3) At least Google is acknowledging that Apple has patented tech before others. That's more than I can say for the resident trolls of this forum.
I wonder if Apple could actually use this against Google/Motorola in court. Did Google specifically mention Apple's patents as being essential? Isn't that admission that it's innovative and no one else has been able to create something like it?
This is the first time Google has just come out and admitted the truth we already know. The iPhone is too good to be patented. It has become a human right, not just a competitive product. At least we can have an honest debate.
This is the first time Google has just come out and admitted the truth we already know. The iPhone is too good to be patented. It has become a human right, not just a competitive product. At least we can have an honest debate.
I don't think Google is making this as an argument in the current litigation, clearly the law as currently stands has no such concept as "commercially essential". In theory, they're asking the laws be changed to create that standard.
In reality, this is about trying to head off investigations by the ITC and others about Motorola's (thus Google's) abuse of FRAND licensing for standards-essential patents. They're going for a classic defense, "Mooooom! But he does toooooo!" Since Apple, in fact, does have standards-essential patents (for H.264 and I believe some other standards) and does in fact license them under FRAND, Google has to redefine the bad behavior to include Apple.
No, it's a very thin claim indeed. It's also illogical.
The reason the cellular radio patents are essential is that you can't make a phone without them. Clearly, you can make a great phone, even a great multi-touch smartphone, without Apple's patents. You can also make a search engine without Google's algorithms.
Apple's patents aren't essential to making a phone or even competing with them in the same industry. They are only essential to make a phone that will beat Apple economically. Thus Google's facile, misleading use of the term "economically essential."
Any judge or court that sides with Google on this would be "anti-competition." They would be supporting Google as a company in it's fight with Apple, not supporting the industry as a whole.
This is an interesting, if desperate legal theory. If I'm Apple's legal team, I'm framing this letter to the Senate in their offices and trotting it out for any further legal jousting with Google. Some people have said that in order for Google to enjoy iPhone patents, they will need to cede something important like their search patents. It's more than that....they'd have to hand over Adsense and a bunch of other related IP. And even all of that is still smaller than the overall business of the iPhone.
This also might be a better argument if Google was a bit player trying to survive in the Phone market. But with Android phones outselling iPhone 2:1 worldwide because they used this IP and basically gave it away to whomever wanted it, it's not just a bad argument, it's hilariously bad.
This is an interesting, if desperate legal theory. If I'm Apple's legal team, I'm framing this letter to the Senate in their offices and trotting it out for any further legal jousting with Google. Some people have said that in order for Google to enjoy iPhone patents, they will need to cede something important like their search patents. It's more than that....they'd have to hand over Adsense and a bunch of other related IP. And even all of that is still smaller than the overall business of the iPhone.
This also might be a better argument if Google was a bit player trying to survive in the Phone market. But with Android phones outselling iPhone 2:1 worldwide because they used this IP and basically gave it away to whomever wanted it, it's not just a bad argument, it's hilariously bad.
Apple won't and doesn't need to allow Google to use any of their patents. Frankly, if I was on Google's board of directors I'd be very worried about Google being sued into oblivion by every phone and tablet manufacturer who signed onto Android.
Google: "if enough people copy your patents, we'll call it 'standards essential' thus making the copying retroactively legal." Steve Jobs was right: "That 'don't be evil'? It's bullshit."
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; } My hatred of Google is growing daily.
Standards Essential Patents are established by the patent holder and other companies, who agree in advance to cross license the patents at fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates. They are not established by lame, backstabbing, copycat companies who unilaterally decide that a competitor's private patents, upon which no standards have been established, must be shared with others whether they like it or not.
Google is following Microsoft's footsteps as a predatory company with few original ideas, and I hope that this leads them to their fall just as it did Microsoft.
Comments
The is very close to Google admitting, that they copied Apple patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
3) At least Google is acknowledging that Apple has patented tech before others. That's more than I can say for the resident trolls of this forum.
I wonder if Apple could actually use this against Google/Motorola in court. Did Google specifically mention Apple's patents as being essential? Isn't that admission that it's innovative and no one else has been able to create something like it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeeh2
The is very close to Google admitting, that they copied Apple patents.
Indeed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer
This is the first time Google has just come out and admitted the truth we already know. The iPhone is too good to be patented. It has become a human right, not just a competitive product. At least we can have an honest debate.
Hahaha....ha.......... I hope you were kidding...
I don't think Google is making this as an argument in the current litigation, clearly the law as currently stands has no such concept as "commercially essential". In theory, they're asking the laws be changed to create that standard.
In reality, this is about trying to head off investigations by the ITC and others about Motorola's (thus Google's) abuse of FRAND licensing for standards-essential patents. They're going for a classic defense, "Mooooom! But he does toooooo!" Since Apple, in fact, does have standards-essential patents (for H.264 and I believe some other standards) and does in fact license them under FRAND, Google has to redefine the bad behavior to include Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
No, it's a very thin claim indeed. It's also illogical.
The reason the cellular radio patents are essential is that you can't make a phone without them. Clearly, you can make a great phone, even a great multi-touch smartphone, without Apple's patents. You can also make a search engine without Google's algorithms.
Apple's patents aren't essential to making a phone or even competing with them in the same industry. They are only essential to make a phone that will beat Apple economically. Thus Google's facile, misleading use of the term "economically essential."
Any judge or court that sides with Google on this would be "anti-competition." They would be supporting Google as a company in it's fight with Apple, not supporting the industry as a whole.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }I agree, but think the suggestion of forcing Google to license their Search Algorithm was sarcasm.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
This is an interesting, if desperate legal theory. If I'm Apple's legal team, I'm framing this letter to the Senate in their offices and trotting it out for any further legal jousting with Google. Some people have said that in order for Google to enjoy iPhone patents, they will need to cede something important like their search patents. It's more than that....they'd have to hand over Adsense and a bunch of other related IP. And even all of that is still smaller than the overall business of the iPhone.
This also might be a better argument if Google was a bit player trying to survive in the Phone market. But with Android phones outselling iPhone 2:1 worldwide because they used this IP and basically gave it away to whomever wanted it, it's not just a bad argument, it's hilariously bad.
Dog-eat-dog.
Apple got to non-FRAND features first, then patented them because it's ridiculously smart to do so.
Tough-titty, Google.
I have a great solution for Google: just continue thieving, as before. After all, it's working *great* so far, right? RIGHT??
FAIR WARNING, from 2007.
What, did everyone think he was kidding??
Quote:
Google argues that popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential.
Of course!
Apple's patents are definitely essential to all companies who wish to create products that are just like Apple's.
Google:
"We aren't first movers. We're asking for something (free ride) in compensation for our slowness."
OR
"We had this kind of tech, too. We were just too friggin stupid to think of patenting it."
OR
"We just randomly steal shit without thinking of the repercussions, and then raise all hell when people start catching on."
You be the judge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenfeet
This is an interesting, if desperate legal theory. If I'm Apple's legal team, I'm framing this letter to the Senate in their offices and trotting it out for any further legal jousting with Google. Some people have said that in order for Google to enjoy iPhone patents, they will need to cede something important like their search patents. It's more than that....they'd have to hand over Adsense and a bunch of other related IP. And even all of that is still smaller than the overall business of the iPhone.
This also might be a better argument if Google was a bit player trying to survive in the Phone market. But with Android phones outselling iPhone 2:1 worldwide because they used this IP and basically gave it away to whomever wanted it, it's not just a bad argument, it's hilariously bad.
Apple won't and doesn't need to allow Google to use any of their patents. Frankly, if I was on Google's board of directors I'd be very worried about Google being sued into oblivion by every phone and tablet manufacturer who signed onto Android.
Steve Jobs was right: "That 'don't be evil'? It's bullshit."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Google:
"We aren't first movers. We're asking for something (free ride) in compensation for our slowness."
OR
"We had this kind of tech, too. We were just too friggin stupid to think of patenting it."
You be the judge.
I believe a nearly identical scenario arose in 'Atlas Shrugged'. Apple... patent holder of Reardon Metal.
New Galaxy Note 2 coming soon!
http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/20/did-the-galaxy-note-iis-impressive-benchmarks-briefly-get-leake/
Samsung fighting!
With a few exceptions, Apple doesn't do licensing. Which is part of the reason they're so successful today.
The Apple Experience is reserved for Apple products.
This enables a massive level of differentiation. Which is what Apple is known for today.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
My hatred of Google is growing daily.
Standards Essential Patents are established by the patent holder and other companies, who agree in advance to cross license the patents at fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates. They are not established by lame, backstabbing, copycat companies who unilaterally decide that a competitor's private patents, upon which no standards have been established, must be shared with others whether they like it or not.
Google is following Microsoft's footsteps as a predatory company with few original ideas, and I hope that this leads them to their fall just as it did Microsoft.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
morons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Google: "if enough people copy your patents, we'll call it 'standards essential' thus making the copying retroactively legal."
Steve Jobs was right: "That 'don't be evil'? It's bullshit."
Yep!
Sent from the ghost of Steve Jobs as interpreted by Mac Voyer.