Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Aug 2012 11:32 UTC
Google One company's response to the jury verdict in Apple vs. Samsung was still missing: Google's. The company has now responded to The Verge, and there's almost a certain bitterness in their language. Not, as you would expect, directed at Apple; no, the bitterness is directed at Samsung. The message Google is sending to other Android OEMs? Stick to stock Android, and you'll have no problems.
Order by: Score:
Comment by Deviate_X
by Deviate_X on Mon 27th Aug 2012 12:47 UTC
Deviate_X
Member since:
2005-07-11

But did Apple choose to pursue 'clear' UI infringments and thus simplify and focus the case?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15400984

Reply Score: 2

That's not the way.
by dsmogor on Mon 27th Aug 2012 13:02 UTC
dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

If Google forces every HW manufactures to literally stick to their design they will be no better than MS.
The lawsuit was meant to spur UI innovation (hear hear?) not add producing another array boring indistinguishable slabs.

Reply Score: 5

RE: That's not the way.
by tidux on Mon 27th Aug 2012 13:05 UTC in reply to "That's not the way."
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

Hardware manufacturers suck at software interface design, with the possible exception of Apple. None of the custom OEM ROMs provide a single damn thing over stock Android, except for that one Chinese phone that comes with MIUI preinstalled.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: That's not the way.
by dsmogor on Mon 27th Aug 2012 13:21 UTC in reply to "RE: That's not the way."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I don't agree. Both Samsung and HTC have added some goodies that made early Androids less lacking in the feature front, not to mention the fact that a lot of their ideas were later put on stock Android (using sick US law logic they should sue Google now).
Sony corner icon approach on the other hand actually makes a lot of sense on their mini devices.
A number of changes are simply required to support additional hardware.
E.g Galaxy Note has narrow touch mode to make it bearable for one handed use. I also hail Samsung decision to leave HW buttons at the bottom as Google decision to put back action at top left corner is brain-dead given the trend to expand screen size.


Not that they always hit the spot frequently shipping downright buggy code, but as time passes they are getting better. GS3 is for one an impressive device even on stock skin.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: That's not the way.
by JAlexoid on Mon 27th Aug 2012 13:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's not the way."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Google decision to put back action at top left corner is brain-dead given the trend to expand screen size.


You do know that there is a back button at the bottom, right?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: That's not the way.
by dsmogor on Mon 27th Aug 2012 13:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: That's not the way."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Is it visible in full screen apps?
Nevertheless it doesn't validate decision to put any meaningful iteration spot on top left corner.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: That's not the way.
by AWdrius on Mon 27th Aug 2012 14:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: That's not the way."
AWdrius Member since:
2006-07-18

That's the Up navigational control you are talking about. You can check this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwGHJJYBs0Q video to better understand Google decision to but it there and the difference between Back and Up navigation.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: That's not the way.
by JAlexoid on Mon 27th Aug 2012 15:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: That's not the way."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Yes it is. It can be turned "off" and can be temporarily hidden. (Temporarily - only when there is no user interaction with the screen)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: That's not the way.
by Tony Swash on Mon 27th Aug 2012 17:55 UTC in reply to "RE: That's not the way."
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Getting the Android OEM community to use a generic version of Android may be quite difficult. They are obviously looking for ways to differentiate their products and the limitations of the smart phone form factor and build components do not make easy to make something distinctive.

That's why customisation of Android is so popular, both the OEMs and the carriers love to load up their handsets with apps and customisations, the problems is that neither the OEMs or the carriers have shown much ability in terms of software development so their efforts tend to be poor and tend to degrade user experience and satisfaction. Their lack of software development ability will be made worse now that they will be all trying not to appear to copy Apple and will thus be more inclined to try ill considered experiments.

The problem for the Android OEM community as a whole is that it is financially so precarious and the only OEM that has made a business success of Android has now been found guilty of copying Apple, a strategy which appears to have paid of as it has allowed Samsung to create a high brand profile and to make high profits, now however they face the difficult task of retaining that brand profile whilst coming out with designs that cannot be confused with Apple's.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: That's not the way.
by modmans2ndcoming on Mon 27th Aug 2012 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's not the way."
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

I buy Samsung for the hardware. I root them to get back to stock.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: That's not the way.
by Quake on Wed 29th Aug 2012 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: That's not the way."
Quake Member since:
2005-10-14

Just like in the PC world: Buying a Dell laptop and installing a clean version of Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: That's not the way.
by dsmogor on Tue 28th Aug 2012 11:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's not the way."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Watching evolution of Galaxy devices one sees Samsung have been preparing for this for some time.
Their Touchwiz consequently change with each generation and (I believe) GS3 devices can't be reasonably accused of infringing Apple brand face (in terms of both device outline and software).
But that's not the biggest problem. That is Apple managed to validate the concept of owning absolutely fundamental multitouch interaction patterns (compare it to owning mouse click). That should never happen, but now that happened, producing modern CE devices for US market will be virtually impossible w/o Apple approval.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: That's not the way.
by dsmogor on Tue 28th Aug 2012 12:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's not the way."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

The Android infringement argument (I would say FUD campaign) is repeated adnaseum by countless tech bloggers but none of them has pointed to a single feature that is actually Android specific in all of this.

The fact that Apple and MS play in concert to destroy Android using litigation doesn't mean other os is inherently more safe from their questionable tactics.
In particular Apple and MS tactical alliance (edit) doesn't guarantee that in the future e.g. Apple programmers won't be sued by MS or WP oems by Apple.
Their cross licensing deals (who they actually cover?) have a limited time span.

Edited 2012-08-28 12:30 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: That's not the way.
by tomcat on Wed 29th Aug 2012 07:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: That's not the way."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

The Android infringement argument (I would say FUD campaign) is repeated adnaseum by countless tech bloggers but none of them has pointed to a single feature that is actually Android specific in all of this.

The fact that Apple and MS play in concert to destroy Android using litigation doesn't mean other os is inherently more safe from their questionable tactics.
In particular Apple and MS tactical alliance (edit) doesn't guarantee that in the future e.g. Apple programmers won't be sued by MS or WP oems by Apple.
Their cross licensing deals (who they actually cover?) have a limited time span.


Um, MS obviously isn't trying to destroy Android. They simply wanted and got reasonable patent royalties for infringements. None of the companies involved has ever asserted that MS prevents them from conducting their businesses by banning devices, etc. Whereas, Apple most definitely wants to destroy Android and prevent them from being distributed.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: That's not the way.
by Fergy on Wed 29th Aug 2012 09:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: That's not the way."
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Um, MS obviously isn't trying to destroy Android. They simply wanted and got reasonable patent royalties for infringements.

1. how much money has MS spend to 'invent' these software patents and idea patents?
2. could a six year old child come up with these 'inventions'?
3. how much work is it to think of it and how much work is it to write it?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: That's not the way.
by tomcat on Wed 29th Aug 2012 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: That's not the way."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

1. how much money has MS spend to 'invent' these software patents and idea patents?


Irrelevant.

2. could a six year old child come up with these 'inventions'?


No

3. how much work is it to think of it and how much work is it to write it?


Give it a try some time and let me know. I have.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: That's not the way.
by tomcat on Wed 29th Aug 2012 07:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: That's not the way."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

The Android infringement argument (I would say FUD campaign) is repeated adnaseum by countless tech bloggers but none of them has pointed to a single feature that is actually Android specific in all of this.

The fact that Apple and MS play in concert to destroy Android using litigation doesn't mean other os is inherently more safe from their questionable tactics.
In particular Apple and MS tactical alliance (edit) doesn't guarantee that in the future e.g. Apple programmers won't be sued by MS or WP oems by Apple.
Their cross licensing deals (who they actually cover?) have a limited time span.


Um, MS obviously isn't trying to destroy Android. They simply wanted and got reasonable patent royalties for infringements. None of the companies involved has ever asserted that MS prevents them from conducting their businesses by banning devices, etc. Whereas, Apple most definitely wants to destroy Android and prevent them from being distributed.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: That's not the way.
by zima on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's not the way."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

the only OEM that has made a business success of Android

In your usual bubble, you focus on old ~western-visible brands (which mostly, like with PCs before, will falter to the benefit of newcomers; this time even more rapidly, it seems) ...but ZTE does quite fine, is possibly the 3rd largest mobile maker by now. Oh and ZTE, together with Huawei, use quite standard Android on their (popular via carriers) handsets.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: That's not the way.
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 28th Aug 2012 04:53 UTC in reply to "RE: That's not the way."
RE[2]: That's not the way.
by Neolander on Tue 28th Aug 2012 08:30 UTC in reply to "RE: That's not the way."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Hardware manufacturers suck at software interface design, with the possible exception of Apple.

If anything, Apple nowadays are more of a software company which happens to build some hardware, like Microsoft, than a hardware company trying to get into software, like PC OEMs.

As far as I can tell, the last time they introduced a significant innovation in the realm of hardware design, rather than "stealing" or buying it, was with the iPod click wheel and the iMac G4 in the early 2000s. Nowadays, it seems to me that all they do in this realm is picking standard components on the market, sometimes buying a shiny extra from a smaller company that does actual hardware R&D, and then putting a pretty shell around the bunch.

On the few occasions where they still design something, like with their SoCs or the aforementioned casing, they do so in a very conservative way, with little bold moves (think Eee pad transformer, Galaxy Note, Xperia X10 Mini and Sola for examples of "risky" hardware design). And even then, they still manage to make beginner mistakes sometimes, like with the iPhone 4's unprotected glass panes and failing antennas.

No, really, if I were to find a good example of companies that are skilled at both hardware and software design, I would rather take a look at some of IBM's business offering (think AS/400, nowadays ironically called "i Series" if I'm not misunderstood). Sure, these are not designed to appeal to the general public, but for what they do, they provide an interesting example of a blend of clever software and hardware design, with lots of integration between both.

Edited 2012-08-28 08:31 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: That's not the way.
by dsmogor on Tue 28th Aug 2012 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's not the way."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

> example of companies that are skilled at both hardware and software design

Sun, SGI, Bee, Palm, unfortunately ,they all have something in common.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: That's not the way.
by zima on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: That's not the way."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm not sure if ~"let's make it as expensive as we can get away with" is a sign of skill in hardware design... (and Palm software was somewhat horrible ...at the same time very usable - it's fascinating that way, how they were able to be both - but still, also horrible)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: That's not the way.
by tidux on Wed 29th Aug 2012 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's not the way."
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

I do love my G4 iMac. Who knows, maybe in the far off magical future of R2, I'll be able to use Haiku on it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: That's not the way.
by zima on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's not the way."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

As far as I can tell, the last time they introduced a significant innovation in the realm of hardware design, rather than "stealing" or buying it, was with the iPod click wheel and the iMac G4 in the early 2000s.

Hm, and if we were to accept the rules of contemporary patent system (well, Apple does seem to subscribe to those rules...), iPod click wheel might be not a very clear-cut example ;) (the middle section)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod#Patent_disputes

(plus, I suppose it might be seen as a natural evolution of "selection dials" placed on steering column, that some car radios had in the late 90s?)

Reply Score: 2

RE: That's not the way.
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 27th Aug 2012 17:51 UTC in reply to "That's not the way."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

No, Google does not have as such strict requirements when it comes to hardware. If you want to create a wrist watch phone with 200x 200 px display, go ahead. If you want a 7inch phone, with a 640x 480 display, be their guests. Or a tablet with a keyboard on the back of the display. Or maybe no always connected display at all.

MS would prohibits all of those, Google would prohibit none and let the market place decide which are terrible.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: That's not the way.
by dsmogor on Tue 28th Aug 2012 11:55 UTC in reply to "RE: That's not the way."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

W/o any software customization those extreme form factors would be useless. Only opennes of Android makes going to market with such variability at least justifiable. With stock Android a lot of designs would be useless.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: That's not the way.
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 28th Aug 2012 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's not the way."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

What do you mean by that? A keyboard on the back side of a tablet would still work with android. Same with the watch with 200x200 px. They could all use stock, I think.

If you were saying that they would require software changes to be good, then well that's a matter of opinion. I don't think any of them would ever be good. But, they are all permitted by Google and not by Microsoft. Which was the point of my comment: to show extreme examples of diverse devices that would be permitted by google and not by microsoft to make clear the point that google's a more permissive mobile operating system provider even if ui software changes were not permitted.

Reply Score: 2

RE: That's not the way.
by Hussein on Mon 27th Aug 2012 21:53 UTC in reply to "That's not the way."
Hussein Member since:
2008-11-22

Innovation can only happen when an OEM slaps an iOS-like skin on Android? I'm glad Google is sticking it to Samsung.

Reply Score: 1

RE: That's not the way.
by the_trapper on Tue 28th Aug 2012 11:34 UTC in reply to "That's not the way."
the_trapper Member since:
2005-07-07

The lawsuit was meant to spur UI innovation (hear hear?) not add producing another array boring indistinguishable slabs.


How was Apple's lawsuit meant to "spur UI innovation"? I'm 99% sure it was meant to extinguish it. Unless you think Apple are the only one's capable of UI innovation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: That's not the way.
by dsmogor on Tue 28th Aug 2012 11:56 UTC in reply to "RE: That's not the way."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

That was irony, but reading mainstream press, this view seems to be dominating.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: That's not the way.
by the_trapper on Tue 28th Aug 2012 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's not the way."
the_trapper Member since:
2005-07-07

That was irony, but reading mainstream press, this view seems to be dominating.


Yeah, sorry, sadly I thought you were being serious.

There really are naive people out there who have pretty much said that this lawsuit is a great wine for innovation, which just makes me want to vomit.

Reply Score: 2

What bitterness?
by kwan_e on Mon 27th Aug 2012 13:09 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

I don't see anything bitter in Google's response.

Reply Score: 5

RE: What bitterness?
by JAlexoid on Mon 27th Aug 2012 13:34 UTC in reply to "What bitterness?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

read between the lines, because Google is very good at diplomacy.

Edited 2012-08-27 13:34 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What bitterness?
by kwan_e on Mon 27th Aug 2012 13:37 UTC in reply to "RE: What bitterness?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

read between the lines, because Google is very good at diplomacy.


I'm not saying there's no implied meaning. I'm saying the implied meaning is not bitter.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: What bitterness?
by jared_wilkes on Mon 27th Aug 2012 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What bitterness?"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

The statement doesn't even acknowledge there was actually a jury decision by a District Court.

It jumps straight to: "the court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims." What patent claims? Was there a court case you are responding to? What was the verdict?

To say there is no bitterness in the statement is silly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: What bitterness?
by kwan_e on Tue 28th Aug 2012 01:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What bitterness?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

The statement doesn't even acknowledge there was actually a jury decision by a District Court.

It jumps straight to: "the court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims." What patent claims? Was there a court case you are responding to? What was the verdict?

To say there is no bitterness in the statement is silly.


If that's your criteria of what is bitter, then I guess it's bitter.

In my book, that's not bitterness. That's "not saying anything that could get them in trouble in court at a later date".

To say there is bitterness in the statement is projection.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by FunkyELF
by FunkyELF on Mon 27th Aug 2012 13:12 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

Stick to stock Android, and you'll have no problems


I was unable to infer this from their actual response. Lets not read between the lines or twist things.

That being said, I'd love it if more manufacturers stuck to stock Android.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by FunkyELF
by dsmogor on Mon 27th Aug 2012 13:25 UTC in reply to "Comment by FunkyELF"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

As far as I know, almost all of non top 4 Android manufs (that is Sammy, HTC, LG and SONY ) leave Google experience in tack on their devices. There's ~ 60 of them, an abundant choice. Still almost nobody buys them.

Edited 2012-08-27 13:26 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF
by JAlexoid on Mon 27th Aug 2012 13:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by FunkyELF"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The reason no-one want to buy them, is that they are total low-end crap.
(HTC and Sony do not have a single vanilla Android device in production at the moment)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by FunkyELF
by dsmogor on Mon 27th Aug 2012 13:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Do you really believe that among thousands of these devices you won't be able to find a single one that has reasonable quality? Of simply you didn't search hard enough. E.g. all of big Chinese consumer electronics producers have impressive Android flagships.
There's a reason they are not easy to find: carriers simply don't want non-differentiated Android.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by FunkyELF
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 27th Aug 2012 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by FunkyELF"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I think its more than that. Just as the carriers are afraid of being turned into dumb pipes, Manufacturers are afraid of being turned into hardware companies only. They don't think that most consumers are savy enough to just look at a spec sheet. They want to provide some visual differentiator, a description next to the device that says "Social aware" or some such.

Edit:

I should add, I know a regional TMobile Store Manager here in the US. He's convinced that most people *like* touch wiz, sense, blur, ect. He was kind of shocked and defensive when I suggested that they hurt the user experience.

Edited 2012-08-27 19:40 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF
by zima on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by FunkyELF"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

top 4 Android manufs (that is Sammy, HTC, LG and SONY )

I wouldn't be surprised if ZTE is at least 3rd by now ...with Huawei also quite high. Oh, and people do buy them - not the most "glamorous" & spotlight-capturing (in the "west" at least) phones, but quite popular nonetheless (at least with carriers; but that makes people buy them).

Edited 2012-09-03 17:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Radio
by Radio on Mon 27th Aug 2012 13:39 UTC
Radio
Member since:
2009-06-20

Uuuum...

1) Bounce back
2) Tap to zoom
3) Pinch to zoom
4) Universal search
5) Slide to unlock
6) Data detectors
7) Portrait – Landscape orientation detection
+ Some recently approved patents like disappearing scroll bars, etc...

Stock Android is far from safe.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by Radio
by dsmogor on Mon 27th Aug 2012 14:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by Radio"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Last week I would have called this bs.
Now that the pandora box is opened wide open, I think buying of large amount of smartphones from the market with intention for later resale started to look like a business model.

Edited 2012-08-27 14:16 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by Radio
by bouhko on Mon 27th Aug 2012 14:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by Radio"
bouhko Member since:
2010-06-24

But with the Motorola acquisition, I would bet Google has some stupid patents and prior art too.

I just hope they sue each other until all those stupid interaction patents, each with tons of priori art, get invalidated.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Radio
by Yehppael on Mon 27th Aug 2012 15:06 UTC in reply to "Comment by Radio"
Yehppael Member since:
2012-08-01

No, actually stock Android IS safe, because Google implies it will make it so.

When they get everyone to move and stick with stock Android, they'll do the same thing they did with Chrome, and add features favouring Google.

The features you stated are software, and if a hardware manufacturer sticks to hardware, and leaves the software to Google, then they would be safe from Microsoft and Apple. All they'd have to worry about after that would be rounded corners.

Right now, through this statement, Google is telling people, there are two sides, one, side with Google, or two, by yourself. Since each hardware manufacturer uses their own version of Android, they'll probably have to make the choice soon. Until Apple actually attacks Google, they're free game.

That's pretty much how I see Google doing things, and I think I'm right because it mostly fits into their pattern.

Even if I'm wrong or not, I'm very very curious how things turn out, if anything, Google's leadership, not just the top levels, are quite brilliant. Waay above Apple's or Microsoft's or any others company in the field. So, yeah, this is worth watching.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Radio
by MollyC on Mon 27th Aug 2012 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Radio"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Google has never indemnified anyone and their statement has no evidence that they will begin doing so. ANdroid is very vulnerable to Apple's patents and Apple doesn't license patents as a general policy, preferring to ban the infringing products altogether. And Android is also vulnerable to Microsoft's patents, but nearly every Android device maker has already reached agreement with Microsoft to license those patents.

P.S.
Google's "brilliant" leadership was baited by Apple and Microsoft into buying the failing Motorola for 12 billion dollars for a bunch of FRAND patents. The notion that Google has the most brilliant leadership is Google PR working.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Radio
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 27th Aug 2012 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Radio"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Google's "brilliant" leadership was baited by Apple and Microsoft into buying the failing Motorola for 12 billion dollars for a bunch of FRAND patents. The notion that Google has the most brilliant leadership is Google PR working.


funny. They're now countersuing Apple using non-FRAND Motorola patents. On top of that, the jury here threw out Apple's FRAND defence - however, the amateurish nature and fishy smell of this jury applies there, too, of course.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by Radio
by jared_wilkes on Mon 27th Aug 2012 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Radio"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Which jury in which country in which case against which defendent through out Apple's FRAND defense?

Are you talking about Samsung and this recently decided case? And?

The jury determined that Apple did not prove an antitrust case in relation to patents they determined they didn't violate anyway and which were exhausted anyway.

What was your point as to how this relates to Google/Motorola?

Edited 2012-08-27 16:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Radio
by lucas_maximus on Tue 28th Aug 2012 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Radio"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Now the jury is corrupt ... Whatever will you claim next?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Radio
by segedunum on Mon 27th Aug 2012 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Radio"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

And Android is also vulnerable to Microsoft's patents, but nearly every Android device maker has already reached agreement with Microsoft to license those patents.

They won't be for very much longer when this plays out. That's what makes it funny.

Google's "brilliant" leadership was baited by Apple and Microsoft into buying the failing Motorola for 12 billion dollars for a bunch of FRAND patents.

The rather desperate view is that they baited Google into buying Motorola because Microsoft and Apple failed in buying it. The reality is anything but.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by Radio
by jared_wilkes on Mon 27th Aug 2012 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Radio"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Why would Android OEMs stop paying Microsoft licensing because Google's subsidiary Motorola is suing Apple and may or may not get an affirmative decision 2 or 3 years from now? What is your definition of "very much longer"?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Radio
by kurkosdr on Mon 27th Aug 2012 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Radio"
kurkosdr Member since:
2011-04-11

"P.S.
Google's "brilliant" leadership was baited by Apple and Microsoft into buying the failing Motorola for 12 billion dollars for a bunch of FRAND patents. The notion that Google has the most brilliant leadership is Google PR working."

Personally, I smell desperation. Google is facing an arrogant company filing suits against them (Apple) and US courts rubber stamping all the patents Apple asserts like pinch-and-zoom (prior art exists), voice search (prior art) and rounded corners (dumb).

I don't scream "government conspiracy" often, and have never done before on the internet (no, srsly), but this one smells a lot: Apple's UI patents (and rounded corners) getting validated by the court while Motorola's and Samsung's geting thrown out, jurys (read: ignorant about the subject citizens) that are told to decide about technical patents, flash jury decisions, bagging claims of design copycating and softpatent infrigment in one trial. It's as if the US government has found a golden tax goose over at Cupertino, and they want to "protect" it, but not by doing something that attracts public ire like imposing a "chicken tax" for imported cellphones.

Edited 2012-08-27 21:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Radio
by zima on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Radio"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

There was much more to Motorola buyout. For one, Moto forced Google hand, a bit, at least WRT the price... (in the week or two leading to buyout announcement, when the deal was set, Moto CEO hinted that 1) Motorola might go with their patents after other Android makers 2) Moto might adopt also WinPhone)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Radio
by Fergy on Wed 29th Aug 2012 09:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by Radio"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Uuuum...

1) Bounce back
2) Tap to zoom
3) Pinch to zoom
4) Universal search
5) Slide to unlock
6) Data detectors
7) Portrait – Landscape orientation detection
+ Some recently approved patents like disappearing scroll bars, etc...

Stock Android is far from safe.

Wow if you put them in an easy to read list it really makes me sad. The people that think that these handy ideas are worth millions should be shot. ;)

Reply Score: 3

Verdict standing? Not Likely...
by TemporalBeing on Mon 27th Aug 2012 17:06 UTC
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

While IANAL, from what I see over at Groklaw the jury's verdict would be very hard for the court to let stand; especially with statements by jurors that they (i) ignored the court's instructions and advice on rendering a verdict, (ii) the foreman of the jury related his own experience regarding patents (e.g. uncontested, unapproved testimony) which they then relied on for their verdict, and more.

So, even if Judge Koh does lets it stand, expect it to be overturned on appeal, along with a number of other rulings.

Reply Score: 4

By the way...
by bitwelder on Mon 27th Aug 2012 21:31 UTC
bitwelder
Member since:
2010-04-27

(un)surprisingly if all Android OEMs would stick to stock Android, Google own Nexus product line would also look more attractive on the market, with potential customers not being 'distracted' by TouchWiz, etc.

Reply Score: 3

RE: By the way...
by zima on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 15:51 UTC in reply to "By the way..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

In such scenario, Nexus most likely simply wouldn't exist...

Reply Score: 2

Bottom Line
by Lorin on Tue 28th Aug 2012 01:46 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

At worst Samsung halts operations in the US and other companies follow along, isolating the US consumer from any hope of being given a choice.

Makes me think about the movie "Demolition Man" where every restaurant was "Taco Bell"

Reply Score: 2

smartphone sales begin to slide
by unclefester on Tue 28th Aug 2012 05:06 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

New figures have shown a dramatic slowdown in Australian smartphone sales revenue for the first time since Apple launched the iPhone, suggesting the market may be getting close to saturation.


http://afr.com/p/technology/smartphone_sales_on_the_slide_cd2hXwskN...

Reply Score: 2

RE: smartphone sales begin to slide
by Lorin on Tue 28th Aug 2012 05:27 UTC in reply to "smartphone sales begin to slide"
Lorin Member since:
2010-04-06

Not slowing in China except for Apple, the lines and crowds are always around Samsung products and a few at HTC

Reply Score: 3

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Not slowing in China except for Apple, the lines and crowds are always around Samsung products and a few at HTC


You obviously didn't read the article. It says the smartphone market is saturated in Australia (and - by extension - most affluent countries). The overwhelming growth is in low cost (sub $100) smartphones in developing countries.

This is very bad news for Apple over the next 3-5 years. Hence the very aggressive lawsuits.

Reply Score: 3

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I believe Apple adoption in China is artificially throttled by govt. managed carriers who don't want to be held hostage to it and let oversees uncontrolled technology gain foothold on the market. The Chinese know well how to play internal demand for their own good.
Of course that fact doesn't make it any less legitimate reason for their slowdown.

Edited 2012-08-28 12:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

If the laws become too difficult phone companies such as Samsung will simply stop selling in the USA. No big deal. The future market is for sub-$100 phones not $500 models.

Reply Score: 6

tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

If the laws become too difficult phone companies such as Samsung will simply stop selling in the USA. No big deal. The future market is for sub-$100 phones not $500 models.


Everyone should abandon USA, not just phone makers.

Software developers should also abandon USA, there's no point to feed up yourself with software patents and all that crap, and have the rest of the world be affected because of the bullshit patents going on in USA.

USA has no future, unless their citizens force the government to change things for the betterment of everyone.

Edited 2012-08-28 15:09 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Core Android operating system
by Bobthearch on Tue 28th Aug 2012 20:01 UTC
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

Most of these don't relate to the core Android operating system

This CNN Money article came to the opposite conclusion:

The Apple-Samsung verdict could affect all smartphone titans, but Android maker Google (GOOG, Fortune 500) is the first on that list. That's because the Android software that got Samsung in trouble is relatively the same across manufacturers.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/27/technology/apple-samsung-phone/inde...

Reply Score: 3