07-26-11 03:42 PM
34 12
tools
  1. Dapper37's Avatar
    If you never designed the products I guess its ok to steel them. google the anti company if they weren't there first. If google cant make the money nobody should!

    Google General Counsel Says Smartphone Patents Are
    07-26-11 12:52 PM
  2. rollingrock1988's Avatar
    I was just about to post this.

    Google doesn't like when people use their innovations however they should be allowed to do what they please because... I mean c'mon they're GOOGLE.
    07-26-11 12:54 PM
  3. lnichols's Avatar
    Here's something that just came out yesterday. Basically the judge is saying that $6 Billion is crazy for Oracle to ask for, but Google does owe something. Sounds like Rubin may have left for other reasons. Thing is if you are using something that is licensed, you have to pay a fee for it. Google decided not too.

    Judge Alsup was unsympathetic. He quotes a 2005 email from Android chief Andy Rubin, who writes [Scribd]:

    If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way


    That language, Judge Alsup reasons is "Soviet-style negotiation" and "brazen" disregard of intellectual property rights. He opines:

    This would be a Soviet-style negotiation: "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."... The test is not what the infringer actually bargained for but what reasonable parties would have negotiated. Google may have simply been brazen, preferring to roll the dice on possible litigation rather than to pay a fair price.
    07-26-11 01:01 PM
  4. Dapper37's Avatar
    Anybody know how many patents RIM holds? I'm sure it must be a solid portfolio.
    07-26-11 01:10 PM
  5. dentynefire's Avatar
    Completely two faced by Google. If they don't like the patent system they don't have to use it for themselves.
    07-26-11 01:12 PM
  6. dentynefire's Avatar
    Anybody know how many patents RIM holds? I'm sure it must be a solid portfolio.
    a quick search with google patents returned 29000. But that seems really high.
    Dapper37 likes this.
    07-26-11 01:18 PM
  7. rollingrock1988's Avatar
    Completely two faced by Google. If they don't like the patent system they don't have to use it for themselves.
    They always have been two faced. A lot of people saw hope in their ideology but the truth of it is this: they are just like any other business and their leaders are just like any other human being. They are evil.
    07-26-11 01:18 PM
  8. 01itr's Avatar
    Smartphone patents are indeed 'gumming up' innovation. Take a look at some of the patents Apple is suing Samsung(Android) over.

    FOSS Patents: These tables show HOW Android infringes Apple's two HTC-beater patents

    Here are some ridiculous ones:
    The Accused HTC Android Products contain a computer-based system for detecting structures in data and performing actions based on detecting structures, and comprises an input device for receiving data. For instance, the HTC Nexus One contains a 3.7 inch AMOLED touchscreen. (Ex. 26-A, Nexus One User Manual at 327.) The Nexus One thus includes an input device to receive computer data, from which it will detect structures, such as phone numbers and email addresses, in data such as email and SMS messages. (Ex. 26-A, Nexus One User Manual at 208.) By way of example, the functionality within the Nexus One includes Android's "Linkify" functionality, which "take[s] a piece of text and a regular expression and turns all of the regex matches in the text into clickable links. This is particularly useful for matching things like email addresses, web urls, etc. and making them actionable." (Ex. 26-B, Android Developer Site at Linkify.java) In particular, the matching functionality within Android's "Linkify" engine searches text strings for structures representative of Web URLs, phone numbers, email addresses, and map addresses.
    ...
    The Accused HTC Android Products perform the step of enabling selection of the structure and a linked action. For example, the Nexus One contains applications for browsing the Internet and for viewing email messages or conversation histories. These applications provide a user interface that allows the user to select a detected structure and a linked action. For instance, the Nexus One's "Browser" application will cause all phone numbers found in a webpage to be "linkable" to the user - that is, they will be highlighted and underlined. The user may then select a phone number by tapping on it, which will cause a linked action, such as sending the number to the Phone application, to occur. (See Ex. 26-A,Nexus One User Manual, page 208.)
    Basically, the Linkify ability is the one that allows someone to say email you a phone number, and then the phone recognizes that string of numbers as a phone number, and allows you to click on it, which sends that information to another application (your phone) which then uses it.

    This is not just limited to phone numbers. This would mean if someone sent you an address, you couldn't click on it which would send it to your maps/gps program to show you where it is or how to get there, you wouldn't be able to get a URL sent to you which you could click on and it would open up in your web browser.

    Or maybe
    The Accused HTC Android Products, including the HTC Nexus One, are devices which comprise a
    signal processing system for providing a plurality of realtime services to and from a number of independent client applications and devices. For example, the HTC Nexus One is based on the Qualcomm QSD 8250 chip, which uses a 1 GHz CPU. Qualcomm's QSD 8250 chipset provides a variety of real-time services such as audio and video processing.
    So now they are suing Android because their CPU provides Audio and Video processing? Come on now.

    This kind of garbage needs to stop, or else people are going to stop focusing on innovating and start focusing on patents.
    Last edited by 01itr; 07-26-11 at 01:21 PM.
    07-26-11 01:19 PM
  9. lnichols's Avatar
    Well it looks like the big Android OEM's will be paying MS and Apple per phone, and now Google may be paying Oracle something per phone. At what point is a Free OS too expensive for an OEM to use and they decide to use something else?
    07-26-11 01:21 PM
  10. scorpiodsu's Avatar
    Google is acting like a big baby in this entire thing. They criticized Apple for suing people over patent infringements as if a company shouldn't try to protect what they believe to be their intellectual property. Google wants to use everyone's technology freely as if the idea of patents just came about recently. They should do like everyone else, either create something yourself, buy the patent or license it. Not sure why they think the rules should change because they don't want to abide by them.
    07-26-11 01:25 PM
  11. rollingrock1988's Avatar
    Well it looks like the big Android OEM's will be paying MS and Apple per phone, and now Google may be paying Oracle something per phone. At what point is a Free OS too expensive for an OEM to use and they decide to use something else?
    Well, lets just say that other companies are going to shut android out due to patents.

    I welcome this because I think it will be hilarious.
    07-26-11 01:28 PM
  12. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    I highly doubt that it will come to this, but if it becomes too expensive (or less profitable) for Google to sustain Android, what do you think is gonna happen?

    They'll dump it, and figure out another revenue-generating venture... with less patents. They don't make any money from any sales/licensing of Android OS.

    What do you think would happen to Android users then? It will be interesting.
    07-26-11 01:30 PM
  13. 01itr's Avatar
    Google is acting like a big baby in this entire thing. They criticized Apple for suing people over patent infringements as if a company shouldn't try to protect what they believe to be their intellectual property. Google wants to use everyone's technology freely as if the idea of patents just came about recently. They should do like everyone else, either create something yourself, buy the patent or license it. Not sure why they think the rules should change because they don't want to abide by them.
    It looks like they don't think that they should be exempt from the rules, but that the rules themselves are outdated, and need to change or else risk inhibiting innovation.

    I for one agree.
    psufan32 likes this.
    07-26-11 01:30 PM
  14. dentynefire's Avatar
    Now we know why RIM always have their lawyers around the guys in development...
    Not that they don't have their own disputes.
    07-26-11 01:31 PM
  15. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    You really can't point fingers at Google. Today, everybody in any tech industry can be found guilty of patent infringement. The larger problem is how US Patents are applied to intellectual property.

    Take the HTC/Apple dispute so popular right now. The patents Apple is suing over are patents that are so general and broad that pretty much every computer device (from desktop to handhelds) used today infringes upon them. But it doesn't become an issue until Apple sees an opportunity to use it as a weapon.

    Then you see this article about the Oracle/Google dispute... Sun CEO explicitly endorsed Java's use in Android: What do you say now Oracle? | ZDNet which throws a new rock into the mechanism.

    Everybody in the media are currently focusing on Google because of the explosive growth of Android. Once the dust from that settles, it'll all move on to a different competitor, most likely whoever is perceived to be king of the hill at the moment.

    When every smartphone enterprise outside of those using Android band together and form a coalition with the specific intent to knock Android down (a la the Nortel Patents auction), it's pretty sad. Because once Android is dealt with, regardless of the outcome, the same actions will be used against the next company.
    01itr and psufan32 like this.
    07-26-11 01:32 PM
  16. scorpiodsu's Avatar
    Well it looks like the big Android OEM's will be paying MS and Apple per phone, and now Google may be paying Oracle something per phone. At what point is a Free OS too expensive for an OEM to use and they decide to use something else?
    This is the same thing I was thinking. It also points to some of the murmurs that all Android OEMs aren't satisfied with it. Partly because of the number competitions and then because they have to incur costs for an OS they didn't design.
    07-26-11 01:34 PM
  17. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    Well, lets just say that other companies are going to shut android out due to patents.

    I welcome this because I think it will be hilarious.
    Think about it though... beyond the the corporate misconduct and posturing, how does that help you as a consumer?

    These companies won't shut out Android any time soon. I read a position paper that the free OS backed by the Google ecosystem more than covers any patent royalties they pay out. They'll fight it, but will pay per handset to continue making money.

    Android is here to stay. The biggest issue, IMHO, is whether Google keeps up developmental work. As a consumer who could very well tire of Android tomorrow, I like to see a wealth of OSes out there.
    scorpiodsu likes this.
    07-26-11 01:35 PM
  18. lnichols's Avatar
    I highly doubt that it will come to this, but if it becomes too expensive (or less profitable) for Google to sustain Android, what do you think is gonna happen?

    They'll dump it, and figure out another revenue-generating venture... with less patents. They don't make any money from any sales/licensing of Android OS.

    What do you think would happen to Android users then? It will be interesting.
    If OEM's abandon Android, there will be a community out there that will keep the thing alive for a while, like Cynogen, and they may try to hack phones to port Android on, but I don't think that is sustainable. OEM's will then be forced to license WP7, WebOS (if HP goes that route which they may), or go back to making their own OS (which is doubtful). Apple wants to kill Android so they can get those customers, MS wants to kill it to get the OEM's using WP7.
    07-26-11 01:36 PM
  19. scorpiodsu's Avatar
    It looks like they don't think that they should be exempt from the rules, but that the rules themselves are outdated, and need to change or else risk inhibiting innovation.

    I for one agree.
    But they are only crying that because they are infringing on everyone's patents. If the shoe was on the other foot, they'd be suing others as well. Are the rules outdated? Maybe. But, what does Google want to happen? Doesn't the enforcement of the patents force companies to innovate? I think so. It makes companies have to do research and figure out new ways. Using every other companies' technology does not promote innovation. It promotes a company from having to actually to R&D.
    07-26-11 01:37 PM
  20. scorpiodsu's Avatar
    In the end, I don't think this kills Android by any means. It just means Google will have to cooperate like every other company and make licensing agreements until the rules are changed, if they are. The interesting part will be whether it's Google or the OEMs that will have to continue to incur these costs.
    07-26-11 01:39 PM
  21. dentynefire's Avatar
    It looks like they don't think that they should be exempt from the rules, but that the rules themselves are outdated, and need to change or else risk inhibiting innovation.

    I for one agree.
    Are they? If a company is paying an employee(s) to innovate but feel their investment is not protected why would they do it? Especially when your competitor can steal it away fairly easily.
    It may lead to reduction in R&D spending in the long term.
    scorpiodsu likes this.
    07-26-11 01:39 PM
  22. rollingrock1988's Avatar
    Think about it though... beyond the the corporate misconduct and posturing, how does that help you as a consumer?

    These companies won't shut out Android any time soon. I read a position paper that the free OS backed by the Google ecosystem more than covers any patent royalties they pay out. They'll fight it, but will pay per handset to continue making money.

    Android is here to stay. The biggest issue, IMHO, is whether Google keeps up developmental work. As a consumer who could very well tire of Android tomorrow, I like to see a wealth of OSes out there.
    I disagree. Motorola is already looking at different avenues and that was before all of this patent bs was happening, in terms of android.

    Android was a good way to get manufacturers names out there and say "We make cool hardware."

    Now this is littler differentiation between android phones AND manufacturers are going to have to PAY apple, google and MS. I think we can agree that they won't stand for that for long.

    In terms of more oses, there will always be other software makers. Plus there is WEB OS to turn to because HP is going to license it out. There are plenty of options for everyone.

    I am not concerned for consumers. At all. I am happy to see the in-fighting between these companies. At some point congress will step in and give everyone a good smacking.
    07-26-11 01:41 PM
  23. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    But they are only crying that because they are infringing on everyone's patents. If the shoe was on the other foot, they'd be suing others as well. Are the rules outdated? Maybe. But, what does Google want to happen? Doesn't the enforcement of the patents force companies to innovate? I think so. It makes companies have to do research and figure out new ways. Using every other companies' technology does not promote innovation. It promotes a company from having to actually to R&D.
    The underlying problem is what you can patent in the US Patent system. Most of the patents in dispute are too broad. Take the Apple vs HTC patent dispute as an example. Apple is suing over patents that were applied for years before handheld platforms came about, and are so broad that the computer or device you're currently reading this on (unless it's an Apple product) is in violation of the patent.
    01itr likes this.
    07-26-11 01:44 PM
  24. 01itr's Avatar
    Are they? If a company is paying an employee(s) to innovate but feel their investment is not protected why would they do it? Especially when your competitor can steal it away fairly easily.
    It may lead to reduction in R&D spending in the long term.
    It may also lead to R&D ppl being buried in red tape. Having to go through a handful of lawyers just to get something that is as small as recognizing a URL using regex through to devlopment.

    You don't think this will slow innovation down?
    07-26-11 01:48 PM
  25. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    And it goes even deeper than the smartphone OS wars. App developers are now feeling the sting of litigation because some schmuck (Lodsys?) holds a very broad patent on "In App Purchasing".
    07-26-11 01:49 PM
34 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD