that FRAND licensing will then apply to) for the next gen web video standards under HTML5. So guess who is accused of obstructing those open standards? Not Google or even Microsoft, both of whom contributed to an initial standards doc published today
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw...ted-media.html
It's Apple that's accused of standing in the way.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...standard.shtml
Rather than contribute IP that can't be worked around under the same terms as the other members of W3C, Apple wants to retain the right to sue others over those patents. In essence Apple wants the right to sue over standards patents. That's according to Florian Mueller at FOSSPatents.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...-wide-web.html
Fair use of patents deemed essential to a standard? If it was Motorola doing this I imagine I know the answer here. In this case it's Apple. Still of the same opinion?
Granted neither the Motorola or Apple situation may be as clearly defined as some bloggers would make it out to be. Still, failure to adhere to your agreement to contribute IP the W3C has deemed essential so that FRAND licensing for the standards package can be put together doesn't sound like Apple is honoring the spirit of their agreement.
The web is more tangled than Apple and Microsoft want you to know.
Slanted Against Apple ____________________________________________ Objective ____________________________________________ Slanted For Apple
√
Slanted Against Apple ____________________________________________ Objective ____________________________________________ Slanted For Apple
X
Every once in awhile Florian will take Apple to task. Those are the time's that are supposed to be ignored, right?
Every once in awhile Florian will take Apple to task. Those are the time's that are supposed to be ignored, right?
That's written by Glen Moody.
That's written by Glen Moody.
Both of the links? I don't think so Solipsism. You must be rushed today and not taking the time to read the replies completely. You do see FOSSPatents on this link don't you?
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...-wide-web.html
Both of the links? I don't think so Solipsism. You must be rushed today and not taking the time to read the replies completely. You do see FOSSPatents on this link don't you?
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...-wide-web.html
Ah, yeah, mea culpa. I didn't read the third link. Just the first two. You lost me when I read Florian's name in the 4th paragraph that I actually forget I read his name and decided to stop reading at that point. By then I had formed an opinion about Moody's article.
Oh, Google... $12.5 billion! Can you hear me now?!
FRAND abuse... How they'll earn that back.
The issues aren't as cut-and-dried as Microsoft would have you believe either.
The W3C has been hard at work attempting to set standards (that FRAND licensing will then apply to) for the next gen web video standards under HTML5. So guess who is accused of obstructing those open standards? Not Google or even Microsoft, both of whom contributed to an initial standards doc published today
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw...ted-media.html
It's Apple that's accused of standing in the way.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...standard.shtml
Rather than contribute IP that can't be worked around under the same terms as the other members of W3C, Apple wants to retain the right to sue others over those patents. In essence Apple wants the right to sue over standards patents. That's according to Florian Mueller at FOSSPatents.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...-wide-web.html
Fair use of patents deemed essential to a standard? If it was Motorola doing this I imagine I know the answer here. In this case it's Apple. Still of the same opinion?
Granted neither the Motorola or Apple situation may be as clearly defined as some bloggers would make it out to be. Still, failure to adhere to your agreement to contribute IP the W3C has deemed essential so that FRAND licensing for the standards package can be put together doesn't sound like Apple is honoring the spirit of their agreement.
The web is more tangled than Apple and Microsoft want you to know.
Big difference between using patents *already* part of an industry standard that is essential for use, and withholding a patent from being incorporated into a "free" standard. The former obstructs innovation (this Mueller's "beef", as he seems to be against the overuse or misuse of patents in general); the latter is a malicious effort to keep a specific hated competitor out of a specific industry, or extract heavy licensing fees that discriminate against said competitor.
Big difference between using patents *already* part of an industry standard that is essential for use, and withholding a patent from being incorporated into a "free" standard. The former obstructs innovation (this Mueller's "beef", as he seems to be against the overuse or misuse of patents in general); the latter is a malicious effort to keep a specific hated competitor out of a specific industry, or extract heavy licensing fees that discriminate against said competitor.
It's easy to claim you're committed to not seeking injunctions (first) for FRAND-pledged but infringed IP. Just don't honor your commitment to contribute patents deemed essential by the institutions you're a member of in the first place. Then you're free to sue over the IP essential to the standard while still honoring your pledge.
If this was an EU standards-setting agency then Apple could be compelled to contribute the essential IP whether they agreed or not. In the US they don't have the same rule apparently.
So yes, Apple has the legal right to withhold their IP (in the US) no matter what the commitment to W3C or how essential it is to the proposed standard. They can even use it to block the standards from ever being adopted if W3C can't have them invalidated. And there's the out. . .
Seems like the right hand is waving in the air, "look here!" while the left is under the table out of sight. At best disingenuous considering their claim of commitment to fair and open standards IMHO.
Or in other words, a lot of software that is available now, likely sits on top of patent quicksand should it ever become popular and/or profitable. The FRAND licences solves this problem when the licence covers every possible use of a standard.
The best outcome that can come out of a lawsuit involving patents related to standards that should be subject to FRAND, is invalidation of the patent due to misrepresentation. Ideally some precedent should be set that transfers all rights except ownership of the patent directly to the standards body, in return for whatever share of the patent pool when the standard is licensed to third parties.
Personally I don't care who does it, but if a standards patent can be rendered unenforceable, it benefits everyone.