They don't sue directly so they can starve them out. It's basically like laying siege to a castle. (1) Cut off their partners and (2) for the partners into licensing agreements and/or win small battles against them so precedence is set for larger and large cases.
point of definition.
It's less a siege, than destroy your vassals. In the feudal system, the king's castle has hundreds of small castles who have vowed alliance with the king. Threaten all the vassals and if the King doesn't come in defense, they either either are killed or are coopted, in the end weakening the king to the point the king has to reach for a conditional peace offering, often making the king subservient to the new master.
The 'siege' you see is the removal of all things google from the iOS system. stop the ads, stop eyeball monitoring, stop the money. Starve them out, or drive them to strike alliances that are long term failures (propping up a weak vassal just sucks the life out of the monarchy).
Apple's choice not to sue Google was purely to attack the 'point of sale' Google didn't sell a phone. They commissioned others to make theirs, and freely (sort of) licensed others to make phones. Samsung and HTC are making x00's of dollars a transaction... Google. pennies. And in any Game of thrones sort of battle, once you show one Lord how flimsy their defense is, and if the King, who really doesn't need you (in the end, they can strike a deal with Apple, kill off Android development, and just go back to competing with google apps on iOS devices), doesn't rise up his considerable strength (none), in your defense, you may as well, submit, and say you'll sell Windows phones.
My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do, cloud68.c om
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.
Well This is pretty much TRUE for most of the IT service/cloud/search companies, be it Google, Amazon, facbook, Apple. Revenue through Advert is the big chunk of their income. Each one of them gathers your personal information as much as possible, exmple Amazon tracks your shopping, facebook tracks your most of the personal info, Apple tracks via iTunes (remember the Genius option in iTunes and App store) and now they can gather lot of information via SIRI (if you are a regular user). In day to day life you use google services more in terms of search or mail or +, and naturally that gives them an edge.
It is not like google is the only one peeps into your information, rest of them do it may be in a less magnitude due to lower interaction rates (facebook might be an exception!)
…Apple tracks via iTunes (remember the Genius option in iTunes and App store) and now they can gather lot of information via SIRI (if you are a regular user).
You've missed the point completely. Google's entire revenue stream is this. Apple makes no revenue whatsoever from 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."
...if Google had it their way, there wouldn't be any meaningful patent protection for that young Andy Rubin's great, market-shifting, game-changing ideas...since it's fought long & hard to defend it's ability to copy meaningful components of a competitor's IP. totally ludicrous point...
Apple tracks via iTunes (remember the Genius option in iTunes and App store) and now they can gather lot of information via SIRI (if you are a regular user).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You've missed the point completely. Google's entire revenue stream is this. Apple makes no revenue whatsoever from it.
Just to make this point unambiguously...
Apple gathers information from you, information you can choose to not provide by not using the service, and they make this point pretty explicitly in, for example, iTunes in regard to the Genius data and retrieving album cover art. They do this to provide you with specific services. (It would be difficult for them to provide you cover art without knowing what albums you have.) They are selling to you.
Google collects information about you, without even notifying you that they are doing so, and without the possibility of opting out. They do this to provide advertisers with specific services. They are selling you.
Equating the two in this regard is either evidence of not understanding what you are talking about, or a deliberate intention to deceive and confuse.
...if Google had it their way, there wouldn't be any meaningful patent protection for that young Andy Rubin's great, market-shifting, game-changing ideas...since it's fought long & hard to defend it's ability to copy meaningful components of a competitor's IP. totally ludicrous point...
...and yet people would continue to come up with new ideas and and original products in their quest to earn a living. No software patents required, and zero evidence that innovation would slow without them.
...and yet people would continue to come up with new ideas and and original products in their quest to earn a living. No software patents required, and zero evidence that innovation would slow without them.
Not denying what he said brought a slow smile to my face…
...and yet people would continue to come up with new ideas and and original products in their quest to earn a living. No software patents required, and zero evidence that innovation would slow without them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That innovation wouldn't be hit due to an inability to actually protect said innovation.
GG likes to argue against all historical evidence to the contrary. By discounting all the evidence that contradicts his assertion, he's able to claim zero evidence. This is a pretty common mode of argument with him. But, then, that's his job, to push an alternate view of reality that contradicts the facts.
GG likes to argue against all historical evidence to the contrary. By discounting all the evidence that contradicts his assertion, he's able to claim zero evidence. This is a pretty common mode of argument with him. But, then, that's his job, to push an alternate view of reality that contradicts the facts.
He upvoted me. Probably because he didn't understand I was disagreeing with him.
Yet AM has no "historical evidence to the contrary" to offer that might disprove what I wrote about software patents and innovation. That's why I ignore him.
Do you know that I affirmed my statement not negated it?
Google makes money from search and Android is the "platform" that enhances it. Duh!
If there were no Android phones there would be no portable Google search boxes. Search would be limited to the desktop. Android allows for more searches and of course more $$$$$$ for Google.
I am the wrong person to try and debate with. You are wrong!
Jobs and Wozniak built Apple Computers into a viable company. . . without a single software patent to their name.
Paul Allen and Bill Gates wrote and developed a piece of software to serve as a BASIC interpreter and brought it successfully to market. . . without a single software patent to their name.
They went on to write and distribute an OS in `1980. . . without a single software patent to their name
IBM originated, wrote and distributed UNIX with huge success. . . without a single software patent to their name.
The idea and creation of text messaging occurred without the creator asking for a single software patent in his name.
Those are examples of historical evidence.
...and that's not even touching Xerox, Motorola, Hewlett-Packard and thousands of individuals and companies who pursued, developed and marketed computer operating systems and software without the protection of software patents. In fact there were hundreds of software developements stories from the 70's and 80's and software developers and sellers that flourished without software patents to "protect" their innovation.
Jobs and Wozniak built Apple Computers into a viable company. . . without a single software patent to their name...
Then they, or at least one of them, discovered that they had no way to stop others from stealing the fruits of their labors and said, we aren't going to make that mistake again.
Thieves and the people they hire to do spin want to abolish software patents. Those who are actually innovating want them so the thieves can't steal their work.
It's kind of funny, that out of the long history of IP, GG decided to focus on one short period where a bunch of naive kids were doing stuff that, at the time, wasn't even patentable. They wised up, just like all the inventors before them, and don't make those mistakes any longer. Patents have made innovation flourish in the countries that have them because inventors didn't have to worry their inventions would be stolen out from under them. The same is true of copyrights. The argument to get rid of IP is nothing but spin from people who want to steal, often hypocritical spin at that -- case in point, Google.
People talk about patent reform, but it really is copyright reform we should be talking about. Patent protection only lasts for twenty years, and to be granted a patent your creation has to indeed be truly novel and original. To be granted a copyright it merely has to be mildly creative. Even though the standard for being granted a copyright is much lower, copyright protection lasts over a hundred years. The length of protection at the time the Constitution was created was the same at ten years. Copyright has been extended so much longer than patent because the public doesn't have a very good lobby.
The need to reform the two systems isn't mutually exclusive.
As it is, you are right on the time period. The length of copyright will be extended by 20 years every 20 years. As long as it isn't written as permanent, it's valid. They might as well make it a thousand years next time around, because it's possible that nothing will lapse into public domain any more.
The need to reform the two systems isn't mutually exclusive.
As it is, you are right on the time period. The length of copyright will be extended by 20 years every 20 years. As long as it isn't written as permanent, it's valid. They might as well make it a thousand years next time around, because it's possible that nothing will lapse into public domain any more.
It is completely ridiculous that copyright currently lasts 70-120 years. It could also be argued that the practice of continually extending it subverts the intent of the clause in the Constitution authorizing it,
Quote:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
And even though each extension is for a limited time, a legislative practice of never allowing it to run out makes it effectively perpetual. As well, it could be argued that 70-120 years is beyond what the Founders intended as "limited Times" since the original Copyright Act of 1790 allowed for a maximum of 28 years (14 years + 1 14-year renewal) and that it was never intended that copyrights (or patents) survive the Author or Inventor. Unfortunately, as mentioned, the public doesn't have a good lobby, and the current Supreme Court, at least, is owned by moneyed interests.
Realistically, it could also be argued that the terms for patents are too long in the present day, and that, while giving inventors exclusive rights to their inventions for some period is essential to fostering innovation, 20 years actually, in at least some fields (pharmaceuticals comes to mind), stifles innovation because it provides a disincentive to release something new until the profits have been milked from existing patents. (And, yes, Judge Posner is an idiot when he speaks on patent law.)
Frankly, in the world we live in today, a 10 year term for patents would be sufficient to serve the intended purposes, and even shorter terms in fields like pharmaceuticals (don't believe the drug company propaganda about the cost of developing new drugs) might better serve the intended purpose of fostering innovation. I also don't see any reason why copyrights should extend beyond 50 years or the life of the author, whichever is shorter, since the clause authorizing them doesn't say, "Authors and their descendants."
Comments
Cool. We'll finally get universal health care.
Well stated, Littlefinger.;)
My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do, cloud68.c om
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.
Well This is pretty much TRUE for most of the IT service/cloud/search companies, be it Google, Amazon, facbook, Apple. Revenue through Advert is the big chunk of their income. Each one of them gathers your personal information as much as possible, exmple Amazon tracks your shopping, facebook tracks your most of the personal info, Apple tracks via iTunes (remember the Genius option in iTunes and App store) and now they can gather lot of information via SIRI (if you are a regular user). In day to day life you use google services more in terms of search or mail or +, and naturally that gives them an edge.
It is not like google is the only one peeps into your information, rest of them do it may be in a less magnitude due to lower interaction rates (facebook might be an exception!)
Originally Posted by ramp
…Apple tracks via iTunes (remember the Genius option in iTunes and App store) and now they can gather lot of information via SIRI (if you are a regular user).
You've missed the point completely. Google's entire revenue stream is this. Apple makes no revenue whatsoever from 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."
...if Google had it their way, there wouldn't be any meaningful patent protection for that young Andy Rubin's great, market-shifting, game-changing ideas...since it's fought long & hard to defend it's ability to copy meaningful components of a competitor's IP. totally ludicrous point...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rajp
Apple tracks via iTunes (remember the Genius option in iTunes and App store) and now they can gather lot of information via SIRI (if you are a regular user).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You've missed the point completely. Google's entire revenue stream is this. Apple makes no revenue whatsoever from it.
Just to make this point unambiguously...
Apple gathers information from you, information you can choose to not provide by not using the service, and they make this point pretty explicitly in, for example, iTunes in regard to the Genius data and retrieving album cover art. They do this to provide you with specific services. (It would be difficult for them to provide you cover art without knowing what albums you have.) They are selling to you.
Google collects information about you, without even notifying you that they are doing so, and without the possibility of opting out. They do this to provide advertisers with specific services. They are selling you.
Equating the two in this regard is either evidence of not understanding what you are talking about, or a deliberate intention to deceive and confuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratay1
...if Google had it their way, there wouldn't be any meaningful patent protection for that young Andy Rubin's great, market-shifting, game-changing ideas...since it's fought long & hard to defend it's ability to copy meaningful components of a competitor's IP. totally ludicrous point...
...and yet people would continue to come up with new ideas and and original products in their quest to earn a living. No software patents required, and zero evidence that innovation would slow without them.
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
...and yet people would continue to come up with new ideas and and original products in their quest to earn a living. No software patents required, and zero evidence that innovation would slow without them.
Not denying what he said brought a slow smile to my face…
And no, that wouldn't be the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Not denying what he said brought a slow smile to my face…
And no, that wouldn't be the case.
So I'm not confused, "what" wouldn't be the case? I think we're agreeing....
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
…"what" wouldn't be the case?
That innovation wouldn't be hit due to an inability to actually protect said innovation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
...and yet people would continue to come up with new ideas and and original products in their quest to earn a living. No software patents required, and zero evidence that innovation would slow without them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That innovation wouldn't be hit due to an inability to actually protect said innovation.
GG likes to argue against all historical evidence to the contrary. By discounting all the evidence that contradicts his assertion, he's able to claim zero evidence. This is a pretty common mode of argument with him. But, then, that's his job, to push an alternate view of reality that contradicts the facts.
Originally Posted by anonymouse
GG likes to argue against all historical evidence to the contrary. By discounting all the evidence that contradicts his assertion, he's able to claim zero evidence. This is a pretty common mode of argument with him. But, then, that's his job, to push an alternate view of reality that contradicts the facts.
He upvoted me. Probably because he didn't understand I was disagreeing with him.
Yet AM has no "historical evidence to the contrary" to offer that might disprove what I wrote about software patents and innovation. That's why I ignore him.
Do you know that I affirmed my statement not negated it?
Google makes money from search and Android is the "platform" that enhances it. Duh!
If there were no Android phones there would be no portable Google search boxes. Search would be limited to the desktop. Android allows for more searches and of course more $$$$$$ for Google.
I am the wrong person to try and debate with. You are wrong!
Figure it out!
Jobs and Wozniak built Apple Computers into a viable company. . . without a single software patent to their name.
Paul Allen and Bill Gates wrote and developed a piece of software to serve as a BASIC interpreter and brought it successfully to market. . . without a single software patent to their name.
They went on to write and distribute an OS in `1980. . . without a single software patent to their name
IBM originated, wrote and distributed UNIX with huge success. . . without a single software patent to their name.
The idea and creation of text messaging occurred without the creator asking for a single software patent in his name.
Those are examples of historical evidence.
...and that's not even touching Xerox, Motorola, Hewlett-Packard and thousands of individuals and companies who pursued, developed and marketed computer operating systems and software without the protection of software patents. In fact there were hundreds of software developements stories from the 70's and 80's and software developers and sellers that flourished without software patents to "protect" their innovation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Jobs and Wozniak built Apple Computers into a viable company. . . without a single software patent to their name...
Then they, or at least one of them, discovered that they had no way to stop others from stealing the fruits of their labors and said, we aren't going to make that mistake again.
Thieves and the people they hire to do spin want to abolish software patents. Those who are actually innovating want them so the thieves can't steal their work.
It's kind of funny, that out of the long history of IP, GG decided to focus on one short period where a bunch of naive kids were doing stuff that, at the time, wasn't even patentable. They wised up, just like all the inventors before them, and don't make those mistakes any longer. Patents have made innovation flourish in the countries that have them because inventors didn't have to worry their inventions would be stolen out from under them. The same is true of copyrights. The argument to get rid of IP is nothing but spin from people who want to steal, often hypocritical spin at that -- case in point, Google.
The need to reform the two systems isn't mutually exclusive.
As it is, you are right on the time period. The length of copyright will be extended by 20 years every 20 years. As long as it isn't written as permanent, it's valid. They might as well make it a thousand years next time around, because it's possible that nothing will lapse into public domain any more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
The need to reform the two systems isn't mutually exclusive.
As it is, you are right on the time period. The length of copyright will be extended by 20 years every 20 years. As long as it isn't written as permanent, it's valid. They might as well make it a thousand years next time around, because it's possible that nothing will lapse into public domain any more.
It is completely ridiculous that copyright currently lasts 70-120 years. It could also be argued that the practice of continually extending it subverts the intent of the clause in the Constitution authorizing it,
Quote:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
And even though each extension is for a limited time, a legislative practice of never allowing it to run out makes it effectively perpetual. As well, it could be argued that 70-120 years is beyond what the Founders intended as "limited Times" since the original Copyright Act of 1790 allowed for a maximum of 28 years (14 years + 1 14-year renewal) and that it was never intended that copyrights (or patents) survive the Author or Inventor. Unfortunately, as mentioned, the public doesn't have a good lobby, and the current Supreme Court, at least, is owned by moneyed interests.
Realistically, it could also be argued that the terms for patents are too long in the present day, and that, while giving inventors exclusive rights to their inventions for some period is essential to fostering innovation, 20 years actually, in at least some fields (pharmaceuticals comes to mind), stifles innovation because it provides a disincentive to release something new until the profits have been milked from existing patents. (And, yes, Judge Posner is an idiot when he speaks on patent law.)
Frankly, in the world we live in today, a 10 year term for patents would be sufficient to serve the intended purposes, and even shorter terms in fields like pharmaceuticals (don't believe the drug company propaganda about the cost of developing new drugs) might better serve the intended purpose of fostering innovation. I also don't see any reason why copyrights should extend beyond 50 years or the life of the author, whichever is shorter, since the clause authorizing them doesn't say, "Authors and their descendants."
Yep