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 529001
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 1