Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 10th Mar 2013 13:07 UTC
Multimedia, AV A few days ago, Google and the MPEG-LA announced that they had come to an agreement under which Google received a license for techniques in VP8 that may infringe upon MPEG-LA patents (note the 'if any'). Only a few days later, we learn the real reason behind Google and the MPEG-LA striking a deal, thanks to The H Open, making it clear that the MPEG-LA has lost. Big time. Update: Chris Montgomery: "The wording suggests Google paid some money to grease this along, and the agreement wording is interesting [and instructive] but make no mistake: Google won. Full stop."
Permalink for comment 555058
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Why?
by JAlexoid on Mon 11th Mar 2013 03:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why?"
Member since:

He's wrong on some occasions and right on others.
You link to Groklaw which is just as wrong (nope sorry they're worse), consistently leaning towards one direction, Google (they're the equivalent of Dan Lyons but their specialty is patents).

Regardless, I dare you to refute any of his points.

Since he's trolling an lying as of recent here you go:
#1 Acer-Allyun - an issue of a private contract that Acer and Google signed. Talking like it's an issue of openness is dishonest. Acer can leave OHA and not be bound by that contract. They , however, want to have access to Google's resources..

** Concerning precluding innovation **

#2 "copying Apple's user interface" - is a dishonest statement in context. UI was copied and transmorphed into a distinctly different UI. See any type of art, where the general styles are copied and result in more, not less, innovation.

#3 "copying many thousands of lines from the Java source code" - A blatant lie. Copyright infringement is not copying. These are two different things. Google copied Harmony, not Java. He knows it and still continues to lie.

#4 "by building a key feature of Google Maps on technology that actually belongs to Microsoft" - Obviously Google knew that in the first place and all others should be called out on the same... Oh wait, that is the best pro patent troll statement he ever made.

#5 "Google makes other companies' creations (even if it still develops a lot of code around it) available "for free" to end users" - So does FOSS is many people's opinions. And that "develops a lot of code around it" already nullifies his statement.

#6 "who will invest in the next wave of innovation? (Other than Google with its advertising-centric business model.)" - Yes. You have to enforce all IP and keep it private to make innovation work... Oh wait! The patent system was created to battle exactly this. Google invests in other companies. Google enables other companies. Google isn't Apple, that would prefer most innovations to be under their umbrella. His knowledge about his personally hated company is very low and he doesn't bother becoming enlightened on what Google does or did not(in this case) do.

#7 "There would be nothing wrong with forcing Oracle to compete with free if it didn't have to compete with what is in an important way a copy of its own creation" - Java is not the core of Android. It's the programming language(Also used in BB, by the way). Sun/Oracle had nothing to present when iPhone arrived. Even Microsoft moved fast to counter and failed. So how do they compete with free? Offer something that is remotely competitive. In 6 years there is nothing they produced. Not even an improvement to J2ME.

#8 "Google's reckless behavior completely disincentivizes investment in innovation" - Microsoft and Oracle acquire a lot of companies and then offer those services for free. Just like Google does. He says that Google's operation is reckless while the same steps taken by a whole lot of companies is somehow an incentive for innovation. (Blind hatred or $$$ results in hypocrisy)

#9 "Again, Google's approach would be in the public interest if (i) it worked and (ii) Google opened up only its own creations." (a) it works, for a fact, see the huge collection of technologies that Google opened; (b) They have opened up a lot of their own creations. Again, he doe not have a single clue how much Google knowingly contributes back into the open.

#10 "really cared about being so 'open', they'd open up a nontrivial part of their business that hasn't already been commoditized, like their searching or advertising algorithms" Let's get to reductio ad absurdum just to miss the point.

#11 "Those are people who see the benefits of seemingly getting something "for free" today without thinking about sustainability." And in his own view he thinks that Google's contribution to technology is unsustainable and destructive. Remind me who are the largest users of MapReduce(which Google championed, not created)? Yahoo! Also, his example of the Google Maps issue is the best example where a patent that almost nobody read is not contributing to innovation.

Reply Parent Score: 9