Just because Google doesn't choose to aggressively wield Motorola patents to sue others that want to play in the same playpen they do doesn't make the IP worthless. On the contrary it has inestimable value by not being used in protectionist efforts to strip away profit and resources from other companies. If you think Google is simply an ad company you don't pay attention. Perhaps you should do a bit of reading outside of AI or other fan sites.
Here's one that might have a little interest to you:
Google is bared from suing using the Motorola patents, they are required to licences any of them patents under FRAND. This was due to the Apple/Motorola suit was already in play at the time of the purchase and it was found out that Motorola was attempting to force Apple into freely license its non SE patent in exchange for the licenses on the SE patents. I Apple told the SEC and DOJ and EU that Motorola was doing this so they put the restriction on Google not to attempt to use the Motorola patents against the industry. So the patent are essentially worthless except for the FRAND payment they get which Apple has yet to pay their portion.
What he saw at Xerox was a paradigm shift and he altered the direction of Apple accordingly. Google did the same. Theft is not involved in either case.
get the story straight, he took what he was allowed to take, Xerox management allowed him access and told him he could use it, against the people at Xerox wishes not to allow Apple to have it. Yeah he stole it, but with permission to do so.
Google is bared from suing using the Motorola patents, they are required to licences any of them patents under FRAND.
...Apple has yet to pay their portion.
Incorrect. FRAND applies only to those patents deemed essential. That category would probably not include the majority of MM patents. Even in the case of FRAND-pledged IP they aren't precluded from suing to protect their investment. They would only need to avoid requesting injunctions in most (but not all) circumstances for illegitimate use of their intellectual property, often referred to as theft here at AI.
Even with the agreed on limits from DoJ and the EU Google could pull their own Rockstar move, dodge and weave, and assign them to an NPE or "patent troll" for enforcement. Of course they wouldn't so it's a moot point.
Most Android handset makers are running at a loss or barely scraping by.
With the exception of Samsung who spend billions on hype, Samsung spend more on advertising than the rest make altogether.
Yes but I'm sure you'll agree that they're still doing better than Palm which no longer exists and RIM that's in a nosedive. One can live quite a while with their nose just over the water but there's virtually no hope for survival if one is underwater and only going deeper.
What he saw at Xerox was a paradigm shift and he altered the direction of Apple accordingly. Google did the same. Theft is not involved in either case.
This one is as old as the infamous quote from Bill Gate "640K ought to be enough for anybody". The Xerox Gui has nothing do to with the Lisa and original Mac GUI ,the other story about Apple has stole Xerox research is another hard to kill myth, in fact Apple has pay Xerox Corp with shares to use some of their research, and everything SJ and apple's engineer saw at Xerox Parc facility has been retaught from scratch. They created the first 100% graphical home computers with no specialized graphical hardware, using only software AKA Quickdraw to replicate graphical function from the 100 000$ Xerox prototype.
My understanding is the first Google Maps app on iPhone OS (i.e. pre-iOS) were written by Apple to use Google's mapping data. I assume the same thing holds for Google search. So yes, in the beginning, Google had no idea what Google Maps on the iPhone, nor the iPhone itself, looked like until the iPhone was introduced. (Wherein E. Schmidt went scurrying out to catch a cell phone signal so he can call Google HQ right away to stop all development on Android, which is a nice apocryphal story.)
get the story straight, he took what he was allowed to take, Xerox management allowed him access and told him he could use it, against the people at Xerox wishes not to allow Apple to have it. Yeah he stole it, but with permission to do so.
Did Google need "permission" from Apple to compete? The term "stealing" applies to copyrights, which protect literal code, and patents, which cover specific implementations of an idea. Yes, Google changed Android's user interface to support multitouch. But Apple owns -- at least in principle, if the patent system worked correctly -- not the concept of multitouch itself, but rather their particular implementation of it.
get the story straight, he took what he was allowed to take, Xerox management allowed him access and told him he could use it, against the people at Xerox wishes not to allow Apple to have it. Yeah he stole it, but with permission to do so.
That's not exactly the full story though. Apple had permission to tour the labs, but not to wholesale lift the ideas from Xerox PARC and make the Lisa and the Mac (debateable how much was "copied" and how much was "inspired by"). Xerox ultimately did end up suing Apple for infringement, but they'd taken so long to realise what they'd let slip through their fingers that the case was thrown since it had passed the three year statute of limitations. If Xerox had filed suit in time who knows what the court would have found, the tech world could be very different.
What he saw at Xerox was a paradigm shift and he altered the direction of Apple accordingly. Google did the same. Theft is not involved in either case.
Theft is not involved in Apple/Xerox case because Xerox got 1 M$ worth of Apple shares for touring Jobs and al. at the PARC.
Google did not ask for anything nor did they pay anything. That is stealing. Plain and simple.
get the story straight, he took what he was allowed to take, Xerox management allowed him access and told him he could use it, against the people at Xerox wishes not to allow Apple to have it. Yeah he stole it, but with permission to do so.
But but but an Android alternate was touch based! There's a difference between what Apple did with touch than what others were attempting to do at the time.
That sounds like an excellent reason for Google to NOT sit back in their comfortable ad space and ignore all other opportunities. I'm pretty sure you'd agree with that wouldn't you?
They set out to make a knock-off OS, first of RIMs then Apple to support their ad business. It was a poor and lazy strategy, and it's weakened their primary business.
Compared to Apple who has only increased Mac sales and market share by adding iDevices, and an OS X based mobile OS.
What he saw at Xerox was a paradigm shift and he altered the direction of Apple accordingly. Google did the same. Theft is not involved in either case.
No. Apple paid Xerox for the tech with stock. They didn't even get access to Xerox PARC until they had 'paid' Xerox. The UI technology was used to supplement Apple's existing technology.
Google just repackaged Linux with un-licensed Sun/Oracle code. Theft is the primary technology component of Android. Google has a nasty habit of Microsofting technology, taking a publicly licensed standard, adding a proprietary feature (think bloating IMAP fro Gmail), destroying cross-compatibility and then claiming the whole thing as their own invention.
And your point is...? How does this relate to what I wrote?
Apple bought Fingerworks in 2005, just two years before the launch of the iPhone in 2007. Fingerworks itself was founded only in 1998. I'm sure there's a long history of research in touch interfaces at universities and other companies though.
I think you're forgetting about Newtons and track pads, not to mention Apple's long history of products regarding UI input going back to the early 80's. Touch and multitouch were around before touch screens, and Apple has been at it for decades, well established with both product/patent hits and misses.
I'm proud to say there's no one I've found in the forum yet who isn't capable of adding something of value to the discussions so I've no use for "ignore" (well there once was was one member on my block list for another reason). I've no doubt you have your own useful contributions to make too and I look forward to reading them.
Have you read some of the comments? Some are too troll worthy to be ignored (ironically).
What he saw at Xerox was a paradigm shift and he altered the direction of Apple accordingly. Google did the same. Theft is not involved in either case.
Going to just step in here for the 99.9% here. Google stole all of Apple's IP. Duh.
But seriously, I agree with you. Obviously Google responded to the iPhone through mimic of design, generally speaking, as they well should have. The iPhone and iOS ushered in a new standard of smart phone design and following that lead was necessary. Regardless of Jobs' grandiose delusion of burying Google over "stealing", competition is good, healthy and necessary. Doubtful that iOS would have evolved to what it is today without said competition.
Really, so Apple couldn't have relied on 30 yrs in the PC industry to improve the iPhone?
So you're saying that any company that is in the middle of developing a product which adjusts to remain competitive is pathetic? I know you like to live in your Apple bubble and hate every other brand, but the competition is GOOD and not only for Apple, but the entire industry. Apple has leveraged off of Google and others' ideas/features heavily ever since the first iPhone and to deny it is just plain stupid.
Again Apple has years of experience with PCs and how to improve them. We know for sure that without the iPhone, Android would be a blackberry clone.
That video suggests that although google had to redesign the UI for touch, some of the plumbing of the OS was already in place when google first heard about the iPhone. The guy demonstrates several features characteristic of modern-day android, such as an early version of the notification bar as well as what seems like an early incarnation of the intents system for passing data between apps (contacts to maps in the video).
No multi-touch...and it's more like Blackberry competitor with physical keyboard and touch IU. Google and other phone manufacturers never expected a kick-ass iPhone with that kind of interface: multitouch, full web browser, "an iPod, a phone and an internet communication device" all in one. Therefore, they panicked and cancelled all their smartphone projects with physical keyboard and no multitouch.
They set out to make a knock-off OS, first of RIMs then Apple to support their ad business. It was a poor and lazy strategy, and it's weakened their primary business.
Compared to Apple who has only increased Mac sales and market share by adding iDevices, and an OS X based mobile OS.
And it would've been better for them to not do anything and leave themselves open to getting screwed by Apple? Yes what they did was lazy but even if their primary business is weakened it's nowhere near what would've happened if Apple decided it suddenly didn't need it services. What would be your response if Google hadn't made Android, kept all their services only on Apple devices and one day the headline reads "Google on it's heels because Apple decides to switch to make default competing services"?
You obviously chose to ignore Google's [x]Labs, or aren't aware of their existence. You also apparently missed out on Calico. There's few companies brave (or is it stupid) enough to take longer walks in so many fields laying on the razor edge of possibilities than Google.
Calico isn't a project, more of a subdirectory where they keep the personal medical data they've gleamed. It's called a database, and doctors, hospitals and health insurance companies already use them. In fact they've been using them since before Sergey Brin started picking all that stuff out of his face. How do you think Larry Ellison affords to pick all the stuff out of his face?
I'm sure Google labs is wonderful, but you know, lot's of companies do website development, this isn't very special... they are still... just a website.
Comments
Just because Google doesn't choose to aggressively wield Motorola patents to sue others that want to play in the same playpen they do doesn't make the IP worthless. On the contrary it has inestimable value by not being used in protectionist efforts to strip away profit and resources from other companies. If you think Google is simply an ad company you don't pay attention. Perhaps you should do a bit of reading outside of AI or other fan sites.
Here's one that might have a little interest to you:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-22/inside-googles-secret-lab
Google is bared from suing using the Motorola patents, they are required to licences any of them patents under FRAND. This was due to the Apple/Motorola suit was already in play at the time of the purchase and it was found out that Motorola was attempting to force Apple into freely license its non SE patent in exchange for the licenses on the SE patents. I Apple told the SEC and DOJ and EU that Motorola was doing this so they put the restriction on Google not to attempt to use the Motorola patents against the industry. So the patent are essentially worthless except for the FRAND payment they get which Apple has yet to pay their portion.
And Jobs never lifted someone else's idea?
In his own words!
What he saw at Xerox was a paradigm shift and he altered the direction of Apple accordingly. Google did the same. Theft is not involved in either case.
get the story straight, he took what he was allowed to take, Xerox management allowed him access and told him he could use it, against the people at Xerox wishes not to allow Apple to have it. Yeah he stole it, but with permission to do so.
Incorrect. FRAND applies only to those patents deemed essential. That category would probably not include the majority of MM patents. Even in the case of FRAND-pledged IP they aren't precluded from suing to protect their investment. They would only need to avoid requesting injunctions in most (but not all) circumstances for illegitimate use of their intellectual property, often referred to as theft here at AI.
Even with the agreed on limits from DoJ and the EU Google could pull their own Rockstar move, dodge and weave, and assign them to an NPE or "patent troll" for enforcement. Of course they wouldn't so it's a moot point.
Yes but I'm sure you'll agree that they're still doing better than Palm which no longer exists and RIM that's in a nosedive. One can live quite a while with their nose just over the water but there's virtually no hope for survival if one is underwater and only going deeper.
And Jobs never lifted someone else's idea?
In his own words!
What he saw at Xerox was a paradigm shift and he altered the direction of Apple accordingly. Google did the same. Theft is not involved in either case.
This one is as old as the infamous quote from Bill Gate "640K ought to be enough for anybody". The Xerox Gui has nothing do to with the Lisa and original Mac GUI ,the other story about Apple has stole Xerox research is another hard to kill myth, in fact Apple has pay Xerox Corp with shares to use some of their research, and everything SJ and apple's engineer saw at Xerox Parc facility has been retaught from scratch. They created the first 100% graphical home computers with no specialized graphical hardware, using only software AKA Quickdraw to replicate graphical function from the 100 000$ Xerox prototype.
And youtube? Did Apple write that app as well?
get the story straight, he took what he was allowed to take, Xerox management allowed him access and told him he could use it, against the people at Xerox wishes not to allow Apple to have it. Yeah he stole it, but with permission to do so.
Did Google need "permission" from Apple to compete? The term "stealing" applies to copyrights, which protect literal code, and patents, which cover specific implementations of an idea. Yes, Google changed Android's user interface to support multitouch. But Apple owns -- at least in principle, if the patent system worked correctly -- not the concept of multitouch itself, but rather their particular implementation of it.
Theft is not involved in Apple/Xerox case because Xerox got 1 M$ worth of Apple shares for touring Jobs and al. at the PARC.
Google did not ask for anything nor did they pay anything. That is stealing. Plain and simple.
How do you steal something with permission?
Yes.
(Catching up on the comments)
And did Apple convert the content for mobile viewing as well?
That sounds like an excellent reason for Google to NOT sit back in their comfortable ad space and ignore all other opportunities. I'm pretty sure you'd agree with that wouldn't you?
They set out to make a knock-off OS, first of RIMs then Apple to support their ad business. It was a poor and lazy strategy, and it's weakened their primary business.
Compared to Apple who has only increased Mac sales and market share by adding iDevices, and an OS X based mobile OS.
And Jobs never lifted someone else's idea?
In his own words!
What he saw at Xerox was a paradigm shift and he altered the direction of Apple accordingly. Google did the same. Theft is not involved in either case.
No. Apple paid Xerox for the tech with stock. They didn't even get access to Xerox PARC until they had 'paid' Xerox. The UI technology was used to supplement Apple's existing technology.
Google just repackaged Linux with un-licensed Sun/Oracle code. Theft is the primary technology component of Android. Google has a nasty habit of Microsofting technology, taking a publicly licensed standard, adding a proprietary feature (think bloating IMAP fro Gmail), destroying cross-compatibility and then claiming the whole thing as their own invention.
And your point is...? How does this relate to what I wrote?
Apple bought Fingerworks in 2005, just two years before the launch of the iPhone in 2007. Fingerworks itself was founded only in 1998. I'm sure there's a long history of research in touch interfaces at universities and other companies though.
I think you're forgetting about Newtons and track pads, not to mention Apple's long history of products regarding UI input going back to the early 80's. Touch and multitouch were around before touch screens, and Apple has been at it for decades, well established with both product/patent hits and misses.
Have you read some of the comments? Some are too troll worthy to be ignored (ironically).
Others have said it already.
Really, so Apple couldn't have relied on 30 yrs in the PC industry to improve the iPhone?
Again Apple has years of experience with PCs and how to improve them. We know for sure that without the iPhone, Android would be a blackberry clone.
That video suggests that although google had to redesign the UI for touch, some of the plumbing of the OS was already in place when google first heard about the iPhone. The guy demonstrates several features characteristic of modern-day android, such as an early version of the notification bar as well as what seems like an early incarnation of the intents system for passing data between apps (contacts to maps in the video).
No multi-touch...and it's more like Blackberry competitor with physical keyboard and touch IU. Google and other phone manufacturers never expected a kick-ass iPhone with that kind of interface: multitouch, full web browser, "an iPod, a phone and an internet communication device" all in one. Therefore, they panicked and cancelled all their smartphone projects with physical keyboard and no multitouch.
And it would've been better for them to not do anything and leave themselves open to getting screwed by Apple? Yes what they did was lazy but even if their primary business is weakened it's nowhere near what would've happened if Apple decided it suddenly didn't need it services. What would be your response if Google hadn't made Android, kept all their services only on Apple devices and one day the headline reads "Google on it's heels because Apple decides to switch to make default competing services"?
You obviously chose to ignore Google's [x]Labs, or aren't aware of their existence. You also apparently missed out on Calico. There's few companies brave (or is it stupid) enough to take longer walks in so many fields laying on the razor edge of possibilities than Google.
Calico isn't a project, more of a subdirectory where they keep the personal medical data they've gleamed. It's called a database, and doctors, hospitals and health insurance companies already use them. In fact they've been using them since before Sergey Brin started picking all that stuff out of his face. How do you think Larry Ellison affords to pick all the stuff out of his face?
I'm sure Google labs is wonderful, but you know, lot's of companies do website development, this isn't very special... they are still... just a website.