From a litigation POV, it makes more sense to go after the hardware makers directly. Google didn't make a single device at the time the lawsuits started.
In courts Google would prevail because they could showed that they make no money directly from Android.
Sooner or later Apple will sue if Google's Nexus devices start to hit the double digit marketshare mark. I'm not sure how long that would take but given that Samsung continues to dominate, it's not worth suing Google yet.
Wait a minute. Apple sues as soon as they're aware of potential patent infringement. They don't wait until that entity has become a profitable competitor, or so I've been told.
I find that the people who believe it's OK to steal IP are the kind of people who have never had an original thought in their lives, nor understand the hard work and money that goes into making those ideas reality.
Shmidt is missing the point. Apple isn't suing Google because Google themselves don't have patents that Apple would be interested in cross-licensing. Apple is only suing parties who refused their cross-licensing deals.
It's just not needed anymore. When the iPhone was released it wasn't possible to play YouTube videos on a browser without the Flash plugin. That's why the YT app was a necessity.
I still believe a native YouTube app was more a blessing than a curse.
I like how Schmidt purposefully pretends to be stupid and obtuse, which is pretty insulting to his audience.
Schmidt and Page are sociopaths. (And, as a consequence, the company they built behaves like one.) They will say and do anything to achieve their ends, and they'll do it without the least twinge of conscience, which they are lacking. Understanding this point is fundamental to understanding Google.
I don't understand Google. Its ok to pay MSFT 5-15 dollar for each Android device. But when Apple wants them to stop copying iOS/or pay some royalties = no.
In Sweden we have legal right to know what a company store about it's users. Only Google refuses to release the data. Why? What are they hiding?
They refuse to delete the data. I want to be able to pay Google for its great services, but that they stop to index everything. I personally hate that people who use Gmail: If I email them, Google indexes my email. I have not given Google permission to do that!. I don't use Gmail..
This is what Google knows about you and store forever:
What you think: Your interests, desires, needs, and intentions: Google.com searches, etc.
What you read: News, commentary, and books: Google News, Book Search, DoubleClick, etc.
What you watch: YouTube, Google TV
What you write/receive: Gmail and Google Docs
Who you%u2019ve communicated with, what you talked about: Groups, Buzz, Gmail, Voice, etc.
What you believe: Politics and religion: search, News, YouTube, Groups, Gmail, Buzz, etc.
Everywhere you go on the Internet: DoubleClick ad-tracking, Chrome, search, etc.
What you plan to do or where you%u2019re going: Calendar, Maps, Streetview, Android, etc.
Where your home, work, commutes and hangouts are: Android, Maps, Street View, etc.
You and your family%u2019s voiceprints and faceprints: Voice, Picasa, translation, etc.
You and your family%u2019s medical history and health status: Search, Google Health, Gmail, etc.
Your financial worth, status, and purchases: Search, Google Checkout, etc.
@gmail.com is the new @aol.com. the upcoming generation uses facebook. google realized this which is why we have google+. unfortunately for them, it's a battle they can't win.
Oh, GG, I love it when you feign ignorance. Just to recap, though, he's referring to the thousands and thousands of books Google stole as part of their Google Books program.
Do you realise that you just negated your own argument?
According to you, Google actually makes money from Google search, NOT the Android operating system.
No, Mac123's point was spot on. Google DOES in fact make money off of Android, albeit in a back-hand kind of way. Why else would they be pumping money into something and then just give it away? Just to be nice? Of course not! Their revenue model is search and Google makes gobs of money off of it. Their goal is to have their greasy little fingers in every corner of our lives so they can use our data on what we search for, where we go and what we do, to line their pockets with $$$$ and so far it's worked out really well for them.
The thing is, we allow Google's greasy fingers in our lives when we use their free or nearly free services or every time we use Google search, or Google Maps. Hell I can't even use the RSS app Reeder (which as far as I know, is not a Google product and I paid for, by the way) unless I have a Google account. Why should that be? Clearly Google have an arrangement with the publisher so they can find out what topics interest me, "for my file". You know what? It's not their freaking business and it pisses me off. Everything Google does, everything they offer "for free" is a hook into our lives so they can harvest information on us. The more data that they collect on us ripples down into more advertising revenue. That is Google's business model and Eric Schmidt is as greasy as they come.
I'm not suggesting that Google "sells" my personal info to outsiders, but make no mistake, Google has a file on all of us so they can deliver targeted ads and charge more money to their real customers, the advertisers. I don't have a problem with "a little" targeted advertising, but Google need to take their freaking microscope out of our colons!
So no, Google doesn't make money in the front door with Android, but it's coming in the back door by the truck loads. If they weren't making money on Android in some way why would they bother, why would they care? Why would Google intentionally circumvent my Safari privacy controls? It's all about money. I say again, Mac123's comments were spot on.
"There's a young [Android and Danger co-founder] Andy Rubin trying to form a new version of Danger," Schmidt explained. "How is he or she going to be able to get the patent coverage necessary to offer version one of their product? That's the real consequence of this."
Yeah, but you he should be more worried about Google stealing the idea. Apple would just purchase you if they like it.
"There's a young [Android and Danger co-founder] Andy Rubin trying to form a new version of Danger," Schmidt explained. "How is he or she going to be able to get the patent coverage necessary to offer version one of their product? That's the real consequence of this."
Yeah, but you he should be more worried about Google stealing the idea. Apple would just purchase you if they like it.
So no one one has actually commented on whether they think Rubin's comment was correct or not? IMHO, he has a completely valid point. If a young "Rob Bonner" wanted to start a brand new company developing a fresh and unique mobile OS based on "Rob Bonner" original ideas and actually ship his product, could he do so? I think not. He'll be sued out of existence before his OS ever comes to market (unless it's a fork of Android). Lacking any significant IP of his own to negotiate with, a likely-to-be successful "Rob Bonner" would be eaten alive by the likes of Apple, who would just want them gone-gone, and Microsoft who would just want their money.
"Rob Bonner" doesn't have a snowballs chance of market success. His only option would be to sell out to a bigger player with plenty of IP of their own and lots of cash in my opinion.
So no one one has actually commented on whether they think Rubin's comment was correct or not? IMHO, he has a completely valid point. If a young "Rob Bonner" wanted to start a brand new company developing a fresh and unique mobile OS based on "Rob Bonner" original ideas, could he get the patent licenses from other players needed to do so, lacking any significant IP of "Rob Bonner's" to trade/pressure? I think not.
"Rob Bonner" doesn't have a snowflakes chance of market success. His only option would be to sell out in my opinion.
Rob Bonner would have to be an idiot in the first place to think his brand new mobile OS would gain any traction... unless one of the major players bought it and incorporated it into its existing mobile OS.
... and your point being?
I mean, come off it. It's always been this way no matter what product it is.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
What about the $4 billion a year Google/Motorola is demanding for standards essential patents using the extortionate threat of injunctions?
It's convenient that you and Schmidt left Apple standing up to this bullying behaviour out of your calculations.
HUH? Google demands 4Billion a year from Apple for a license to their patents? I think you might be exaggerating just a tad there sir,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vision33r
From a litigation POV, it makes more sense to go after the hardware makers directly. Google didn't make a single device at the time the lawsuits started.
In courts Google would prevail because they could showed that they make no money directly from Android.
Sooner or later Apple will sue if Google's Nexus devices start to hit the double digit marketshare mark. I'm not sure how long that would take but given that Samsung continues to dominate, it's not worth suing Google yet.
Wait a minute. Apple sues as soon as they're aware of potential patent infringement. They don't wait until that entity has become a profitable competitor, or so I've been told.
I find that the people who believe it's OK to steal IP are the kind of people who have never had an original thought in their lives, nor understand the hard work and money that goes into making those ideas reality.
At least both M$ and Apple admit there are necessary evil.
Or at least this thread suggests that.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/treasury-secretary-google/article/2515054
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It's just not needed anymore. When the iPhone was released it wasn't possible to play YouTube videos on a browser without the Flash plugin. That's why the YT app was a necessity.
I still believe a native YouTube app was more a blessing than a curse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
I like how Schmidt purposefully pretends to be stupid and obtuse, which is pretty insulting to his audience.
Schmidt and Page are sociopaths. (And, as a consequence, the company they built behaves like one.) They will say and do anything to achieve their ends, and they'll do it without the least twinge of conscience, which they are lacking. Understanding this point is fundamental to understanding Google.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa
I don't understand Google. Its ok to pay MSFT 5-15 dollar for each Android device. But when Apple wants them to stop copying iOS/or pay some royalties = no.
In Sweden we have legal right to know what a company store about it's users. Only Google refuses to release the data. Why? What are they hiding?
They refuse to delete the data. I want to be able to pay Google for its great services, but that they stop to index everything. I personally hate that people who use Gmail: If I email them, Google indexes my email. I have not given Google permission to do that!. I don't use Gmail..
This is what Google knows about you and store forever:
What you think: Your interests, desires, needs, and intentions: Google.com searches, etc.
What you read: News, commentary, and books: Google News, Book Search, DoubleClick, etc.
What you watch: YouTube, Google TV
What you write/receive: Gmail and Google Docs
Who you%u2019ve communicated with, what you talked about: Groups, Buzz, Gmail, Voice, etc.
What you believe: Politics and religion: search, News, YouTube, Groups, Gmail, Buzz, etc.
Everywhere you go on the Internet: DoubleClick ad-tracking, Chrome, search, etc.
What you plan to do or where you%u2019re going: Calendar, Maps, Streetview, Android, etc.
Where your home, work, commutes and hangouts are: Android, Maps, Street View, etc.
You and your family%u2019s voiceprints and faceprints: Voice, Picasa, translation, etc.
You and your family%u2019s medical history and health status: Search, Google Health, Gmail, etc.
Your financial worth, status, and purchases: Search, Google Checkout, etc.
@gmail.com is the new @aol.com. the upcoming generation uses facebook. google realized this which is why we have google+. unfortunately for them, it's a battle they can't win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Looks like Obama is going to stick Schmdit in his cabinet. God help us.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/treasury-secretary-google/article/2515054
and in 3 years he will defect to Canada and give them all the US' secrets. in 5 more years 57% of the United States will be Canadian provinces.
That's very, very scary. A Secretary of Commerce who believes that the route to success in business is stealing intellectual property?
Heck, the Google Books fiasco is more than enough that he shouldn't ever be considered for a position of responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's very, very scary. A Secretary of Commerce who believes that the route to success in business is stealing intellectual property?
Heck, the Google Books fiasco is more than enough that he shouldn't ever be considered for a position of responsibility.
What was the Google Books fiasco?
That's a pretty impressive rounding error. Did you overload the circuit breaker by cranking your RDF up to the max?
Apple is selling a lot of phones:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/11/27/iphone-5-doubles-apples-share-of-us-smartphone-sales-to-surpass-android
Android exceeds Apple's overall marketshare but not even by 100% let alone 900%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
What was the Google Books fiasco?
Oh, GG, I love it when you feign ignorance. Just to recap, though, he's referring to the thousands and thousands of books Google stole as part of their Google Books program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Do you realise that you just negated your own argument?
According to you, Google actually makes money from Google search, NOT the Android operating system.
No, Mac123's point was spot on. Google DOES in fact make money off of Android, albeit in a back-hand kind of way. Why else would they be pumping money into something and then just give it away? Just to be nice? Of course not! Their revenue model is search and Google makes gobs of money off of it. Their goal is to have their greasy little fingers in every corner of our lives so they can use our data on what we search for, where we go and what we do, to line their pockets with $$$$ and so far it's worked out really well for them.
The thing is, we allow Google's greasy fingers in our lives when we use their free or nearly free services or every time we use Google search, or Google Maps. Hell I can't even use the RSS app Reeder (which as far as I know, is not a Google product and I paid for, by the way) unless I have a Google account. Why should that be? Clearly Google have an arrangement with the publisher so they can find out what topics interest me, "for my file". You know what? It's not their freaking business and it pisses me off. Everything Google does, everything they offer "for free" is a hook into our lives so they can harvest information on us. The more data that they collect on us ripples down into more advertising revenue. That is Google's business model and Eric Schmidt is as greasy as they come.
I'm not suggesting that Google "sells" my personal info to outsiders, but make no mistake, Google has a file on all of us so they can deliver targeted ads and charge more money to their real customers, the advertisers. I don't have a problem with "a little" targeted advertising, but Google need to take their freaking microscope out of our colons!
So no, Google doesn't make money in the front door with Android, but it's coming in the back door by the truck loads. If they weren't making money on Android in some way why would they bother, why would they care? Why would Google intentionally circumvent my Safari privacy controls? It's all about money. I say again, Mac123's comments were spot on.
Yeah, but you he should be more worried about Google stealing the idea. Apple would just purchase you if they like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Bonner
"There's a young [Android and Danger co-founder] Andy Rubin trying to form a new version of Danger," Schmidt explained. "How is he or she going to be able to get the patent coverage necessary to offer version one of their product? That's the real consequence of this."
Yeah, but you he should be more worried about Google stealing the idea. Apple would just purchase you if they like it.
So no one one has actually commented on whether they think Rubin's comment was correct or not? IMHO, he has a completely valid point. If a young "Rob Bonner" wanted to start a brand new company developing a fresh and unique mobile OS based on "Rob Bonner" original ideas and actually ship his product, could he do so? I think not. He'll be sued out of existence before his OS ever comes to market (unless it's a fork of Android
"Rob Bonner" doesn't have a snowballs chance of market success. His only option would be to sell out to a bigger player with plenty of IP of their own and lots of cash in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
So no one one has actually commented on whether they think Rubin's comment was correct or not? IMHO, he has a completely valid point. If a young "Rob Bonner" wanted to start a brand new company developing a fresh and unique mobile OS based on "Rob Bonner" original ideas, could he get the patent licenses from other players needed to do so, lacking any significant IP of "Rob Bonner's" to trade/pressure? I think not.
"Rob Bonner" doesn't have a snowflakes chance of market success. His only option would be to sell out in my opinion.
Rob Bonner would have to be an idiot in the first place to think his brand new mobile OS would gain any traction... unless one of the major players bought it and incorporated it into its existing mobile OS.
... and your point being?
I mean, come off it. It's always been this way no matter what product it is.