Android is just too popular for companies to switch to Tizen or Windows. I don't see that happening. Sure, they will offer a few more models with those new OS's but I just don't see them gaining any traction. It is late in the game and it is a two horse race now between iOS and Android. The one OS that really could compete is WebOS by HP/Palm . It is a really good OS and if it had the apps that iOS or Android had it would be very popular. The stacks are really, really good and intuitive and it is a very fast and stable OS. It might seem a bit dated now due to lack of updates but that could easily be fixed.
I overstated. They could but it would be much more difficult than going after handset makers. Besides, I don't see why Apple would go after Google directly. Stay strategic and don't let emotions get in the way. If Apple plays its cards right, there can chip away at Android and will have no reason to sue Google. If they scare handset makers away from Android, or at least turn them against Google, it would have a far greater impact than suing Google directly ever would. While I still think destroying Android entirely is highly unlikely, Apple's best chance of doing so is to sue the makers of Android phones until no one wants to touch Android with a 10 foot pole. Smaller companies means easier cases. Even if they settle and pay royalties in the short term, those companies that settle will like consider alternatives to Android to avoid paying large royalties to Apple.
And you're exactly right. Google DOES make money off of Android but proving that to a judge or jury just adds complexity. Apple never has to worry about making that argument when suing handset makers. The simpler the case, the more cut and dry the evidence, the easier it is to win.
Case in point: Samsung had a lot more reaching and stretching of "the truth" to do than Apple, and we see where it got them.
I see what you mean. Well with this decision on hand Apple should be able to tighten the noose.
Android is just too popular for companies to switch to Tizen or Windows. I don't see that happening. Sure, they will offer a few more models with those new OS's but I just don't see them gaining any traction. It is late in the game and it is a two horse race now between iOS and Android. The one OS that really could compete is WebOS by HP/Palm . It is a really good OS and if it had the apps that iOS or Android had it would be very popular. The stacks are really, really good and intuitive and it is a very fast and stable OS. It might seem a bit dated now due to lack of updates but that could easily be fixed.
You have to think HP are having some new thoughts on WebOS after this. Then again, I always wondered if the very reason WebOS never did rise again under HP was because HP discovered it was riddled with legal problems over iOS IP infringements.
Maybe Apple did Samsung a favor in the long run, I'm sure they will design software and hardware that is even better than anything Apple could produce after all Korea like all Asia counties are a hot bed of creativity and individuality.
Don't be surprised if Google abandons Android. Rumor has it that it's only a stepping stone for a Chrome mobile OS.
Since Android is open source even if Google let it go it wouldn't mean much. Handset makers could still use it.
That is not a contradiction to my previous posts. I am just pointing out there is a major difference. If Google abandons Android, it could continue without Google. If handset makers abandon Android, it disappears unless Google starts making its own phones. So the damage is FAR greater if handset makers give up on Android.
Besides, "abandon" is a strong word. Google would most likely hand Android over to a software foundation instead of just dissolving it.
Job's "I don't need your money" and Cook, "its about the innovation" seems to be Apple's view. I cannot imagine Apple investing much time or effort in leveraging patents as an income stream, and if they did it would either be itty bit with little value to its customers experience or if they made it a big business it would be to allow cloning - won't happen.
They will license patents that do not directly relate to user experience and my bet on FRAND terms even if they are not SEP. Android's challenge will be to create an experience that is not copying Apple, MS and others are doing this, their success is not guaranteed, but then neither was Apple's success in 2007, in fact, it was widely panned as doomed.
MS does have a business model regarding licensing and does make good income from Android with only Google-Motorola as the remaining big hold out. Although if they Metro takes off, we might see the terms for Android get a lot harder.
this is the game plan. Stop where possible... only license when cross licensing benefits Apple, and for the most part stay out of living on royalties. The goal here is to 'get ahead, stay ahead' in selling product.
MS is all about royalties and licensing, so they play that game. apple is about Hardware/UI/Experience innovation, living a 3-5 year lead on everyone before they 'out-innovate' Apple. Getting a $20 royalty check in lieu of selling a $600 dollar phone is flat out bad business.
I do think Apple has a better chance if the market is split 3 ways, apple/android/MS. The key issue is critical mass. If Android gains critical mass, then, like MS-Windows, it shifts the came to 'just good enough at the lowest price' to stay 'in family' vs 'best possible experience.' Having 3 options will keep the markets roughly 50-25-25 in terms of market share, and I think Apple would be happy with 25% of ALL PHONES SOLD ON EARTH, if more, would be gravy. (you can assume that 75% of the world will want 'cheap' smart phones, as it models the current market given all the dumb/feature phones still in use).
This decision validates the patents so Apple can say 'cease' to currently sold android phones that are in likely violation, driving those non Samsung makers (who are sharing the remaining crumbs of the profit pie), to get to newer versions of Android that are 'patent clean' or to Windows, either way raising their costs and further lowering their profits, which makes them even less likely to innovate in HW. Because, the markets/carriers know the price points, therefore the cost won't go up.
I do think innovation will occur... MS and Android will drive new stuff into the marketplace to compete with iOS and Apple. It will just be as risky as it was for Apple when they pushed the iPhone out. Risk should be proportional to the reward.
I'm LONG AAPL, so I'm happy about the outcome. I do think US patents are awfully vague, but at least Apple (to date) is only using patents to protect product in the market, vs those who are patenting 'ideas' and then trolling for innovation that sort-of matches the idea. This needs to change (ie. patents only are good if you have a reference/real product that was built for/by you).
I don't want to sound like I am disagreeing the idea that parts of Android are stolen, but you said that in regards to Microsoft receiving royalties for Android. I have to point out that if you are paying someone a royalty, you are not stealing anything. You are licensing the technology. That is how it is SUPPOSED to work. That is at least one aspect of Android that is within the law, so lets not point to the right approach as if it is wrong. As innovative as Apple is, it isn't going to reinvent the wheel. They surely licenses patents from other companies as well.
We have to be realistic about what the outcome will be here. It is HIGHLY unlikely we will see the death of Android. What we are most likely to see is what this article points to: Apple making millions or billions off of Android in royalties.
I tend to think Steve Jobs would accept that victory, though he'd probably rather Android be gone entirely.
Don't be too sure of that statement above.
At a certain point, many OEMs may find out that they could get Win8 cheaper than Android, after paying royalties out in every direction and always being on the limb regarding a lawsuit.
As it starts to slide... and Google also realizes this is starting to become a money pit... who's to say their board won't actually force them to give up the "B***D".
Heh heh. The bonus will be that well finally get some honest sales numbers from Samsung. Perhaps that is what they're most afraid of.
Well said. In the few devices where Samsung DID release sales numbers in this case, they were far lower than the published numbers. So Samsung is happy to let the analysts throw out numbers that are several times too high when it benefits them, but their actual numbers only come out when it looks like they have to pay fines or royalties.
I'll bet the numbers they use for their royalties to Microsoft are also far below the publlshed estimates.
Galaxy Note looks completely ridiculous when you have to talk on it and try putting it in your pocket. Eeek! Its remote control envy all over again smartphone style.
I don't see how Apple could ever go after Google over Android. It is difficult to calculate damages for a product Google doesn't sell. That is why Apple is going after handset makers.
Not at all true. Google can be found guilty of contributory infringement even if they never receive a penny in payments from the handset makers. (Now, it will raise the issue of patent exhaustion. For example, once Samsung is a licensee, it may not be possible for Apple to collect money from Google for Samsung's licenses).
I suspect Apple went after the handset makers because they felt that it would be easier to establish a precedent. For example, in the Samsung case, they were able to convince the jury right off the bat that Samsung was copying everything they could - which probably made it easier to convince the jury of patent infringement. A challenge against Google would be harder.
But now Apple has a precedent, so it's going to be easier to go after Google.
Galaxy Note looks completely ridiculous when you have to talk on it and try putting it in your pocket. Eeek! Its remote control envy all over again smartphone style.
Is that a Galaxy Note in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
At a certain point, many OEMs may find out that they could get Win8 cheaper than Android, after paying royalties out in every direction and always being on the limb regarding a lawsuit.
As it starts to slide... and Google also realizes this is starting to become a money pit... who's to say their board won't actually force them to give up the "B***D".
I made that point before you.
While I don't think the end of Android is eminent, I said if it were to happen, that would be the way.
Quote:
While I still think destroying Android entirely is highly unlikely, Apple's best chance of doing so is to sue the makers of Android phones until no one wants to touch Android with a 10 foot pole. Smaller companies means easier cases. Even if they settle and pay royalties in the short term, those companies that settle will like consider alternatives to Android to avoid paying large royalties to Apple.
Not at all true. Google can be found guilty of contributory infringement even if they never receive a penny in payments from the handset makers. (Now, it will raise the issue of patent exhaustion. For example, once Samsung is a licensee, it may not be possible for Apple to collect money from Google for Samsung's licenses).
I suspect Apple went after the handset makers because they felt that it would be easier to establish a precedent. For example, in the Samsung case, they were able to convince the jury right off the bat that Samsung was copying everything they could - which probably made it easier to convince the jury of patent infringement. A challenge against Google would be harder.
But now Apple has a precedent, so it's going to be easier to go after Google.
Already corrected myself to another individual saying I overstated / misstated things. Apple can go after who ever they want. I didn't really mean that they couldn't as much as...why would they? The case would be much harder (which you agree with) and I am not sure the end result would be as detrimental or profitable as going after handset makers one by one.
I don't see how winning against Samsung helps a case against Google by much. Certainly it might provide SOME help, but we can say with certainty that the win gives Apple all kinds of leverage and precedence against other handset makers. The $1.5 billion will horrify to some of the smaller handset makers. Apple would be smart to use that and I think that is the direction they will go.
If Apple were to sue Google now and win (and that is a big IF as I am convinced Google has much better lawyers than Samsung), Apple would almost certainly not receive enough to do any really damage to Google. If Apple deals directly with handset makers and forces each pay royalties and large undisclosed settlements, you make Android very expensive to license and take away the primary reason for choosing it. Bye bye Android (possibly).
At least, that's how I see it. We're not so much in disagreement over what you could do, but maybe more over what is more damaging in the long run.
EDIT:
Oh, and leaving Google alone creates tension. The handset makers see Google sitting pretty while they each have to do battle with Apple one by one. That could create a bit of animosity towards Google, perhaps driving them to alternatives.
I don't see how winning against Samsung helps a case against Google by much. Certainly it might provide SOME help, but we can say with certainty that the win gives Apple all kinds of leverage and precedence against other handset makers.
Google "legal precedent".
The case against Samsung establishes a precedent that:
1. Apple's patents are valid.
2. Samsung's software violates Apple's patents.
So, any software that was in Samsung's phones that was not modified from the original Android version is clearly infringing. Anything that Android does in the same way as Samsung's infringing phones is in deep trouble.
Maybe Apple did Samsung a favor in the long run, I'm sure they will design software and hardware that is even better than anything Apple could produce after all Korea like all Asia counties are a hot bed of creativity and individuality.
I am sure that was Apple's motivation all along -- right! If Samdung was so smart why did they not take the high road in the first place. If "Korea like all Asia counties are a hot bed of creativity and individuality" why didn't they just do the right thing in the first place instead of stealing. I will give in that Sony fits your criteria and they are a model of how well these asia companies are doing.
?BTW: Can I get the name of you connection -- must be some good stuff you are smoking.
Google's Android software is the mother of all plagiarism. It copies code lines from Oracle's Java and plagiarizes every features of Apple's mobile OS. Before the advent of the iPhone, RIM's hardware was the target of its plagiarism. Even its intention to distribute its software through the web was shelved in favor of copying Apple's move. Of all the mobile phone softwares in existence, Android is 99% mimicry of the iOS software. As all other softwares have proven: there are other ways of creating softwares without infringing on others' IPs, but Google with its proven record of nefarious activities like advocating IP theft, identity theft and taking authors' works for free has this behaviorism built into its DNA. It is because of Google's behavior that has embolden Samsung, HTC and others to believe that there is only one way to produce a smartphone or a table, and that is to copy Apple's designs.
Every designer is given a clean rectangle to work on and it is up for each designer to come up with its own unique rectangle. If the designer cannot think of a better way to design the rectangle and claimed "prior art" as a defense for its plagiarism, then it deserves to be punished hard. Google, your time for retribution is not far off.
I'm no doubt going to be called a troll, but having read the above I couldn't sit by without responding....
"It copies code lines from Oracle's Java" - Android implements Java APIs. That's not the same as copying Java code. I don't know whether you understand software design, but an API (Application Programming Interface) is a specification - kind of like a blue-print. The APIs at dispute are part of Java and are Open Source. So Android implements an open source specification. This is not stealing Oracle's code, it's implementing an Open Source specification which Oracle makes available to everyone (which incidentally Oracle didn't invent, Sun Microsystems did). Developers in the App Store do the same thing - they develop apps which implement specifications laid down by Apple - this doesn't mean they're copying Apple's software.
"plagiarizes every features of Apple's mobile OS" - Android is based on Linux, which is Open Source, and has nothing to do with Apple. iOS is in turn based on the works of others. For example: (1) pinch to zoom was demonstrated by Jeff Han @TED in 2006 () well before the iPhone appeared, (2) iOS is based on OS X which is based on Darwin which is based on Unix, invented long before Apple even existed (3) the original portable media player patents were registered by Creative, not Apple (which it licensed after a patent infringement claim), (4) if you say Android copied the iPhone then isn't it just as reasonable to say that iPhone copied the LG Prada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada), .... and I could go on, but the point is iOS is not wholly created by Apple, it is based on the works of others which Apple licenses.
"Every designer is given a clean rectangle to work on and it is up for each designer to come up with its own unique rectangle." - but Apple designers didn't use a clean rectangle, they built their (very good) designs based on the work of others as I point out above - but IMO they are not patentable innovations - software shouldn't be subject to patent - copyright law is more applicable here.
The point I'm trying to make is that this judgement kills innovation - if Apple weren't able to build on the innovations of others then the iPhone and iPod as we know it today wouldn't exist. Don't get me wrong, I like Apple products (I own an iPhone, iPod as well as Android devices), but I don't believe litigation and judgements like this are good for the future of Apple, the smartphone/tablet sector and more importantly consumers like us. They just kill innovation and wrap the companies involved up in hugely expensive litigation which we the consumer end up paying for.
You have to think HP are having some new thoughts on WebOS after this. Then again, I always wondered if the very reason WebOS never did rise again under HP was because HP discovered it was riddled with legal problems over iOS IP infringements.
It's my understanding that the Palm patents are robust. When I read through two of the patents in this case I saw no less than six referenced. I would suspect that what Palm wasn't able to patent they've got cross-licensed with Apple.
I'm no doubt going to be called a troll, but having read the above I couldn't sit by without responding....
"It copies code lines from Oracle's Java" - Android implements Java APIs. That's not the same as copying Java code. I don't know whether you understand software design, but an API (Application Programming Interface) is a specification - kind of like a blue-print. The APIs at dispute are part of Java and are Open Source. So Android implements an open source specification. This is not stealing Oracle's code, it's implementing an Open Source specification which Oracle makes available to everyone (which incidentally Oracle didn't invent, Sun Microsystems did). Developers in the App Store do the same thing - they develop apps which implement specifications laid down by Apple - this doesn't mean they're copying Apple's software.
"plagiarizes every features of Apple's mobile OS" - Android is based on Linux, which is Open Source, and has nothing to do with Apple. iOS is in turn based on the works of others. For example: (1) pinch to zoom was demonstrated by Jeff Han @TED in 2006 () well before the iPhone appeared, (2) iOS is based on OS X which is based on Darwin which is based on Unix, invented long before Apple even existed (3) the original portable media player patents were registered by Creative, not Apple (which it licensed after a patent infringement claim), (4) if you say Android copied the iPhone then isn't it just as reasonable to say that iPhone copied the LG Prada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada), .... and I could go on, but the point is iOS is not wholly created by Apple, it is based on the works of others which Apple licenses.
"Every designer is given a clean rectangle to work on and it is up for each designer to come up with its own unique rectangle." - but Apple designers didn't use a clean rectangle, they built their (very good) designs based on the work of others as I point out above - but IMO they are not patentable innovations - software shouldn't be subject to patent - copyright law is more applicable here.
The point I'm trying to make is that this judgement kills innovation - if Apple weren't able to build on the innovations of others then the iPhone and iPod as we know it today wouldn't exist. Don't get me wrong, I like Apple products (I own an iPhone, iPod as well as Android devices), but I don't believe litigation and judgements like this are good for the future of Apple, the smartphone/tablet sector and more importantly consumers like us. They just kill innovation and wrap the companies involved up in hugely expensive litigation which we the consumer end up paying for.
Disagreeing does not make you a troll and members will see that. But your premise is incorrect. Nobody would argue that iOS is based on OS X and that the Darwin kernel is based on BSD UNIX. This is fact. But what makes an iPhone or an iPad or a Mac is not only the kernel but the user interface(GUI) built on top of that kernel. This is a completely different thing. And do not say that Apple stole the Mac GUI from Xerox PARC. It is not true as Apple licensed the GUI form from Xerox and Xerox made quite a bit of money. It is not Apples fault that Xerox did not try to capitalize on its' own innovations and had to settle for royalties. Samsung could build a new mobile OS using Darwin and Apple would not care as long as it doesn't copy Apple's GUI along with Apple's hardware designs. That would be innovation and good for customers. Simply copying Apple and selling it more cheaply is not innovation no matter how many protestations small minded people make. As has already been stated in this forum, why is it blocking innovation simply because someone wants an iPhone like device but they do not want to pay for an iPhone. Create something completely new and wow the world like Apple did in 2007. Remember when the "experts" said Apple was crazy to try and the iPhone will be a monstrous failure? Why can't another company just create a new monstrous failure? Again as has been previously stated in this forum, the reward should reflect the risk taken. As an Apple shareholder I do not like all the litigation either. And I also agree this may not be the territory patents should be going in as opposed to copyright law. I would rather the company did not have to pay dirtbag lawyers more money than I will ever see in 100 lifetimes. I would like a larger dividend. But I agree the company can not be the world's design reference guide and not get paid or worse have their own design's used against them. Yes there were touch based smartphones before the iPhone, but to say that the iPhone was not a completely new ballgame is disingenuous. That the innovations it contained such as pinch to zoom are not what set it apart. Innovation is wanting to be set apart not being "me too". Most people do not understand why users and specifically Apple users are so passionate about electronic devices. I say I am for the same reason I am about Van Gogh, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, and probably all the people in the Think Different campaign ads. I am willing to pay more for an Apple device because I know it will mean more great things in the future just like I wish all my tax money went to NASA, education, the CDC and WHO. And if it doesn't I will stop buying from Apple. Of course Apple built on previous innovations, but why are many products in Apple's history considered benchmarks, even some of the failures?
Welcome to the forums. Participate. Argue. That is the fun.
Disagreeing does not make you a troll and members will see that. But your premise is incorrect. Nobody would argue that iOS is based on OS X and that the Darwin kernel is based on BSD UNIX. This is fact. But what makes an iPhone or an iPad or a Mac is not only the kernel but the user interface(GUI) built on top of that kernel. This is a completely different thing. And do not say that Apple stole the Mac GUI from Xerox PARC. It is not true as Apple licensed the GUI form from Xerox and Xerox made quite a bit of money. It is not Apples fault that Xerox did not try to capitalize on its' own innovations and had to settle for royalties. Samsung could build a new mobile OS using Darwin and Apple would not care as long as it doesn't copy Apple's GUI along with Apple's hardware designs. That would be innovation and good for customers. Simply copying Apple and selling it more cheaply is not innovation no matter how many protestations small minded people make. As has already been stated in this forum, why is it blocking innovation simply because someone wants an iPhone like device but they do not want to pay for an iPhone. Create something completely new and wow the world like Apple did in 2007. Remember when the "experts" said Apple was crazy to try and the iPhone will be a monstrous failure? Why can't another company just create a new monstrous failure? Again as has been previously stated in this forum, the reward should reflect the risk taken. As an Apple shareholder I do not like all the litigation either. And I also agree this may not be the territory patents should be going in as opposed to copyright law. I would rather the company did not have to pay dirtbag lawyers more money than I will ever see in 100 lifetimes. I would like a larger dividend. But I agree the company can not be the world's design reference guide and not get paid or worse have their own design's used against them. Yes there were touch based smartphones before the iPhone, but to say that the iPhone was not a completely new ballgame is disingenuous. That the innovations it contained such as pinch to zoom are not what set it apart. Innovation is wanting to be set apart not being "me too". Most people do not understand why users and specifically Apple users are so passionate about electronic devices. I say I am for the same reason I am about Van Gogh, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, and probably all the people in the Think Different campaign ads. I am willing to pay more for an Apple device because I know it will mean more great things in the future just like I wish all my tax money went to NASA, education, the CDC and WHO. And if it doesn't I will stop buying from Apple. Of course Apple built on previous innovations, but why are many products in Apple's history considered benchmarks, even some of the failures?
Welcome to the forums. Participate. Argue. That is the fun.
Thanks for your reply Buckeye - and for the welcome. You make some very good points and I agree that the iPhone was ground breaking when it was released. There are of course some very polarised views on both sides of this debate, and both sides are at times guilty of overstating things, which was really why I posted in the first place as I felt the earlier post was OTT in places when it comes to the facts.
Believe it or not I also agree that Apple deserves some recompense from Samsung and/or Google over the UI similarities in Android - what bothers me though is the method used to obtain them. I don't believe it should be possible to patent a gesture or a screen behaviour - this should really be addressed through copyright actions, and ideally out of court agreements between the companies involved. Historically patents have been about protecting the designs of physical inventions and the way an icon or screen graphic appears and behaves is not in my opinion an invention in that sense.
So it's this loose application of patent law that concerns me most - and as you rightly say everyone looses in one way or another apart from the lawyers. I'm also concerned at the size and potential impact of the settlement - if this judgement is extended to apply to other Android smartphones then it may hand Apple a virtual monopoly in the smartphone sector, at least in the US. I don't think that's good for anyone, not even Apple who lets face it have pushed the boundaries in order to do it better than the competition. Where will innovation come from if the competition's been killed off? I don't think that's good for Apple and it certainly isn't good for consumers. It's in Apple's best interests to have healthy competition - Microsoft is a fine example given all the anti-trust hurdles they had to go through.
There's a lot at stake of course, and lots of PR being put out by both sides, so it's difficult to know what to believe sometimes. Samsung claim they tried to negotiate with Apple out of court and that Apple were not interested - I don't know the details, just that that would have been a far better outcome in my view. But this is by no means the end of it - despite what I say above I have no doubt that Samsung/Google will work around these issues and produce improved, compliant products. And that's a far better way to beat the competition - let your product do the talking, not your lawyers!
The case against Samsung establishes a precedent that:
1. Apple's patents are valid.
2. Samsung's software violates Apple's patents.
So, any software that was in Samsung's phones that was not modified from the original Android version is clearly infringing. Anything that Android does in the same way as Samsung's infringing phones is in deep trouble.
And what's good for the goose is good for the gander... earlier this month Google filed a patent infringement claim against Apple covering numerous inventions allegedly copied by Apple including location reminders, email notifications, video playback and Siri. These based on Motorola patents that Google now own. If proven, this could result in a US wide ban on many Apple products apart from perhaps the iPod. Do I think this is right? No, but then I don't think Apple was right to persue Samsung using patent law either.
The phrase "what goes around comes around" springs to mind, and Apple may soon get a taste of it's own medicine. These are sorry times for consumers all round, whether Apple or Android...we're the ones that lose out whilst the lawyers get richer. Time to sort out patent law once for all...
Comments
Android is just too popular for companies to switch to Tizen or Windows. I don't see that happening. Sure, they will offer a few more models with those new OS's but I just don't see them gaining any traction. It is late in the game and it is a two horse race now between iOS and Android. The one OS that really could compete is WebOS by HP/Palm . It is a really good OS and if it had the apps that iOS or Android had it would be very popular. The stacks are really, really good and intuitive and it is a very fast and stable OS. It might seem a bit dated now due to lack of updates but that could easily be fixed.
I see what you mean. Well with this decision on hand Apple should be able to tighten the noose.
You have to think HP are having some new thoughts on WebOS after this. Then again, I always wondered if the very reason WebOS never did rise again under HP was because HP discovered it was riddled with legal problems over iOS IP infringements.
Good ideas, middling execution: the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 reviewed from Ars.
Really nasty from The AndroidPolice... Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 Review: An Embarrassing, Lazy, Arrogant Money Grab
I realize that's only one product... but it appears that even the Android fans are starting to get fed up with cheap alternatives.
The "ball...s" in Microsoft's court I think. Will be interesting to see what they finally produce. October 26 is the day...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Don't be surprised if Google abandons Android. Rumor has it that it's only a stepping stone for a Chrome mobile OS.
Since Android is open source even if Google let it go it wouldn't mean much. Handset makers could still use it.
That is not a contradiction to my previous posts. I am just pointing out there is a major difference. If Google abandons Android, it could continue without Google. If handset makers abandon Android, it disappears unless Google starts making its own phones. So the damage is FAR greater if handset makers give up on Android.
Besides, "abandon" is a strong word. Google would most likely hand Android over to a software foundation instead of just dissolving it.
Just a note on the title, Apple is the worlds most valuable company not the largest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gprovida
Job's "I don't need your money" and Cook, "its about the innovation" seems to be Apple's view. I cannot imagine Apple investing much time or effort in leveraging patents as an income stream, and if they did it would either be itty bit with little value to its customers experience or if they made it a big business it would be to allow cloning - won't happen.
They will license patents that do not directly relate to user experience and my bet on FRAND terms even if they are not SEP. Android's challenge will be to create an experience that is not copying Apple, MS and others are doing this, their success is not guaranteed, but then neither was Apple's success in 2007, in fact, it was widely panned as doomed.
MS does have a business model regarding licensing and does make good income from Android with only Google-Motorola as the remaining big hold out. Although if they Metro takes off, we might see the terms for Android get a lot harder.
this is the game plan. Stop where possible... only license when cross licensing benefits Apple, and for the most part stay out of living on royalties. The goal here is to 'get ahead, stay ahead' in selling product.
MS is all about royalties and licensing, so they play that game. apple is about Hardware/UI/Experience innovation, living a 3-5 year lead on everyone before they 'out-innovate' Apple. Getting a $20 royalty check in lieu of selling a $600 dollar phone is flat out bad business.
I do think Apple has a better chance if the market is split 3 ways, apple/android/MS. The key issue is critical mass. If Android gains critical mass, then, like MS-Windows, it shifts the came to 'just good enough at the lowest price' to stay 'in family' vs 'best possible experience.' Having 3 options will keep the markets roughly 50-25-25 in terms of market share, and I think Apple would be happy with 25% of ALL PHONES SOLD ON EARTH, if more, would be gravy. (you can assume that 75% of the world will want 'cheap' smart phones, as it models the current market given all the dumb/feature phones still in use).
This decision validates the patents so Apple can say 'cease' to currently sold android phones that are in likely violation, driving those non Samsung makers (who are sharing the remaining crumbs of the profit pie), to get to newer versions of Android that are 'patent clean' or to Windows, either way raising their costs and further lowering their profits, which makes them even less likely to innovate in HW. Because, the markets/carriers know the price points, therefore the cost won't go up.
I do think innovation will occur... MS and Android will drive new stuff into the marketplace to compete with iOS and Apple. It will just be as risky as it was for Apple when they pushed the iPhone out. Risk should be proportional to the reward.
I'm LONG AAPL, so I'm happy about the outcome. I do think US patents are awfully vague, but at least Apple (to date) is only using patents to protect product in the market, vs those who are patenting 'ideas' and then trolling for innovation that sort-of matches the idea. This needs to change (ie. patents only are good if you have a reference/real product that was built for/by you).
Don't be too sure of that statement above.
At a certain point, many OEMs may find out that they could get Win8 cheaper than Android, after paying royalties out in every direction and always being on the limb regarding a lawsuit.
As it starts to slide... and Google also realizes this is starting to become a money pit... who's to say their board won't actually force them to give up the "B***D".
Well said. In the few devices where Samsung DID release sales numbers in this case, they were far lower than the published numbers. So Samsung is happy to let the analysts throw out numbers that are several times too high when it benefits them, but their actual numbers only come out when it looks like they have to pay fines or royalties.
I'll bet the numbers they use for their royalties to Microsoft are also far below the publlshed estimates.
But it's bigger, so it MUST be better. /s
Not at all true. Google can be found guilty of contributory infringement even if they never receive a penny in payments from the handset makers. (Now, it will raise the issue of patent exhaustion. For example, once Samsung is a licensee, it may not be possible for Apple to collect money from Google for Samsung's licenses).
I suspect Apple went after the handset makers because they felt that it would be easier to establish a precedent. For example, in the Samsung case, they were able to convince the jury right off the bat that Samsung was copying everything they could - which probably made it easier to convince the jury of patent infringement. A challenge against Google would be harder.
But now Apple has a precedent, so it's going to be easier to go after Google.
Is that a Galaxy Note in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
Don't be too sure of that statement above.
At a certain point, many OEMs may find out that they could get Win8 cheaper than Android, after paying royalties out in every direction and always being on the limb regarding a lawsuit.
As it starts to slide... and Google also realizes this is starting to become a money pit... who's to say their board won't actually force them to give up the "B***D".
I made that point before you.
While I don't think the end of Android is eminent, I said if it were to happen, that would be the way.
Quote:
While I still think destroying Android entirely is highly unlikely, Apple's best chance of doing so is to sue the makers of Android phones until no one wants to touch Android with a 10 foot pole. Smaller companies means easier cases. Even if they settle and pay royalties in the short term, those companies that settle will like consider alternatives to Android to avoid paying large royalties to Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Not at all true. Google can be found guilty of contributory infringement even if they never receive a penny in payments from the handset makers. (Now, it will raise the issue of patent exhaustion. For example, once Samsung is a licensee, it may not be possible for Apple to collect money from Google for Samsung's licenses).
I suspect Apple went after the handset makers because they felt that it would be easier to establish a precedent. For example, in the Samsung case, they were able to convince the jury right off the bat that Samsung was copying everything they could - which probably made it easier to convince the jury of patent infringement. A challenge against Google would be harder.
But now Apple has a precedent, so it's going to be easier to go after Google.
Already corrected myself to another individual saying I overstated / misstated things. Apple can go after who ever they want. I didn't really mean that they couldn't as much as...why would they? The case would be much harder (which you agree with) and I am not sure the end result would be as detrimental or profitable as going after handset makers one by one.
I don't see how winning against Samsung helps a case against Google by much. Certainly it might provide SOME help, but we can say with certainty that the win gives Apple all kinds of leverage and precedence against other handset makers. The $1.5 billion will horrify to some of the smaller handset makers. Apple would be smart to use that and I think that is the direction they will go.
If Apple were to sue Google now and win (and that is a big IF as I am convinced Google has much better lawyers than Samsung), Apple would almost certainly not receive enough to do any really damage to Google. If Apple deals directly with handset makers and forces each pay royalties and large undisclosed settlements, you make Android very expensive to license and take away the primary reason for choosing it. Bye bye Android (possibly).
At least, that's how I see it. We're not so much in disagreement over what you could do, but maybe more over what is more damaging in the long run.
EDIT:
Oh, and leaving Google alone creates tension. The handset makers see Google sitting pretty while they each have to do battle with Apple one by one. That could create a bit of animosity towards Google, perhaps driving them to alternatives.
Google "legal precedent".
The case against Samsung establishes a precedent that:
1. Apple's patents are valid.
2. Samsung's software violates Apple's patents.
So, any software that was in Samsung's phones that was not modified from the original Android version is clearly infringing. Anything that Android does in the same way as Samsung's infringing phones is in deep trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryb
Maybe Apple did Samsung a favor in the long run, I'm sure they will design software and hardware that is even better than anything Apple could produce after all Korea like all Asia counties are a hot bed of creativity and individuality.
I am sure that was Apple's motivation all along -- right! If Samdung was so smart why did they not take the high road in the first place. If "Korea like all Asia counties are a hot bed of creativity and individuality" why didn't they just do the right thing in the first place instead of stealing. I will give in that Sony fits your criteria and they are a model of how well these asia companies are doing.
?BTW: Can I get the name of you connection -- must be some good stuff you are smoking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vsp
Google's Android software is the mother of all plagiarism. It copies code lines from Oracle's Java and plagiarizes every features of Apple's mobile OS. Before the advent of the iPhone, RIM's hardware was the target of its plagiarism. Even its intention to distribute its software through the web was shelved in favor of copying Apple's move. Of all the mobile phone softwares in existence, Android is 99% mimicry of the iOS software. As all other softwares have proven: there are other ways of creating softwares without infringing on others' IPs, but Google with its proven record of nefarious activities like advocating IP theft, identity theft and taking authors' works for free has this behaviorism built into its DNA. It is because of Google's behavior that has embolden Samsung, HTC and others to believe that there is only one way to produce a smartphone or a table, and that is to copy Apple's designs.
Every designer is given a clean rectangle to work on and it is up for each designer to come up with its own unique rectangle. If the designer cannot think of a better way to design the rectangle and claimed "prior art" as a defense for its plagiarism, then it deserves to be punished hard. Google, your time for retribution is not far off.
I'm no doubt going to be called a troll, but having read the above I couldn't sit by without responding....
"It copies code lines from Oracle's Java" - Android implements Java APIs. That's not the same as copying Java code. I don't know whether you understand software design, but an API (Application Programming Interface) is a specification - kind of like a blue-print. The APIs at dispute are part of Java and are Open Source. So Android implements an open source specification. This is not stealing Oracle's code, it's implementing an Open Source specification which Oracle makes available to everyone (which incidentally Oracle didn't invent, Sun Microsystems did). Developers in the App Store do the same thing - they develop apps which implement specifications laid down by Apple - this doesn't mean they're copying Apple's software.
"plagiarizes every features of Apple's mobile OS" - Android is based on Linux, which is Open Source, and has nothing to do with Apple. iOS is in turn based on the works of others. For example: (1) pinch to zoom was demonstrated by Jeff Han @TED in 2006 (
"Every designer is given a clean rectangle to work on and it is up for each designer to come up with its own unique rectangle." - but Apple designers didn't use a clean rectangle, they built their (very good) designs based on the work of others as I point out above - but IMO they are not patentable innovations - software shouldn't be subject to patent - copyright law is more applicable here.
The point I'm trying to make is that this judgement kills innovation - if Apple weren't able to build on the innovations of others then the iPhone and iPod as we know it today wouldn't exist. Don't get me wrong, I like Apple products (I own an iPhone, iPod as well as Android devices), but I don't believe litigation and judgements like this are good for the future of Apple, the smartphone/tablet sector and more importantly consumers like us. They just kill innovation and wrap the companies involved up in hugely expensive litigation which we the consumer end up paying for.
Originally Posted by sandman2012
The point I'm trying to make is that this judgement kills innovation…
Nope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
You have to think HP are having some new thoughts on WebOS after this. Then again, I always wondered if the very reason WebOS never did rise again under HP was because HP discovered it was riddled with legal problems over iOS IP infringements.
It's my understanding that the Palm patents are robust. When I read through two of the patents in this case I saw no less than six referenced. I would suspect that what Palm wasn't able to patent they've got cross-licensed with Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman2012
I'm no doubt going to be called a troll, but having read the above I couldn't sit by without responding....
"It copies code lines from Oracle's Java" - Android implements Java APIs. That's not the same as copying Java code. I don't know whether you understand software design, but an API (Application Programming Interface) is a specification - kind of like a blue-print. The APIs at dispute are part of Java and are Open Source. So Android implements an open source specification. This is not stealing Oracle's code, it's implementing an Open Source specification which Oracle makes available to everyone (which incidentally Oracle didn't invent, Sun Microsystems did). Developers in the App Store do the same thing - they develop apps which implement specifications laid down by Apple - this doesn't mean they're copying Apple's software.
"plagiarizes every features of Apple's mobile OS" - Android is based on Linux, which is Open Source, and has nothing to do with Apple. iOS is in turn based on the works of others. For example: (1) pinch to zoom was demonstrated by Jeff Han @TED in 2006 (
"Every designer is given a clean rectangle to work on and it is up for each designer to come up with its own unique rectangle." - but Apple designers didn't use a clean rectangle, they built their (very good) designs based on the work of others as I point out above - but IMO they are not patentable innovations - software shouldn't be subject to patent - copyright law is more applicable here.
The point I'm trying to make is that this judgement kills innovation - if Apple weren't able to build on the innovations of others then the iPhone and iPod as we know it today wouldn't exist. Don't get me wrong, I like Apple products (I own an iPhone, iPod as well as Android devices), but I don't believe litigation and judgements like this are good for the future of Apple, the smartphone/tablet sector and more importantly consumers like us. They just kill innovation and wrap the companies involved up in hugely expensive litigation which we the consumer end up paying for.
Disagreeing does not make you a troll and members will see that. But your premise is incorrect. Nobody would argue that iOS is based on OS X and that the Darwin kernel is based on BSD UNIX. This is fact. But what makes an iPhone or an iPad or a Mac is not only the kernel but the user interface(GUI) built on top of that kernel. This is a completely different thing. And do not say that Apple stole the Mac GUI from Xerox PARC. It is not true as Apple licensed the GUI form from Xerox and Xerox made quite a bit of money. It is not Apples fault that Xerox did not try to capitalize on its' own innovations and had to settle for royalties. Samsung could build a new mobile OS using Darwin and Apple would not care as long as it doesn't copy Apple's GUI along with Apple's hardware designs. That would be innovation and good for customers. Simply copying Apple and selling it more cheaply is not innovation no matter how many protestations small minded people make. As has already been stated in this forum, why is it blocking innovation simply because someone wants an iPhone like device but they do not want to pay for an iPhone. Create something completely new and wow the world like Apple did in 2007. Remember when the "experts" said Apple was crazy to try and the iPhone will be a monstrous failure? Why can't another company just create a new monstrous failure? Again as has been previously stated in this forum, the reward should reflect the risk taken. As an Apple shareholder I do not like all the litigation either. And I also agree this may not be the territory patents should be going in as opposed to copyright law. I would rather the company did not have to pay dirtbag lawyers more money than I will ever see in 100 lifetimes. I would like a larger dividend. But I agree the company can not be the world's design reference guide and not get paid or worse have their own design's used against them. Yes there were touch based smartphones before the iPhone, but to say that the iPhone was not a completely new ballgame is disingenuous. That the innovations it contained such as pinch to zoom are not what set it apart. Innovation is wanting to be set apart not being "me too". Most people do not understand why users and specifically Apple users are so passionate about electronic devices. I say I am for the same reason I am about Van Gogh, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, and probably all the people in the Think Different campaign ads. I am willing to pay more for an Apple device because I know it will mean more great things in the future just like I wish all my tax money went to NASA, education, the CDC and WHO. And if it doesn't I will stop buying from Apple. Of course Apple built on previous innovations, but why are many products in Apple's history considered benchmarks, even some of the failures?
Welcome to the forums. Participate. Argue. That is the fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla
Disagreeing does not make you a troll and members will see that. But your premise is incorrect. Nobody would argue that iOS is based on OS X and that the Darwin kernel is based on BSD UNIX. This is fact. But what makes an iPhone or an iPad or a Mac is not only the kernel but the user interface(GUI) built on top of that kernel. This is a completely different thing. And do not say that Apple stole the Mac GUI from Xerox PARC. It is not true as Apple licensed the GUI form from Xerox and Xerox made quite a bit of money. It is not Apples fault that Xerox did not try to capitalize on its' own innovations and had to settle for royalties. Samsung could build a new mobile OS using Darwin and Apple would not care as long as it doesn't copy Apple's GUI along with Apple's hardware designs. That would be innovation and good for customers. Simply copying Apple and selling it more cheaply is not innovation no matter how many protestations small minded people make. As has already been stated in this forum, why is it blocking innovation simply because someone wants an iPhone like device but they do not want to pay for an iPhone. Create something completely new and wow the world like Apple did in 2007. Remember when the "experts" said Apple was crazy to try and the iPhone will be a monstrous failure? Why can't another company just create a new monstrous failure? Again as has been previously stated in this forum, the reward should reflect the risk taken. As an Apple shareholder I do not like all the litigation either. And I also agree this may not be the territory patents should be going in as opposed to copyright law. I would rather the company did not have to pay dirtbag lawyers more money than I will ever see in 100 lifetimes. I would like a larger dividend. But I agree the company can not be the world's design reference guide and not get paid or worse have their own design's used against them. Yes there were touch based smartphones before the iPhone, but to say that the iPhone was not a completely new ballgame is disingenuous. That the innovations it contained such as pinch to zoom are not what set it apart. Innovation is wanting to be set apart not being "me too". Most people do not understand why users and specifically Apple users are so passionate about electronic devices. I say I am for the same reason I am about Van Gogh, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, and probably all the people in the Think Different campaign ads. I am willing to pay more for an Apple device because I know it will mean more great things in the future just like I wish all my tax money went to NASA, education, the CDC and WHO. And if it doesn't I will stop buying from Apple. Of course Apple built on previous innovations, but why are many products in Apple's history considered benchmarks, even some of the failures?
Welcome to the forums. Participate. Argue. That is the fun.
Thanks for your reply Buckeye - and for the welcome. You make some very good points and I agree that the iPhone was ground breaking when it was released. There are of course some very polarised views on both sides of this debate, and both sides are at times guilty of overstating things, which was really why I posted in the first place as I felt the earlier post was OTT in places when it comes to the facts.
Believe it or not I also agree that Apple deserves some recompense from Samsung and/or Google over the UI similarities in Android - what bothers me though is the method used to obtain them. I don't believe it should be possible to patent a gesture or a screen behaviour - this should really be addressed through copyright actions, and ideally out of court agreements between the companies involved. Historically patents have been about protecting the designs of physical inventions and the way an icon or screen graphic appears and behaves is not in my opinion an invention in that sense.
So it's this loose application of patent law that concerns me most - and as you rightly say everyone looses in one way or another apart from the lawyers. I'm also concerned at the size and potential impact of the settlement - if this judgement is extended to apply to other Android smartphones then it may hand Apple a virtual monopoly in the smartphone sector, at least in the US. I don't think that's good for anyone, not even Apple who lets face it have pushed the boundaries in order to do it better than the competition. Where will innovation come from if the competition's been killed off? I don't think that's good for Apple and it certainly isn't good for consumers. It's in Apple's best interests to have healthy competition - Microsoft is a fine example given all the anti-trust hurdles they had to go through.
There's a lot at stake of course, and lots of PR being put out by both sides, so it's difficult to know what to believe sometimes. Samsung claim they tried to negotiate with Apple out of court and that Apple were not interested - I don't know the details, just that that would have been a far better outcome in my view. But this is by no means the end of it - despite what I say above I have no doubt that Samsung/Google will work around these issues and produce improved, compliant products. And that's a far better way to beat the competition - let your product do the talking, not your lawyers!
All the best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Google "legal precedent".
The case against Samsung establishes a precedent that:
1. Apple's patents are valid.
2. Samsung's software violates Apple's patents.
So, any software that was in Samsung's phones that was not modified from the original Android version is clearly infringing. Anything that Android does in the same way as Samsung's infringing phones is in deep trouble.
And what's good for the goose is good for the gander... earlier this month Google filed a patent infringement claim against Apple covering numerous inventions allegedly copied by Apple including location reminders, email notifications, video playback and Siri. These based on Motorola patents that Google now own. If proven, this could result in a US wide ban on many Apple products apart from perhaps the iPod. Do I think this is right? No, but then I don't think Apple was right to persue Samsung using patent law either.
The phrase "what goes around comes around" springs to mind, and Apple may soon get a taste of it's own medicine. These are sorry times for consumers all round, whether Apple or Android...we're the ones that lose out whilst the lawyers get richer. Time to sort out patent law once for all...