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.
Thread beginning with comment 528819
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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 Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by WorknMan on Tue 31st Jul 2012 00:39 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 Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by marcp
by WereCatf on Sun 29th Jul 2012 15:11 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 Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by marcp on Sun 29th Jul 2012 16:28 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 Parent Score: 0