I remember at the time, people were mocking multi-touch, and damning it to failure, kind of the way they are doing with Siri. How long before Siri becomes an essential technology?
Sorry, Googie, you knew full well, all along, Apple never intended their technology to be standards essential--outside the realm of Apple products, that is.
Steve Jobs, Jan. 2007: "And boy have we patented it!"
I know, Larry "Gurgles" Page is speechless, simply unable to innovate at the present time... or for the last 5+ years. Times change and one-trick-ponies disappear into the dust bin of history.
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?
Google seems to be expressing an opinion about Apple's multitouch patent. This falls short of an admission.
Yes, brilliant! This video clip should make any jury "clear as day" just what Apple was expecting when they launched the iPhone. What's actually happened is the court system and patent system was too slow to stop the offenders early enough to prevent widespread market abuse, and egregious abuse of Apple's patents. As sad as seeing the slick Samsung SIII taken off the market, this pretty clearly makes Google's use of Apple's multitouch claims a deliberate offence, and by proxy Samsung and all Android licensees too.
Right now our set of rules for patents state Apple should win this. If we had better rules for more liberal fair use for great concepts, re-implemented, then Google should win.
The patent system, trademarks, and copyright, and the context of fair use are fundamentally flawed and should be re-imagined to settle this nonsense. A broad re-think should be in order.
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?
Perhaps it could be construed as an admission by Google that it has infringed on Apple's IP, since Google apparently isn't innovative enough to come up with their own technological solutions or innovative enough to develop an alternative technology that's at least as seductive as Apple's. Poor babies.
If we had better rules for more liberal fair use for great concepts, re-implemented, then Google should win.
The patent system, trademarks, and copyright, and the context of fair use are fundamentally flawed and should be re-imagined to settle this nonsense. A broad re-think should be in order.
There is actually relatively little wrong with the current patent system. It works, overburdened though it is. What's wrong is companies ripping off the patent holders and trying to change the law to fit their misdeeds. If Apple had ripped off Google, the obvious would still apply.
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.
This has it nailed.
Google wants free reign to use whatever they want that others created for free or dirt pricing. But you can bet if someone argued that their algorithms are de facto essential they would shit a brick at the notion
Yeah, I don't believe in your property rights, either. Your big screen TV, your computer, your car, your stuff should not belong to one person. Everyone is entitled to it.
Why would you "hate" a company? What has Google done to you personally that you would use such strong language?
Long series of actions that I consider unethical and anti-consumer, increasingly arrogant, outlandish and hypocritical positions, combined with a dearth of innovation or quality products or services. In other words, very much like Microsoft at their worst.
I'm not going to take the time to produce an exhaustive list, but their theft of Apple's iPhone concept while their CEO was on Apple's board, and their purchase of Motorola with the intent to continue their shameless misuse of standards essential patents to try to force innovative and successful companies to license their private patents are pretty high up on my list. Add to that their nonexistent customer service and the escalating discontinuation of previously popular Google services and policies in order to push their worthless Google+ strategy.
To quote Jobs, "This don’t be evil mantra: It’s bullshit."
I actually agree with Google. On that note, I think their search algorithms have become essential for the industry. As much as I've tried switching to Bing or Yahoo, I keep coming back to Google's engine.
Those algorithms should be de facto standards and licensed under FRAND
That is wacky. First, because Google licenses the algorithms it uses in search from Stanford University under an exclusive deal. It doesn't own the algorithms. Second, the premise of Google's argument is if a company makes something popular then every company has a right to use those inventions. The only way that would make sense is if the popular way of doing something was essential to how something was done. None of the at issue Apple patents are essential. They just are preferred because competitors can't or don't want to invest the resources to innovate a better way of doing something. Further, being bound by the terms of a standard body also is strictly voluntary and benefits all competitors because they don't have to compete to create individual standards for underlying technologies like wi-fi or 3G. Allowing companies like Google free access to Apple's non essential patents doesn't benefit Apple or consumers. It undermines Apple's motivation to invest in innovating, and consumers end up with less enjoyable products.
With that said, I think Apple's approach here is wrong, but is within its right to pursue the approach it has taken. It can't easily win this battle because it is far outnumbered. It would have been better off forcing companies like Samsung and Google to take a license like Microsoft has done. Apple could make more money off Android than Google. This would eventually have the same effect as seeking injunctions.
It should belong to everyone, however, its the patient on how you get multitouch to work not multitouch its self, so if google figure out their own way, they can use it?
There is actually relatively little wrong with the current patent system. It works, overburdened though it is. What's wrong is companies ripping off the patent holders and trying to change the law to fit their misdeeds. If Apple had ripped off Google, the obvious would still apply.
You're forgetting patent trolls. They are a clear sign of a failed patent system.
Long series of actions that I consider unethical and anti-consumer, increasingly arrogant, outlandish and hypocritical positions, combined with a dearth of innovation or quality products or services. In other words, very much like Microsoft at their worst.
I'm not going to take the time to produce an exhaustive list, but their theft of Apple's iPhone concept while their CEO was on Apple's board, and their purchase of Motorola with the intent to continue their shameless misuse of standards essential patents to try to force innovative and successful companies to license their private patents are pretty high up on my list. Add to that their nonexistent customer service and the escalating discontinuation of previously popular Google services and policies in order to push their worthless Google+ strategy.
The patent system, trademarks, and copyright, and the context of fair use are fundamentally flawed and should be re-imagined to settle this nonsense. A broad re-think should be in order.
- Aaron.
This cannot be settled by rethinking the law. Future issues can be avoided, perhaps. But none of this can be fixed retroactively. Apple has played by the existing rules. Under those rules. Google are a bunch of thieves. It is like a team maximizing their gameplay for the current rules of Baseball, then beating everyone 100 to 0 every game. After winning what should be the World Series, they are informed that the rules were changed because the season was boring. Therefore, their wins have been retroactively converted to losses, and the other teams also have a right to your equipment.
I don't care how much a persons dislikes the game. As long as it is being played by the existing rules, they should not be penalized. Google is trying to say that Apple's legal, innovative advantage should be considered unfair. Essentially, Apple should have to be the developer for all the companies, just to make it fair. Changing the rules will not help. Someone will just figure out how to maximize them, and we will be right back where we are now.
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.
The beauty of the whole thing is that Google could offer Apple free access to everything Google has until hell freezes over thrice and Apple can still legally refuse to patent even one non essential patent. And I suspect that that is exactly what has happened which is why Google wants this whole 'de facto standard' thing so then the courts will force Apple to license their stuff
I suspect you'd be similarly annoyed if someone sprinkled this forum with pro-Leninist references. No need to bring ridiculous, outdated and failed political philosophies into a tech forum.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
so multitouch should belong to one company?
morons.
I remember at the time, people were mocking multi-touch, and damning it to failure, kind of the way they are doing with Siri. How long before Siri becomes an essential technology?
Sorry, Googie, you knew full well, all along, Apple never intended their technology to be standards essential--outside the realm of Apple products, that is.
Steve Jobs, Jan. 2007: "And boy have we patented it!"
I know, Larry "Gurgles" Page is speechless, simply unable to innovate at the present time... or for the last 5+ years. Times change and one-trick-ponies disappear into the dust bin of history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LighteningKid
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?
Google seems to be expressing an opinion about Apple's multitouch patent. This falls short of an admission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
FAIR WARNING, from 2007.
What, did everyone think he was kidding??
Yes, brilliant! This video clip should make any jury "clear as day" just what Apple was expecting when they launched the iPhone. What's actually happened is the court system and patent system was too slow to stop the offenders early enough to prevent widespread market abuse, and egregious abuse of Apple's patents. As sad as seeing the slick Samsung SIII taken off the market, this pretty clearly makes Google's use of Apple's multitouch claims a deliberate offence, and by proxy Samsung and all Android licensees too.
Right now our set of rules for patents state Apple should win this. If we had better rules for more liberal fair use for great concepts, re-implemented, then Google should win.
The patent system, trademarks, and copyright, and the context of fair use are fundamentally flawed and should be re-imagined to settle this nonsense. A broad re-think should be in order.
- Aaron.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
My hatred of Google is growing daily.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Why would you "hate" a company? What has Google done to you personally that you would use such strong language?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
I believe a nearly identical scenario arose in 'Atlas Shrugged'. Apple... patent holder of Reardon Metal.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Please don't use Apple to try to justify retarded Ayn Rand philosophy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LighteningKid
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?
Perhaps it could be construed as an admission by Google that it has infringed on Apple's IP, since Google apparently isn't innovative enough to come up with their own technological solutions or innovative enough to develop an alternative technology that's at least as seductive as Apple's. Poor babies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by otri
If we had better rules for more liberal fair use for great concepts, re-implemented, then Google should win.
The patent system, trademarks, and copyright, and the context of fair use are fundamentally flawed and should be re-imagined to settle this nonsense. A broad re-think should be in order.
There is actually relatively little wrong with the current patent system. It works, overburdened though it is. What's wrong is companies ripping off the patent holders and trying to change the law to fit their misdeeds. If Apple had ripped off Google, the obvious would still apply.
This has it nailed.
Google wants free reign to use whatever they want that others created for free or dirt pricing. But you can bet if someone argued that their algorithms are de facto essential they would shit a brick at the notion
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
Please don't use Apple to try to justify retarded Ayn Rand philosophy.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
I guess we know where you stand. (...with two you get eyeroll...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
so multitouch should belong to one company?
morons.
Yeah, I don't believe in your property rights, either. Your big screen TV, your computer, your car, your stuff should not belong to one person. Everyone is entitled to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Why would you "hate" a company? What has Google done to you personally that you would use such strong language?
Long series of actions that I consider unethical and anti-consumer, increasingly arrogant, outlandish and hypocritical positions, combined with a dearth of innovation or quality products or services. In other words, very much like Microsoft at their worst.
I'm not going to take the time to produce an exhaustive list, but their theft of Apple's iPhone concept while their CEO was on Apple's board, and their purchase of Motorola with the intent to continue their shameless misuse of standards essential patents to try to force innovative and successful companies to license their private patents are pretty high up on my list. Add to that their nonexistent customer service and the escalating discontinuation of previously popular Google services and policies in order to push their worthless Google+ strategy.
To quote Jobs, "This don’t be evil mantra: It’s bullshit."
I detest this company's values.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by rioviva
I actually agree with Google. On that note, I think their search algorithms have become essential for the industry. As much as I've tried switching to Bing or Yahoo, I keep coming back to Google's engine.
Those algorithms should be de facto standards and licensed under FRAND
That is wacky. First, because Google licenses the algorithms it uses in search from Stanford University under an exclusive deal. It doesn't own the algorithms. Second, the premise of Google's argument is if a company makes something popular then every company has a right to use those inventions. The only way that would make sense is if the popular way of doing something was essential to how something was done. None of the at issue Apple patents are essential. They just are preferred because competitors can't or don't want to invest the resources to innovate a better way of doing something. Further, being bound by the terms of a standard body also is strictly voluntary and benefits all competitors because they don't have to compete to create individual standards for underlying technologies like wi-fi or 3G. Allowing companies like Google free access to Apple's non essential patents doesn't benefit Apple or consumers. It undermines Apple's motivation to invest in innovating, and consumers end up with less enjoyable products.
With that said, I think Apple's approach here is wrong, but is within its right to pursue the approach it has taken. It can't easily win this battle because it is far outnumbered. It would have been better off forcing companies like Samsung and Google to take a license like Microsoft has done. Apple could make more money off Android than Google. This would eventually have the same effect as seeking injunctions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
so multitouch should belong to one company?
morons.
It should belong to everyone, however, its the patient on how you get multitouch to work not multitouch its self, so if google figure out their own way, they can use it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
There is actually relatively little wrong with the current patent system. It works, overburdened though it is. What's wrong is companies ripping off the patent holders and trying to change the law to fit their misdeeds. If Apple had ripped off Google, the obvious would still apply.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }You're forgetting patent trolls. They are a clear sign of a failed patent system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
Long series of actions that I consider unethical and anti-consumer, increasingly arrogant, outlandish and hypocritical positions, combined with a dearth of innovation or quality products or services. In other words, very much like Microsoft at their worst.
I'm not going to take the time to produce an exhaustive list, but their theft of Apple's iPhone concept while their CEO was on Apple's board, and their purchase of Motorola with the intent to continue their shameless misuse of standards essential patents to try to force innovative and successful companies to license their private patents are pretty high up on my list. Add to that their nonexistent customer service and the escalating discontinuation of previously popular Google services and policies in order to push their worthless Google+ strategy.
I detest this company's values.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Wow you are very passionate with something that doesn't really effect you directly. I imagine you have a long list of other things you hate too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by otri
The patent system, trademarks, and copyright, and the context of fair use are fundamentally flawed and should be re-imagined to settle this nonsense. A broad re-think should be in order.
- Aaron.
This cannot be settled by rethinking the law. Future issues can be avoided, perhaps. But none of this can be fixed retroactively. Apple has played by the existing rules. Under those rules. Google are a bunch of thieves. It is like a team maximizing their gameplay for the current rules of Baseball, then beating everyone 100 to 0 every game. After winning what should be the World Series, they are informed that the rules were changed because the season was boring. Therefore, their wins have been retroactively converted to losses, and the other teams also have a right to your equipment.
I don't care how much a persons dislikes the game. As long as it is being played by the existing rules, they should not be penalized. Google is trying to say that Apple's legal, innovative advantage should be considered unfair. Essentially, Apple should have to be the developer for all the companies, just to make it fair. Changing the rules will not help. Someone will just figure out how to maximize them, and we will be right back where we are now.
F Google! They're thieves.
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.
The beauty of the whole thing is that Google could offer Apple free access to everything Google has until hell freezes over thrice and Apple can still legally refuse to patent even one non essential patent. And I suspect that that is exactly what has happened which is why Google wants this whole 'de facto standard' thing so then the courts will force Apple to license their stuff
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
I guess we know where you stand. (...with two you get eyeroll...)
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }I suspect you'd be similarly annoyed if someone sprinkled this forum with pro-Leninist references. No need to bring ridiculous, outdated and failed political philosophies into a tech forum.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }