You got to admit DED is the best anti-Google writer on the internet.
Well he's definitely anti-Google. 'Best writer' is a tough crown to win when there's no objectivity. I'd say he's a great writer when writing to people already fervently indisposed to all things Apple. Any other crowd and his marks go down substantially- so at least he's writing in the right place for him. Without objectivity most of his reads you already know what he is going for in his headline, and then he does good research and fact finding to completely skew them to what he wishes for true. It works for fans who agreed with you before you started, and everyone else just kind of shrugs it off.
The type of fan that believes it might write something that follows in a similar veign to DED's works, oh maybe along the lines of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macnewsjunkie
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,
Really? *Really?* It is a fact, certainly. People can and do use Google buy drugs, weapons, and stolen software (among many other evil things). A-ha! So much for Google's "Do no Evil" and the argument is supported by *facts*!
While I agree with the facts, I don't agree with your conclusion. I might give you (and DED) a little more leeway if you were at least consistent. You obviously think Apple is an absolutely horrible company too, right? After all, as this site will point out, most of those people using Google on a mobile device to buy drugs, weapons, and stolen software are using iOS devices. Apple is the real culprit and is reprehensible! People use iPads to buy drugs. Fact! Also, everyone knows Android users can't afford that stuff, only Apple users have the money- so Apple is MORE evil than Google.
Even more evil than Apple and Google *combined* is oxygen. Not 100% of the people using drugs or buying weapons are using Apple devices, nor Google. But 100% of them use oxygen. Oxygen is clearly evil, as supported by the facts, because without it there would be nobody using drugs, buying weapons or copying software.
So.... yes. It is quite possible to stretch facts into complete lunacy if you *believe* But once you put your fervent belief ahead of everything else and only pepper facts in to support it- you just lose a lot of objectivity and credibility
Dilger's work is not above criticism. In fact, because so many here are either fans, customers or stock owners of Apple, articles designed to interest or involve us should also display a similar level of care and finish that we have come to expect from Apple. Do you agree?
Why settle for the poorly written works of a polemicist instead of the fairly written works of an author one could recommend to a family member?
I rather settle for a poorly written truth than a fancy lie.
If you can't handle it, you shouldn't dish it out.
If you can handle it, you'll stop referring to yourself in the third person and hiding behind a forum handle (have you ever actually made any genuine corrections using it?).
Insulting your audience is not the best way to win fans.
Well he's definitely anti-Google. 'Best writer' is a tough crown to win when there's no objectivity. I'd say he's a great writer when writing to people already fervently indisposed to all things Apple. Any other crowd and his marks go down substantially- so at least he's writing in the right place for him. Without objectivity most of his reads you already know what he is going for in his headline, and then he does good research and fact finding to completely skew them to what he wishes for true. It works for fans who agreed with you before you started, and everyone else just kind of shrugs it off.
The type of fan that believes it might write something that follows in a similar veign to DED's works, oh maybe along the lines of...
Really? *Really?* It is a fact, certainly. People can and do use Google buy drugs, weapons, and stolen software (among many other evil things). A-ha! So much for Google's "Do no Evil" and the argument is supported by *facts*!
While I agree with the facts, I don't agree with your conclusion. I might give you (and DED) a little more leeway if you were at least consistent. You obviously think Apple is an absolutely horrible company too, right? After all, as this site will point out, most of those people using Google on a mobile device to buy drugs, weapons, and stolen software are using iOS devices. Apple is the real culprit and is reprehensible! People use iPads to buy drugs. Fact! Also, everyone knows Android users can't afford that stuff, only Apple users have the money- so Apple is MORE evil than Google.
Even more evil than Apple and Google *combined* is oxygen. Not 100% of the people using drugs or buying weapons are using Apple devices, nor Google. But 100% of them use oxygen. Oxygen is clearly evil, as supported by the facts, because without it there would be nobody using drugs, buying weapons or copying software.
So.... yes. It is quite possible to stretch facts into complete lunacy if you *believe* But once you put your fervent belief ahead of everything else and only pepper facts in to support it- you just lose a lot of objectivity and credibility
Apple weren't fined for selling illegal drugs, Google was.
So to be clear, the author is asserting that the patents that Apple has been suing over which cover things like swipe to unlock, bounce back scrolling UI, hyperlinks for phone numbers and dates, etc. are of equal importance to Page Rank?
Even if you combine all of the patents that Apple has sued over, they still do not have anywhere near the importance or impact on society that Page Rank did.
Apple was first to market with a decent smartphone and that kicked off the whole industry. It was years before the competition caught up. However, Apple's success was the result of combining other people's inventions and technologies. If you were to remove every feature that Apple has sued over, some things may be a little less convenient, but you would still have something that functions very close to what we have today. And of course, you could do the same things in other ways to achieve an equally good or better result without infringing.
It should be obvious that I am not advocating patent infringement here. However, the patents that Apple is suing over are trivial compared to Page Rank which completely changed the nature of the Internet. Page Rank is also a much less obvious concept than these Apple feature patents. The author's claim about Google's hypocrisy is based on Page Rank being on the same tier as the patents that Apple has gotten it's panties in a bunch over, and that's simply not true.
I won't comment on whether or not Apple should have been granted these patents, it's irrelevant to the point I'm making. Apple was first to market and enjoyed no real competition for the first couple years of iPhone. That is the reward you get for the type of innovation they did. They didn't invent the touch screen. They didn't invent the microprocessor or cellular radios. They were the first to see that these technologies had developed to the point where they could be combined into a device like the iPhone. They had their heyday, but being that they don't own the intellectual property to most of the things that made the iPhone possible, they can't prevent others from using those technologies as well, and that's what happened. If you are in a position like Apple was you need to make as much money as you can before the competition catches up. When they do catch up, you will have to compete.
I guess I shouldn't expect objectivity on a site with Apple in the name, but Apple has quite a few skeletons in its closet as well. Apple was recently convicted of orchestrating a massive ebook price fixing scheme. Did that make it to the front page of Apple Insider? (seriously doubt it showed up on the site, but I genuinely don't know.) The author also mentions Microsoft's monopoly and Internet Explorer - what about every Apple iOS app which is not only the default, but cannot be changed to the user's preferred app under any circumstances?
This comment is already long, so I won't go into anything else. You should really look at yourself (Apple in this case since you all identify so strongly with it) before you criticize others.
Overall, Apple offers an idiot proof curated experience, but prevents competition wherever possible on both its software and hardware. They go out of their way to make everything propriety to intentionally make their products incompatible with other brands and they charge a flat fee for anything sold through an app preventing real completion from any other media provider on their platform. They also go out of their way to keep the operating life as short as possible on their products. For example, Retina MacBooks have ram soldered to the motherboard and a battery glued into the case.
Yes, Google anonymously collects information about you and they make advertising revenue off of you. They then use that revenue to create some of the world's best products and services and give them away to anyone and everyone for free. They also sell their own Nexus hardware at or near cost. The Nexus 5 is about half the price of another phone with the same chipset.
Google's strategy helps everyone, not just the elite. The fact that they allow competition and customization on the Android platform attracts not only the poor, but people like me who could easily afford Apple products. For the record, I recently switched from an iPhone to Android and could not be happier. I was able to tailor things to my needs rather than being forced to deal with what Apple has decided is best for everyone, and that makes for a much more productive experience.
So to be clear, the author is asserting that the patents that Apple has been suing over which cover things like swipe to unlock, bounce back scrolling UI, hyperlinks for phone numbers and dates, etc. are of equal importance to Page Rank?
Even if you combine all of the patents that Apple has sued over, they still do not have anywhere near the importance or impact on society that Page Rank did.
Apple was first to market with a decent smartphone and that kicked off the whole industry. It was years before the competition caught up. However, Apple's success was the result of combining other people's inventions and technologies. If you were to remove every feature that Apple has sued over, some things may be a little less convenient, but you would still have something that functions very close to what we have today. And of course, you could do the same things in other ways to achieve an equally good or better result without infringing.
It should be obvious that I am not advocating patent infringement here. However, the patents that Apple is suing over are trivial compared to Page Rank which completely changed the nature of the Internet. Page Rank is also a much less obvious concept than these Apple feature patents. The author's claim about Google's hypocrisy is based on Page Rank being on the same tier as the patents that Apple has gotten it's panties in a bunch over, and that's simply not true.
I won't comment on whether or not Apple should have been granted these patents, it's irrelevant to the point I'm making. Apple was first to market and enjoyed no real competition for the first couple years of iPhone. That is the reward you get for the type of innovation they did. They didn't invent the touch screen. They didn't invent the microprocessor or cellular radios. They were the first to see that these technologies had developed to the point where they could be combined into a device like the iPhone. They had their heyday, but being that they don't own the intellectual property to most of the things that made the iPhone possible, they can't prevent others from using those technologies as well, and that's what happened. If you are in a position like Apple was you need to make as much money as you can before the competition catches up. When they do catch up, you will have to compete.
So to be clear, the author is asserting that the patents that Apple has been suing over which cover things like swipe to unlock, bounce back scrolling UI, hyperlinks for phone numbers and dates, etc. are of equal importance to Page Rank?
Even if you combine all of the patents that Apple has sued over, they still do not have anywhere near the importance or impact on society that Page Rank did.
Apple was first to market with a decent smartphone and that kicked off the whole industry. It was years before the competition caught up. However, Apple's success was the result of combining other people's inventions and technologies. If you were to remove every feature that Apple has sued over, some things may be a little less convenient, but you would still have something that functions very close to what we have today. And of course, you could do the same things in other ways to achieve an equally good or better result without infringing.
It should be obvious that I am not advocating patent infringement here. However, the patents that Apple is suing over are trivial compared to Page Rank which completely changed the nature of the Internet. Page Rank is also a much less obvious concept than these Apple feature patents. The author's claim about Google's hypocrisy is based on Page Rank being on the same tier as the patents that Apple has gotten it's panties in a bunch over, and that's simply not true.
Whatever you think of DED, just watch what happens over the next year. Google is getting into robotics, bioscience, Internet of things in a hurried manner because Google knows its business better than anyone and that means Google understands what is happening in the realm of digital advertising and its concerned about its future revenue and profit from that business. Watch the next several quarterly results to see how this plays out. Google also knows it's lost control of Android's destiny and that Android's destiny is bleak and shallow. So Google has restructured its shares to allow the management team to embark upon what will soon be recognized as a tough road to transforming itself into a significantly different business than you see today without having to answer to shareholders along the way. The next several years will present a significant risk to Google's valuation as it goes through this transformation and there's no guarantee the company will succeed in its necessary reinvention of itself. Meanwhile, Apple has a much more clear path ahead and a proven business model to take itself along that path. The narratives surrounding these two companies is going to become much more interesting. Samsung, for its part, will soon be pushed back to the status of commodity producer shared by so many others in the industries within which it competes. Off the front page like Nokia, Blackberry, HP, Dell, Sony, and others swept under the rug by the rise of Apple.
Apple weren't fined for selling illegal drugs, Google was wasn't either. Instead Google agreed to surrender all profits they realized from Adwords used by government-regulated Canadian pharmacies selling legal drugs but illegally advertising and selling them to US customers in violation of FDA regulations.
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?
If Google was so perfect and against patent lawsuits they could have dropped their suit as soon as they purchased MMI.
OH SNAP. I just shattered your world. This is a legitimate accusation. They built their business on software patents and claim to be against them hoping the weak minded will fall for their cry- baby routine.
Don't even get me started on their Google Books project.
If Google was so perfect and against patent lawsuits they could have dropped their suit as soon as they purchased MMI.
OH SNAP. I just shattered your world. This is a legitimate accusation. They built their business on software patents and claim to be against them hoping the weak minded will fall for their cry- baby routine.
Don't even get me started on their Google Books project.
You're absolutely correct. Google could have instructed Motorola Mobility to drop any litigation whether Apple or Microsoft would agree to do the same or not. Therefor they are run by imperfect people who instead of doing what they may believe was right on a personal level did what they believed was right for investors and Google. Not the only time they've done that either IMO (ie, Sun, Safari privacy bypass)
As it turns out Apple eventually came around to agree with Google that the best thing to do was drop all lawsuits between the two which of course is the better result than only one side capitulating with litigation still coming from the other side.
Paid a fine levied by the US government for selling illegal drugs.
Amazing how lobbying i.e. paying money to the right quarters, can mix up the words.
Fine.
Levy.
Voluntary donation.
The US government made Google pay up for selling illegal drugsregulated Canadian pharmacies marketing legal drugs but shipping them to US consumers without approval of the US FDA. US drug companies profits must be protected. (Fixed again. I believe you aren't trying to be obtuse but actually don't understand)
That's your story and you're sticking to it huh. The only sale Google made was Adwords to Canadian pharmacies, which I'll agree was ill-advised.
So where in the hell is this "more useful" "better product"? All I get is a bunch of totally irrelevant çrap that I can only assume represents whoever paid Google the most to wind up on top of any search. Aside from the Wiki page, which I could have gotten by going there in the first damned place, all I get is page after page of paid product placement. Google is totally worthless.
Back then Google was more useful because ads were text based. It wasn't until they acquired AdSense that the results are the crap you see today. I remember when I first discovered Google. It was by word of mouth from a friend. It was amazing in the early years. The results are still great but just knowing that Google is gathering more information about me each time I use it makes me uncomfortable in continuing to use it and other Google services. Unfortunately I'm not sure if there's any way to completely cut off from Google.
You're absolutely correct. Google could have instructed Motorola Mobility to drop any litigation whether Apple or Microsoft would agree to do the same or not. Therefor they are run by imperfect people who instead of doing what they may believe was right on a personal level did what they believed was right for investors and Google. Not the only time they've done that either IMO (ie, Sun, Safari privacy bypass)
As it turns out Apple eventually came around to agree with Google that the best thing to do was drop all lawsuits between the two which of course is the better result than only one side capitulating with litigation still coming from the other side.
Google Books? I thought that was settled.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Motorola was left free to use its own judgement for its own business. It chose to continue the litigation it had ongoing with Apple throughout its self-ownership. Google then sold Motorola to Lenova but retained the bulk of the patents it wanted. Since these patents were the ones Motorola had ongoing litigation with- it was pretty much as an 'immediate' halt to litigation as it gets. Almost immediately as ownership of the patents transferred to Google, the litigation halted.
Comments
You got to admit DED is the best anti-Google writer on the internet.
Well he's definitely anti-Google. 'Best writer' is a tough crown to win when there's no objectivity. I'd say he's a great writer when writing to people already fervently indisposed to all things Apple. Any other crowd and his marks go down substantially- so at least he's writing in the right place for him. Without objectivity most of his reads you already know what he is going for in his headline, and then he does good research and fact finding to completely skew them to what he wishes for true. It works for fans who agreed with you before you started, and everyone else just kind of shrugs it off.
The type of fan that believes it might write something that follows in a similar veign to DED's works, oh maybe along the lines of...
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,
Really? *Really?* It is a fact, certainly. People can and do use Google buy drugs, weapons, and stolen software (among many other evil things). A-ha! So much for Google's "Do no Evil" and the argument is supported by *facts*!
While I agree with the facts, I don't agree with your conclusion. I might give you (and DED) a little more leeway if you were at least consistent. You obviously think Apple is an absolutely horrible company too, right? After all, as this site will point out, most of those people using Google on a mobile device to buy drugs, weapons, and stolen software are using iOS devices. Apple is the real culprit and is reprehensible! People use iPads to buy drugs. Fact! Also, everyone knows Android users can't afford that stuff, only Apple users have the money- so Apple is MORE evil than Google.
Even more evil than Apple and Google *combined* is oxygen. Not 100% of the people using drugs or buying weapons are using Apple devices, nor Google. But 100% of them use oxygen. Oxygen is clearly evil, as supported by the facts, because without it there would be nobody using drugs, buying weapons or copying software.
So.... yes. It is quite possible to stretch facts into complete lunacy if you *believe* But once you put your fervent belief ahead of everything else and only pepper facts in to support it- you just lose a lot of objectivity and credibility
I rather settle for a poorly written truth than a fancy lie.
It wasn't the glasses that threw Lois off, she was distracted by the bulge in Superman's pants... Clark Kent wore those lose-fitting suits.
OMG...you're right.
Insulting your audience is not the best way to win fans.
Apple weren't fined for selling illegal drugs, Google was.
Therein lies the rub.
Even if you combine all of the patents that Apple has sued over, they still do not have anywhere near the importance or impact on society that Page Rank did.
Apple was first to market with a decent smartphone and that kicked off the whole industry. It was years before the competition caught up. However, Apple's success was the result of combining other people's inventions and technologies. If you were to remove every feature that Apple has sued over, some things may be a little less convenient, but you would still have something that functions very close to what we have today. And of course, you could do the same things in other ways to achieve an equally good or better result without infringing.
It should be obvious that I am not advocating patent infringement here. However, the patents that Apple is suing over are trivial compared to Page Rank which completely changed the nature of the Internet. Page Rank is also a much less obvious concept than these Apple feature patents. The author's claim about Google's hypocrisy is based on Page Rank being on the same tier as the patents that Apple has gotten it's panties in a bunch over, and that's simply not true.
I won't comment on whether or not Apple should have been granted these patents, it's irrelevant to the point I'm making. Apple was first to market and enjoyed no real competition for the first couple years of iPhone. That is the reward you get for the type of innovation they did. They didn't invent the touch screen. They didn't invent the microprocessor or cellular radios. They were the first to see that these technologies had developed to the point where they could be combined into a device like the iPhone. They had their heyday, but being that they don't own the intellectual property to most of the things that made the iPhone possible, they can't prevent others from using those technologies as well, and that's what happened. If you are in a position like Apple was you need to make as much money as you can before the competition catches up. When they do catch up, you will have to compete.
I guess I shouldn't expect objectivity on a site with Apple in the name, but Apple has quite a few skeletons in its closet as well. Apple was recently convicted of orchestrating a massive ebook price fixing scheme. Did that make it to the front page of Apple Insider? (seriously doubt it showed up on the site, but I genuinely don't know.) The author also mentions Microsoft's monopoly and Internet Explorer - what about every Apple iOS app which is not only the default, but cannot be changed to the user's preferred app under any circumstances?
This comment is already long, so I won't go into anything else. You should really look at yourself (Apple in this case since you all identify so strongly with it) before you criticize others.
Overall, Apple offers an idiot proof curated experience, but prevents competition wherever possible on both its software and hardware. They go out of their way to make everything propriety to intentionally make their products incompatible with other brands and they charge a flat fee for anything sold through an app preventing real completion from any other media provider on their platform. They also go out of their way to keep the operating life as short as possible on their products. For example, Retina MacBooks have ram soldered to the motherboard and a battery glued into the case.
Yes, Google anonymously collects information about you and they make advertising revenue off of you. They then use that revenue to create some of the world's best products and services and give them away to anyone and everyone for free. They also sell their own Nexus hardware at or near cost. The Nexus 5 is about half the price of another phone with the same chipset.
Google's strategy helps everyone, not just the elite. The fact that they allow competition and customization on the Android platform attracts not only the poor, but people like me who could easily afford Apple products. For the record, I recently switched from an iPhone to Android and could not be happier. I was able to tailor things to my needs rather than being forced to deal with what Apple has decided is best for everyone, and that makes for a much more productive experience.
Even if you combine all of the patents that Apple has sued over, they still do not have anywhere near the importance or impact on society that Page Rank did.
Apple was first to market with a decent smartphone and that kicked off the whole industry. It was years before the competition caught up. However, Apple's success was the result of combining other people's inventions and technologies. If you were to remove every feature that Apple has sued over, some things may be a little less convenient, but you would still have something that functions very close to what we have today. And of course, you could do the same things in other ways to achieve an equally good or better result without infringing.
It should be obvious that I am not advocating patent infringement here. However, the patents that Apple is suing over are trivial compared to Page Rank which completely changed the nature of the Internet. Page Rank is also a much less obvious concept than these Apple feature patents. The author's claim about Google's hypocrisy is based on Page Rank being on the same tier as the patents that Apple has gotten it's panties in a bunch over, and that's simply not true.
I won't comment on whether or not Apple should have been granted these patents, it's irrelevant to the point I'm making. Apple was first to market and enjoyed no real competition for the first couple years of iPhone. That is the reward you get for the type of innovation they did. They didn't invent the touch screen. They didn't invent the microprocessor or cellular radios. They were the first to see that these technologies had developed to the point where they could be combined into a device like the iPhone. They had their heyday, but being that they don't own the intellectual property to most of the things that made the iPhone possible, they can't prevent others from using those technologies as well, and that's what happened. If you are in a position like Apple was you need to make as much money as you can before the competition catches up. When they do catch up, you will have to compete.
So to be clear, the author is asserting that the patents that Apple has been suing over which cover things like swipe to unlock, bounce back scrolling UI, hyperlinks for phone numbers and dates, etc. are of equal importance to Page Rank?
Even if you combine all of the patents that Apple has sued over, they still do not have anywhere near the importance or impact on society that Page Rank did.
Apple was first to market with a decent smartphone and that kicked off the whole industry. It was years before the competition caught up. However, Apple's success was the result of combining other people's inventions and technologies. If you were to remove every feature that Apple has sued over, some things may be a little less convenient, but you would still have something that functions very close to what we have today. And of course, you could do the same things in other ways to achieve an equally good or better result without infringing.
It should be obvious that I am not advocating patent infringement here. However, the patents that Apple is suing over are trivial compared to Page Rank which completely changed the nature of the Internet. Page Rank is also a much less obvious concept than these Apple feature patents. The author's claim about Google's hypocrisy is based on Page Rank being on the same tier as the patents that Apple has gotten it's panties in a bunch over, and that's simply not true.
????
Fixed it for ya
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/August/11-dag-1078.html
If Google was so perfect and against patent lawsuits they could have dropped their suit as soon as they purchased MMI.
OH SNAP. I just shattered your world. This is a legitimate accusation. They built their business on software patents and claim to be against them hoping the weak minded will fall for their cry- baby routine.
Don't even get me started on their Google Books project.
As it turns out Apple eventually came around to agree with Google that the best thing to do was drop all lawsuits between the two which of course is the better result than only one side capitulating with litigation still coming from the other side.
Google Books? I thought that was settled.
Fixed it for ya
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/August/11-dag-1078.html
Paid a fine levied by the US government for selling illegal drugs.
Amazing how lobbying i.e. paying money to the right quarters, can mix up the words.
Fine.
Levy.
Voluntary donation.
The US government made Google pay up for selling illegal drugs.
Ill advised profiting from selling illegal drugs in the US, which they were picked up on then bribed their way out of facing bigger charges.
You have the best government money can buy and Google spends a lot of money.
From the OP:
So where in the hell is this "more useful" "better product"? All I get is a bunch of totally irrelevant çrap that I can only assume represents whoever paid Google the most to wind up on top of any search. Aside from the Wiki page, which I could have gotten by going there in the first damned place, all I get is page after page of paid product placement. Google is totally worthless.
Back then Google was more useful because ads were text based. It wasn't until they acquired AdSense that the results are the crap you see today. I remember when I first discovered Google. It was by word of mouth from a friend. It was amazing in the early years. The results are still great but just knowing that Google is gathering more information about me each time I use it makes me uncomfortable in continuing to use it and other Google services. Unfortunately I'm not sure if there's any way to completely cut off from Google.
You're absolutely correct. Google could have instructed Motorola Mobility to drop any litigation whether Apple or Microsoft would agree to do the same or not. Therefor they are run by imperfect people who instead of doing what they may believe was right on a personal level did what they believed was right for investors and Google. Not the only time they've done that either IMO (ie, Sun, Safari privacy bypass)
As it turns out Apple eventually came around to agree with Google that the best thing to do was drop all lawsuits between the two which of course is the better result than only one side capitulating with litigation still coming from the other side.
Google Books? I thought that was settled.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Motorola was left free to use its own judgement for its own business. It chose to continue the litigation it had ongoing with Apple throughout its self-ownership. Google then sold Motorola to Lenova but retained the bulk of the patents it wanted. Since these patents were the ones Motorola had ongoing litigation with- it was pretty much as an 'immediate' halt to litigation as it gets. Almost immediately as ownership of the patents transferred to Google, the litigation halted.