Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 21:22 UTC
Google This I didn't expect. While we've had individual people high up Google's chain of command speak out, there wasn't yet any form of official response to the patent shenanigans surrounding Android. For the first time, the company has posted on the official Google Blog about the issue, and the company is clear. Several companies, including Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle, are working together to attack Android through patents. Google is not going to sit back and take it, though. Update: Stuff just got real. Popcorn! Or better yet, coffee!
Order by: Score:
The be sorry
by fretinator on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 21:46 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

They woke up the G-iant. They won't be evil, but they gonna be b-a-a-a-a-d. They are gonna go all Mapreduce on those goonies. Snapple, Orajel and Mygosoft will be searching for their behinds, becuase they done been chewed off.

Where's my popcorn!!

Reply Score: 7

39 manufacturers and 231 carriers
by darwinOS on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 21:48 UTC
darwinOS
Member since:
2009-11-02

39 manufacturers and 231 carriers could not outbid #Apple, #Oracle and #Microsoft ? or they just didn't want to invest ? they make money with android but don't wanna give back!

But google made SUN more cheap for Oracle by not want to pay Java licenses! now the shit comes back.
I hope Android stays there where it is, and I hope that more people should develop Software in Europa or somewhere else and stop selling it in the USA, this could incentive the government to change the Patent politic.

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

That is indeed going to be the obvious outcome. Software developers are going to move to Europe, and several products may simply never arrive in the US out of fear of patent suits. At which point Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and others will try and buy the European Parliament the same way they bought US Congress to bring software patents to Europe.

And we, the people, are too busy caring about celebrities.

Reply Score: 11

darwinOS Member since:
2009-11-02

At which point Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and others will try and buy the European Parliament the same way they bought US Congress to bring software patents to Europe.

And we, the people, are too busy caring about celebrities.

I think, it will not be so easy, the EU cares a lot about Software and they will not change that quick! we have a lot of european moving to the use to develop Software there. It hurts me that Nokia (the last european Platform Software & Hardware House) is just dying ;) ; Europa, Asia und the world has a lot of great mind, but they believe they can only be successful in the USA, even though the immigrant-Politic just got real bad

I should sleep, it getting to political ;)

Reply Score: 1

andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

I can't agree with this statement more. I shall print it on a T-Shirt.

Reply Score: 1

RichterKuato Member since:
2010-05-14

...I hope that more people should develop Software in Europa or somewhere else and stop selling it in the USA, this could incentive the government to change the Patent politic.


Fat chance. I'm not an analyst but I'm pretty sure the United States is the largest market for the software industry. Though if Europe's patent system proves to be (and stays) that much better it may be a good idea for small business to start by selling over there.

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

if Eric Schmidt hadn't decided to get in the cell phone business and base his company's operating system and interface on concepts he learned about while on the board of directors at Apple I might have some sympathy for him.

However, because his company developed an OS with full knowledge of the fact that it would infringe several software patents that he would have fully privy to while on that same board of directors causes me to not give him any benefit of the doubt.

When you're not aware of the theft you're making... while trying to create a new product. That's unfortunate however it is the law.

When you are aware of that theft while trying to create a new product that falls within the genuinely illegal by all understanding (no matter how you feel about software patents.)

When you are aware of that theft while trying to create a new product all while you are being paid VERY well to offer guidance and retain that company's secrets from whom you're stealing from that is the epitome of evil which Google claims not to be.


[citation needed]

Reply Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

base his company's operating system and interface on concepts he learned about while on the board of directors at Apple

because his company developed an OS with full knowledge of the fact that it would infringe several software patents that he would have fully privy to

blah blah


[citation needed]

Or, to make it clearer to you: Android was started in 2003, and acquired by Google in 2005. iPhone development began in 2005. There is AS MUCH evidence to support the idea Apple stole stuff from Google via Schmidt as there is evidence the other way around: absolutely none.

Edited 2011-08-03 22:18 UTC

Reply Score: 7

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Yet you show lack of knowledge what a member of the board of directors does and what access to information he has.

The only facts are:
- He was on the BoD for 3 years
- He resigned when appropriate
- He was praised by Steve Jobs
- 2 years on, and only paranoid loons are saying something bad about Schmidt's role as a member of BoD of Apple

“Eric has been an excellent Board member for Apple, investing his valuable time, talent, passion and wisdom to help make Apple successful,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple’s Board.”
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/08/03Dr-Eric-Schmidt-Resigns-f...

Reply Score: 7

Jennimc Member since:
2011-06-22

- He was on the BoD for 3 years

More than enough time to change a company's mobile direction

- He resigned when appropriate

Yes after he stole


- He was praised by Steve Jobs

Only to deride him privately and later publicly


- 2 years on, and only paranoid loons are saying something bad about Schmidt's role as a member of BoD of Apple

2 years on and only delusional idiots are denying that copying occurred.


"This don’t be evil mantra: - It’s bullshit." - Steve Jobs
"Jobs hates Eric." - CNBC inside source

http://seoblackhat.com/2010/01/31/jobs-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-bulls...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/34956650/

Edited 2011-08-03 22:51 UTC

Reply Score: 0

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Yes after he stole

It's called industrial espionage and it makes me wonder why Apple has not done anything about it. Maybe because it something they know didn't happen?

Only to deride him privately and later publicly

Direct quotes from Jobs only please. Mine are direct and official quotes, yours are not.

"This don’t be evil mantra: - It’s bullshit." - Jalexoid.
However, that does not say anything about Eric's work as a member of BoD of Apple.

2 years on and only delusional idiots are denying that copying occurred.

Did I ever imply that no one copied?

EDIT - PS: If you ever want to have a rational discussion please make sure that you first defend your claims with relevant facts or concede that point before moving on to another point. Otherwise you fail the "principle of reason".
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rational-discussion-flowchart/

Edited 2011-08-03 23:11 UTC

Reply Score: 3

ezylstra Member since:
2010-07-16

"- He was praised by Steve Jobs "

So was Internet Explorer. So were the members of the board of Apple in 1997 who left at the request of Steve.

Reply Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

And in 1998 IE deserved praise.

So you agree with Jennimc that Schmidt engaged in industrial espionage?

In any case, it's a fact that Jobs praised Schmidt. It's not a fact, unlike Jennimc is saying, that Schmidt engaged in industrial espionage.

Reply Score: 4

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Android was started in 2003, and acquired by Google in 2005. iPhone development began in 2005.

You're really showing your colors by being so dismissive of these facts.

Reply Score: 3

Jennimc Member since:
2011-06-22

Or, to make it clearer to you: Android was started in 2003, and acquired by Google in 2005. iPhone development began in 2005. There is AS MUCH evidence to support the idea Apple stole stuff from Google via Schmidt as there is evidence the other way around: absolutely none.



Google was in the process of making a phone operating system. Here is the first fruits of that effort:
http://d2o7bfz2il9cb7.cloudfront.net/main-qimg-4e33ce3cab7d71d087f6...

http://d2o7bfz2il9cb7.cloudfront.net/main-qimg-3ff56b963075e98a5738...


Shortly before the release of those phones, Schmidt was asked to join Apple's board of directors. Almost immediately after the release of the iPhone, Google released this:
http://random.andrewwarner.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/incredibl...

These things don't get created that fast without prior knowledge.

It was obvious from those initial pictures that Google's goal was to compete with blackberry. When Schmidt saw the iPhone, he changed Google's corse immediately for obvious reasons.

Edited 2011-08-03 22:30 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You're basing your ENTIRE argument on that one single Android build? Honestly?

And other than that - you realise that iOS is based upon decades of other products, right? PalmOS, for instance? Myorigo? You're making it seem as if iOS and the iPhone were developed in a vacuum and that Apple invented it all - typical Apple fanboy behaviour. Since iOS was built upon decades of research and products from others, why can't Android? Why do you consider iOS a vacuum product, but not Android?

Reply Score: 3

Jennimc Member since:
2011-06-22

Every product available for sale builds upon technology that preceded it. The iPhone is no different yet it was dramatically different from many other phones on the market... so much so that every major phone manufacturer mocked Apple and claimed their efforts would fail.


Google is allowed to create a product with the same knowledge that Apple had before they developed their phone. They're NOT allowed to copy a company's product based on information acquired while hired at that same company to retain secrets.

The difference in direction based on the former and latter is obvious where they garnered their phone's overall direction. To toss out fanboy (fangirl???) accusations whole protecting the wrong deeds of a preferred company is the prime example of fanboy. You sir are exactly that.

Reply Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

To toss out fanboy (fangirl???) accusations whole protecting the wrong deeds of a preferred company is the prime example of fanboy. You sir are exactly that.


Again, [citation needed].

You provide zero evidence for your claims. None. Yet, you present them as fact. THAT is why you are labelled fanboy on this board.

It is just as likely that Apple stole all the ideas for the iPhone from Google. Both were developing a mobile phone operating system in the same timeframe, and they both ended up with siilar results BECAUSE THEY WERE BOTH WORKING WITHOUT LEGACY BULDING ON THE SAME PRODUCTS AND RESEARCH THAT CAME BEFORE.

Reply Score: 1

ezylstra Member since:
2010-07-16

"Every product available for sale builds upon technology that preceded it."

"Builds upon" and "duplicates" are two different concepts. The patent system is designed to prevent one company from doing the innovating and all the others merely duplicating those innovations.

No one had a phone like the iPhone when it was introduced.

Reply Score: 0

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Did you even see the Prada ? It was created independantly from the iPhone too:

http://www.osnews.com/story/24997/Standing_on_the_Shoulders_of_Mobi...

Did you see my comment about "The Myth of the Sole Inventor" ?:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?483269

When the hardware manufactures were able to produce products like that, other manufactures obviously jumped on it.

The only reason the iPhone did so well was because it was more affordable than the Prada and they were early on the market. Before a lot of competitors.

Reply Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Almost immediately after the release of the iPhone, Google released this:
http://random.andrewwarner.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/incredibl...


I'm sorry... But, do you live in a time bubble? Android touch orientated UI change came about no earlier than 12 months after iPhone was demoed. The first actual touchscreen device was out a year after OG iPhone was released(G1). And the picture you're giving is of a device(HTC Incredible) that is 3 years older than original iPhone release to public...

If he was really engaged in industrial espionage, like you imply, then they would have had a touch oriented device from day one...

Reply Score: 4

Jennimc Member since:
2011-06-22

Android touch orientated UI change came about no earlier than 12 months after iPhone was demoed.

They previewed a nearly complete version within as little as 6 months of the iPhone's release.

The first actual touchscreen device was out a year after OG iPhone was released(G1). And the picture you're giving is of a device(HTC Incredible) that is 3 years older than original iPhone release to public...



If he was really engaged in industrial espionage, like you imply, then they would have had a touch oriented device from day one...

He (probably) didn't set out to copy Apple upon jointing the board of directors. He would need time to garner the information for which he would utilize in the first release based on the concepts he acquired while employed at Apple. Lets say 6 months before the light went off in his head to do the same. That would allow for a year and a half of development time then one more year on Apple's board after Apple releases the iPhone.

Edited 2011-08-03 22:57 UTC

Reply Score: 1

ezylstra Member since:
2010-07-16

A great phone interface could be done without touchscreen. Not as simply, but it is possible. Clearly touchscreen is not sufficient, either, for a great interface as anything that predates iPhone were garbage.

Reply Score: 0

mksoft Member since:
2006-02-25

Actually he helped Apple steal Google's advertising technologies and methods. Before he joined Apple's board they had none.

Ridiculous ? RDF induced claims sound the same.

Reply Score: 2

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Are you kidding me? You're saying you're not aware that he was on Apple's board during the iPhone's development which coincided with Google's OS development?


Do you really think that sleight of mind is going to fool anyone?

That Schmidt was on the Apple board is widely known and verifiable, but that's not the case with your claim that he somehow used that position to "steal" iPhone IP. Sorry, but a wild BS claim doesn't magically become true just because you attach it to the coattails of a known fact.

It's also interesting to note that, in all the posts where you've made that claim, you've consistently failed to back it up with anything other than circular reasoning. "Schmidt was on the Apple board, therefore he must have stolen iPhone IP, because he was on the Apple board, therefore..."

I'm guessing you've never heard the phrase "post proof or STFU"?

Reply Score: 2

andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

if Eric Schmidt hadn't decided to get in the cell phone business and base his company's operating system and interface on concepts he learned about while on the board of directors at Apple I might have some sympathy for him.

However, because his company developed an OS with full knowledge of the fact that it would infringe several software patents that he would have been fully privy to while on that same board of directors causes me to not give him any benefit of the doubt.


When you're not aware of the theft you're making... while trying to create a new product. That's unfortunate however it is the law.

When you are aware of that theft while trying to create a new product... that falls within the genuinely illegal by all ways of understanding (no matter how you feel about software patents)

When you are aware of that theft while trying to create a new product all while you are being paid VERY well to offer guidance and retain that company's secrets from whom you're stealing from that is the epitome of evil which Google claims not to be.

The third example is what Eric Schmidt and thus Google are guilty of.


So I take it you agree that Steve Jobs actions can be classified as evil right? After all Apple just lost a lawsuit against Nokia for stealing Nokia's "Intellectual property" The court found they were guilty. So Apple is a convicted thief and Steve Jobs is evil right?

Reply Score: 1

Jennimc Member since:
2011-06-22

So I take it you agree that Steve Jobs actions can be classified as evil right?

Yes. Oh wait... which Apple staff member is on Nokia's board of directors?

Reply Score: 0

Panajev Member since:
2008-01-09

When you're not aware of the theft you're making...


A general question about this though... how can you steal from someone's intellectual property if you are not even aware you are doing it?

The law assumes that, basically, you cannot do that. It's as if you are caught using infringing technology that you practically must have willingly stolen it from someone else.

Reply Score: 2

Preemptive Attack?
by cranfordio on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 23:00 UTC
cranfordio
Member since:
2005-11-10

Ley me start by saying I don't agree with the current patent system in the U.S. and it needs to be changed. So saying that let's take this from a point of view that maybe the patents in question are legit.

If Google knows they are in violation with Android but don't really care then the best way to fight this is through public opinion. By Google saying that these companies are bullying Android through patents that aren't legit (whether or not they are) then they start to get the public on their side. Then the public turns their back on the other companies and then even if they are ruled against the public has already made their choice.

To me, by Google making this statement, they are trying to get this tried in the court of public opinion.

Once again I think was is happening is wrong, just trying to provide another viewpoint.

Reply Score: 1

GTFOHWTBS!!!
by jackeebleu on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 23:09 UTC
jackeebleu
Member since:
2006-01-26

So I guess Google wanting to buy the Nortel patents by placing the stalking horse bid (http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/04/google-makes-900-million-stalking-...) was cool because they are all about innovation not patent fights?

What about the uh, 100 or so patents purchased from IBM(http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/30/business/la-fi-google-paten...)? All about innovation huh?

Google has some nerve.

Reply Score: 0

RE: GTFOHWTBS!!!
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 23:14 UTC in reply to "GTFOHWTBS!!!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Defensive moves. Totally logical after being attacked by Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle. If I hit you, you should be able to defnd ourself.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: GTFOHWTBS!!!
by rhavyn on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 23:33 UTC in reply to "RE: GTFOHWTBS!!!"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

Defensive moves. Totally logical after being attacked by Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle. If I hit you, you should be able to defnd ourself.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-29/apple-lawyers-up-for-pa...

"Apple has been the most-sued technology company since 2008, the year after the iPhone was introduced, topping Microsoft Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co. and Dell Inc., according to LegalMetric Inc., a compiler of litigation data based in St. Louis."

“Apple was a decade late to market for mobile phones,” Patrick Flinn, a lawyer at Alston & Bird who represents Nokia, said in opening arguments today in Washington. “You can undercut competition when you use the inventions of others.”

Reply Score: 2

RE: GTFOHWTBS!!!
by JAlexoid on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 23:17 UTC in reply to "GTFOHWTBS!!!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

There's a crapload of hypocrisy on both sides. However, based to the patent battle-chests of the others an their litigation history, Google is the least hypocritical there...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: GTFOHWTBS!!!
by WorknMan on Thu 4th Aug 2011 02:35 UTC in reply to "RE: GTFOHWTBS!!!"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

There's a crapload of hypocrisy on both sides. However, based to the patent battle-chests of the others an their litigation history, Google is the least hypocritical there...


LOL, when I first got my hands on Android, my first thought was, 'this interface was obviously inspired by iOS'... it's so obvious that I'd be willing to bed even a blind person can see this.

Now, I'm not sure if Google is in violation of any patents, and Apple has clearly been copying from Android (esp the new notification system). But if you're not convinced that the Android OS is a blatant ripoff of iOS in design, you're clearly not paying attention.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: GTFOHWTBS!!!
by JAlexoid on Thu 4th Aug 2011 11:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GTFOHWTBS!!!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Then in that case the iPhone UI is a blatant rip-off my 2005 Nokia...

I have a bit higher standard on what constitutes a blatant rip-off. iOS5 notification system is not a rip-off by my standard. The Chinese HiPhones are blatant rip-offs. Samsung's TouchWiz is bordering on that.



In all seriousness though, you can't progress without copying ideas. "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants"

Yet with a lot of patents these days the ideas are being protected like they were inventions - "Dreams are 10 a penny..."

Reply Score: 4

Getting caught is a bummer
by Tony Swash on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 23:15 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

But Android's success has yielded something else: a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents,

Presumably if the patents in question are bogus then Google doesn't have a problem?

But of course Google does have a problem because the claims are far from bogus. The statement from David Drummond is just part of Google's ongoing PR campaign to paint itself as the saintly victim of a nefarious conspiracy. In reality it appears that Google behaved in an utterly reckless fashion during the design phase of Android when it openly discussed internally that it would need a Java license and then didn't bother getting one. It was also reckless by not taking care to make sure Android was legally bullet proof before distributing and thus exposing third parties to risk, although Google did remember to indemnify itself against any risks from doing so (odd that they did remember to do that bit isn't it?).

The judge's remarks about these internal Google emails appear very condemnatory. He said of them:

“You know what they used to say about Joe Alioto,” Alsup said, referring to the successful antitrust attorney. “In a big case like this, he only needed two documents: He needed a document like this, the one I just read, and the Magna Carta. And he won every case. And you are going to be on the losing end of this document with Andy Rubin on the stand. … If willful infringement is found, there are profound implications for a permanent injunction. So you better think about that.”

http://allthingsd.com/20110727/old-email-may-bite-google-in-java-pa...

The usual practice in patent disputes is to reach an agreement that either involves a one way licensing agreement involving payment (one off or recurring) or some sort of cross licensing deal (or a mix of the two). Cross licensing is quite common as the large well established tech companies have built up a large portfolio of patents so patent retaliation is a real threat and cross licensing offers an often mutually beneficial way to resolve disputes.

Clearly one of Google's main problem is that it has a very weak patent portfolio, far smaller than the tech companies making patent claims against Google directly or against OEMs who are using Google distributed software. So Google finds it hard to offer any sort of cross licensing deal and because it has distributed the software being challenged in the patent dispute so widely it's possible exposure in relation to any payment for licences is very high. Many of the recipients and OEM users of Google's Android distributions have weak or irrelevant or ageing patent portfolios and so they too are vulnerable.

Apple's position is different again. Apple is not suing Google directly because Google wisely restrained itself from incorporating features that it knew Apple had a legal claim over in it's own limited number of directly produced Google designed phone models. The Patent No. 7,469,381 referenced below (with a link to an explanatory article) is good example of where Google decided to stop short of infringing Apple IP, it's Android OEM partners were not so careful.

Apple is utterly disinterested in making money from licensing its intellectual property. Apple is interested in product differentiation. Apple has only settled for a cross licensing deal where the other side, Nokia, clearly have a strong portfolio of highly relevant patents and are not producing products which are competing with Apple products through the use of what Apple considers to be copied features based on it's design work. Generally Apple wants the other product makers to stop incorporating features which it believes are it's intellectual property. Apple will not be swayed from this position. Apple has a long memory and remembers how badly it managed its intellectual property in the past. It does not intend to make the same mistakes again.

That is why Apple was determined to prevent the Nortel patent portfolio from falling into the hands of Google who would have used it to fend off Apple's legal actions against Android OEMs. Apple's view is that it can beat the opposition as long as they don't illegally copy Apple original designs.

A good example of Apple's approach is it's defence of it's U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 on "list scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display". The technical intricacies of what this patent covers, why it is important, why Apple have a strong case and why it will have an impact is explained very clearly here:

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/apples-favorite-make-androi...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Getting caught is a bummer
by andydread on Thu 4th Aug 2011 00:53 UTC in reply to "Getting caught is a bummer"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

But Android's success has yielded something else: a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents,

Presumably if the patents in question are bogus then Google doesn't have a problem?

But of course Google does have a problem because the claims are far from bogus. The statement from David Drummond is just part of Google's ongoing PR campaign to paint itself as the saintly victim of a nefarious conspiracy. In reality it appears that Google behaved in an utterly reckless fashion during the design phase of Android when it openly discussed internally that it would need a Java license and then didn't bother getting one. It was also reckless by not taking care to make sure Android was legally bullet proof before distributing and thus exposing third parties to risk, although Google did remember to indemnify itself against any risks from doing so (odd that they did remember to do that bit isn't it?).

The judge's remarks about these internal Google emails appear very condemnatory. He said of them:

“You know what they used to say about Joe Alioto,” Alsup said, referring to the successful antitrust attorney. “In a big case like this, he only needed two documents: He needed a document like this, the one I just read, and the Magna Carta. And he won every case. And you are going to be on the losing end of this document with Andy Rubin on the stand. … If willful infringement is found, there are profound implications for a permanent injunction. So you better think about that.”

http://allthingsd.com/20110727/old-email-may-bite-google-in-java-pa...

The usual practice in patent disputes is to reach an agreement that either involves a one way licensing agreement involving payment (one off or recurring) or some sort of cross licensing deal (or a mix of the two). Cross licensing is quite common as the large well established tech companies have built up a large portfolio of patents so patent retaliation is a real threat and cross licensing offers an often mutually beneficial way to resolve disputes.

Clearly one of Google's main problem is that it has a very weak patent portfolio, far smaller than the tech companies making patent claims against Google directly or against OEMs who are using Google distributed software. So Google finds it hard to offer any sort of cross licensing deal and because it has distributed the software being challenged in the patent dispute so widely it's possible exposure in relation to any payment for licences is very high. Many of the recipients and OEM users of Google's Android distributions have weak or irrelevant or ageing patent portfolios and so they too are vulnerable.

Apple's position is different again. Apple is not suing Google directly because Google wisely restrained itself from incorporating features that it knew Apple had a legal claim over in it's own limited number of directly produced Google designed phone models. The Patent No. 7,469,381 referenced below (with a link to an explanatory article) is good example of where Google decided to stop short of infringing Apple IP, it's Android OEM partners were not so careful.

Apple is utterly disinterested in making money from licensing its intellectual property. Apple is interested in product differentiation. Apple has only settled for a cross licensing deal where the other side, Nokia, clearly have a strong portfolio of highly relevant patents and are not producing products which are competing with Apple products through the use of what Apple considers to be copied features based on it's design work. Generally Apple wants the other product makers to stop incorporating features which it believes are it's intellectual property. Apple will not be swayed from this position. Apple has a long memory and remembers how badly it managed its intellectual property in the past. It does not intend to make the same mistakes again.

That is why Apple was determined to prevent the Nortel patent portfolio from falling into the hands of Google who would have used it to fend off Apple's legal actions against Android OEMs. Apple's view is that it can beat the opposition as long as they don't illegally copy Apple original designs.

A good example of Apple's approach is it's defence of it's U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 on "list scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display". The technical intricacies of what this patent covers, why it is important, why Apple have a strong case and why it will have an impact is explained very clearly here:

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/apples-favorite-make-androi...


Linking to Florian Muller's site is a good way to discredit your claims. Try not to do it again.

Also the patent regarding screen orientation is saddled with prior art. That patent claim will not hold up to re-examination.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Getting caught is a bummer
by rhavyn on Thu 4th Aug 2011 02:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Getting caught is a bummer"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

Or if you clicked through to the "discredited" site:

"Moreover, the Patent Office confirmed the validity of all twenty claims of this patent in a reexamination initiated by Nokia, which included the best prior art references Nokia could find."

In other words the '381 patent has already been reexamined and all 20 claims made it through.

Reply Score: 2

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

I hate to tell you that Compaq developers had a rotating screen and accelerometer YEARS before Apple. While it was never released commercially, several hundred or more were demo'ed at conferences and shipped to universities for development. The people at Compaq created xrandr specifically for this reason. Link below to the guys page. There is also some useful info there about gestures.

http://gettys.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/apple-patents-portrait-lands...

Reply Score: 4

rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

I hate to tell you that Compaq developers had a rotating screen and accelerometer YEARS before Apple. While it was never released commercially, several hundred or more were demo'ed at conferences and shipped to universities for development. The people at Compaq created xrandr specifically for this reason. Link below to the guys page. There is also some useful info there about gestures.

http://gettys.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/apple-patents-portrait-lands...

That would be awesome information if it had anything to do with the patent being talked about.

Reply Score: 2

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

While the author of the blog I mentioned doesn't think it has anything to do with the patent, I think he is wrong. I think the difference between the two technologies is not something that should be patentable. Even Mueller admits that:

"You get the same result either way, but Apple's patent covers the only way that looks and feels intuitive."

So we patent something on look and feel? That't not what patents are suppose to cover. The main point I was making is that Apple didn't invent most of this technology. They may have put some polish on it, but at the end of the day they steal just like everyone else. If Compaq had a patent on the whole screen turn technology they built, Apple would surely be infringing on it.

Reply Score: 2

rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

While the author of the blog I mentioned doesn't think it has anything to do with the patent, I think he is wrong. I think the difference between the two technologies is not something that should be patentable. Even Mueller admits that:

"You get the same result either way, but Apple's patent covers the only way that looks and feels intuitive."

So we patent something on look and feel? That't not what patents are suppose to cover. The main point I was making is that Apple didn't invent most of this technology. They may have put some polish on it, but at the end of the day they steal just like everyone else. If Compaq had a patent on the whole screen turn technology they built, Apple would surely be infringing on it.


Perhaps you should click through to the "discredited" site to see exactly what patent we are talking about. Pro tip: it has nothing to do with screen turn technology and it has already been through a patent reexamination at Nokia's request, there is no question it will stand up

Reply Score: 2

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

"While the author of the blog I mentioned doesn't think it has anything to do with the patent, I think he is wrong. I think the difference between the two technologies is not something that should be patentable. Even Mueller admits that:

"You get the same result either way, but Apple's patent covers the only way that looks and feels intuitive."

So we patent something on look and feel? That't not what patents are suppose to cover. The main point I was making is that Apple didn't invent most of this technology. They may have put some polish on it, but at the end of the day they steal just like everyone else. If Compaq had a patent on the whole screen turn technology they built, Apple would surely be infringing on it.


Perhaps you should click through to the "discredited" site to see exactly what patent we are talking about. Pro tip: it has nothing to do with screen turn technology and it has already been through a patent reexamination at Nokia's request, there is no question it will stand up
"


And maybe you should learn how to read. The name of the patent is:

"List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display"

Yes, Apple's patent covers different specifics than just rotation. And while I understand that Apple's patent may have been upheld, its also very obvious that the technology was heavily influenced by the work done at Compaq and other places. Why should Apple get to patent work that was half done by someone else?

Reply Score: 2

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

And the auther of that blog even admits he is in error, that he misinterpreted the patent.

I'll stick with the vigorous challenge by Nokia and upholding by the legal system versus some blog post that is updated shortly after that it was completely wrong.

Edited 2011-08-04 03:35 UTC

Reply Score: 1

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Presumably if the patents in question are bogus then Google doesn't have a problem?


Ah, so you live in a magical fantasy land where defending yourself against lawsuits doesn't cost anything just so long as you're in the right?

Reply Score: 5

Antitrust actions against Google.
by andydread on Thu 4th Aug 2011 00:26 UTC
andydread
Member since:
2009-02-02

Thom said: (can we still count the various search/advertisement-related antitrust investigations on one hand?)

Its important to note that most of the antitrust investigations against Google were initiated by Microsoft. Whether by leading a list of companies (partners) to complain or urging companies to complain to regulators behind the scenes. It is a two pronged attack against Google from Microsoft. File and urge others to file antitrust complaints against Google and stir up a patent hornets nest for any Open Source software that competes with Microsoft in the marketplace. Plain and simple.

Reply Score: 2

And Microsoft says:
by helix on Thu 4th Aug 2011 02:26 UTC
helix
Member since:
2011-08-04
This is just stupid...
by tomcat on Thu 4th Aug 2011 03:10 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Folks, nobody should be shedding a tear for Google. They can moan all they want about patents (oh, the horror, the horror...), but patents are how business is done in the United States. Don't like it, Google? Work to change the law. Congress has the ability to change patent law.

What I detest here is Google's hypocrisy. It tries to get every possible advantage that it can -- skirting tax laws, cutting out competitors, working actively to undermine privacy, pimping the open source community for sympathy -- while moaning when it's lagging behind in some area (e.g. patents).

Android grew as quickly as it did precisely because it leveraged innovations that were patented by other companies. You may not like that fact, but it's true. That won't stop Google from continuing to push Android to higher and higher heights. But it WILL require Google to license patents -- just as Apple, Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, and others license patents from one another -- and actually spend some of that huge bankroll that it's been building. That shouldn't upset anyone but Google.

Google is playing you for rubes.

Edited 2011-08-04 03:20 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: This is just stupid...
by nicholasj on Thu 4th Aug 2011 15:15 UTC in reply to "This is just stupid..."
nicholasj Member since:
2008-12-10

"Android grew as quickly as it did precisely because it leveraged innovations that were patented by other companies."

And BANG! we're right back to that old 'definition of innovation' problem. So many of those user interface patents are complete bollocks - completely "obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art". And I appreciate in the fullness of time many of them will likely (hopefully) be invalidated on review, but in the meantime obscene amounts of time and money will be spent on patent attorneys, court wrangling and wasted human capital. It's all so nauseatingly inefficient.

What non-software types don't always seem to appreciate is that by enforcing these ludicrous software patents, you devalue the patent system generally - you risk justifying the behaviour of manufacturers in (euphemistically) 'non-patent-enforcing' countries ripping off genuine design and innovation without license.

As the micro-fab boom builds steam and industrial design becomes just another form of digital art, I fear it's already inevitable that we'll see similar levels of piracy to those in the music, film and now ebook industries. Why buy an iPhone 13, when you can torrent the design and print it off at your local fab?

Reply Score: 3

RE: This is just stupid...
by JAlexoid on Thu 4th Aug 2011 19:52 UTC in reply to "This is just stupid..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

What you might not realise, is that it's part of the PR to change the system.

Reply Score: 2

Google is not going to sit back and take it
by tomcat on Thu 4th Aug 2011 03:23 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

No, they're going to make lame assertions in court, and get their asses handed to them, before they eventually break down and pay the patent license fees which they should have paid in the first place.

This is what happens when you let devs run your company.

Time to appoint an adult.

Edited 2011-08-04 03:24 UTC

Reply Score: 3

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Google's blog post looks like nothing more than propaganda that isn't rooted in reality...

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-google-email-2011-8?op=1

Edited 2011-08-04 03:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Same goes for Microsoft in 1998. Politically they were on the losing side from the beginning just because their political meddling arm was non-existent. And the most valuable lesson Microsoft learned as a result of 1998 trial was "If you don't meddle in politics, politics will meddle with you".

Google just needs to spend some of their hard earned "speech" in contributions to some party.

Reply Score: 2

You misunderstand competitive
by ezylstra on Thu 4th Aug 2011 03:46 UTC
ezylstra
Member since:
2010-07-16

"Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle are working together to litigate against Android instead of competing with it."

When you come up with ideas and produce products from them, that is innovation. When others copy those ideas and then use them to make money, that is theft. When you litigate to stop others from stealing your innovations to make money for themselves, that is _not_ anti-competitive, but simply defending your property.

Let Google innovate and produce an Android with ideas they haven't simply looked at in other's products, and then they won't get sued.

Reply Score: 0

RE: You misunderstand competitive
by shmerl on Thu 4th Aug 2011 03:49 UTC in reply to "You misunderstand competitive"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

In essence, you can't own an idea. However it's a rather involved subject.

Edited 2011-08-04 03:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v Hypocrisy
by Jennimc on Thu 4th Aug 2011 04:20 UTC
RE: Hypocrisy
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 4th Aug 2011 06:12 UTC in reply to "Hypocrisy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK. But when others acquired them, it’s a “hostile, organized campaign”. It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s for-pay OS licensing business by giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?

Thom argues that Google only wants to use patents defensively. But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?

How is Google’s argument here different than simply demanding that Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, et al should simply sit back and let Google do whatever it wants with Android, regardless of the patents they hold? And, let’s not forget, give Android away for free.


Dude, your comment is borderline copyright infringement. Don't copy/paste someone without giving its source (Gruber).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hypocrisy
by Aragorn992 on Thu 4th Aug 2011 09:50 UTC in reply to "Hypocrisy"
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

...Thom argues that Google only wants to use patents defensively. But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?


The point regarding the problems using "questionable" patents to litigate other companies into submission is well known. Read a little. Inform yourself. Just because a company takes another to court - or worse yet, WINs in court - does not make that patent any more or less valid. This is a systematic problem with the patent system.

How is Google’s argument here different than simply demanding that Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, et al should simply sit back and let Google do whatever it wants with Android, regardless of the patents they hold? And, let’s not forget, give Android away for free.


Google is not taking these companies to court with patents (and Google has plenty of "questionable" patents it could use for this purpose). These companies are taking Google (whether it be indirectly via Samsung) to court. There is a clear aggressor here and it is not Google.

Edited 2011-08-04 09:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hypocrisy
by BallmerKnowsBest on Thu 4th Aug 2011 17:25 UTC in reply to "Hypocrisy"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK. But when others acquired them, it’s a “hostile, organized campaign”. It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s for-pay OS licensing business by giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?


If nothing else, I have to give Google credit for pulling off one of the most impressive trolls in trolling history. Why, it's so epic that they've even managed to get Apple fanboys defending Microsoft!

Not that it should be any surprise, since Apple has been doing everything in their power to become the new Microsoft (by emulating the old Microsoft from the 1990s).

P.S.
If you're going to post comments defending IP trolls, you might want to avoid, ya know, out-and-out plagiarism *coughcough* http://daringfireball.net/2011/08/google_patently_absurd *coughcough*

Edited 2011-08-04 17:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Joy_Division_Lives!
Member since:
2011-07-29

Via Daring Fireball:

https://twitter.com/#!/BradSmi/status/98902130412355585

Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no.


Hmmm... I guess Google is up to its old tricks, trying to play the victim.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I guess Google is up to its old tricks, trying to play the victim.


Wow, imagine how similar Google and Apple are in that respect.

Reply Score: 2

Joy_Division_Lives! Member since:
2011-07-29

"I guess Google is up to its old tricks, trying to play the victim.


Wow, imagine how similar Google and Apple are in that respect.
"

Sorry...but I think deliberately saying no to a partnership, then complaining that said partnership was trying to keep patents away from you...well...that merits immediate induction into the Victims Roleplay Hall of Fame.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

In related news, people make mistakes and sometimes place their foot in their mouth.

Reply Score: 2

Gusar Member since:
2010-07-16

How exactly would Google bidding with MS help them? They need patents to defend themselves against MS. This is not possible if the patents are jointly owned by MS.

Or is the argument here that if Google bid on these patents, the lawsuits would go away? Even though there's patents in the lawsuits that are not from this particular portfolio?

Reply Score: 3

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

How exactly would Google bidding with MS help them? They need patents to defend themselves against MS. This is not possible if the patents are jointly owned by MS.


Indeed. Jointly sharing patents with MS will not counter a patent threats, merely neutralize the threat of these particular patents.

Reply Score: 3

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Guess what? US DoJ agrees with Google on Novell:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/April/11-at-491.html

Nortel is not part of that retort(the $4.5bn deal). Novell != Nortel.

Reply Score: 2

Looking out for themselves
by Soulbender on Thu 4th Aug 2011 07:05 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Really, Google is against patents because it favours them to not have them. Just like why Apple/Microoft etc wants to keep things they way they are because it favours them. It's not like there's any altruism involved here.
Still, for the common man it's better to side with Google in this particular case since the current system grossly favours those with massive financial backing rather than individuals or small teams of inventors.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Looking out for themselves
by Not2Sure on Thu 4th Aug 2011 09:00 UTC in reply to "Looking out for themselves"
Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

Still, for the common man it's better to side with Google in this particular case since the current system grossly favours those with massive financial backing rather than individuals or small teams of inventors.


absurd myth

Reply Score: 0

good luck
by Lennie on Thu 4th Aug 2011 07:12 UTC
Lennie
Member since:
2007-09-22

Thom, good luck with your thesis. I hope you do well. :-)

edit: Sorry for being off-topic

Edited 2011-08-04 07:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Google cry wolf...
by bloodline on Thu 4th Aug 2011 07:24 UTC
bloodline
Member since:
2008-07-28

Google were the ones who put in a $3.5 billion bid and drove the price above the market value... Then Google were asked if they wanted to join the Apple/Microsoft/oracle/rim/etc bid... They refused. I used to like Google, and still use plenty of their products, but they are just as bad (if not worse in this case) than the older tech companies, who are joining together so that they can purchase patents and share them.

Thom throws a wobbly about companies playing the patent game, well I also get my panties in a twist when companies try and play the PR game, but screw up ;) If you are gonna spin, you need to be good at it!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Google cry wolf...
by mtzmtulivu on Thu 4th Aug 2011 14:42 UTC in reply to "Google cry wolf..."
mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14

google say they wanted the patents to protect themselves against others.

I am not aware of google using any of its patents to go after anyone, do you?

Microsoft on the other hand is using patents to go after companies that compete with them.

Apple on the other hand is using patents to go after companies that compete with them.

Google's interests are not in alignment with those of Apple's and Microsoft and it can reasonably be argued that this is why they refused the offer.

Would you rather these patents be with somebody who has stated they will not use them to attack others and have no history of doing so or with somebody who is going to use them to attack others? others who are not as big and strong and who can not easily defend themselves?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Google cry wolf...
by JAlexoid on Thu 4th Aug 2011 20:05 UTC in reply to "Google cry wolf..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Nortel != Novell... It would be nice if people knew the difference.

No one asked Google to join the Nortel bid(the last one with $4.5bn pricetag). At least no evidence was ever floated.

Google were asked to join the Novell patent bid, but they declined.

Reply Score: 2

Credence in the update
by ourcomputerbloke on Thu 4th Aug 2011 09:27 UTC
ourcomputerbloke
Member since:
2011-05-12

The update certainly gives credence to the theory that Google are trying to gain a favorable ruling in the court of public opinion. My suspicion is that this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to these tactics on Google's behalf. Only time will tell.

Certainly from independent feedback and discussions I've had with small business people about Google's methods in the advertising space it's pretty obvious they aren't the knight in shining armor they like to portray themselves as.

Off topic (maybe), but also from Ars on the same day (yet strangely not linked here), is this:

http://feeds.arstechnica.com/~r/arstechnica/everything/~3/Q0mtFeEi0... Study: Android is least open of open source mobile platforms

Still more open than iOS, but then I suppose Apple doesn't try to spin iOS as being open either.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Credence in the update
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 4th Aug 2011 09:30 UTC in reply to "Credence in the update"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

(yet strangely not linked here)


Search results for:label:osnews-submission ourcomputerbloke > No messages matched your search. You can broaden your search to look in "Mail & Spam & Trash".

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Credence in the update
by Finchwizard on Thu 4th Aug 2011 10:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Credence in the update"
Finchwizard Member since:
2006-02-01

More the selected posting.

Pro Google. Boo Apple or anyone else who hates or threatens Google.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Credence in the update
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 4th Aug 2011 10:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Credence in the update"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

More the selected posting.

Boo software patents. Yay Google or anyone else who hates or threatens software patents.


There, fixed it for you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Credence in the update
by Beta on Thu 4th Aug 2011 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Credence in the update"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Confused users giving the above a 0 rating.

Reply Score: 0

troll mecca
by fran on Thu 4th Aug 2011 10:06 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

osnews comment section is being spoiled by trolls.

Please cite Google's history of using patents offensively.

I see careful constructed arguments here just having no influence on them. I cant help but feel they have vested interests.

What did the canadian minister of industry thought about Apple, Microsoft, Oracle (AMO) buying Nortel patents.
http://www.mobiledia.com/news/97075.html

What the the American Justice Dept. thought of AMO buying the Nortel patents.
http://us.generation-nt.com/patents-nortel-justice-department-inves...

Reply Score: 5

RE: troll mecca
by Soulbender on Thu 4th Aug 2011 15:45 UTC in reply to "troll mecca"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Don't confuse the issue by presenting facts.

Reply Score: 3

RE: troll mecca
by JAlexoid on Thu 4th Aug 2011 20:07 UTC in reply to "troll mecca"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

And here is what US DoJ thought of Novell patents:
The department said that, as originally proposed, the deal would jeopardize the ability of open source software, such as Linux, to continue to innovate and compete in the development and distribution of server, desktop, and mobile operating systems, middleware, and virtualization products.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/April/11-at-491.html

Reply Score: 2

They won't make a dent
by siki_miki on Thu 4th Aug 2011 11:04 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

As if these lawsuits would destroy Google's business. Phone market is far larger than USA. Android being cheaper also helps it beat others in emerging eastern markets. Even if they manage to charge licenses, it only covers handsets and tablets sold in the USA. Others are still off limits to MS, Apple, Oracle etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE: They won't make a dent
by JAlexoid on Thu 4th Aug 2011 11:30 UTC in reply to "They won't make a dent"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I hope that American consumers get footed the bill for the patent system. But unfortunately, US is in the position to devalue the global economy, by devaluing current world reserve currency.

For a country that fought unelected head of state for independence to become the unelected financial ruler of the world, is just too ironic...

Reply Score: 2

RE: They won't make a dent - not just US
by jabbotts on Thu 4th Aug 2011 17:52 UTC in reply to "They won't make a dent"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

The patent racket outcome depends on the agreement. If the agreement includes "per unit produced" versus "per unit sold in the US" then your paying a licence fee for each phone regardless of what market it's produced and/or sold in.

I think Microsoft just got another of these with the latest manufacturer strong-arming against Android. The company is paying per unit produced not per unit sold in the US.

In past, they've had similar agreements over Windows licensing. OEM's paying for a Windows license even when the hardware was sold without Windows.

Reply Score: 2

Torbjorn Vik Lunde
Member since:
2009-09-04

While I do absolutely not defend software patents, I find it bit silly to claim that those to sue only compete by litigation. I think it is fairly obvious that they are doing both: suing based on stupid patents and improving their products.

Of course, the ideal would be if they only were improving their products.

Edited 2011-08-04 12:26 UTC

Reply Score: 1

.
by Icaria on Thu 4th Aug 2011 15:37 UTC
Icaria
Member since:
2010-06-19

We don't know any of the details of the proposed MS/Google partnership but lets just assume Google flippantly declined a virtuous offer.


We do know that Google is trying to buy patents as a defensive strategy but lets just wilfully ignore that (along with the company's history) and call them hypocrites and insinuate that, if they had acquired the Nortel patents, they'd be picking fights with them.



I'm not a great fan of the company but I still can't see how some people develop such an overt bias against them. Does it come from a general distrust/dislike of advertisers?

It's also weird how the above also poisons attitudes towards Android. If Google closed up shop tomorrow, Android would live on. Even if you dislike the company backing it, the product is solid and damn good for consumers. You're practically voting against your own interests.

Reply Score: 1

RE: .
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 4th Aug 2011 15:44 UTC in reply to "."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm not a great fan of the company but I still can't see how some people develop such an overt bias against them. Does it come from a general distrust/dislike of advertisers?


For sane people, yes, it comes from a dislike of advertisers. This is a relatively small group, however, and conflates with privacy advocates.

For the most part, though, the people railing against Google in this particular debate are Apple fanatics, and the only reason they rail on Google is because Google poses a major threat to Apple. That's how you can have folk like Gruber claim they are against software patents, yet at the same time, have no issues with Apple and Microsoft asserting these same software patents against Android.

I wouldn't want to call these people crazy, but odd they are indeed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: .
by Not2Sure on Thu 4th Aug 2011 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE: ."
Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

[citation needed]

Reply Score: 1

RE: . - common recreational passtime
by jabbotts on Thu 4th Aug 2011 17:56 UTC in reply to "."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06


voting against your own interests


That seems to be a common passtime in the US and other voting nations.

Reply Score: 2

jennimc ... *completely off topic*
by Shkaba on Thu 4th Aug 2011 16:06 UTC
Shkaba
Member since:
2006-06-22

I am simply amazed by the amount of stupid assertions that you post. I have never ever seen such display of irrational thoughts and comments. To quote a movie phrase:
"No where in your rambling incoherent response did you come close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. We are all dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul."

At this moment I am mad at myself for having read your comments and even angrier for feeling the need to publicly state that you are:
1- Stupid
2- Liar
3- Profoundly disrespectful of the intellect of the members of this site
4- Deliberately twisting the truth (as opposed to not knowing it)

All of the above render any discussion with yourself useless, which makes me wonder why are you still allowed to post here?

Reply Score: 4

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Those points can describe any number of people on this site or any other site.

Reply Score: 1