Apple and Google agree to drop all ongoing lawsuits, will work toward patent reform

123578

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 148
    taniwhataniwha Posts: 347member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cali View Post





    If it weren't for Apple YOU wouldn't exist.

     

    I can't wait to hear the explanation for this little tidbit.


    Maybe he thinks Apple makes Condoms :-)

  • Reply 82 of 148
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    If Google really wants to extend a hand in good faith to Apple... an olive branch per se... they should send a serious warning in the direction of Samsung to quit duplicating Google's own apps and functions, as well as mimicking other OSes (Apple's and Microsoft's) and Apps (Facebook Frontpage or whatever it's called).... thus diluting Android itself and calling it their own.

    If Samsung refuses... drop them from the Handset Alliance and let them create their own Android fork without Google's services; release Tizen; or go back begging at Microsoft's door. See how that goes in the future.

    Google "could" make this a fair game to play for it's other OEMs, and at the same time retake their OS from the clutches of Samsung.

    One last thing: if I was Google... I would be seriously p***ed if an OEM 1) was so selfish and greedy to rip off a competitor and get us all in to deep water; and then 2) pointed their finger at me in court as a "partner in crime" and ask me to pay for their selfish foolishness by taking it this far!

    Suffice it to say... if I was Google I'd surely be more p'ed off at Samsung than Apple at this point in time.
  • Reply 83 of 148
    It's Larry Ellison turn now.
  • Reply 84 of 148
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,084member
    If Google really wants to extend a hand in good faith to Apple... an olive branch per se... they should send a serious warning in the direction of Samsung to quit duplicating Google's own apps and functions...
    Suffice it to say... if I was Google I'd surely be more p'ed off at Samsung than Apple at this point in time.

    I've never seen any evidence that Google was ever p'ed off at Apple. No threats, no bombastic statements, no saber-rattling of any kind. The worst I can recall is one Google presenter making a "draconian future" comment several years ago for which he was chastised by Google's owners IIRC. That's it. It's obvious from various emails revealed in court cases that Google has tried to appease Apple over the years. They've extended olive branches even when they should not have (ie hiring practices)

    As for warning Samsung against "copying" they've done so. That came out in the first Apple/Samsung trial and I personally suspect it's not the only conversation the two have had on the subject. I think the major thing preventing this laying down of arms from happening sooner was Apple holding out on offering that olive branch in return. Hopefully these two companies can agree to fix any future problems between them too without resorting to (semi) public threats or court filings. .
  • Reply 85 of 148
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,074member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post





    That's the real question, is it?

    Maybe because Apple realized that Motorola had already implemented something in their watch technology that Apple needed to be able to copy.

  • Reply 86 of 148
    cjcampbellcjcampbell Posts: 113member
    Meanwhile, bad actors like Amazon continue to patent prior art. Amazon's latest stunt? Patenting photographs of people and objects with a white background. Apparently no one had ever thought of it before. Who knew? :/
  • Reply 87 of 148
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,084member
    cjcampbell wrote: »
    Meanwhile, bad actors like Amazon continue to patent prior art. Amazon's latest stunt? Patenting photographs of people and objects with a white background. Apparently no one had ever thought of it before. Who knew? :/

    So is it Amazon to be blamed for asking for one or the USPTO for doing so? If the patent office actually does their job properly then claims in Amazon's filing are unique and inventive enough to qualify, Big if. . .
  • Reply 88 of 148
    ajmonlineajmonline Posts: 56member
    Damnit..I wanted them to hit them hard. I truly think they waited too long to go after them. You have to be able to protect your IP. I guess this doesn't mean that lawsuits can't be brought up in the future. But damnit if Google isn't still a thief to end all thieves.

    No the thief to end all thieves is still Samsung. Google knew enough to change it enough to not be an outright copy. They even tried to warn Samsung not to copy so closely. Check out Vanity Fair's coverage of Samsung's Coping not just in Smartphone
  • Reply 89 of 148
    bloggerblogbloggerblog Posts: 2,455member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    So why did Apple cave?

    Apple has no case against Android because Android was inspired by iOS and not copied. It is totally legal to be inspired but it's illegal to copy. When Apple sued Samsung it was because they have "slavishly copied Apple's technology".

    So Google has also done everything it can to tiptoe around Apple's unique UI, they have even warned Samsung to not copy Apple's UI. Google can only be sued on very specific patents, the only danger for Android at the moment is if the multi-touch patent holds out.
  • Reply 90 of 148
    cjcampbellcjcampbell Posts: 113member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    So is it Amazon to be blamed for asking for one or the USPTO for doing so? If the patent office actually does their job properly then claims in Amazon's filing are unique and inventive enough to qualify, Big if. . .

    The USPTO's many failures to do its job are the major reason for the push behind patent reform. But, really -- why did Amazon spend so much time and money patenting a technique that has been in use by so many for so long? The USPTO would not have so many failures if companies like Amazon did not file frivolous patents. One wonders if Amazon web sites like Digital Photography Review will now start sending demand letters to photographers who use white backgrounds. I doubt it, but that is the trouble with this system. Some patent troll might acquire the patent and start doing just that, costing everybody a lot of time and money to fight it.

  • Reply 91 of 148
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    apple ][ wrote: »
    I prefer war over peace.

    I also think that most people who comment on the internet about patent cases and come with the cliched comment and talking point that the whole patent system needs to be reformed, what they really mean is that it should be made even easier for everybody to steal from Apple, as those people don't really view many of Apple's patents as being valid.

    No, such people want the patent system to make sense and do what it originally was established to do, not be a game playing tool for the super rich corporations to hold over the heads of new businesses and be a barrier to entry for new entities and products. Such people also want the system to protect the inventor, not create money making schemes for trolls and other non-inventing entities that happened to accumulate ownership of a pile of patents they don't use for anything but lawsuits and strong arm tactics.

    Basically, the system is horribly broken and the only reason you could have to disagree is that you're somehow benefitting from the way the system has been perverted (by computer industry lobbyists), or you are not fully educated as to the reality of what is going on today in patent-land.

    "Land of the free" is a misnomer.
  • Reply 92 of 148
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    I suspect that both companies realized that a lot of self-incriminating evidence would come out, detailing their abuse of not only each other's property but also the legal system and patent law itself... which might encourage a more popular movement toward truly reforming it... and of course much money would be consumed and business secrets revealed fighting each other in the open legal system, and have decided to find a way to collude. This way they can keep all the facts hidden about why the USA needs a critical and drastic reform of patent law in the first place (which Apple and Google would not benefit from financially). This is basically a "don't worry about the law; we will take care of everything", with full intent on maintaining the broken system they screwed up for their own benefit.
  • Reply 93 of 148
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    The USPTO originally rejected software patents. They were forced to accept them by political pressure and lobbying from the computer industry. Don't blame a department for being ruined by the overlying political games of those in power above them.
  • Reply 94 of 148
    sirlance99sirlance99 Posts: 1,293member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    So why did Apple cave?

    In more than 50 months of "holy war"patent infringement lawsuits against Android device makers, Apple has not proved its ownership of any feature (in terms of a feature that end users would define as a feature, as opposed to secondary aspects of features) other than rubberbanding. The overscroll bounceback is the only recognizable feature that had to be removed from Android devices as a result of Apple's lawsuits. Google and its device maker partners have been able to work around Apple's patents in ways that don't materially adversely affect demand.

     

    Apart from the limited strength of Apple's portfolio, there is another reason for which Apple would only have wasted time and money by further pursuing the Motorola lawsuis. Google recently entered into an agreement under which Lenovo acquired Motorola Mobility's handset business. Even if Apple had won something against Motorola in the future (for example, a Florida trial was scheduled to take place later this year), it would not have had direct impact on Google's business. By contrast, Google could have continued to use Motorola Mobility's patents against Apple, but those turned out too weak anyway.

     


    At first sight one would assume that this Apple-Google agreement makes a near-term Apple-Samsung settlement much more likely, but this depends on whether Apple's decision-makers have fully realized just how non-thermonuclear their patent portfolio is. If the decision to dismiss all Google lawsuits was primarily driven by Google's Lenovo deal, then Apple may still have unrealistic expectations with respect to the terms of a settlement with Samsung. Apple's 2012 settlement with HTC, which unlike the Google agreement did involve a cross-license (for ten years, in fact), was apparently also driven by the fact that HTC was no longer a priority target, and that settlement changed nothing about Apple's Android-related lawsuits against Samsung and Motorola. If Apple now just decided that Lenovo wasn't worth suing, then this may mean even more of a focus on Samsung -- but it's reasonably optimistic that Apple is smart enough to know that Steve Jobs was wrong when he thought he could destroy Android with patents.
  • Reply 95 of 148
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post

    Do people even read anymore? 

    Doesn't seem like it, does it?

    Quote:

    The word 'if' clearly indicates that I know that there isn't a cross license.




    Yet you still posted...

     

    Quote:


    just because they were unable to agree on that at this moment in time.


    Where did you read they were unable to come to an agreement about this?

    Was it even discussed by either side? I doubt it but the article doesn't say.

    It simply states, "there would be no cross-licensing agreements between the to companies," 

  • Reply 96 of 148
    Isn't this the case where posner was sent back to repeat a grade,
    totally re-opening Apples case to move forward (no sep plz)?

    Hasn't giggle sold this company already?

    Who would buy a company so encumbered?

    I am thinking giggle wanted to settle more than Apple.

    I am thinking Apple got something they wanted in the agreement,
    maybe brin comes to wash cooks self driving car ; )
  • Reply 97 of 148
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    bugsnw wrote: »
    Maybe Apple has something pretty revolutionary in the lab and doesn't feel the costs justify protecting 'old' technology. Some kind of cost/benefit analysis was done and I, too, wonder what they're thinking.

    This "cease fire" is not a guarantee against future legal actions.

    IMO, for Apple to win going forward they must offer luxury product that is essentially not reproducible in smaller volumes or because it requires extremely costly and proprietary technology to manufacture... and they certainly seem to be going in that direction with the fingerprint reader and the sapphire coating.

    It will soon result in visibly superior products that cannot be cheaply copied by any company.
  • Reply 98 of 148
    droidftw wrote: »
    You're projecting your extremist views onto others.  Most Google fans (myself included) don't hate Apple or their products.  Just like most Apple fans don't hate Google or their products.  It's actually a small, vocal minority of people that fall into those extreme categories.

    So you think "most Google fans" are misrepresented by this so-called "vocal minority"? Do I see "most Google fans" arguing against the "vocal minority"? Or do I see "most Google fans" clicking the "Like" button on their posts?

    Most (let's call them moderate) Google fans aren't astroturfing here. They're enjoying their own communities. Google fans who are here aren't here for that reason. They're here because Apple fans are wrong on the Internet ;)
  • Reply 99 of 148
    chipsychipsy Posts: 287member
    chris_ca wrote: »
    Doesn't seem like it, does it?
    Where did you read they were unable to come to an agreement about this?
    Was it even discussed by either side? I doubt it but the article doesn't say.
    It simply states, "there would be no cross-licensing agreements between the to companies," 
    It says the agreement doesn't include a cross license. I'm not implying that it has been talked about, all I'm saying is there is no agreement on it at this moment in time. Which is factually correct. Granted I might not have expressed this clearly (the use of 'unable to agree' was a mistake on my part). But had no intentions of insinuating that there were talks about it just that there isn't an agreement on that at this moment in time.
  • Reply 100 of 148
    juandljuandl Posts: 230member

       The Lawyer Bill for the Apple-Samsung trail just arrived.

    Apple realizes it is to big.  And the courts will continue keeping the amount owed to Apple small.

      It would be even harder to collect from Google.

Sign In or Register to comment.