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.
Permalink for comment 528913
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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:

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 Parent Score: 3