Now if you look really hard you might stumble on the only patent infringement lawsuit Google has ever filed in the history of their company. Yup, there's only one and it's not against Apple, Microsoft, Nokia or any other competitor of theirs.
You do understand that these lawsuit were started by Motorola before Google acquisition. No company in their right mind (Including Apple) is not going to just shut down lawsuit just because they gets acquired by someone. That's now how system works. Everyone knows that Google bought Motorola patents for self defense against troll lawsuit that wants to take advantage of Android eco-system.
The very fact that different judges can 'interpret' patent law differently in various jurisdictions in the US makes me believe that the basis of IP and especially software 'inventions' is fatally flawed.
Rockstar would be a patent troll if the patents they bought had no value to the businesses themselves except as used in litigation. However, the Nortel patents have technical value to the likes of Apple, MS, and Google. New inventions extending these patent ideas can be made without concern for the need to license or the need to invent around the patents, to avoid infringement. Trolls don't care about these issues.
Apple in the process of building a radio modem for use in cell phones (Nortel patents), hardly a troll. Google's incompetence as a Ad company pretending to make tech hardware at no profit makes them a troll.
Bryan Tianao - it would seem that you work for Samsung from the stream of pro Samsung comments you post in an Apple Forum? Isn't that called trolling?
As for Android being targeted... I would turn that around and say that Google bought Motorola for exactly the same purposes...in fact they sold the company and kept the most important Patents
The fact is I've used Apple products probably a lot longer than most people on this forum; having cut my teeth as a coder back on the Apple II+ and IIe in early 80's. I'm also a fan of Steve Wozniak (who, due to his views on the whole merits of litigation, funnily enough makes him unpopular on these types of forums.. hmm maybe he's a Samsung shill too because of his not having 100% pro biased apple views?)
So, perhaps instead of taking offense to someone with an opposing view, you might consider trying to counter it and provide your "balanced" view. Reality is that is harder to do as you are then defending the actions of a patent troll - easier to just ad hominem the poster.
Lastly, to your point on the Motorola acquisition, given the "going thermonuclear" intents of Jobs, it would have been corporate negligence of Google to not start looking at ways to counter this new NON technological threat that's been created by Apple. It was bought for defensive purposes. Now we have billions being spent away from technology and into the pockets of lawyers thanks to Apple - that ticks me off frankly, oh and the blind sheep that believe that is the right philosophy (it isn't, it won't end up with a good result for Apple (ie Android will continue to be around and dominate), it will hold progress back about 5 or 10 years though).
Honestly, what do you think Google would have done if they purchased these patents? I doubt they would just put them away and let all their competitors have free reign of them. Google doesn't like patents because they don't have any worth a shxt!!
you've been farting around in the tech world for 30 years and you don't understand the validity of patents? You never patented any of your work in all that time? I find it hard to believe. Also hard to believe is that by your argument patents in other industries are some sort of vestigial appendage in the system. Do engineers in automotive and aerospace or a myriad of other industries also not have the right to patent their ideas or is your bias just towards the tech world? Please enlighten me because I don't understand how a development in any realm of "invention" shouldn't reward the creator or the owner.
Thanks Gatorguy - Nice link - I've got plenty of prior art references to submit to the PTO to assist then in invalidating the obvious patents Apple is pushing.. Background data sync, just invented since iPhone was released?? pffft.
Thanks Gatorguy - Nice link - I've got plenty of prior art references to submit to the PTO to assist then in invalidating the obvious patents Apple is pushing.. Background data sync, just invented since iPhone was released?? pffft.
Apple's patents go back to the Mac and Next days, they use them as iOS is an extension of OSX.
Convergence.
You want to make a phone work like a computer, Apple's been there thirty years and twenty one for the Newton?
you've been farting around in the tech world for 30 years and you don't understand the validity of patents? You never patented any of your work in all that time? I find it hard to believe.
Can you imagine how many patents would be out there if every developer patented everything they created?
Do you really think every developer in the world that creates something is creating something unique which only they could have come up with and is worthy of patenting?
If you create something truly unique and worthy, sure patent it. Do you really believe Apple invented background data sync? or Autocorrect? Have you used MS Word before? Autocorrect has plenty of prior art - it doesn't make it valid just because you add "for use on a mobile device".
Those other industries, do create something unique, eg pharma, so Patents make sense there.
Can you imagine how many patents would be out there if every developer patented everything they created?
Do you really think every developer in the world that creates something is creating something unique which only they could have come up with and is worthy of patenting?
If you create something truly unique and worthy, sure patent it. Do you really believe Apple invented background data sync? or Autocorrect? Have you used MS Word before? Autocorrect has plenty of prior art - it doesn't make it valid just because you add "for use on a mobile device".
Those other industries, do create something unique, eg pharma, so Patents make sense there.
All those standards essential software patents that cover how data is encoded, sent over a network and decoded.
Do you think modern telecommunications would work without them?
All those standards essential software patents that cover how data is encoded, sent over a network and decoded.
Do you think modern telecommunications would work without them?
The prior art is morse code.
Sure, there are valid patents out there. Do you believe the over two hundred thousands approved software patents (in US alone) and many more hundreds of thousands of patents pending, are likely valid? Even some of the "key" ones Apple are presenting are under re-examination by the PTO for validity.
Sure, there are valid patents out there. Do you believe the over two hundred thousands approved software patents (in US alone) and many more hundreds of thousands of patents pending, are likely valid? Even some of the "key" ones Apple are presenting are under re-examination by the PTO for validity.
...but morse code was prior art, it encoded data, transmitted it over a network and decoded it at the other end.
According to your earlier arguments, that invalidates every GSM, 3G and 4G standards essential patent ever granted because that is all these inventions do, using software to do it.
Comments
Perhaps you aren't reading enough. MM requested that ITC case be dropped just 6 weeks after it was filed.
There's not a single new lawsuit using MM IP in the works despite Motorola Mobility and/or Google having plenty of time to root thru those patents and find a few appropriate ones.
http://venturebeat.com/2012/10/02/googlemotorola-unilaterally-drop-itc-patent-infringement-case-against-apple/
Now if you look really hard you might stumble on the only patent infringement lawsuit Google has ever filed in the history of their company. Yup, there's only one and it's not against Apple, Microsoft, Nokia or any other competitor of theirs.
Perhaps you aren't looking hard enough.... http://www.zdnet.com/motorola-mobility-sues-apple-again-seeks-iphone-mac-import-ban-7000002853/
You do understand that these lawsuit were started by Motorola before Google acquisition. No company in their right mind (Including Apple) is not going to just shut down lawsuit just because they gets acquired by someone. That's now how system works. Everyone knows that Google bought Motorola patents for self defense against troll lawsuit that wants to take advantage of Android eco-system.
These were standards essential patents and therefore would not have succeeded and that is why I suspect they didn't carry on with the lawsuit. If you are suggesting that Apple is a patent troll then read this... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/apple-top-target-of-patent-trolls-faced-92-lawsuits-in-three-years/
Nope, wrong again. The 6 (or was it 7) patents that MM wanted to use were not all standard-essential. In fact IIRC none of them were.
Oops
I can't imagine this was sanctioned from Cupertino.
This manoeuvre smacks of a bunch of legal beagles operating on the companies behalf but without enough control.from the parent company.
Time for Tim to rein these cowboys in, I'd say.
The whole point of Rockstar is for it to operate independently.
That's what Veschi, Rockstar's CEO, publicly said. The Chief Judge in her ruling does not believe him.
Court: um, didn't you bid on them?
Google: that was a joke bid.
Court: um sure. We always bid on item in jest.
Rockstar would be a patent troll if the patents they bought had no value to the businesses themselves except as used in litigation. However, the Nortel patents have technical value to the likes of Apple, MS, and Google. New inventions extending these patent ideas can be made without concern for the need to license or the need to invent around the patents, to avoid infringement. Trolls don't care about these issues.
Apple in the process of building a radio modem for use in cell phones (Nortel patents), hardly a troll. Google's incompetence as a Ad company pretending to make tech hardware at no profit makes them a troll.
Bryan Tianao - it would seem that you work for Samsung from the stream of pro Samsung comments you post in an Apple Forum? Isn't that called trolling?
As for Android being targeted... I would turn that around and say that Google bought Motorola for exactly the same purposes...in fact they sold the company and kept the most important Patents
The fact is I've used Apple products probably a lot longer than most people on this forum; having cut my teeth as a coder back on the Apple II+ and IIe in early 80's. I'm also a fan of Steve Wozniak (who, due to his views on the whole merits of litigation, funnily enough makes him unpopular on these types of forums.. hmm maybe he's a Samsung shill too because of his not having 100% pro biased apple views?)
So, perhaps instead of taking offense to someone with an opposing view, you might consider trying to counter it and provide your "balanced" view. Reality is that is harder to do as you are then defending the actions of a patent troll - easier to just ad hominem the poster.
Lastly, to your point on the Motorola acquisition, given the "going thermonuclear" intents of Jobs, it would have been corporate negligence of Google to not start looking at ways to counter this new NON technological threat that's been created by Apple. It was bought for defensive purposes. Now we have billions being spent away from technology and into the pockets of lawyers thanks to Apple - that ticks me off frankly, oh and the blind sheep that believe that is the right philosophy (it isn't, it won't end up with a good result for Apple (ie Android will continue to be around and dominate), it will hold progress back about 5 or 10 years though).
I doubt they would just put them away and let all their competitors have free reign of them. Google doesn't like patents because they don't have any worth a shxt!!
you've been farting around in the tech world for 30 years and you don't understand the validity of patents? You never patented any of your work in all that time? I find it hard to believe. Also hard to believe is that by your argument patents in other industries are some sort of vestigial appendage in the system. Do engineers in automotive and aerospace or a myriad of other industries also not have the right to patent their ideas or is your bias just towards the tech world? Please enlighten me because I don't understand how a development in any realm of "invention" shouldn't reward the creator or the owner.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2013/07/22.html
Thanks Gatorguy - Nice link - I've got plenty of prior art references to submit to the PTO to assist then in invalidating the obvious patents Apple is pushing.. Background data sync, just invented since iPhone was released?? pffft.
Thanks Gatorguy - Nice link - I've got plenty of prior art references to submit to the PTO to assist then in invalidating the obvious patents Apple is pushing.. Background data sync, just invented since iPhone was released?? pffft.
Apple's patents go back to the Mac and Next days, they use them as iOS is an extension of OSX.
Convergence.
You want to make a phone work like a computer, Apple's been there thirty years and twenty one for the Newton?
you've been farting around in the tech world for 30 years and you don't understand the validity of patents? You never patented any of your work in all that time? I find it hard to believe.
Can you imagine how many patents would be out there if every developer patented everything they created?
Do you really think every developer in the world that creates something is creating something unique which only they could have come up with and is worthy of patenting?
If you create something truly unique and worthy, sure patent it. Do you really believe Apple invented background data sync? or Autocorrect? Have you used MS Word before? Autocorrect has plenty of prior art - it doesn't make it valid just because you add "for use on a mobile device".
Those other industries, do create something unique, eg pharma, so Patents make sense there.
Can you imagine how many patents would be out there if every developer patented everything they created?
Do you really think every developer in the world that creates something is creating something unique which only they could have come up with and is worthy of patenting?
If you create something truly unique and worthy, sure patent it. Do you really believe Apple invented background data sync? or Autocorrect? Have you used MS Word before? Autocorrect has plenty of prior art - it doesn't make it valid just because you add "for use on a mobile device".
Those other industries, do create something unique, eg pharma, so Patents make sense there.
All those standards essential software patents that cover how data is encoded, sent over a network and decoded.
Do you think modern telecommunications would work without them?
The prior art is morse code.
All those standards essential software patents that cover how data is encoded, sent over a network and decoded.
Do you think modern telecommunications would work without them?
The prior art is morse code.
Sure, there are valid patents out there. Do you believe the over two hundred thousands approved software patents (in US alone) and many more hundreds of thousands of patents pending, are likely valid? Even some of the "key" ones Apple are presenting are under re-examination by the PTO for validity.
Sure, there are valid patents out there. Do you believe the over two hundred thousands approved software patents (in US alone) and many more hundreds of thousands of patents pending, are likely valid? Even some of the "key" ones Apple are presenting are under re-examination by the PTO for validity.
...but morse code was prior art, it encoded data, transmitted it over a network and decoded it at the other end.
According to your earlier arguments, that invalidates every GSM, 3G and 4G standards essential patent ever granted because that is all these inventions do, using software to do it.