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.
Guess what.
As a member of MPEG LA, Google may not be able to use it's affiliate/subsidiary to enforce an agreement outside the scope of the terms of their existing membership agreement.
Oops, I think I heard the sound of a twelve and a half billion dollar bullet entering a foot.
As a member of MPEG LA, Google may not be able to use it's affiliate/subsidiary to enforce an agreement outside the scope of the terms of their existing membership agreement.
Oops, I think I heard the sound of a twelve and a half billion dollar bullet entering a foot.
Healthy isheep are eager to eat. They are almost always hungry. They will overeat, if we let them. Isheep bleat in anticipation of being fed and will rapidly approach the feeding area.
You all know the story of the little red hen, right? The rRonald Reagan version is amusing as it seems to finish off in a way that clearly fits what is going on here:
The Little Red Hen
Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'
"Not I, " said the cow. "Not I," said the duck. "Not I," said the pig. "Not I," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did.
The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.
"Not I," said the duck. "Out of my classification," said the pig. "I'd lose my seniority," said the cow. "I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.
At last the time came to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake bread?" asked the little red hen.
"That would be overtime for me," said the cow. "I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck. "I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig. "If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for the neighbors to see.
They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."
"Excess profits," cried the cow. "Capitalist leech," screamed the duck. "I demand equal rights," yelled the goose. And the pig just grunted.
And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched round and around the little red hen shouting obscenities.
When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy."
"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.
"Exactly," said the agent. "That's the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations productive workers must divide their products with the idle."
And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful."
But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.
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.
Apple's approach has always been that the experience that Apple has created, with its blood and tears, should only come from Apple. That's why they stopped OEM licensing of Mac OS, that's why they don't license iOS etc.
It is their legal right to not license their patents outside of those that fall under FRAND. Period. So they don't.
Now if Google wants to argue that Apple has a patent on the notion of a screen that can detect multiple points of contact etc and that that is wrong, that's a valid argument. Just like the one against Apple's patent on the notion of a swipe being used to 'unlock' a touch based device. But this seems to be more like they are arguing that Apple shouldn't have the right to their own implementation of said notion and that Apple should be forced to license it to everyone and that is wrong. Such a de facto standard would be saying that one could spend a lifetime developing something and it will become public domain on the grounds that you don't want to share it or someone doesn't like your price. So why would folks bother to invent at all
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.
The years I had to put up with PCs and Windows didn't affect me?
The years I had to put up with Internet Explorer and other inferior and stagnant software because MS put the innovative competitors out of business through abuse of their monopoly?
The prospect of having a less innovative and lower quality selection of consumer electronics because a non-innovative company could force the most innovative to surrender the competitive advantage that makes them profitable?
I'd say these and many other things I'm passionate about affect me directly.
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?
Hahaha… remember when Rubin said, "I don't believe that your phone should be an assistant. Your phone is a tool for communicating. You shouldn't be communicating with the phone; you should be communicating with somebody on the other side of the phone."
Hahaha… remember when Rubin said, "I don't believe that your phone should be an assistant. Your phone is a tool for communicating. You shouldn't be communicating with the phone; you should be communicating with somebody on the other side of the phone."
The years I had to put up with PCs and Windows didn't affect me?
The years I had to put up with Internet Explorer and other inferior and stagnant software because MS put the innovative competitors out of business through abuse of their monopoly?
The prospect of having a less innovative and lower quality selection of consumer electronics because a non-innovative company could force the most innovative to surrender the competitive advantage that makes them profitable?
I'd say these and many other things I'm passionate about affect me directly.
Touche! Ayn Rand, the heroine of free-market, anti-goverment nutjobs, died of cancer while on social security and medicare. Perished while suckling on the teat she so despised. What a hypocrite.
Touche! Ayn Rand, the heroine of free-market, anti-goverment nutjobs, died of cancer while on social security and medicare. Perished while suckling on the teat she so despised. What a hypocrite.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
As a member of MPEG LA, Google may not be able to use it's affiliate/subsidiary to enforce an agreement outside the scope of the terms of their existing membership agreement.
Oops, I think I heard the sound of a twelve and a half billion dollar bullet entering a foot.
This is a serious issue that hasn't been getting nearly the coverage it should. For the people who don't know.....
Google is a member of MPEG-LA. They are allowed to use their IP. However there's a "it goes both ways" clause which states anyone licensing from MPEG-LA has to also offer their related patents for a similar rate. Google didn't have anything to license back in terms of H.264 so they probably never thought much about it.
Now that Motorola is owned by Google, Microsoft is arguing that Motorola must also abide by the agreement Google has with MPEG-LA. In other words, that whole 2.25% license Motorola is asking is now going to be reduced to pennies.
If Microsoft convinces the court of this it will be one of the biggest IP blunders ever made by a company (Google).
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?
People still mock Siri even if it is useful...and who mocked multitouch?
Point is Apple didn't invent multitouch and without the other companies actually advancing the technology it couldn't even exist. Capacitive screens allow for multitouch, not Apple.
Comments
... and the isheep bleat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetDon
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.
Guess what.
As a member of MPEG LA, Google may not be able to use it's affiliate/subsidiary to enforce an agreement outside the scope of the terms of their existing membership agreement.
Oops, I think I heard the sound of a twelve and a half billion dollar bullet entering a foot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Guess what.
As a member of MPEG LA, Google may not be able to use it's affiliate/subsidiary to enforce an agreement outside the scope of the terms of their existing membership agreement.
Oops, I think I heard the sound of a twelve and a half billion dollar bullet entering a foot.
Healthy isheep are eager to eat. They are almost always hungry. They will overeat, if we let them. Isheep bleat in anticipation of being fed and will rapidly approach the feeding area.
You all know the story of the little red hen, right? The rRonald Reagan version is amusing as it seems to finish off in a way that clearly fits what is going on here:
The Little Red Hen
Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'
"Not I, " said the cow. "Not I," said the duck. "Not I," said the pig. "Not I," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did.
The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.
"Not I," said the duck. "Out of my classification," said the pig. "I'd lose my seniority," said the cow. "I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.
At last the time came to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake bread?" asked the little red hen.
"That would be overtime for me," said the cow. "I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck. "I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig. "If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for the neighbors to see.
They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."
"Excess profits," cried the cow. "Capitalist leech," screamed the duck. "I demand equal rights," yelled the goose. And the pig just grunted.
And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched round and around the little red hen shouting obscenities.
When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy."
"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.
"Exactly," said the agent. "That's the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations productive workers must divide their products with the idle."
And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful."
But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
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.
Apple's approach has always been that the experience that Apple has created, with its blood and tears, should only come from Apple. That's why they stopped OEM licensing of Mac OS, that's why they don't license iOS etc.
It is their legal right to not license their patents outside of those that fall under FRAND. Period. So they don't.
Now if Google wants to argue that Apple has a patent on the notion of a screen that can detect multiple points of contact etc and that that is wrong, that's a valid argument. Just like the one against Apple's patent on the notion of a swipe being used to 'unlock' a touch based device. But this seems to be more like they are arguing that Apple shouldn't have the right to their own implementation of said notion and that Apple should be forced to license it to everyone and that is wrong. Such a de facto standard would be saying that one could spend a lifetime developing something and it will become public domain on the grounds that you don't want to share it or someone doesn't like your price. So why would folks bother to invent at all
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?
Snooped around in my street, looking for open wifi networks so they could steal logins and passwords.
How's that for a reason, good enough for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
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.
The years I had to put up with PCs and Windows didn't affect me?
The years I had to put up with Internet Explorer and other inferior and stagnant software because MS put the innovative competitors out of business through abuse of their monopoly?
The prospect of having a less innovative and lower quality selection of consumer electronics because a non-innovative company could force the most innovative to surrender the competitive advantage that makes them profitable?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }I'd say these and many other things I'm passionate about affect me directly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer
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?
Hahaha… remember when Rubin said, "I don't believe that your phone should be an assistant. Your phone is a tool for communicating. You shouldn't be communicating with the phone; you should be communicating with somebody on the other side of the phone."
Quote:
Originally Posted by erio
Hahaha… remember when Rubin said, "I don't believe that your phone should be an assistant. Your phone is a tool for communicating. You shouldn't be communicating with the phone; you should be communicating with somebody on the other side of the phone."
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }First mock, then steal. Google has learned much from Microsoft.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Snooped around in my street, looking for open wifi networks so they could steal logins and passwords.
How's that for a reason, good enough for you?
It's not reason at all, how did that personally effect you directly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
The years I had to put up with PCs and Windows didn't affect me?
The years I had to put up with Internet Explorer and other inferior and stagnant software because MS put the innovative competitors out of business through abuse of their monopoly?
The prospect of having a less innovative and lower quality selection of consumer electronics because a non-innovative company could force the most innovative to surrender the competitive advantage that makes them profitable?
I'd say these and many other things I'm passionate about affect me directly.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
You were forced against your will to use any of these items?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
It's not reason at all, how did that personally effect you directly?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }I think I'll sneak in your house some day and go through your things. No big deal, you won't even know I was there.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
BTW, here's a short list of shitty things Google has done that don't affect anyone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
I think I'll sneak in your house some day and go through your things. No big deal, you won't even know I was there.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
BTW, here's a short list of shitty things Google has done that don't affect anyone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
See that would effect me directly and if I caught you then I would obviously take action.
You and Hill60 really have nothing which is hardly a surprise....
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ
Wait a moment. If Google snooped your wireless and gained your logins and passwords, how does that not affect you directly exactly?
Yes but it didn't happen to me...just like I'm sure it didn't happen to Hill60.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
Touche! Ayn Rand, the heroine of free-market, anti-goverment nutjobs, died of cancer while on social security and medicare. Perished while suckling on the teat she so despised. What a hypocrite.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
Google is a member of MPEG-LA. They are allowed to use their IP. However there's a "it goes both ways" clause which states anyone licensing from MPEG-LA has to also offer their related patents for a similar rate. Google didn't have anything to license back in terms of H.264 so they probably never thought much about it.
Now that Motorola is owned by Google, Microsoft is arguing that Motorola must also abide by the agreement Google has with MPEG-LA. In other words, that whole 2.25% license Motorola is asking is now going to be reduced to pennies.
If Microsoft convinces the court of this it will be one of the biggest IP blunders ever made by a company (Google).
People still mock Siri even if it is useful...and who mocked multitouch?
Point is Apple didn't invent multitouch and without the other companies actually advancing the technology it couldn't even exist. Capacitive screens allow for multitouch, not Apple.