Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 16th Sep 2012 16:53 UTC
Google There's a bit of a story going on between Google, Acer, and Alibaba, a Chinese mobile operating system vendor. Acer wanted to ship a device with Alibaba's operating system, but Google asked them not to, and Acer complied. The reason is that Acer is a member of the Open Handset Alliance, which prohibits the promotion of non-standard Android implementations - exactly what Alibaba is shipping. On top of that, Alibaba's application store hosts pirated Android applications, including ones from Google.
Thread beginning with comment 535543
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by clasqm
by galvanash on Tue 18th Sep 2012 04:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by clasqm"
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

Again, show me an example of Google asking Apple to license anything to them??? All the patents mentioned in those articles were already worked around in Android ages ago (i.e. bounce scroll)...

A letter to the senate making the argument that some patents not currently considered to be SEP maybe should be is not the same thing as Google asking Apple for a license to anything. It isn't even in the same ballpark...

It doesn't even demonstrate that Google thinks Apple even HAS a patent they want or need - it is simply lobbying the senate.

Google is generally willing to share patents and license them to others - Apple is not. They are very different companies... Lobbying the senate to treat patents in a way that would weaken Apple's leverage (by forcing them to license some of them that might be seen as commercially essential) is simply smart and in their best interest. It would be beneficial to their style of business and detrimental to their competitors (i.e. Apple).

It doesn't mean, as this fictional account seems to imply, that there is some stash of patents that Google desperately needs to get it's grubby hands on in Cupertino...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by clasqm
by jared_wilkes on Tue 18th Sep 2012 04:34 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by clasqm"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

It doesn't mean, as this fictional account seems to imply, that there is some stash of patents that Google desperately needs to get it's grubby hands on in Cupertino...


That's a fictional summary if I ever saw one. Where in the primary post or the two posts I linked to does anyone suggest that Google "desperately needs to get it's grubby on" Apple's patents?

You asked a question: what is he even talking about? You suggested that there was no evidence that Google was suggesting that there are some patents that they should be granted access to. I provided links to Mueller's thinking and from an independent, objective source that draws exactly the same conclusion as Mueller: that Google wants to change patent law to make it compulsory for Apple (and Microsoft) to license its/their desired (but not standard essential) patents.

If you want to get all conspiracy theorist on that, you can't claim yourself any better than how you describe Mueller.

Edited 2012-09-18 04:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by clasqm
by cdude on Tue 18th Sep 2012 07:23 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by clasqm"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

So you are not able to show an example?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by clasqm
by galvanash on Tue 18th Sep 2012 09:44 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by clasqm"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

The title of Meuller's article is "If Google can cancel Acer's license, why should Apple have to grant one to Google?"

The only person who is saying that Apple should have to grant a license for anything to Google is Mueller...

Petitioning the senate to reconsider what constitutes a standards essential patent is not the same thing as asking them to force Apple to license something to Google. Hell, I'm not even aware of an Apple patent that Google would want at this point, much less need...

Do you not see the problem there? Its called a false equivalency fallacy - that article is the epitome of one.

Reply Parent Score: 2