Google's reaction to Apple's iPhone unveiling: 'We're going to have to start over' on Android

13468912

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 226
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,976member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

     

    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. 


    You sounds like a Samsung developer. Oh yeah...let somebody else do the thinking and come out with a product, we just need to "change" ours to support whatever feature like "theirs".  If that's not copying, I don't know what is.

  • Reply 102 of 226
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    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"?

    Of all the things in this world, they decided to do something that were horrible at?  There was nothing else they could have put their efforts into?  You do realize that since Google, we are still at pop-ups and banner ads, while their search has gotten much worse.  And the only way they tried to get better at this, was by trying to steal from Apple instead of RIM and make a second fiddle/also ran iteration?

     

    Then again, this is what Page and Brin did with Yahoo to found Google, they even found a similar silly, baby-talk term to name the company.

  • Reply 103 of 226

    wow, the droid dorks really have their panties in a wad today.

  • Reply 104 of 226
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,234member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    If only I live that long ;)


    Oh come on ... I'm sure there's a Boston Dynamics team already working on your assistant. I have to say I love the one you can kick and it keeps coming back. Wait a minute .... ;)
  • Reply 105 of 226
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    redefiler wrote: »
    Of all the things in this world, they decided to do something that were horrible at?  There was nothing else they could have put their efforts into?

    And miss out on all the mobile searches people do? Thank god you're not their CEO. I personally do 99% of my searches from my phone and I'm sure I have plenty of company. I get no pop ups and no banner ads.
  • Reply 106 of 226
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,762member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    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.

     

    Gatorguy,

     

    You don't speak with much authority.

     

    Google bought Moto when it did because Carl Icahn was an aggressive investor, and he and the Moto CEO made noise about going after other Android OEM's for patent infringement. This was anathema to Google, and forced their hand, at a premium.

     

    As for IP usable in negotiations with other corporations such as MS, Apple and Nokia, Google doesn't have any. If they did, they would have used it by now.

     

    Microsoft will end up getting money licensing IP to Moto/Google, just like they have from most of the other Android OEM's.

  • Reply 107 of 226
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheMule View Post



    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.

    Ah, I did not realize this was Idiot Day on AI.

     

    Happy Idiot Day, all!

  • Reply 108 of 226
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    And did Apple convert the content for mobile viewing as well?

    Not sure what you mean by "covert ... for mobile viewing". What does "for mobile viewing" refer to, exactly?
  • Reply 109 of 226
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    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

    So your explanation for Google not wielding their patent portfolio is they they'd rather be the white knight in shining armor. <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> How utterly asinine! Sorry to burst your bubble but no corporation with any hope of staying in business would pay several billion dollars for a company that's losing money if it didn't think there was something of value. Google was shaking in its boots seeing how its Android licensees were being forced to fork over cash to Microsoft in patent royalties. Google feared for the long-term liability of the Android platform. Motorola was losing money. It was trying to sell itself. Google made an offer to Motorola and was laughed out of the boardroom with a warning that Motorola would sell to Microsoft. Motorola's treasure trove of patents going to Microsoft was the stuff of nightmares to Google. In order to avoid this, Google ate crow and forked over $12.5 billion. 

     

    Google's hope was to be able to utilize Motorola's patent portfolio. In fact why don't you try to explain what "inestimable value" there is to be had in not using aggressively using Motorola's patent portfolio? I can't think of any explanation, but I digress. The bottom line in all this is that Google paid a huge amount of money for a company that was losing money and had a patent portfolio that probably wasn't the treasure trove Google thought it to be. 

     

    Also, what exactly does the link about Google's secret lab prove? The type of company Google is is defined by their financials, and you look at the financials and you'll find out that Google is as of now nothing more than an ad company. It's the majority of their sales. I don't care if Google makes a perpetual motion machine in their secret laboratories. What matters is if there's a viable product on the market.  

  • Reply 110 of 226
    splifsplif Posts: 592member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

     

     

    Well clearly they stole the following, which Apple invented:

    - Rectangular touch screen

    - Icons in a grid layout

    - Pinch to zoom


     

    I'm sorry...where is the big idea in what Google has created? Where was the aha moment. Apple did all the heavy lifting & Google added a few features that kind of piggybacked off of existing ideas & somehow they deserve credit for what? You're right Apple did absolutely nothing. There was absolutely no thinking going on in the development of the iPhone. No blueprint for others to follow. Where's Google's blueprint? Everyone else was going to do it anyway, right?...but they didn't. It's a lot easier to build a platform when someone shows you how. It doesn't mean you've created anything unique. Of course you think, from your comment, there was nothing unique about the iPhone.

  • Reply 111 of 226
    It's a freaking shame.  Apple had a huge head-start with the iPhone but gave it completely away to Google's Android.  That's the biggest problem with Apple.  They've never quite figured out how to hold onto market share.

    How is that a problem?
    Their market share for phones before June 2007 was exactly zero point zero percent, and every year they sell more and more phones than the year before.
  • Reply 112 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,603member
    vvswarup wrote: »
    So your explanation for Google not wielding their patent portfolio is they they'd rather be the white knight in shining armor. :lol:  How utterly asinine! Sorry to burst your bubble but no corporation with any hope of staying in business would pay several billion dollars for a company that's losing money if it didn't think there was something of value. Google was shaking in its boots seeing how its Android licensees were being forced to fork over cash to Microsoft in patent royalties. Google feared for the long-term liability of the Android platform. Motorola was losing money. It was trying to sell itself. Google made an offer to Motorola and was laughed out of the boardroom with a warning that Motorola would sell to Microsoft. Motorola's treasure trove of patents going to Microsoft was the stuff of nightmares to Google. In order to avoid this, Google ate crow and forked over $12.5 billion. 

    Google's hope was to be able to utilize Motorola's patent portfolio. In fact why don't you try to explain what "inestimable value" there is to be had in not using aggressively using Motorola's patent portfolio? I can't think of any explanation...

    Let's compare evidence then shall we?

    1. Google has been around for about 16 years now. Is it reasonable to believe no other search or ad provider has purposefully or accidentally used Google IP without permission over those 16 years? Then how many of it's search competitors have they sued over the years?
    2. Prior to closing on the Motorola Mobility deal Google controlled 2000+ patents, give or take a few, in several different arenas. Companies with far far fewer patents still attack other players, even bigger ones. How many of those patents did Google use in legal actions against its competitors up to that point?
    3. Motorola started several infringement actions over numerous patents against a few different techs prior to Google taking the reins of MM. After Google purchased them many new IP cases has Motorola Mobility filed?
    4. Prompted by MM saber-rattling Google removed the threat of further MM patents attacks from the tech landscape, preventing a further ramp-up in the IP wars and a waste of millions in over-reaching royalties and legal fees. Google's IP may even have been the impetus behind Apple making a surprise cross-license agreement with HTC.

    Now what evidence do you have for your claim that Google intended to aggressively attack Apple or MS or Nokia or anyone else once they had their hands on Moto IP, and that was the plan all along? What proof can you offer that Google's IP is worthless?
  • Reply 113 of 226
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

    Prompted by MM saber-rattling Google removed the threat of further MM patents attacks from the tech landscape…

     

    This reads so much like a press release, it’s painful.

     

    At least two lawsuits from Motorola, by the way.

  • Reply 114 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,603member
    This reads so much like a press release, it’s painful.

    At least two lawsuits from Motorola, by the way.

    Which new IP infringement claim lawsuits are in progress, filed by Motorola Mobility since May of last year TS?
  • Reply 115 of 226
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

    Which new IP infringement suits have been filed by Motorola Mobility since May of last year TS?

     

    1. February. Get your own acquisitions straight.

    2. http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/google-files-patent-lawsuit-against-apple/

     

    And that’s all it needs. Note the title. GOOGLE. Not Motorola, even. Because no one else is stupid enough to pretend they’re separate companies.

  • Reply 116 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,603member
    1. February. Get your own acquisitions straight.
    2. http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/google-files-patent-lawsuit-against-apple/

    And that’s all it needs. Note the title. GOOGLE. Not Motorola, even. Because no one else is stupid enough to pretend they’re separate companies.

    You had the year right at least. The purchase closed about the 21st of May, 2012
    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/google-closes-12-5-billion-deal-to-buy-motorola-mobility/

    ,,, and the article you linked is titled "MOTOROLA FILES PATENT LAWSUIT AGAINST APPLE, AIMS TO BLOCK U.S IMPORTS OF ITS PRODUCTS", not Google files suit against Apple.

    ... and it appears Google may have stepped in a couple weeks later to tell MM to drop the ITC complaint. Or perhaps MM had their own reasons. It may even be connected to Apple's out-of-the-blue licensing agreement with HTC just a month later. In any event at MM's request the ITC dismissed it in October of last year so there isn't any new lawsuit against Apple. So what was the other one of the two you thought you knew about?
  • Reply 117 of 226

    Can anyone explain to me why Apple isn't going nuclear on Google?

     

    When do the lawsuits finally begin?

     

    Are they waiting until the Samsung suits are over? I've always thought that those suits were just practice.

  • Reply 118 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,603member
    applezilla wrote: »
    Can anyone explain to me why Apple isn't going nuclear on Google?

    When do the lawsuits finally begin?

    Are they waiting until the Samsung suits are over? I've always thought that those suits were just practice.

    You ever play Tic-Tac-Toe?
  • Reply 119 of 226
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,113member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post

     

    Can anyone explain to me why Apple isn't going nuclear on Google?

     

    When do the lawsuits finally begin?

     

    Are they waiting until the Samsung suits are over? I've always thought that those suits were just practice.


    Apple is picking its targets, and not for the money. The $900 million current total in judgements against Samsung amounts to no more than a few days of profits for Apple in this fiscal year. The objective of legal action is to enforce patents that will pull Samsung's underpants down around their ankles, disrupting their device sales in various geographic markets and watching them fall on their ass businesswise.

     

    BTW, after Christmas, keep your eyes peeled for someone on the street actually wearing a Galaxy Galaxy Gear smartwatch. Then tell me if they look like some dweeb who stumbled off the set of The Big Bang Theory.

  • Reply 120 of 226
    kibitzer wrote: »
    …then tell me if they look like some dweeb who stumbled off the set of The Big Bang Theory.

    Woah there! No need to make this personal.
Sign In or Register to comment.