Google's current stance on patents with Android would have prevented Google from ever having existed

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 136
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,812member

    I found this quote from WIkipedia's entry on cognitive dissonance insightful:

     

    Quote:


    If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in restoring consonance through misperception, rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others.[4]


     

    Question: does Google's behavior contravene its own image as a do-gooder and principled tech company beloved by geeks and open source fans? And if so, how do they deal with that?

  • Reply 82 of 136
    Dan_DilgerDan_Dilger Posts: 1,583member

    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.

    If you can't handle it, you shouldn't dish it out.
  • Reply 83 of 136
    lord amhranlord amhran Posts: 902member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Corrections View Post





    If you can't handle it, you shouldn't dish it out.



    I have no issues. You're the one who can't deal with anyone critical of your articles based on the insults you hurl rather than address the poster's issue(s) with your articles.

  • Reply 84 of 136
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    I found this quote from WIkipedia's entry on cognitive dissonance insightful:


    Question: does Google's behavior contravene its own image as a do-gooder and principled tech company beloved by geeks and open source fans? And if so, how do they deal with that?

    How does Google deal with it or the fans. The fans just look past the silly notion that a company who has responsibilities to it's many shareholders and employees isn't capable of the Jesus like mentality you are suggesting they adhere too. They instead focus on the narcissists way of thinking of what can they do for me that we are all guilty of. If any of us actually new the real internal workings of any of these billion dollar companies it would probably make even the most staunch user of their products shake their head in disgust, that is until they turned on one of their device or use one of their services 10 seconds later. It's fun to to poke around these forums and discuss who is more righteous, shake our fingers at others and say look, look, their not so special after all. Just don't loose site of the fact that we're just being biased, having chosen sides with one inherently evil corporate entity for another. A corporation that wouldn't give you a glass of water if they found you dying in the desert unless you signed a user agreement. If any of us actually truly had any integrity we would all be using FreeBSD installed on products from the host country that they were actually developed and produced from that included a free bumper sticker on ever box stating, "Free the Tibetans".
  • Reply 85 of 136
    froodfrood Posts: 771member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Corrections View Post





    It's not that hard to steer clear of AppleInsider on Sunday if you can't handle Daniel Eran Dilger.

     

    Did he just refer to himself in the third person posting as a forum alt?

  • Reply 86 of 136
    ipirateipirate Posts: 1member

    This is the same poorly made attack drivel I would expect from people who are Micro, Soft, and trying to make up for it. Good job for acting like Apple, slinging feces cause it can't get attention any other way and is becoming as irrelevant as Yahoo who, along with Micro Still-can't-perform, decided search wasn't important enough to innovate in and that decision, just like Xerox giving it's tech to Apple for peanuts and IBM not holding on to DOS, is now hurting them. 

     

    Google is fighting against stupid patents like swipe to unlock, or running across a field, or placement of the gas brake and clutch pedals in your car, and locking down OPEN SOURCE api's.

     

    Apple was once a great innovator, Jobs was more ruthless and tyrannical than Gates was and this pushed his visions. Unfortunately this made a corporate culture of follow the leader and be super obedient. Now that Jobs is gone this culture still exists and it has made the company stagnate very quickly and all they can do now is follow the new innovators.

     

    In history you can see that forced leadership pushes for huge changes lots of support and massive amounts of innovation but only for a short time before collapsing. Look at Russia they beat US to space and Germany made tons of advancements in science between mid 1930's and the end of WWII. This innovation was pushed by just a few people with a vision. In Germany's case it was to prove the arian race was superior and Russia wanted to prove that extreme socialism could beat capitalism. In Jobs case it was pushing a vision that broke the mold and the status quo which was the PC industry at the time and he achieved this by quelling nearly all opposition underneath him. Unfortunately this act of sterilization has created a company that doesn't know what to do without an ideas man on top.

     

    If you remove everyone with opposing views you get a very streamlined company or country that runs very very fast but can't innovate or change when the vision or visionary is gone.

  • Reply 87 of 136
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,228member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    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.

    So Google dropped the MM suit as soon as Google bought MM?

    I didn't think so.

    Google had a 100% lock on Pagerank through 2011 (not the long past that you fantasize about). In 2010, Larry was awarded the pagerank 2 patent and assigned that to Standford as well with most industries insiders thinking this included the exclusive extension of pagerank to Google for all search.

    Again, all 3 of your points border on lies.
  • Reply 88 of 136
    berpberp Posts: 136member
    relic wrote: »
    How does Google deal with it or the fans. The fans just look past the silly notion that a company who has responsibilities to it's many shareholders and employees isn't capable of the Jesus like mentality you are suggesting they adhere too. They instead focus on the narcissists way of thinking of what can they do for me that we are all guilty of. If any of us actually new the real internal workings of any of these billion dollar companies it would probably make even the most staunch user of their products shake their head in disgust, that is until they turned on one of their device or use one of their services 10 seconds later. It's fun to to poke around these forums and discuss who is more righteous, shake our fingers at others and say look, look, their not so special after all. Just don't loose site of the fact that we're just being biased, having chosen sides with one inherently evil corporate entity for another. A corporation that wouldn't give you a glass of water if they found you dying in the desert unless you signed a user agreement. If any of us actually truly had any integrity we would all be using FreeBSD installed on products from the host country that they were actually developed and produced from that included a free bumper sticker on ever box stating, "Free the Tibetans".

    ...and you stand clearly above the fray, don't you? Is that why you, Swiss-timepiece-wise, shun Apple-branded products? Sort of taking evasive actions in the sparsely inhabited high-grounds are you?

    One certainly wouldn't wish Apple's ruffling zeitgeist to rub off on one's moral clockwork, would one...!?
  • Reply 89 of 136
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,508member
    steven n. wrote: »
    yada yada .

    Since you've now changed your claims just a tad you're getting closer to the facts. ;)
    " Quote:
    Originally Posted by Steven N.

    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.

    So with that out of the way here;s the post you claim is "bordering on lies". Perhaps you can point them out?
    gatorguy wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 90 of 136
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Corrections View Post





    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.

     

    I can handle his highly editorialized dreck, but I shouldn't call 'em the way I see 'em? I've been here quite a long time and I don't think his editorializing helps the credibility of this site. He's a polemicist for Apple who actually manages to offend me.

  • Reply 91 of 136
    You got to admit DED is the best anti-Google writer on the internet. He makes a great point about Google's hypocrisy. Google seems to see its mission to make all the data free. The problem with that mission is the lack of legal right to do so. If no one can make money writing music, software, building new machines, and writing new books, then who is going to bother to innovate? This is the ignored Evil of pagerank. Sell access to someone elses idea and wash your hands of the consequences. Want to buy drugs, weapons, or stolen software Google is your friend. Somehow that does not seem to be a way to "Do no Evil".

    My own take on this missed the obvious Google hypocrisy, and went on to ask: Why would so many non Americans found companies in America? Page, Brin, Moore, Noyce, Grove, Musk, and you can add your own choices to this list. It is not a short list. Check out the billionaire's list at Forbes if you want more ideas. Why are people moving here if starting a company in a country where intellectual property rights seriously is such a bad idea? Perhaps America offers access to capital for hardworking bright people. Maybe we offer more people a chance to become billionaires because of the ideas they create, and not because of however, many people they had to step on to get there.
  • Reply 92 of 136
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Frood View Post

     

    Did he just refer to himself in the third person posting as a forum alt?


     

    Wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last.  Everytime I see it I'm forced to wonder if he feels sleazy when hitting the submit button.  I know I would.

  • Reply 93 of 136
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,812member
    relic wrote: »
    How does Google deal with it or the fans. The fans just look past the silly notion that a company who has responsibilities to it's many shareholders and employees isn't capable of the Jesus like mentality you are suggesting they adhere too. They instead focus on the narcissists way of thinking of what can they do for me that we are all guilty of. If any of us actually new the real internal workings of any of these billion dollar companies it would probably make even the most staunch user of their products shake their head in disgust, that is until they turned on one of their device or use one of their services 10 seconds later. It's fun to to poke around these forums and discuss who is more righteous, shake our fingers at others and say look, look, their not so special after all. Just don't loose site of the fact that we're just being biased, having chosen sides with one inherently evil corporate entity for another. A corporation that wouldn't give you a glass of water if they found you dying in the desert unless you signed a user agreement. If any of us actually truly had any integrity we would all be using FreeBSD installed on products from the host country that they were actually developed and produced from that included a free bumper sticker on ever box stating, "Free the Tibetans".

    Really? You should tell that to the guy who keeps whitewashing Google's history of conduct furiously in these forums. Google doesn't deserve that.

    But you are right: lots of geeks love Google because they give free tech, and do geeky stuff that wins geek cred, in exchange for looking the other way on Google's failures to follow its do-no-evil principle. Just make sure the Google apologists on these forums admit that when they're out defending their tech icon.
  • Reply 94 of 136
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,228member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    A bunch of unsubstantiated stuff.

    Never changed my facts. Your lie #1 just in that post.

    And yes, Motorola sued Apple first. Your lie #2.

    There is no indication Stanford is willing to license PageRank 1 or 2 to any search company other than Google. Period.

    Nice try but most of your posts on this list have bordered on myth and lies.
  • Reply 95 of 136
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,812member
    frood wrote: »
    Did he just refer to himself in the third person posting as a forum alt?

    It's a disguise.

    But, I never figured out why nobody ever suspected Clark Kent was Superman. It's not like those glasses were a particularly effective disguise.
  • Reply 96 of 136
    kevin keekevin kee Posts: 1,291member

    Thank you for such inspiring article, I bookmarked this, and then saved it as a copy in my HD. I need to read this everyday as a reminder of Google hypocrisy and not to be trapped by the tech media propaganda to worship Google.

  • Reply 97 of 136
    lord amhranlord amhran Posts: 902member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post





    Never changed my facts. Your lie #1 just in that post.



    And yes, Motorola sued Apple first. Your lie #2.



    There is no indication Stanford is willing to license PageRank 1 or 2 to any search company other than Google. Period.



    Nice try but most of your posts on this list have bordered on myth and lies.



    I guess you can take this for what it's worth but you are correct Steven N. in that, at least based on this Wikipedia entry (again, take it for what it's worth) MM sued Apple in October of 2010:

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility_v._Apple_Inc.

  • Reply 98 of 136
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,228member

    I guess you can take this for what it's worth but you are correct Steven N. in that, at least based on this Wikipedia entry (again, take it for what it's worth) MM sued Apple in October of 2010:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility_v._Apple_Inc.

    Of course Motorola (and Nokia) sued Apple first. To GatorGuy, however, Google is perfect and incapable of ever being an aggressor in the Patent wars. He fully believes their line of Do No Evil without understanding one iota what it means and the hundreds of time they have violated it.
  • Reply 99 of 136
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,508member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    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.
    steven n. wrote: »
    Never changed my facts. Your lie #1 just in that post.

    And yes, Motorola sued Apple first. Your lie #2.

    There is no indication Stanford is willing to license PageRank 1 or 2 to any search company other than Google. Period.

    Nice try but most of your posts on this list have bordered on myth and lies.

    LOL.
  • Reply 100 of 136
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,508member
    steven n. wrote: »
    Of course Motorola (and Nokia) sued Apple first. To GatorGuy, however, Google is perfect and incapable of ever being an aggressor in the Patent wars. He fully believes their line of Do No Evil without understanding one iota what it means and the hundreds of time they have violated it.

    Google bought Motorola Mobility in May of 2012. Perhaps you could explain how Google was behind the filing of lawsuits by Moto in 2010. :\

    Google is far from perfect, losing more and more of their original ideals the larger they've become. Finding legitimate accusations to paint them with should be easy so why make up imaginary ones?
Sign In or Register to comment.