Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th Jul 2012 10:48 UTC
Legal Groklaw nails it: "In other words, [Apple and Microsoft] want to disarm the companies that got there first, built the standards, and created the field, while the come-later types clean up on patents on things like slide to unlock or a tablet shape with rounded corners. Then the money flows to Apple and Microsoft, and away from Android - and isn't that really the point of all this, to destroy Android by hook or by crook? The parties who were in the mobile phone business years before Apple or Microsoft even thought about doing it thus get nothing much for their earlier issued patents that have become standards. Apple and Microsoft can't compete on an even field, because the patent system rewards the first to invent (or now, after the recent patent reform, the first to file). Neither Apple nor Microsoft got there first. Samsung was there, since the '90s." To illustrate: Apple is demanding $24 (!) per Samsung device for design patents, while at the same time, Apple also demands that Samsung does not charge more than $0.0049 per standards essential patent per device. This is absolutely, utterly, and entirely indefensible. And then Apple and its supporters have the nerve to claim Samsung is ripping them off. Yes, this pisses me off, and no, that's not because it's Apple doing it (Microsoft is just as guilty). It's because this is plainly, utterly, clearly, and intrinsically unfair.
Order by: Score:
Comment by NuxRo
by NuxRo on Sun 29th Jul 2012 11:23 UTC
NuxRo
Member since:
2010-09-25

And that is why everybody should be boycotting M$ and Apple. No more articles praising Microsoft products, Thom!

Reply Score: 13

RE: Comment by NuxRo
by Morgan on Sun 29th Jul 2012 12:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by NuxRo"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Well he's a journalist (and yes I really mean that) so he can't play favorites like that when reporting the news. He can, however, express his opinion in editorials, and from the first three lines of this submission, I'd say he's firmly on the side of Samsung and Android in this fight.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by NuxRo
by sbenitezb on Sun 29th Jul 2012 23:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by NuxRo"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

Screw that! Report on what's worth it and ignore the other shit. I'm not going to get angry.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by NuxRo
by banatibor on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 06:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by NuxRo"
banatibor Member since:
2012-07-02

I'd say he's firmly on the side of Samsung and Android in this fight.



I'd say that he is rather stands on the side of truth and justice like any man who has morals.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by NuxRo
by ilovebeer on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by NuxRo"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

I'd say he's firmly on the side of Samsung and Android in this fight.

I'd say that he is rather stands on the side of truth and justice like any man who has morals.

Are you sure you understand what we're talking about here?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by NuxRo
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 29th Jul 2012 12:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by NuxRo"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I can review a product perfectly fine without having company policies affect it (see my Apple and Microsoft reviews). A product is a product, and is created by people who have nothing to do with legal departments and who are proud of their work.

The iPad 2, for instance, got a very positive review from me because it simply was (at the time) the best tablet on the market, Apple product or no. Same for the iPhone, iMacs, MacBooks, and so on.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by NuxRo
by dsmogor on Sun 29th Jul 2012 13:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by NuxRo"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Thom, btw when can we expect N7 review?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by NuxRo
by thavith_osn on Sun 29th Jul 2012 14:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by NuxRo"
thavith_osn Member since:
2005-07-11

Did you want me to review it? ;-)

I'll just say what I said earlier,

I'm a Mac fanboy, have been since 1980 when I used my first Apple ][ (48k beast) and then even more so with the //c and first Macs...

I have not liked Android in it's earlier incarnations. It felt unfinished, slow, and just unwieldy. I didn't like it because it wasn't iOS, I didn't like it because for me, it was lacking so much. Anyone using 2.n needs to check out 4.1.n

So, with all that base work in place, let me say...

Android 4.1.1 on the Nexus 7 is brilliant. I didn't expect to like it and came out loving it. It's passed iOS 6 (which I have as an Apple Dev) in many areas. I would recommend a Nexus 7 as a tablet without hesitation (if you don't need 3G). Even if it was priced $100 more it would be a bargain.

Google as done a lot of work to get it where it is now. There are a few things I don't like, but that's true of iOS too...

Back to the article.

I wish wish wish Apple (I don't have much hope for M$) would stop this patent trolling thing and just go back to what they do. I might write a letter to tcook@apple.com and politely ask what is going on (without expecting an answer), maybe all of us here who believe Apple is heading down a path we don't like should - maybe if enough people wrote he might do something (we can but dream can't we).

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by NuxRo
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 29th Jul 2012 17:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by NuxRo"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Dunno, kind of depends on a load of other factors. I've got enough to talk about, just need some time.

Edited 2012-07-29 17:23 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by NuxRo
by NuxRo on Sun 29th Jul 2012 12:43 UTC
NuxRo
Member since:
2010-09-25

I do agree it's a tricky issue and maybe it was unfair to ask this of Thom. Sorry, Thom.

However, to make a point: the Nazi Panzer tanks were arguably the best of their time. Great technical achievements.

I'll go boycotting M$ and Apple on my own.

Cheerio!

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by NuxRo
by Nico57 on Mon 30th Jul 2012 00:10 UTC in reply to "Comment by NuxRo"
Nico57 Member since:
2006-12-18

German panzers. (And Nazi officers.)

There's no political inclination in a bunch of steel plates.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by NuxRo
by lucas_maximus on Mon 30th Jul 2012 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by NuxRo"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well what other army used them?

Other than that ... way to go guys lets Godwin the thread at level 1.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by NuxRo
by cyrilleberger on Tue 31st Jul 2012 04:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by NuxRo"
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

Well what other army used them?


Panzer I were used by the Nationalist during the Spanish civil war, and quiet ironically, by the Republic of China against Japan. And later versions were also sold to other countries.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by NuxRo
by lucas_maximus on Tue 31st Jul 2012 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by NuxRo"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Cheers, I should know more about the civil war in Spain since I now live in Gibraltar.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by NuxRo
by mrstep on Tue 31st Jul 2012 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by NuxRo"
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

Calling German WWII tanks 'Nazi' tanks is like calling the M1 tank a 'Republican tank' because Bush used it while invading Iraq. The US Army invaded, not the Republican party, though they gave the directions to.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by NuxRo
by zima on Fri 3rd Aug 2012 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by NuxRo"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Yet OTOH "Nazi concentration camps" seems to be more prevalent than "German..." (hell, I wouldn't be too surprised at the latter being similarly frequent to "Polish..." which is used by some stupid people presumably just because some of the camps were on the territory of occupied Poland)

Overall, the issue with your argument is that the Nazis basically usurped the entirety of the state (well, I suppose some might argue that the two-party system of the US isn't too far; but still, not quite there...)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by NuxRo
by zima on Fri 3rd Aug 2012 22:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by NuxRo"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

German panzers. (And Nazi officers.)

There's no political inclination in a bunch of steel plates.

Or is it? Vast majority of those tanks quite possibly wouldn't be around if it weren't for the Nazis (well, and the Soviets - because they would probably attack Poland, like they did together with the Nazis in IX'39, all by themselves eventually ...likely not stopping there), and for the industry building them that was largely composed of slave labour and so on.

So there is some point in naming them like that, reminding about history, what led to the very existence of those tanks.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by NuxRo
by phoudoin on Mon 30th Jul 2012 08:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by NuxRo"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

For once, a Godwin point which *is* a valid argument.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by NuxRo
by lucas_maximus on Mon 30th Jul 2012 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by NuxRo"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

yes, because mobile phone operating systems are exactly like the extermination of the jews, the burning of the books ... I could go on.

I am sorry but the last two generations in the Western world haven't really experienced any real oppressive forces so we make them up ... to make ourselves feel important.

Edited 2012-07-30 21:14 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by NuxRo
by cdude on Tue 31st Jul 2012 04:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by NuxRo"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

The burning of books is indeed not that far away. Its about destroying ideas, to prevent spread and exchange of ideas and to keep "competition" (as in everything you not like, not agrer with, that goes against your view) low. Exactly what patents are used for this days.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by NuxRo
by lucas_maximus on Tue 31st Jul 2012 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by NuxRo"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

:facepalm:

The vast majority of nerds haven't ever faced anything truly evil and make it sound like they are making some sort of valiant fight against the machine.

This sort of scenario is barely more believable than quite a few 1970s Sci-fiction movies.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by NuxRo
by zima on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 21:12 UTC in reply to "Comment by NuxRo"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

to make a point: the Nazi Panzer tanks were arguably the best of their time. Great technical achievements.

Why Godwin it so soon?

And, arguably, German WW2 tanks weren't the best. Particularly the earlier ones, used during their greatest successes, and fielded in largest numbers, were nothing out of ordinary - it was more about better training, coordination, command skills, and such. IIRC Germany was the only one really earnestly doing combat exercises pre-WW2 (that included air force cooperation, realistic communication situations, actively working to rectify observed problems). They were almost-battle-hardened before the war even started; such factors are mostly what created the conventional wisdom, myth of German tanks superiority.

But when it comes to design achievement of the period, the laurel possibly belongs to... T-34 - this one was pretty much what showed everybody how to make a proper tank during WW2.
Check out opening quotations of Germany's best in http://www.achtungpanzer.com/t34.htm (and generally at least the opening section of that page), with some additional impressions of Colonel-General Heinz Guderian, Commander of Second Panzer Army in http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/Commanders/german/guderian.htm (search "T-34" in that page).
In one of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Zaloga works: "The technological pace-setter of World War II tank design."
And it might be even still kinda used, here and there ;p

As for later German tanks... Tigers are definitely overrated, they had very unbalanced characteristics (notably leading to quite poor mobility, IIRC most of them lost due to being stuck, or disabled by related mechanical breakage; not powerful enough to drive themselves out, to climb slopes which T-34 for example could routinely overcome).
Panzer V Panther - yeah that one (not "German tanks" in general) would be a good contender for the laurel, better overall at the time of its introduction ...but largely because it drew on T-34.

Edited 2012-08-02 21:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v Disarm the companies that got there first
by tommytrc on Sun 29th Jul 2012 12:45 UTC
Lorin Member since:
2010-04-06

Android Inc was purchased by Google in 2005, so Android existed long before IOS, it just was not yet ready for release.

Reply Score: 6

tommytrc Member since:
2012-07-29

I'm still confused on the timeline and information. So if the original iPhone was released 4 months before the Open Handset Alliance was even formed, How did Apple steal their hardware or even software knowledge. I'm just confused as to how long it took to develop IOS and why do people really think Apple came second to the IOS/Android game?

Reply Score: 0

thavith_osn Member since:
2005-07-11

Android existed before the iPhone was released, but you must realise that the iPhone and the software on it existed before the iPhone was released as well...

Jobs said they first looked at this stuff in 2004, so a "touch" OS was in the works as far back as then. Android Inc. started in Oct, 2003 but I'm not sure when work on a "touch" version of the OS started, but obviously before Nov, 2007 when the beta was released.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Jobs said they first looked at this stuff in 2004, so a "touch" OS was in the works as far back as then. Android Inc. started in Oct, 2003 but I'm not sure when work on a "touch" version of the OS started

Or maybe he meant looking into Motorola iTunes phone, which was released in 2005... Either way, you can't be sure what exactly was in the works at Apple in 2004. For one, Apple bought its touch tech only in 2005 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks )

Reply Score: 2

Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm confused by this. Android 1.5 was released in April 2009, while the original iPhone was released in June 2007, almost 2 full years ahead. Sure hardware makers have been making phones for a lot longer than apple, but it was the Android OS that got them traction in the smart phone space. Who got there first?

Whole article is about the fundamental hardware that powers these devices (no, not their CPU, that could be anything…), and that tech is mostly from Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, HTC.

Reply Score: 8

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Same is valid for the software. Nokia created the first smartphone 10 years before.

Same is valid for the design. I remember sorted icons on a desktop during my good old Amiga times.

Reply Score: 3

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Not true. IBM beat Nokia by a couple of years with the Simon Personal Communicator, and it was even touch screen.

Reply Score: 5

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Same is valid for the software. Nokia created the first smartphone 10 years before.

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about WRT Nokia.
NVM their smartphones not being the first - the software was external to Nokia (first the GEOS on Communicators, later Symbian Ltd. - a partnership between Psion, Ericsson, Motorola, Nokia) ...and not that great - being the reason for their downfall, software was the greatest weakness of Nokia.

Edited 2012-08-06 00:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Whole article is about the fundamental hardware that powers these devices (no, not their CPU, that could be anything…), and that tech is mostly from Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, HTC.


Whilst what is happening to HTC today is unfair, HTC definitely isn't in the same category as the other companies you list. They also were the beneficiaries when MS decided to screw over Sendo.

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Who got there first?


RIM.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't know about RIM ...why they were counted among smartphones, anyway? The apps are even j2me.

That leaves the provided service - but nothing stops such from being implemented in what are traditionally considered "feature phones" (and indeed some of them got similar integration, in the meantime)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by marcp
by marcp on Sun 29th Jul 2012 13:21 UTC
marcp
Member since:
2007-11-23

The point is that you cannot avoid this type of situation unless you use open platforms and open standards. Microsoft and Apple got to have a company they will fight with [Google]. With open source they won't, because there is a collective of individuals, no patents and huge variety of implementations.
Google is NOT open. Google profits from your data, Android is NOT open. Android *tends* to be sort-of open sometimes. Generally it is quite enclosed ecosystem which is slightly modified by various hardware vendors.
What people need is a truly open software mobile platform, like specially crafted gnu/linux distro for cell/smart phones and mobile hardware.
This would give everyone total control over their experience. Otherwise it's just another form of digital slavery [dependency]

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by marcp
by Sodki on Sun 29th Jul 2012 13:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

Google is NOT open. Google profits from your data...


You'd be surprised how much of this is not true.


... Android is NOT open. Android *tends* to be sort-of open sometimes.


Android code is open, there is no question about it because it has been released. Android development, on the other hand, seems not to be that open, unfortunately.


Generally it is quite enclosed ecosystem which is slightly modified by various hardware vendors.


Buy a Nexus phone. Problem solved.


What people need is a truly open software mobile platform, like specially crafted gnu/linux distro for cell/smart phones and mobile hardware.
This would give everyone total control over their experience. Otherwise it's just another form of digital slavery [dependency]


I have a Nokia N900 with Maemo, which is what you describe: an open mobile platform where you have total control. A Google Nexus phone with a ROM image directly from Google, without hardware vendor modification is exactly the same. Both are expensive phones, for both of them you can do whatever you want.

Edited 2012-07-29 13:54 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by WorknMan on Tue 31st Jul 2012 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Buy a Nexus phone. Problem solved.


Just not on Sprint or Verizon ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by marcp
by WereCatf on Sun 29th Jul 2012 15:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

With open source they won't, because there is a collective of individuals, no patents


Just because something is F/OSS doesn't make it free from software-patents.

Google profits from your data


So does everyone else these days, that's hardly anything new.

Android is NOT open.


Depends on how you interpret that. The code is all there, freely accessible and you're perfectly free to fork it. The only part that is not open is upstream access.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by marcp on Sun 29th Jul 2012 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

I can't understand how can you write such stuff. It would actualy mean you don't know the whole Free Software ecosystem.
Closed source is all about the patents. Free Software is all about anti-patent system. I can't see where your point is actually valid. It *may* be valid in open source projects, which also may be dependent on software patents.
Besides: people who support patent system may have claims to the Free Software community and its projects, but it doesn't mean that those claims are reasonable.


So does everyone else these days, that's hardly anything new.

First of all: no, not everyone. Only the ones who claim they give you something "free", while in fact you are paying for it with your own data. I can't see this paradigm in free software community, while it is perfectly observable in closed source / commercial spectrum of the market.
Secondly: I don't get people like you, who tend to accept the crap as soon as it happens to be widely present. Normally I would ask you if you accept this kind of situation, but I think I can assume what your answer would be. You've actually already answered it indirectly. So right: go ahead, give up all your liberties, because "everyone is invading my privacy these days".
You can always say: "I have nothing to hide, thus you can take [an resell!] my personal data", but that would get you even worse in this whole discussion.

Lastly: Android can be called merely open platform because it is - as somebody else pointed out - closed during development and opened at times, then Google decides to do so. I don't accept that deal. You can accept it if you want. That's your problem.

You can't miss something you've never experienced. And that's true when it comes to freedom, too ... it explains why people say ludicrous things in discussions like this.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by galvanash on Sun 29th Jul 2012 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25


"Just because something is F/OSS doesn't make it free from software-patents.

I can't understand how can you write such stuff. It would actualy mean you don't know the whole Free Software ecosystem. Closed source is all about the patents. Free Software is all about anti-patent system.
"

It doesn't matter "what it is about". I don't think you understand what was meant here... I myself am totally against software patents - but I cannot stick my fingers in my ears and chant la-la-la and magically make the patent system disappear.

In the US at least, software patents exist - it is the law of the land. There have been quite a few cases where patented code was found in open source software and the patent holder sued successfully and won. A few of them even involve Linux and other very high profile OSS projects. Happens all the time.

I'm not saying it is right, or that I agree with it... But saying that something being OSS makes it free of patents is completely naive.

Its practically impossible to make a software product that goes beyond trivial functionality and doesn't violate an existing patent - that is the whole damn problem... You can't "intend" to be patent free, you either are or aren't - and unless you hired lawyers and spent many thousands of dollars doing a clearance of the code you have more than likely violated a patent.

Ironically, the only real way to prove your code is free of other peoples patents is to patent it yourself. And thus we all go spinning down the rabbit hole...

Edited 2012-07-29 17:31 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by marcp on Sun 29th Jul 2012 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

In the US at least, software patents exist - it is the law of the land. There have been quite a few cases where patented code was found in open source software and the patent holder sued successfully and won. A few of them even involve Linux and other very high profile OSS projects. Happens all the time.


Oh, don't get me started on US law, and US patent law in particular. It is a huge pathology which tries to spread on the whole earth. It is unreasonable, it favors huge corporations, it allow existence od software patent trolls, it ruins creativity and it is generally way beyond its primary purpose.
People used to talk about OSS projects, just like they want to avoid FLOSS projects. People who support patent system tend to focus on OSS, others [who prefer freedom] focus on FREEDOM, also a freedom from patents.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by marcp
by MollyC on Mon 30th Jul 2012 04:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by marcp"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

US does recognize software patents, but I've read that it's the EU that recognizes "design patents", of the sort that Apple is enforcing.

Also, I think individual EU countries recognize some software patents (Motorola's demands for 4 billion dollars a year to license four H.264 patents have been made and recognized in Germany, not the US).

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by marcp
by cdude on Tue 31st Jul 2012 04:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by marcp"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Actually ALL of the EU recognizes software patents. Only limitation is that they need to be in relation to hardware. So, rather then "a method to do x" you write "a method to do x running on a computer or similar device" and be fine.

Edited 2012-07-31 04:51 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by Soulbender on Mon 30th Jul 2012 08:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

From your original post:

Google is NOT open. Google profits from your data

One has nothing to do with the other. A company can be open and at the same time profit from data it collects from you.

Closed source is all about the patents

No, it's about keeping your perceived advantages a secret. You don't have to agree with this (I think it's bogus most of the time) but this is the reasoning behind it.

Free Software is all about anti-patent system.

No, it's about free and open access to the source code.

I can't see where your point is actually valid

You can't see that it is possible for OSS to violate patents?

Only the ones who claim they give you something "free", while in fact you are paying for it with your own data

Maybe this "payment" is perfectly acceptable to me.

So right: go ahead, give up all your liberties, because "everyone is invading my privacy these days".

Exactly what of my civil liberties are violated by Google?
Is it not up to the individual to decide how much they value their "privacy"? Maybe I don't give a shit if Google collects this data.

it explains why people say ludicrous things in discussions like this.

Ahum....

Edited 2012-07-30 08:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by marcp on Mon 30th Jul 2012 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

One has nothing to do with the other. A company can be open and at the same time profit from data it collects from you.

Companies are not open. Foundations can be open. Source code can be open. Open does not imply "free". Free [libre] does imply open by its nature.
No, it's about keeping your perceived advantages a secret. You don't have to agree with this (I think it's bogus most of the time) but this is the reasoning behind it.

Closed source is all about the patents AND "keeping your perceived advantages a secret".
"Free Software is all about anti-patent system.

No, it's about free and open access to the source code.
"
You cannot be further from the truth. Free [Libre] software is about right to access, share, modify the code. It's about independence, liberty, collective work and transparency. There's much more to FREE [libre] software, than to open source software.
You can't see that it is possible for OSS to violate patents?

It violates patents from the point of view of the people who created and misuse patent system. Good people disobey bad laws. Bad laws must be changed, NOT accepted. Bad laws are a direct suggestion for people to change it.
Maybe this "payment" is perfectly acceptable to me.

Exactly what of my civil liberties are violated by Google?
Is it not up to the individual to decide how much they value their "privacy"? Maybe I don't give a shit if Google collects this data.

Ok then. You may be a submissive conformist willing to give almost all of his rights and liberties away [or - to be more precise - being taken away from you, because you are not even realizing the fact that you are being silently robbed, I presume]. I accept it and I have nothing against you. It's your choice.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by marcp
by Soulbender on Tue 31st Jul 2012 03:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by marcp"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Companies are not open.


So RedHat isn't open then?

Free [Libre] software is about right to access, share, modify the code.


Uh, yeah. That's what I said.

You may be a submissive conformist willing to give almost all of his rights and liberties away [or - to be more precise - being taken away from you, because you are not even realizing the fact that you are being silently robbed, I presume]. I accept it and I have nothing against you


Exactly what rights and liberties are taken away from me by Google collecting some data on me that can not be tied to my person?
It sure is nice to have your condescending acceptance though.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by some1
by some1 on Sun 29th Jul 2012 15:51 UTC
some1
Member since:
2010-10-05

I also like how Apple demands 100% of Samsung's profits from the devices based just on their design patent.
To be fair though, I don't think this applies to Microsoft: they are playing a different game.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by some1
by _txf_ on Sun 29th Jul 2012 19:36 UTC in reply to "Comment by some1"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

I also like how Apple demands 100% of Samsung's profits from the devices based just on their design patent.
To be fair though, I don't think this applies to Microsoft: they are playing a different game.


It is almost as bad. They have some crappy patents like FAT and then demand royalties priced roughly the same amount as a WP7 license.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by some1
by some1 on Sun 29th Jul 2012 19:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by some1"
some1 Member since:
2010-10-05

I don't think we know how much they actually ask for those patents. There are rumors about $10-15 per device, but then there are rumors about much smaller amounts, or even that MS ends up paying money as a result of cross-licensing (like was the case with Novell).
I agree that VFAT patent is garbage and should have been invalidated long time ago.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by some1
by Bennie on Sun 29th Jul 2012 20:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by some1"
Bennie Member since:
2012-06-14

I thought Microsoft could not use their monopoly position on the desktop market to get an advantage in another market (patent extortion). They still have a desktop monopoly and because of their refusal to support other file systems, manufacturers of Flash memory are obliged to put FAT file systems on SD-cards, and memory sticks.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by some1
by cfgr on Sun 29th Jul 2012 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by some1"
cfgr Member since:
2009-07-18

Exactly! I've been wondering the same thing. How is this not an obvious abuse of their monopoly? They force FAT on all device makers and then collect royalties. Without their desktop monopoly different, patent-free and simply better filesystems could be implemented.

Why is there no anti-trust investigation into this behaviour?

Edited 2012-07-29 22:42 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by some1
by zima on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 21:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by some1"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Why do you want to investigate flash manufacturers? Because it's their action (or inaction) that is responsible for the situation...

...they do not come up with some filesystem of their own (drivers semi-automatically installed, at first connection, from a very small partition on the flash pretending to be a CD-ROM, for example - to avoid any usage of FAT). Microsoft doesn't force FAT on anybody who really doesn't want it (and BTW, none of the flash drives connected right now to my Windows PC are FAT-formatted)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by some1
by MollyC on Mon 30th Jul 2012 03:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by some1"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

You thought wrong.
There's been no ruling that Microsoft is prohibited from enforcing its patents. Where'd you get that from, slashdot circa 2003?

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by some1
by cfgr on Mon 30th Jul 2012 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by some1"
cfgr Member since:
2009-07-18

Enforcing their patents is one thing, forcing everyone to use their patents through their desktop monopoly is quite another.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by some1
by zima on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by some1"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, the industry at large is free to use their own filesystem, and distribute the drivers for it (Windows smoothly supports additional filesystems, MS does nothing to prevent that)

Except, it seems they collectively value more the benefits of convenience than the slight costs it might bring... oh well, their choice.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by some1
by zima on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 21:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by some1"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

They still have a desktop monopoly and because of their refusal to support other file systems, manufacturers of Flash memory are obliged to put FAT file systems on SD-cards, and memory sticks.

Windows supports other file systems perfectly well, Microsoft does nothing to prevent that - you install a driver, and voilà. Manufacturers of flash memory aren't obliged to anything, they are free to come up with some standard of theirs.

Reply Score: 2

Most worse
by cdude on Sun 29th Jul 2012 16:28 UTC
cdude
Member since:
2008-09-21

Most worse part is that the patent/design war does so far not result in any changes. Everybody sees how wrong that system is. Everybody knows it and yet nothing changes.

Maybe we, OSNews-readers, should collect some money and patent something that allows us to sue the patent-system itself? How about a patent on the patent process? Just googled and to late: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ibm-patents-the-patent,11868.htmlh...

Maybe we can patent sueing? Or patent using patents?

Edited 2012-07-29 16:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v Lame.
by fluffypony on Sun 29th Jul 2012 16:38 UTC
RE: Lame.
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 29th Jul 2012 16:45 UTC in reply to "Lame."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If Apple and Microsoft have their way, there will be no independent OS development to report on.

This stuff will define the future of this industry. Deal with it.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Lame.
by Drumhellar on Sun 29th Jul 2012 19:50 UTC in reply to "Lame."
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

The justice system, flawed as it may be, is what separates us from the barbarians of old. In fact, it may be the only thing.


Well, that, and argyle socks.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by El_Exigente
by El_Exigente on Sun 29th Jul 2012 16:43 UTC
El_Exigente
Member since:
2007-01-08

The Groklaw article is a very impressive piece of dishonesty and ignorance.

Firstly, Microsoft has shown no desire to destroy Android: they seem quite content to collect a royalty on every Android device sold. Every Android device maker except Motorola pays royalties to Microsoft, who have not attempted to prevent anyone from selling Android devices.

Apple on the other hand, does want to destroy Android.

Evidently Groklaw thinks that because Apple uses Samsung's FRAND-encumbered standards-essential patents, that Apple is somehow obligated to let Samsung use Apple's patents at the same royalty rate. Where could such an idea have possibly come from? It certainly has nothing to do with reality.

In return for having their patents made part of the standard, Samsung agreed to FRAND royalties, and if that is no longer sufficient, then that's Samsung's own fault, and possibly they will think longer and harder before getting into a similar situation again.

Is it really the case that the ideologists at Groklaw do not understand the purpose and economic rationale for there even being such a thing as a standard-essential patent? It's hard to believe.

As for Apple demanding $24 per device for its design patents: well, they can demand anything that they want. A jury will decide how much they should actually get. And if the jury decides that $24 is what the per device royalty should be, then that's what it should be.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by El_Exigente
by MechR on Mon 30th Jul 2012 00:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by El_Exigente"
MechR Member since:
2006-01-11

In return for having their patents made part of the standard, Samsung agreed to FRAND royalties, and if that is no longer sufficient, then that's Samsung's own fault, and possibly they will think longer and harder before getting into a similar situation again.

Well, that's exactly the problem, isn't it? If chickenshit patents become more valuable and dangerous than hard patents, then the incentive to develop or FRAND the latter goes away, and everybody loses.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by El_Exigente
by lemur2 on Mon 30th Jul 2012 04:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by El_Exigente"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

In return for having their patents made part of the standard, Samsung agreed to FRAND royalties, and if that is no longer sufficient, then that's Samsung's own fault, and possibly they will think longer and harder before getting into a similar situation again.

Is it really the case that the ideologists at Groklaw do not understand the purpose and economic rationale for there even being such a thing as a standard-essential patent? It's hard to believe.

As for Apple demanding $24 per device for its design patents: well, they can demand anything that they want. A jury will decide how much they should actually get. And if the jury decides that $24 is what the per device royalty should be, then that's what it should be.


I think you just don't get it, or perhaps you don't want to get it.

Apple are being asked to pay the same royalty rate for Motorola & Samsung patents as everyone else already pays. Apple alone have NOT paid. The "ND" part of FRAND means "non-discriminatory" ... that means that Apple must pay the same as everyone else has paid.

http://www.muktware.com/4029/apple-stole-iphone-design-sony-patente...

Even as Apple has carried out a coordinated campaign of dragging Samsung‘s name through the mud in this lawsuit and in the media, it has used Samsung‘s patented technology while flatly refusing to pay for its use.


Also, Samsung have identified prior art for Apples supposedly "original" design patent for the iPhone. Apple stole this design from Sony. From the same page as linked above:

http://www.muktware.com/sites/default/files/images/applications/son...

So in effect, Apple are trying to say that they alone have to pay only half a cent per device for Motorola and Samsung's IP, but Motorola and Samsung apparently allegedly owe Apple $24 per device for a purely cosmetic "design" which Apple stole from Sony in the first place.

How is that Fair?
How is that Reasonable?
How is that Non-Discriminatory?

Answer ... it simply isn't. In any reasonable outcome, Apple will get squashed utterly in this lawsuit, a bit like Oracle before them and their Java lawsuit against Android.

Edited 2012-07-30 05:05 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by El_Exigente
by viton on Mon 30th Jul 2012 09:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by El_Exigente"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Apple stole this design from Sony.
The photo you're referencing has been designed by Apple in "sony-style".
It is not a Sony product.

Edited 2012-07-30 09:32 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by El_Exigente
by cdude on Mon 30th Jul 2012 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by El_Exigente"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

You mean in the same way Samsung has designed its black boxes with rounded corners in the "Sony Style" but yet gets sued by Apple?

Reply Score: 2

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

I don't know if it had merit or not, but it won't affect the Apple/Sony case, so the Apple bashers might have to find another argument. The "Apple stole from Sony" stuff is just whistling in the wind at this point.
http://allthingsd.com/20120730/samsung-thwarted-in-bid-to-show-appl...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by El_Exigente
by darcysmith on Wed 1st Aug 2012 04:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by El_Exigente"
darcysmith Member since:
2006-04-12

FRAND doesn't mean that you have to give the same terms to licensing as you get. Apples patents are not FRAND. Perhaps a little critical thinking before you post?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by El_Exigente
by itanic on Mon 30th Jul 2012 16:12 UTC in reply to "Comment by El_Exigente"
itanic Member since:
2008-08-03


Evidently Groklaw thinks that because Apple uses Samsung's FRAND-encumbered standards-essential patents, that Apple is somehow obligated to let Samsung use Apple's patents at the same royalty rate. Where could such an idea have possibly come from? It certainly has nothing to do with reality.

In return for having their patents made part of the standard, Samsung agreed to FRAND royalties, and if that is no longer sufficient, then that's Samsung's own fault, and possibly they will think longer and harder before getting into a similar situation again.


The standard FRAND licensing fees are for companies who cross-license. Apple either needs to cross-license, or pay a higher rate; they shouldn't have it both ways.

Reply Score: 2

License surcharges
by yokem55 on Sun 29th Jul 2012 17:02 UTC
yokem55
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think Samsung and Motorolo have legitimate claim to argue that a license surcharge on RAND terms for any company that engages in other patent litigation against the licensor would be appropriate and within the spirit of RAND terms.

Want low RAND rates? Don't sue us over nonessential patents. Want to enforce your nonessential patents, pay ten times the normal rate. Applies to any company (non-discriminatory), and its reasonable in that hey, patent litigation is expensive, and if you want to play that game than the costs go up accordingly .....

Reply Score: 13

Whining by proxy
by Tony Swash on Sun 29th Jul 2012 17:20 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

I like some of Google's stuff, the free stuff they hand out, I like Gmail, I like search (used to love it but the weight of advertising is now a bit too heavy for my tastes), I love Google's Ngram viewer. But all the free stuff they have given me doesn't stop me being realistic about Google as a company. Google are an advertising company and I am not their customer I am their product, their business is about collecting data about me, and countless millions of other people, and selling that data to advertisers so they can target their advertising at me. That's OK, I don't lose sight of the fact that their free stuff comes with a hidden price tag but the price doesn't bother me too much, I have 'FocusOnTheUser' extension installed in Safari, so I can control the amount of distortion cased to search results by Google's deliberate distortion of search ranking, I have the 'Do Not Track Plus' extension also installed in Safari to block the relentless tracking of everything I look at and search for. So I am relatively relaxed about Google's surveillance.

I understand that the unavoidable logic of Google's business model is such that any area of activity that is blocked from Google's prying eyes, or any innovation that creates new activity that is blocked from Google's data collection bots, is a threat to Google which of necessity is driven to try to pry open anything that is closed to its vast data collection apparatus. And if brute force and PR spin won't open the gates of user data then, as is the case with Facebook, Google will try to build it's own alternative. I understand that Google sees all innovation on the web that does not allow it access to freely insert it's service stack as a threat, something to be conquered, 'opened' or routed around. I understand all that and it's something I am bit unhappy with but it's their business and that's the way they have to play it.

Google's fear of of the erosion of it's business model, a well founded and rational fear, looms over many aspects of technology and the net today. Because of that fear of exclusion, of it's user data being significantly devalued by being partial, Google must act fast. The mobile revolution, because mobile advertising looks like being permanently a fraction of what desktop ads can earn per user, means that Google's existing and very voluminous revenue streams cannot be taken for granted for too long.

Those revenues streams must be used now, and they are being used, to destroy other companies business models by giving away free equivalents. Office, iOS, Yelp, it doesn't matter, if it poses a threat of blocking Google from accessing user data then Google has worked, and will continue to work, tirelessly to create free versions of previously paid products and act deliberately to undermine the business model of any number of companies even though those companies are often not competing directly with Google products. I understand that and I am not happy about it at all, but hey this is grown up stuff, it's about money and a lot of it and it's a tough game for grown ups. So Google is free to pursue their strategy but I hope it fails.

What I cannot abide though is that whilst pursuing this hard nosed and aggressive strategy, in the same dedicated way the other successful and hard nosed and aggressive big tech companies pursue their strategies, that Google whines so much about anybody who fights back or stands up to them. It's the incessant whine of martyrdom that grates. Oh dear you tried to destroy the business of some very big companies and the bastards fought back - boo hoo. Poor you.

What's even worse are those who whine on Google's behalf, like this tosh from Groklaw, hypnotised by Google's waving of the 'open' totem who will whine nonsensically on and on about how 'open' Google is or how 'open' Android is, and how poor old Google, and poor old Android is being bullied by all the big boys. Is it not obvious? If you punch someone in the face expect them to punch you back. If you set out to undermine another companies business model expect them to fight back. It has nothing to do with fairness, nobody, least of all Google, is doing anything because it is fair, they are doing it for the money. All of them. There isn't enough of a gap between the ethics of any of the big tech companies to insert a cigaret paper. I prefer Apple's approach to product making and technology, others prefer Microsoft, other's Google. Fine let's ague the merits of what these companies offer. But when you start to prattle about fairness in a trillion dollar market you leave reality behind and enter the realm of the fairytale.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Whining by proxy
by galvanash on Sun 29th Jul 2012 17:38 UTC in reply to "Whining by proxy"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

I think that is the first post I have read by you that I agree with almost 100%.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Whining by proxy
by shmerl on Sun 29th Jul 2012 18:33 UTC in reply to "Whining by proxy"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Google is used here as example since Android is successful. Android is not really open, but do you think any truly open system won't be attacked by evil empires (MS and Apple) using patent racket? I bet it would. In this case they aren't aiming to destroy Android, they are aiming to be parasites and to profit from patent fees.

Parasites aren't going after small systems, they are going after widely deployed ones like Android. The moment some system will become commercially successful - they'll attack it as well, no matter if it was developed totally independently. Like in case with B&N, they revealed that Microsoft basically said that it doesn't matter what B&N do, MS will find some patent to extract money from them. This kind of attitude is totally disgusting.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Whining by proxy
by cdude on Mon 30th Jul 2012 09:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Whining by proxy"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Google is used here as example since Android is successful. Android is not really open,


Why not? If its about control fork what is possible with Android! Android is 100% open, the development process may not but that is irrelevant for the result, Android.

but do you think any truly open system won't be attacked by evil empires (MS and Apple) using patent racket? I bet it would.


It already happened and happens. With TomTom and the FAT patent for example.

In this case they aren't aiming to destroy Android, they are aiming to be parasites and to profit from patent fees.


They do try to destroy but destroy the commercial success by raising the cost it takes to deploy and ship Linux basex products. As more money it takes till you can make a Linux based product as more alternates, like Microsoft products, become interesting again.

They cannot compete so they try to make the compition unacctractive. If there would be any possibility to succeed by sueing e.g. the Linux kernel community they would do. Its just that they would not succeed with that. They would fail and demage themselfs on that. So they decided to go another way. A way where they are able to end with an agreement behind closed doors at the end of the day, keeping the weapons working (trivial patents which would otherwise be lost maybe) and putting the message out that now even company X pays cause Linux uses Microsoft technology.

Edited 2012-07-30 09:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Whining by proxy
by Sodki on Sun 29th Jul 2012 21:03 UTC in reply to "Whining by proxy"
Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

Google are an advertising company...


Yes, but not only.


... and I am not their customer I am their product, ...


No, you're a way to sell their product. The clients are the advertisers, the product is the advertising network.


... their business is about collecting data about me, and countless millions of other people, and selling that data to advertisers so they can target their advertising at me.


Actually, no.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Whining by proxy
by Tony Swash on Mon 30th Jul 2012 09:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Whining by proxy"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Google is an advertising company, thats where over 90% of their revenue comes from. Of course Google engages in other activities, many companies do, many including Google spends many millions on political lobbying or supporting cultural activities, does that make them a lobbyist or culture business - no. Any business is driven by the demands of core business, the stuff that all the money comes from. If you want to understand the behaviour of any company, Google, Microsoft, Apple, look at what their core products are, the ones that make most of their money.

Google's USP, the way it adds value to it's core product of advertising is to collect information on people. Collecting information on what people do, what they write about in their emails, what they search for and browse, where the live, who their friends are, is absolutely core to Google's business. When Google sells advertising space on it's search page it doesn't just offer a blank space, it offers targeted ads that are shaped to the end user, that's what add the value to Google's product. It's easy to see in action, log in to your system and do a Google search for a common sort of term, then get a friend to do the same, you will see that not only are the ads served to each of you different based on Google's collected information about you but the actual search results are also different and are also based on what Google knows about you. You, the data about you, is Google's product, it's what it sells to it's actual paying customers.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Whining by proxy
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 30th Jul 2012 09:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Whining by proxy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Which, of course, is magically different from Apple pimping its 400 million credit card numbers, associated user accounts, and which magazines, videos, books, applications, and music those users look at and buy.

Totally different. Yessiree. Very different because Google is evil, and Apple is all that is good and pure in this world.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Whining by proxy
by _txf_ on Mon 30th Jul 2012 09:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Whining by proxy"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Which, of course, is magically different from Apple pimping its 400 million credit card numbers, associated user accounts, and which magazines, videos, books, applications, and music those users look at and buy.

Totally different. Yessiree. Very different because Google is evil, and Apple is all that is good and pure in this world.


Not to mention that iAd probably works in a very similar way to Adwords...

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Whining by proxy
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 30th Jul 2012 10:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Whining by proxy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"Which, of course, is magically different from Apple pimping its 400 million credit card numbers, associated user accounts, and which magazines, videos, books, applications, and music those users look at and buy.

Totally different. Yessiree. Very different because Google is evil, and Apple is all that is good and pure in this world.


Not to mention that iAd probably works in a very similar way to Adwords...
"

...and I totally forgot iCloud.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Whining by proxy
by Tony Swash on Mon 30th Jul 2012 11:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Whining by proxy"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"[q]Which, of course, is magically different from Apple pimping its 400 million credit card numbers, associated user accounts, and which magazines, videos, books, applications, and music those users look at and buy.

Totally different. Yessiree. Very different because Google is evil, and Apple is all that is good and pure in this world.


Not to mention that iAd probably works in a very similar way to Adwords...
"

...and I totally forgot iCloud. [/q]

Are you arguing that Apple collects data on the content of documents stored in iCloud on a per user basis in a similar way that Google collects data in say Gmail in order to commercialise that data in a similar way that Google does?

If so then some evidence supporting that hypothesis would be useful.

It seems to me utterly obvious that Apple and Google have different business models (neither of which is 'good' or 'bad') and that those different models mean that the function of cloud storage is different in each company.

In the case of Apple it's core business is primarily, overwhelmingly in fact, as a device maker and all it's services and software offerings are intended to add value to the devices and make it inconvenient (but not impossible) to move to another company's device. Collecting data on user behaviour is a secondary and very minor aspect of what motivates Apple. iAd is a tiny part of Apple's business.

Google's core business on the other hand is selling targeted advertising, targeting that is wholly based on user data, so collecting user data is very central to what Google does, it is a prime motivator and is crucial to it's business model. So what motivates Google to offer cloud storage and services is to collect user data and to ensure that users remain with an ecosystem which allows Google to collect that data.

Is any of this news to anyone? I would be astonished if anyone found what I just said any way controversial.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Whining by proxy
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 30th Jul 2012 12:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Whining by proxy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Are you arguing that Apple collects data on the content of documents stored in iCloud on a per user basis in a similar way that Google collects data in say Gmail in order to commercialise that data in a similar way that Google does?

If so then some evidence supporting that hypothesis would be useful.


Yes. Per Apple's own privacy policy which governs iCloud:

"We also use personal information to help us develop, deliver, and improve our products, services, content, and advertising."

"We also collect non-personal information − data in a form that does not permit direct association with any specific individual. We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose."

"We may collect information such as occupation, language, zip code, area code, unique device identifier, location, and the time zone where an Apple product is used so that we can better understand customer behavior and improve our products, services, and advertising."

And this is just a selection. Anything you send to Apple - whether they classify it as 'personal' or not - can and will be used for advertising and other purposes. Just like Google.

Google does so in a completely automated fashion (no people involved), and it's pretty obvious Google has far more advanced tools to do so than Apple does (since it's, as you agree, it's Google's core business). In other words, I'd much rather (but still wouldn't and therefore don't) store my data at Google than at Apple.

On top of that, Google gives far, far, far more insight in and control over the data they have collected on you. Apple provides nothing of the sort. Zero. Seems like someone has something to hide.

Edited 2012-07-30 12:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Whining by proxy
by Tony Swash on Mon 30th Jul 2012 10:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Whining by proxy"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Which, of course, is magically different from Apple pimping its 400 million credit card numbers, associated user accounts, and which magazines, videos, books, applications, and music those users look at and buy.

Totally different. Yessiree. Very different because Google is evil, and Apple is all that is good and pure in this world.


Thom calm down. I have never said Google is evil - I think using such terms is juvenile and unhelpful. I do think think that trying to rationally understand what drives companies in particular directions is worthwhile and I do think that arguing that a company is being treated 'unfairly' just because a competitor responds to it's competition is juvenile. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Oracle are all essentially ethically the same, just getting on with the hard nosed business of making their business a success. As long as they do that in a legal way then good luck to all of them.

I honestly don't know quite what you mean by "Apple pimping its 400 million credit card numbers, associated user accounts, and which magazines, videos, books, applications, and music those users look at and buy".

Do you mean does Apple collect data on what people buy through their iTunes accounts. Of course they do.

Do Apple promote the size of their ecosystem by disseminating information about it's user population size in order to attract content providers and developers - yes - so what?

Does Apple sell that data to third parties - not to my knowledge but I haven't really investigated that systematically so please feel free to post information about what Apple does with that data (that's an honest suggestion by the way and is not intended for rhetorical flourish).

Have Apple resisted third parties who wanted to use their system to collect and then sell data about iTune users - yes - that was the nub of the issue Apple had with many publishers for example.

Is collecting user data as central to Apple's business as it is to Google's - no - so if one were trying to analyse and understand what drove each company the role of user data in understanding Apple would carry far less weight than understanding the role of user date in Google. Is that a controversial thing to say in your view, it seems so obvious to me.

You seem to want to constantly suggest that I think Google is 'evil' and Apple are 'good' but I simply don't think like that. I like Apple a great deal and based on nearly thirty year of using their products I have a great affection for them but I don't think they are ethically better than any other company nor do I think that Google is ethically inferior. There just have different business models which drives different strategies. Google's business model drives it to try to undermine the business model of other companies through offering free alternatives, Apple's model drives it to try to use superior purchasing power to monopolise and secure favourable supply chains for components, neither is good or bad, they are just logical.

Thom - my motivation to post comments is mostly built on my affection for Apple, sorry if that irritates you, get over it. We all have different opinions - that's why we bother to debate stuff.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Whining by proxy
by gan17 on Mon 30th Jul 2012 12:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Whining by proxy"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

Thom calm down. I have never said Google is evil

But they are, or at least just as evil as Apple. Google treats you like a product, Apple treats you like a resource. Choose your poison, or make a cocktail.


my motivation to post comments is mostly built on my affection for Apple

That's just sad, whether you're a stock holder or not.
They're (Google & Apple) tech companies, ffs!! It's not like they make motorcycles or guitars.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Whining by proxy
by Sodki on Mon 30th Jul 2012 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Whining by proxy"
Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

Google collects and analyses data, I agree. But what Google _really_ needs from you is _not_ that you feed them your personal data, but your time using their products, which in turn shows you ads, which in turn gives them money.

Imagine that everyone in the world was using Gmail via IMAP. Google would have your data, but no money from ads. On the other hand, imagine that everyone is using Gmail without personal data. Google would still make money.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Whining by proxy
by cdude on Mon 30th Jul 2012 08:46 UTC in reply to "Whining by proxy"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

revenues stream [...] used to destroy other companies business model by giving away free equivalenta.


Then you are also against, for example, the Red Hat business model?
Or just against any business model that utilizes free equivalents and compets against other business models?

Face it. On the market different business models compete with each other. If one of those models cannot survive against a compitor then its probably the wrong model.

Microsoft's business model of expensive licenses for closed software is doomed. Not only cause of compitors like google and Red Hat but also cause the devices are more cheap today then 10 years ago making the previous small % for licenses exorbitant higher today and an disadvantage when competing.

Microsoft's business model also compets with the Apple business model which is very different. Apple makes its profit from Hardware, not software.
That is why Microsoft changed its business model to software plus service and just recently to software plus hardware plus service.
But the are not close as good as Apple and Google. Welcome to competition in an open market.

This may a problem for Microsoft but who cares? Compitors win cause customers find there products better. Its so easy.

Also note that both, Apple and Microsoft, utilize FLOSS in there products. Yes, they profit too. So how is it bad if google does but not bad if Microsoft or Apple do? Cause Google keeps the end-product open? Cause google's business model, execution and products are better and customers love them more then compitors products? Yeah, right, the view of someone who failed to proper compete with products...

Edited 2012-07-30 08:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Whining by proxy
by Tony Swash on Mon 30th Jul 2012 09:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Whining by proxy"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

First of all I am not against Google's business model. I am just realistic about it's consequences. Google is free to pursue that business model as much as it wants and in any ways that are legal, as are other companies.

Second Red Hat is tiny compared to Google so it's actions have tiny consequences compared to Google's.

Thirdly because Red Hat's business is not based on collecting data about people to add value to advertising, as Google's is, they are not driven, as Google is, to see all areas of user data that are closed off from their data collections systems as threats to the value of their business. Thus Red Hat is not driven to try to pry open, route around, or subvert (and if necessary destroy) through the production of free alternatives the business models of any other companies that are generating significant user data that is closed to them.

Why does Google invest in Youtube, Gmail, Google Docs, Google +, Android, etc etc? It's so they can guarantee access to data about people and what they doing. Minus that data Google has no business, And minus a big chunk of that user data, when for example another company creates something like Facebook or iOS, Google rightly understands that it's core product is devalued. Partial user data is much less valuable and attractive to Google's customers than complete data.

None of what Google does is 'wrong'. It's just business and if it's legal then Google should be free to pursue any strategy they want. But for gods sake let's drop the relentless whining of self pity and the claims of faux martyrdom. The endless attempts, surprisingly successful, to enlist the support of those who think Google is a champion of something called 'open' against the evils of something called 'closed'. One can admire or support one business model against another without pretending that one business model is evil and one good, that's a juvenile way to look at the world of commerce. Thinking that it is somehow 'unfair' if other companies fight back against Google's competitive attacks is absurd.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Whining by proxy
by cdude on Tue 31st Jul 2012 05:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Whining by proxy"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

First of all I am not against Google's business model.


Then why do you keep on to say Google is destroying (active) compitors business models?

They compete and there PRODUCTS happen to be better then those of competition. This is very fair competition. If Microsoft is not able to make PRODUCTS customers buy but if customers prefer PRODUCTS from Google then its foremost and only Microsoft who fails (active) with PRODUCTS.

The business model plays on all that a lesser role then you believe. Microsoft is pushing lots.of.money into WinPhone, Bing, Azure without making any profit with them. They subsidy heavily and give away products far under cost (for free if you like) to gain market share.
Its not so different at all from what google does. Both do INVEST what means putting more money in then you get out of it. But I guess Microsoft even way more then Google cause Google actually makes good profits with there products whereas Microsoft is loosing huge since years.

Google is free to pursue that business model as much as it wants and in any ways that are legal, as are other companies.


Microsoft was proven to abuse its monopoly, its stand to destroy ACTIVE compitors business models. Google not.

Your accusation applies at least equally to the compitors Google has on the market. Why you keep on to ride on google but ignore that compitors are not so different (what in turn means that they are using equal weapons - except for the patent/design bs) is unclear.

Second Red Hat is tiny compared to Google so it's actions have tiny consequences compared to Google's


1. Most companies are tiny when compared to google. Since when does the size play a role on that (no pune intended)?

2. You only anzwered my question indirect. Your reply seems to indicate that any company building solutions or offering services on/for.FLOSS is as.evil in your eyes as google. Am I corrrct that your argument is, that FLOSS destroys whatever business models and hence is bad? Is that your argument?

Red Hat's business is not based on collecting data


You are off-topic now. Your original argument was about Android and not google ads.

Most of Android is not done by google. Google only makes a product but they are not even the ones selling most of it (Samsung is).

Somehow you put all that into one bottle, mix it and out comes your Google Ads argumentation.

Thus Red Hat is not driven to try to pry open, route around, or subvert (and if necessary destroy) through the production of free alternatives the business models of any other companies


Red Hat does is in direct competition with others who have other business models.

They are "destroying" competition (as in are better, have better products, customers like them more). Just look at all the commercial Unix's and ask the Microsoft Windows Server guys.

Face it. This is COMPETITION like everything else. If your products are received to be better then you make it. This is what happens with Red Hat and with Android. Qelcome to an open market where competition happens.

Why does Google invest in Youtube, Gmail, Google Docs, Google +, Android, etc etc?


To offer services customers use. Not different from Apple (iCloud, iWorks, etc) and Microsoft (Azure, Office, etc).

Let me ask you: When did you last pay for using hotmail or bing? Never? Then how do you think they make money, why do they offer those services?

for example another company creates something like ... iOS


Work on Android happened long before iOS. Google took over Android long before the first iPhone.

One can admire or support one business model against another without pretending that one business model is evil and one good


So, we agree its usual fair competition on an open market then. Good finish.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Whining by proxy
by MollyC on Mon 30th Jul 2012 16:59 UTC in reply to "Whining by proxy"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Nice post.

Edited 2012-07-30 17:00 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Whining by proxy
by tomcat on Mon 30th Jul 2012 19:09 UTC in reply to "Whining by proxy"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Best.post.ever.

What I cannot abide though is that whilst pursuing this hard nosed and aggressive strategy, in the same dedicated way the other successful and hard nosed and aggressive big tech companies pursue their strategies, that Google whines so much about anybody who fights back or stands up to them. It's the incessant whine of martyrdom that grates. Oh dear you tried to destroy the business of some very big companies and the bastards fought back - boo hoo. Poor you.


Yes. Google likes to wave around its "open" flag, and use it to bludgeon others, while whining about limits on its access to data. It's incredibly annoying, to those of us who actually pay attention to the fact that Google could give a damn about any form of openness other than that which serves its own business model.

What's even worse are those who whine on Google's behalf, like this tosh from Groklaw, hypnotised by Google's waving of the 'open' totem who will whine nonsensically on and on about how 'open' Google is or how 'open' Android is, and how poor old Google, and poor old Android is being bullied by all the big boys. Is it not obvious? If you punch someone in the face expect them to punch you back. If you set out to undermine another companies business model expect them to fight back. It has nothing to do with fairness, nobody, least of all Google, is doing anything because it is fair, they are doing it for the money. All of them. There isn't enough of a gap between the ethics of any of the big tech companies to insert a cigaret paper. I prefer Apple's approach to product making and technology, others prefer Microsoft, other's Google. Fine let's ague the merits of what these companies offer. But when you start to prattle about fairness in a trillion dollar market you leave reality behind and enter the realm of the fairytale.


Many people have been lulled into submission by Google into believing that it offers them nirvana technology for FREE; without realizing that the cost of that technology is built into every single product that they buy that's advertised through Google. At least, with Apple and Microsoft, the cost of the technology is right in front of your face -- a specific piece of hardware and/or software; whereas, Google rides on the backs of hundreds of thousands of businesses, like a hydra. Trouble is, many people are simply dumb, and don't understand the game that Google is playing.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Whining by proxy
by andydread on Mon 30th Jul 2012 20:33 UTC in reply to "Whining by proxy"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

I prefer Apple's approach to product making and technology, others prefer Microsoft, other's Google. Fine let's ague the merits of what these companies offer. But when you start to prattle about fairness in a trillion dollar market you leave reality behind and enter the realm of the fairytale.


Wait... so you just prefer to pay dearly to have your data shared with partners and advertisers? If you are going to have your data harvested so that it can be sold as a product to advertisers why not just have it done for free? Unless I guess there is much prestige in paying Apple for the privilege of having your data harvested and shared with their partners/advertisers.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by v_bobok
by v_bobok on Sun 29th Jul 2012 18:20 UTC
v_bobok
Member since:
2008-08-01

Who's talking about fair game? It's post-cold war multinational capitalism, kiddo. There's no such thing as fair game anymore.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by kurkosdr
by kurkosdr on Sun 29th Jul 2012 21:18 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

As long as Motorola Mobility is under Google ownership, there will be at least one brand that makes Androids and doesn't pay extortion royalties.

For some reason, I can't imagine Google agreeing to pay MS and Apple said extortion royalties. Google will redesign and redesign the products to remove any "infrigments" of "patents" the courts found and fight to invalidate the dubious patents MS and Apple are flashing, but one thing they are not going to do is bend over.

So, eventually MS and Apple will have to butt heads with Google directly, much like the IBM vs SCO situation (remember, SCO didn't go directly for IBM either), and the whole thing will end.

Edited 2012-07-29 21:20 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by kurkosdr
by smashIt on Sun 29th Jul 2012 21:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by kurkosdr"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

For some reason, I can't imagine Google agreeing to pay MS and Apple said extortion royalties.


You forgert that MS still is a technology-corporation that in fact hold some real patents (and invest a lot of money in research-projects)

because of that a crosslicensing-deal with ms wouldn't surprise me

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kurkosdr
by MollyC on Mon 30th Jul 2012 03:51 UTC in reply to "Comment by kurkosdr"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Motorola Mobility might be dead in a few years.
They lose money every year as it is and Samsung is absolutely destroying them in the Android market. MotoMobo is almost reduced to a warehouse of FRAND patents that Apple and Microsoft suckered Google into paying 12 billion dollars for.
I expect Google to take an 8 billion dollar charge on that purchase in a few years.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr
by cdude on Mon 30th Jul 2012 08:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kurkosdr"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Moto, under google, is relative new. Give them some time to focus and execute. I think not long and they are making money again.

The 12 billion where cheap. There was recently an article somewhere that estimates the patents alone to be higher. But Google got also a strong company that is in the business for so long that I have.no doubt they can be profitable again soon.

Edited 2012-07-30 08:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr
by tomcat on Mon 30th Jul 2012 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kurkosdr"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Motorola Mobility might be dead in a few years.
They lose money every year as it is and Samsung is absolutely destroying them in the Android market. MotoMobo is almost reduced to a warehouse of FRAND patents that Apple and Microsoft suckered Google into paying 12 billion dollars for.
I expect Google to take an 8 billion dollar charge on that purchase in a few years.


What do you mean by "might"? ;-) Google just bought Motorola a few years. The fundamentals of its business have not changed at all; other than having a sugar mama subsidizing its failure in the mobile market.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by kurkosdr
by ilovebeer on Mon 30th Jul 2012 04:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by kurkosdr"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

As long as Motorola Mobility is under Google ownership, there will be at least one brand that makes Androids and doesn't pay extortion royalties.

For some reason, I can't imagine Google agreeing to pay MS and Apple said extortion royalties.

Microsoft and Apple are not criminal enterprises engaged in extortion. Since you apparently don't know what extortion actually is -- when you legally own something and require a fee be paid for its use, you are NOT committing extortion... Even when it ends with "or else".

If you're going to throw words around, at least make an effort to know what they mean.

Reply Score: 3

Microsoft?
by Vanders on Mon 30th Jul 2012 00:00 UTC
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft couldn't destroy a wet paper bag in a rainstorm, in the mobile space.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Microsoft?
by zima on Sun 5th Aug 2012 23:55 UTC in reply to "Microsoft?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, if you think about it, they destroy everything that isn't iOS, Android, or WinPhone ...MS can push the last one pretty much all they want - and considering the likely limited space for too many OS in the mobile area, that's largely to the detriment of other players, who have much smaller resources (and then, some people even claim that the destruction of Nokia is a hidden goal...)

Edited 2012-08-05 23:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Oh please...
by MollyC on Mon 30th Jul 2012 03:30 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

Samsung, regardless of whether they were in the mobile phone business in the 90s, didn't start making BILLIONS of dollars on it until just recently. And how? By blatantly ripping off Apple's designs. So spare me the concerns for Samsung.

Oh, and here's another thing to ponder: by blatantly ripping off Apple's designes, Samsung has pretty much destroyed the Android market for all other OEMs but themselves. Increasingly, Android = Samsung. If Samsung hadn't ripped off Apple's designs, maybe Android would be a healthy, multi-vendor, market. But Samsung is doing a great job of monopolizing the Android market. More power to them, but let's not pretend their recent dominance of the Android market wasn't due to copying the successful, market-proven, Apple designs.

Edited 2012-07-30 03:33 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: Oh please...
by Johann Chua on Mon 30th Jul 2012 05:04 UTC in reply to "Oh please..."
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

And Apple never ripped anyone else off for their designs, I take it.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Oh please...
by cdude on Mon 30th Jul 2012 09:04 UTC in reply to "Oh please..."
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

You make it sound as Samsung is the only one making Android devices. Last year or so HTC was the Android company but they lost. Happens and can happen anytime to Samsung too. Android enables such kind of competition.

Also you forget about Amazon and B&N and the likes which make good profit with Android too. But well...

Edited 2012-07-30 09:06 UTC

Reply Score: 1

What does Groklaw say about Google/Motorola
by MollyC on Mon 30th Jul 2012 03:48 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

demanding 4 billion dollars a year in patent fees from Microsoft for four H.264 patents, which amounts to approximately one million times the going rate for the typical H.264 patent? Given Groklaw's well documented hatred of Microsoft, I bet they cheer that on. So I have a hard time taking their complaints regarding Apple's demands of Samsung seriously. Groklaw isn't exactly an objective source; their analyses should be taken with buckets of salt.

As for FRAND patents, I don't know if Groklaw is telling both sides of the coin on that. FRAND patents do have relatively low licensing fees (since they cover essential standards, without which nobody could implement anything). That would appear to suck for those that hold the FRAND patent, but the other side of the coin is that once a patent is declared as FRAND, it's pretty much unassailable. So while the holder of the patent can't gouge others, nobody can realistically challenge the validity of the patent either. So there's two sides: the patent holder can only charge reasonable fees, but the other parties (from a practical standpoint) have no choice but to license the patents (so it's a guaranteed source of revenue for the patent holder). Both sides win.

By contrast, consider the "design patents" that Apple is demanding - who really cares? Samsung doesn't HAVE to use those designs. I'm actually surprised that Apple is even offering $24 per device for their "design patents"; they usually offer "infinity" patent licence fees (i.e. offer no license fee at all, and instead demand that other products leave the marketplace altogether).

Reply Score: 2

Any point to the complaining?
by leos on Mon 30th Jul 2012 05:04 UTC
leos
Member since:
2005-09-21

All these companies are massive behemoths and are perfectly capable of defending themselves. It's funny how people keep pretending like Apple and Microsoft are some sort of schoolyard bullies while poor little Google and Samsung are the defenceless nerdy kids being pushed around.

Samsung and Google are both multibillion dollar companies. So what if Apple wants $24/device from Samsung? Samsung has armies of lawyers and they will fight it out and the courts will decide. Why spend all this time whining about how this or that isn't fair? It's different when big companies use their might to squash little companies, but why on earth anyone would feel sorry for Google or Samsung is absolutely beyond me.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Any point to the complaining?
by Alfman on Tue 31st Jul 2012 03:37 UTC in reply to "Any point to the complaining?"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

leos,

"It's funny how people keep pretending like Apple and Microsoft are some sort of schoolyard bullies while poor little Google and Samsung are the defenceless nerdy kids being pushed around."

"So what if Apple wants $24/device from Samsung?"

The trouble is that the costs of these lawsuits are necessarily passed on to the consumers. These multinational corporate lawsuits shift a great deal of our human resources away from productive endeavours and divert them to litigation instead. More often than not, this places companies in the silly position of having to de-engineer their products with intentionally less optimal solutions, if not banning them outright.


"Why spend all this time whining about how this or that isn't fair? It's different when big companies use their might to squash little companies, but why on earth anyone would feel sorry for Google or Samsung is absolutely beyond me."

Solid principals should not really depend upon who the defendant is. I was no hypocrite when MS was successfully sued by the much smaller company i4i over XML patents. As much as MS deserved a taste of it's own medicine, I could see that the lawsuit was a blow to developers everywhere.

Sure, you might have more sympathy for a small time dev who gets a cease and desist order, but unknown players have never been newsworthy. You might as well be complaining about the news coverage for small cases instead of about the expression of our opinions over big ones.

Edit: In short, it's not really about being sorry for google/samsung, it is about taking a stance on the future of computing and asking ourselves what kind of future we want to live in.

Edited 2012-07-31 03:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Mobile business?
by Hussein on Mon 30th Jul 2012 10:42 UTC
Hussein
Member since:
2008-11-22

Hey Thom, dumbphones are not smartphones, smartphones are an evolution of personal computers and not phones. Apple and Microsoft have every right to go after Android.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Mobile business?
by _txf_ on Mon 30th Jul 2012 10:52 UTC in reply to "Mobile business?"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Hey Thom, dumbphones are not smartphones, smartphones are an evolution of personal computers and not phones. Apple and Microsoft have every right to go after Android.


What is the distinction between a dumb phone and a smartphone that makes it applicable?

There have been capable dumb phones. And it should be noted that most "dumb phones" had the ability to run applications when the iphone couldn't.

What an utterly inane comment...

Edited 2012-07-30 10:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mobile business?
by lemur2 on Mon 30th Jul 2012 13:20 UTC in reply to "Mobile business?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Apple and Microsoft have every right to go after Android.


No they do not. Neither Apple nor Microsoft have one iota of code in Android. Nada. Zilch. No ownership whatsoever over any part of Android.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mobile business?
by moondevil on Mon 30th Jul 2012 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Mobile business?"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

They do, if they ever go to court to dispute their patents that might be used in Linux code as Microsoft keeps claiming, and win.

Until then you're right.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Mobile business?
by cdude on Tue 31st Jul 2012 06:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mobile business?"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Actually they have not. Here in germany there was even a court-decision that Microsoft is not allowed to say Linux, Android, whatever does violate or use there technologies. They need to prov what they never did. Its all marketing-bs to make ppl believe they have a point and that its dangerous to use Linux cause of IP owned by them and used in Linux.

Why do you believe Microsoft goes to the end users and reaches secret agreements rather then going direct to the source and brings there patents to court? Maybe because they would lose (read up on prior art for example on the FAT issue where Torvals himself came up with that long before Microsoft - its all documented and proven)? Maybe cause it would take exactly 5 minutes to work around whatever patents ONCE you know what that patents are?

As long as Microsoft does not go to the project itself but makes secret argreements and as long as Apple fights with design-patents its clear that they have nothing real in there hands.

Edited 2012-07-31 06:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Expensive storm in a tea cup.
by siraf72 on Mon 30th Jul 2012 12:20 UTC
siraf72
Member since:
2006-02-22

Nothing of substance will be decided in court. The real battle will take place in the market place as it (almost) always does.

Big companies *have* to sue each other otherwise we'll have too many unemployed lawyers wandering the streets and no one wants that.

Reply Score: 2

The end result of this will be:
by tuma324 on Mon 30th Jul 2012 22:07 UTC
tuma324
Member since:
2010-04-09

How Apple and Microsoft ends up destroying themselves.

Reply Score: 1

George Lucas
by fretinator on Tue 31st Jul 2012 14:20 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

So this is what started the whole "Clone Wars" thing. I always wondered.

Reply Score: 3

US -- courts over free competition
by benali72 on Tue 31st Jul 2012 17:00 UTC
benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

In the U.S., we hear constant braggadocio about how our society is more competitive, how great capitalism is, etc, etc, but when it really comes down to it, our system is driven by patent law, so the courts ultimately determine the outcomes of "free competition."

Reply Score: 3

Comment by zima
by zima on Sun 5th Aug 2012 23:59 UTC in reply to "US -- courts over free competition"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

That's probably not even the biggest myth - likely surpassed by "American Dream" and "land of opportunity" being one of the cornerstones of national identity ...while the US is at the bottom of developed countries in actual measure of this stuff, social mobility (popularly disparaged in the US so called "nanny states" are at the top BTW)

Still, about that "how our society is more competitive" that you point out - meanwhile, it's kinda fascinating how it basically consciously limits itself (by the choice of electoral systems promoting and maintaining the situation) to almost-false binary choice in politics; just like that downplays debate / viewpoints / options.

Edited 2012-08-06 00:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2