. you are wrong: Stanford exclusively licensed PageRank to Google. The company wouldn't have gotten any funding from VCs if it did not have exclusive patent rights to something of value.
I'm !00% correct ,which you yourself admit. It's Stanford's patent. Google also hasn't had exclusive licensing rights for years. There may be other licensees. If you want a license to Pagerank go talk to Stanford. You can have one for the right price as can Yahoo or Microsoft or DuckDuckGo.
.
Also, you are wrong: Stanford exclusively licensed PageRank to Google. The company wouldn't have gotten any funding from VCs if it did not have exclusive patent rights to something of value. Apple and IBM had hardware businesses. They didn't need a software patent to get initial funding
What about Microsoft?
And here's a fun fact: When Google got it's first round of funding, $25M in 1999, there was no Pagerank patent to license. There was only an application with no assurance a patent would ever issue. That tends to disprove your theory sir. Heck, the hiring of Schmidt was probably more important to the early financial backers, pre-IPO, IMHO.
You don't get it. Google doesn't sue companies because nobody else is as cavalier about infringing its patents. People are suing Google and its licensees because Google has a policy of stealing
So why is Apple sued even more often than Google? When you figure out the answer to that you'll get the reason behind many of the lawsuits targeting Google too.
So why is Apple sued even more often than Google? When you figure out the answer to that you'll get the reason behind many of the lawsuits targeting Google too.
Let's do an apples-to-apples comparison. List the lawsuits filed against Apple by technology companies which have actually released products to market using the infringed technology. Then do the same for the ones filed against Google or against companies using Google's technology which are directly related to that technology (i.e. Samsung). To me, those are the ones which really matter because there's material losses involved.
Let's do an apples-to-apples comparison. List the lawsuits filed against Apple by technology companies which have actually released products to market using the infringed technology. Then do the same for the ones filed against Google or against companies using Google's technology which are directly related to that technology (i.e. Samsung). To me, those are the ones which really matter because there's material losses involved.
Here's a start you can build on.
Apple:
Nokia, Cisco, Xerox, Kodak, Motorola, Creative. . .
Let's do an apples-to-apples comparison. List the lawsuits filed against Apple by technology companies which have actually released products to market using the infringed technology. Then do the same for the ones filed against Google or against companies using Google's technology which are directly related to that technology (i.e. Samsung). To me, those are the ones which really matter because there's material losses involved.
So you're saying it's fair game for any other company to infringe on patents that Apple owns but does not currently have a product associated with?
Google isn't sueing anyone outside of British Telecom. Nor is there a single new Motorola Mobility patent suit since Google bought them AFAIK. So no, neither Google nor a Google-owned MM sued any competitor for patent infringement.
If you believe either Google or a Google-owned Motorola Mobility has initiated some patent infringement you've misunderstood something you've read or heard. perhaps here at AI. Perhaps you've confused some 3 of 4 year old Motorola/General Dynamics lawsuits that even pre-dated Motorola Mobility and certainly pre-Google with remaining issues in appeal. Even most of those have been disposed of. There's nothing new Soli.
Google is suing Apple through MM. Clawing anything else is a lie. Likewise, your three points were equally off base since Google had exclusive right to PageRank and no other company is allowed to use it.
Normally your posts are at least factual but this time, they are simply wrong.
So you're saying it's fair game for any other company to infringe on patents that Apple owns but does not currently have a product associated with?
Not at all. I'm just trying to eliminate the cases where companies simply sit on patents and wait for others to infringe, or companies which buy up patents at firesale prices when other companies go out of business and do the same. I think most people can agree that these cases aren't beneficial to the industry.
OK, I loved the article because it makes a strong case that the media has it wrong, focusing on low-end, ultimately money-losing machines with Android instead of the high-end, technically superior iOS platform. (Was that sentence too long?) I buy everything Apple and have never been disappointed. Great article on Apple's comeback in the last 10 years!
Article problem number one: It's not Google's Pagerank patent. They've licensed it from Stanford just as any other company can do if it wishes.
Problem two. The author makes the leap to argue Google search could not have been created except by the grace of a patent. Microsoft, IBM and Apple all became viable companies without the assistance of a single software patent. Trade secrets and the laws applicable to them are powerful
Problem three: Google has never maintained that "it and its Android partners should be able to infringe upon any patents Apple has related to iOS". Another leap.
Finally, it's completely possible other search providers have infringed on Google IP. Not only possible but considering there's 10's of thousands it becomes quite likely. That Google hasn't ever sued a direct competitor makes any claim of Google's attitude towards wielding IP to fend off competition as being disingenuous . . . well disingenuous.
In Google's case patents appear to serve only defensive purposes and not generally used to block competition. Simply being a better, harder working and more creative search provider is what made them successful. For that matter Apple's revenue doesn't ride on the back of software patents either. Those pertaining to iOS have hardly been strong enough to get much if any credit for iDevice success. That success comes from being better, harder working and more creative than their competitors.
Of course Google wouldn't admit to it - you are a tad naive dude - jeez
funny how the "now", "instant gratification" crowd can't stand DED, well it's not funny it makes perfect sense, actual having to take more than 10 seconds looking at something or taking the time to actually read omg READ something put them into physical discomfort. YES! DED please write more please, Nothing like actual facts to make these idiots squirm. All they know how to do is skim and knee jerk react with the usual lies, which us after all the norm nowadays. so be it.
Gatorguy must rate as the most revisionist, liar on apple insider?
Typically if you call someone out as a liar you'd be expected to specify the lie and state what the truth is. You seem to have missed those parts. I guess what you really meant is you don't agree with the post.
Google is suing Apple through MM. Clawing anything else is a lie. Likewise, your three points were equally off base since Google had exclusive right to PageRank and no other company is allowed to use it.
Normally your posts are at least factual but this time, they are simply wrong.
Neither Google nor Motorola Mobility has a single active lawsuit against Apple (nor Apple against either one) and none of the old ones, not a single patent lawsuit, were filed during Google's ownership. And no Google does not have an exclusive license to Pagerank. Once upon a time they did but that time is long past. Anyone can license it from Stanford. it's not controlled by Google. Your really should check your facts before being so cavalier with claims of lying.
What??? When I still used Google a few years back it had tons of adds when you search. I checked and i still get these annoying links that i never ever use. Usually it gives them because of one search term that has nothing to do with the multiparameter search I wanted
Then they did some optimizations to the search functions and I stopped using it because it fu)(/&&ed up my search results because it wasn't what I expected and was used to. I think they can keep that door jam for themselves. It only works better for some no US termed searches is my opinion.
What part of "HOME PAGE" didn't you understand? Before you do a search not after.
If there has ever been an author at AppleInsider more in need of an editor, I'd like to meet them.
"Looking backward, the patented concept of PageRank (like most any other patent ever filed) might be viewed as a trivial, obvious and inevitable discovery. It is the very kind of thing that Google and its most strident fans commonly insist shouldn't be patented at all: a software concept built upon a series of algorithms."
Dilger's writing is a real shame. That paragraph is typical of his run-on sentence style that has led me to believe he is paid by the word.
I don't claim to be a particularly gifted writer, however I do recognize that "brevity is the soul of wit" and essential to writing well.
If you don't like long form work, can't handle sentence complexity and want to be told things you already think, there are any number of vapid blogs you can skim.
It's not that hard to steer clear of AppleInsider on Sunday if you can't handle Daniel Eran Dilger.
If you don't like long form work, can't handle sentence complexity and want to be told things you already think, there are any number of vapid blogs you can skim.
It's not that hard to steer clear of AppleInsider on Sunday if you can't handle Daniel Eran Dilger.
Speaking of things people can't handle. Can you handle one bit of criticism DED/Corrections without degenerating your reply into insults & belittlement? This is getting old and tiresome. Grow up.
YES! DED please write more please, Nothing like actual facts to make these idiots squirm. All they know how to do is skim and knee jerk react with the usual lies, which us after all the norm nowadays. so be it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The absolute inability of Android's enthusiasts to recognize Apple as anything other than a evil amalgamation of fallacious badness has few parallels outside of North Korea's official stance on the United States. The difference is that Android users have the facts in front of them. They're not really operating within a insane fiction erected by a censoring dictatorship. They are voluntarily choosing to live inside an iron curtain of hypocrisy and doublespeak, and suffering for it with shoddy technology experience. How ruthlessly absurd!
Can you point out the facts for me in the above? I can't see a single fact there which could be backed up by an independent source. All I can see is an angry diatribe against a group of people whose sole crime is to use a different mobile operating system. That isn't an 'editorial', it's just foaming-from-the mouth propaganda.
Nothing in this mathematics is unique and/or original. Pathetic. Every Mechanical Engineer and grad student of advanced Engineering has used these applications Larry Page has done quite routinely.
He implemented towards the concept of a URL Ranking system and presto! He got his patented first.
Truly pathetic that this has yet to be tossed on its ass.
Every single bit of these algorithms are routine in Linear Algebra and common in Mechanical Engineering dealing with Eigenvalue/Eigenvector applications.
Fields: Heat Transfer, Thermal Systems, Dynamic Control Systems, Wave Propagation, etc.
Fracking hypocrites, every single POS Android lover and GPL fanatics who want to do away with Software Patents.
This reminded me of an incident at a shop I worked at about 17 years ago, which was my first foray into the seedy patent world. A couple of co-workers devised a way to more efficiently handle work orders of $1M+ machines as they traveled through the pipeline. I assisted in taking their concept, and implementing it in our ERP system. All of us thought nothing of it. We always brainstormed about ways to make our production system more efficient.
Long story short, at the time we had an individual working there that had nothing to do with the process, was not included (ever) in any of the meetings, and I never spoken to him. He always came across to me as a slick-talking used-car salesman, talks a lot, says little, and never to be trusted. We found out he was asking all kinds of questions about what we did - we never hid it as it was just common efficiency ideas - and decided to patent the process, listing himself as the sole "inventor".
We ripped him a new a$$hole. We took basic common ideas and concepts that everyone knew and tweaked it a bit for our particular circumstances, and then this guy comes out of nowhere to essentially attempt to profit from other people's work. Talk about seedy. We never thought about "patenting" an algorithm, or process simply because it basic stuff. Thankfully, he was later fired. Apparently, he couldn't get along with anyone, what a shocker. I don't know if he ever was able to capitalize on that patent, not that we'd be the first out there screaming prior art.
Google's foray into the search arena with Pagerank, and how they are handling themselves now just reeks of seediness and hypocrisy. They take a free ride on everyone else's work - provided as common knowledge, and in other cases flat out takes it and with the hope it can ride it out and rake in the profit in order to fight it later leaves no respect from me. They are just the modern version of a train robber.
Can you point out the facts for me in the above? I can't see a single fact there which could be backed up by an independent source. All I can see is an angry diatribe against a group of people whose sole crime is to use a different mobile operating system. That isn't an 'editorial', it's just foaming-from-the mouth propaganda.
You selectively chose one of the "dramatic" paragraphs and, from that selective choice, declared the whole article as being propaganda. What about the parts dealing with the history of PageRank technology? Are those propaganda too?
Comments
I'm !00% correct ,which you yourself admit. It's Stanford's patent. Google also hasn't had exclusive licensing rights for years. There may be other licensees. If you want a license to Pagerank go talk to Stanford. You can have one for the right price as can Yahoo or Microsoft or DuckDuckGo.
What about Microsoft?
And here's a fun fact: When Google got it's first round of funding, $25M in 1999, there was no Pagerank patent to license. There was only an application with no assurance a patent would ever issue. That tends to disprove your theory sir. Heck, the hiring of Schmidt was probably more important to the early financial backers, pre-IPO, IMHO.
So why is Apple sued even more often than Google? When you figure out the answer to that you'll get the reason behind many of the lawsuits targeting Google too.
So why is Apple sued even more often than Google? When you figure out the answer to that you'll get the reason behind many of the lawsuits targeting Google too.
Let's do an apples-to-apples comparison. List the lawsuits filed against Apple by technology companies which have actually released products to market using the infringed technology. Then do the same for the ones filed against Google or against companies using Google's technology which are directly related to that technology (i.e. Samsung). To me, those are the ones which really matter because there's material losses involved.
Here's a start you can build on.
Apple:
Nokia, Cisco, Xerox, Kodak, Motorola, Creative. . .
Google:
Microsoft, Oracle, Viacomm., Yahoo . .
So you're saying it's fair game for any other company to infringe on patents that Apple owns but does not currently have a product associated with?
Google is suing Apple through MM. Clawing anything else is a lie. Likewise, your three points were equally off base since Google had exclusive right to PageRank and no other company is allowed to use it.
Normally your posts are at least factual but this time, they are simply wrong.
So you're saying it's fair game for any other company to infringe on patents that Apple owns but does not currently have a product associated with?
Not at all. I'm just trying to eliminate the cases where companies simply sit on patents and wait for others to infringe, or companies which buy up patents at firesale prices when other companies go out of business and do the same. I think most people can agree that these cases aren't beneficial to the industry.
Here's a start you can build on.
Apple:
Nokia, Cisco, Xerox, Kodak, Motorola, Creative. . .
Google:
Microsoft, Oracle, Viacomm., Yahoo . .
And the companies who license Android from Google and have infringement cases related to that: Samsung, HTC, Motorola, etc
And, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Article problem number one: It's not Google's Pagerank patent. They've licensed it from Stanford just as any other company can do if it wishes.
Problem two. The author makes the leap to argue Google search could not have been created except by the grace of a patent. Microsoft, IBM and Apple all became viable companies without the assistance of a single software patent. Trade secrets and the laws applicable to them are powerful
Problem three: Google has never maintained that "it and its Android partners should be able to infringe upon any patents Apple has related to iOS". Another leap.
Finally, it's completely possible other search providers have infringed on Google IP. Not only possible but considering there's 10's of thousands it becomes quite likely. That Google hasn't ever sued a direct competitor makes any claim of Google's attitude towards wielding IP to fend off competition as being disingenuous . . . well disingenuous.
In Google's case patents appear to serve only defensive purposes and not generally used to block competition. Simply being a better, harder working and more creative search provider is what made them successful. For that matter Apple's revenue doesn't ride on the back of software patents either. Those pertaining to iOS have hardly been strong enough to get much if any credit for iDevice success. That success comes from being better, harder working and more creative than their competitors.
Of course Google wouldn't admit to it - you are a tad naive dude - jeez
Gatorguy must rate as the most revisionist, liar on apple insider?
funny how the "now", "instant gratification" crowd can't stand DED, well it's not funny it makes perfect sense, actual having to take more than 10 seconds looking at something or taking the time to actually read omg READ something put them into physical discomfort. YES! DED please write more please, Nothing like actual facts to make these idiots squirm. All they know how to do is skim and knee jerk react with the usual lies, which us after all the norm nowadays. so be it.
Neither Google nor Motorola Mobility has a single active lawsuit against Apple (nor Apple against either one) and none of the old ones, not a single patent lawsuit, were filed during Google's ownership. And no Google does not have an exclusive license to Pagerank. Once upon a time they did but that time is long past. Anyone can license it from Stanford. it's not controlled by Google. Your really should check your facts before being so cavalier with claims of lying.
What part of "HOME PAGE" didn't you understand? Before you do a search not after.
If you don't like long form work, can't handle sentence complexity and want to be told things you already think, there are any number of vapid blogs you can skim.
It's not that hard to steer clear of AppleInsider on Sunday if you can't handle Daniel Eran Dilger.
If you don't like long form work, can't handle sentence complexity and want to be told things you already think, there are any number of vapid blogs you can skim.
It's not that hard to steer clear of AppleInsider on Sunday if you can't handle Daniel Eran Dilger.
Speaking of things people can't handle. Can you handle one bit of criticism DED/Corrections without degenerating your reply into insults & belittlement? This is getting old and tiresome. Grow up.
Originally Posted by Paul94544
YES! DED please write more please, Nothing like actual facts to make these idiots squirm. All they know how to do is skim and knee jerk react with the usual lies, which us after all the norm nowadays. so be it.
The absolute inability of Android's enthusiasts to recognize Apple as anything other than a evil amalgamation of fallacious badness has few parallels outside of North Korea's official stance on the United States. The difference is that Android users have the facts in front of them. They're not really operating within a insane fiction erected by a censoring dictatorship. They are voluntarily choosing to live inside an iron curtain of hypocrisy and doublespeak, and suffering for it with shoddy technology experience. How ruthlessly absurd!
Can you point out the facts for me in the above? I can't see a single fact there which could be backed up by an independent source. All I can see is an angry diatribe against a group of people whose sole crime is to use a different mobile operating system. That isn't an 'editorial', it's just foaming-from-the mouth propaganda.
Nothing in this mathematics is unique and/or original. Pathetic. Every Mechanical Engineer and grad student of advanced Engineering has used these applications Larry Page has done quite routinely.
He implemented towards the concept of a URL Ranking system and presto! He got his patented first.
Truly pathetic that this has yet to be tossed on its ass.
Every single bit of these algorithms are routine in Linear Algebra and common in Mechanical Engineering dealing with Eigenvalue/Eigenvector applications.
Fields: Heat Transfer, Thermal Systems, Dynamic Control Systems, Wave Propagation, etc.
Fracking hypocrites, every single POS Android lover and GPL fanatics who want to do away with Software Patents.
This reminded me of an incident at a shop I worked at about 17 years ago, which was my first foray into the seedy patent world. A couple of co-workers devised a way to more efficiently handle work orders of $1M+ machines as they traveled through the pipeline. I assisted in taking their concept, and implementing it in our ERP system. All of us thought nothing of it. We always brainstormed about ways to make our production system more efficient.
Long story short, at the time we had an individual working there that had nothing to do with the process, was not included (ever) in any of the meetings, and I never spoken to him. He always came across to me as a slick-talking used-car salesman, talks a lot, says little, and never to be trusted. We found out he was asking all kinds of questions about what we did - we never hid it as it was just common efficiency ideas - and decided to patent the process, listing himself as the sole "inventor".
We ripped him a new a$$hole. We took basic common ideas and concepts that everyone knew and tweaked it a bit for our particular circumstances, and then this guy comes out of nowhere to essentially attempt to profit from other people's work. Talk about seedy. We never thought about "patenting" an algorithm, or process simply because it basic stuff. Thankfully, he was later fired. Apparently, he couldn't get along with anyone, what a shocker. I don't know if he ever was able to capitalize on that patent, not that we'd be the first out there screaming prior art.
Google's foray into the search arena with Pagerank, and how they are handling themselves now just reeks of seediness and hypocrisy. They take a free ride on everyone else's work - provided as common knowledge, and in other cases flat out takes it and with the hope it can ride it out and rake in the profit in order to fight it later leaves no respect from me. They are just the modern version of a train robber.
Can you point out the facts for me in the above? I can't see a single fact there which could be backed up by an independent source. All I can see is an angry diatribe against a group of people whose sole crime is to use a different mobile operating system. That isn't an 'editorial', it's just foaming-from-the mouth propaganda.
You selectively chose one of the "dramatic" paragraphs and, from that selective choice, declared the whole article as being propaganda. What about the parts dealing with the history of PageRank technology? Are those propaganda too?