4 ms·

Interesting how recently I am feeling more guilty using my Apple products (Macbook, iPod) and less guilty using my Android cellphone. Apple's attitudes related

Interesting how recently I am feeling more guilty using my Apple products (Macbook, iPod) and less guilty using my Android cellphone. Apple's attitudes related to patents is really starting to be a deal breaker to me. I may be looking for notebooks alternatives next year. It is a bit sad because I love the build quality from Apple's products, but I like to think that I value my morals more than my consumism.

josefresco 15y ago
If you value your morals, the other two choices aren't much better. Apple might be making headlines now for their patent shenanigans but next week it could very well be the other two.
- trobertson 15y ago
  I am assuming that by "other two", you are referring to Google and Microsoft. Microsoft has a history of shady tactics, but they've been relatively "good" recently. They could easily fall back into bullying tactics, if they wished to. Although they do have tons of antitrust agreements they have to honor. Google, on the other hand, has no history whatsoever of using patents offensively. I don't think [1] they've made a single offensive patent case, ever. If the morality of a company is going to affect your choice, Google is by far the better choice. [1]: I haven't verified this statement. It probably doesn't hold true for some of the companies that they have purchased, e.g. Motorola Mobility.
  - angelbob 15y ago
    Microsoft is well aware that they can just break antitrust agreements and the enforcement is unlikely to have any teeth. That was their approach for many years, and I'm sure they remember how effective it was... And yeah, your footnote definitely doesn't hold true for a number of the companies Google purchased, which I don't (directly) hold against Google.
    - poutine 15y ago
      And you're foolish for not holding that against Google. Google bought Motorola for their patents. They're playing the game which we as consumers are the losers in. If they were as moralistic as the segment of naïve geeks here seem to think they are then they'd be working to destroy the patent system.
      - stanleydrew 15y ago
        It is possible to buy patents for defensive reasons while still working to dismantle the patent system. How is this so hard to understand? I think I remember one of Google's top IP lawyers has even said that software patents probably shouldn't exist. Claiming that a company must not protect itself from frivolous litigation in favor of working to dismantle the patent system is like claiming that an AIDS doctor shouldn't be allowed to use protection during sex and should instead focus on curing AIDS. You can do both at the same time.
        poutine 15y ago
        I don't give Google the benefit of the doubt like so many here. Why is that so hard to understand? Apparently it is, and this is pointless. I get it, hate Apple, love Google, we're warming back up to Microsoft and uncomfortable with Facebook.
        mcantelon 15y ago
        It's not about giving companies the benefit of the doubt it's about judging the actions of companies. Apple and others have been very aggressive in their patent-based legal action. Google has not.
        stdgy 15y ago
        The issue is that you're refusing to make a knowledge based judgement. We know Apple uses their patents offensively. We know that Microsoft, while not being particularly gruesome of late, uses their patents offensively. There is plenty of evidence for both of these claims. We do not know that Google uses their patents offensively. At least, not that I am aware of. This doesn't necessarily mean that they won't or that they haven't. But it would be wrong to ignore past action as a predictor for future behavior.
podperson 15y ago
Well let's see: Google bought Motorola to use it as a patent hammer. Microsoft has a long history of strategically settling lawsuits with patent and IP trolls (remember SCO's lawsuit against Linux? Funded by Microsoft paying them to license stuff that they could (a) easily have fought or (b) paid far less for; similarly Burst's lawsuit against Apple over QuickTime was funded by a Microsoft settlement).
- juliano_q 15y ago
  I dont agree. Google refused to enter the patent war and was heavily bashed for years. They bought Morotola to use the patents to defend their partners. They are not using patents offensively, as far as I know.
- kaffiene 15y ago
  Google bought Motorola after they (and Android OEMs) been under patent assault by Apple for years. That was a purely defensive action. They have not offensively asserted their patent rights against anyone.
poutine 15y ago
Both Apple and Google are massive multinationals driven by shareholders for profit and couldn't give a shit about your interests where they don't align with their own. It's time that a good portion of the community here grows up and stops identifying personally with large corporate products.

josefresco 15y ago

If you value your morals, the other two choices aren't much better. Apple might be making headlines now for their patent shenanigans but next week it could very well be the other two.

trobertson 15y ago
I am assuming that by "other two", you are referring to Google and Microsoft. Microsoft has a history of shady tactics, but they've been relatively "good" recently. They could easily fall back into bullying tactics, if they wished to. Although they do have tons of antitrust agreements they have to honor. Google, on the other hand, has no history whatsoever of using patents offensively. I don't think [1] they've made a single offensive patent case, ever. If the morality of a company is going to affect your choice, Google is by far the better choice. [1]: I haven't verified this statement. It probably doesn't hold true for some of the companies that they have purchased, e.g. Motorola Mobility.
- angelbob 15y ago
  Microsoft is well aware that they can just break antitrust agreements and the enforcement is unlikely to have any teeth. That was their approach for many years, and I'm sure they remember how effective it was... And yeah, your footnote definitely doesn't hold true for a number of the companies Google purchased, which I don't (directly) hold against Google.
  - poutine 15y ago
    And you're foolish for not holding that against Google. Google bought Motorola for their patents. They're playing the game which we as consumers are the losers in. If they were as moralistic as the segment of naïve geeks here seem to think they are then they'd be working to destroy the patent system.
    - stanleydrew 15y ago
      It is possible to buy patents for defensive reasons while still working to dismantle the patent system. How is this so hard to understand? I think I remember one of Google's top IP lawyers has even said that software patents probably shouldn't exist. Claiming that a company must not protect itself from frivolous litigation in favor of working to dismantle the patent system is like claiming that an AIDS doctor shouldn't be allowed to use protection during sex and should instead focus on curing AIDS. You can do both at the same time.
      - poutine 15y ago
        I don't give Google the benefit of the doubt like so many here. Why is that so hard to understand? Apparently it is, and this is pointless. I get it, hate Apple, love Google, we're warming back up to Microsoft and uncomfortable with Facebook.
        mcantelon 15y ago
        It's not about giving companies the benefit of the doubt it's about judging the actions of companies. Apple and others have been very aggressive in their patent-based legal action. Google has not.
        stdgy 15y ago
        The issue is that you're refusing to make a knowledge based judgement. We know Apple uses their patents offensively. We know that Microsoft, while not being particularly gruesome of late, uses their patents offensively. There is plenty of evidence for both of these claims. We do not know that Google uses their patents offensively. At least, not that I am aware of. This doesn't necessarily mean that they won't or that they haven't. But it would be wrong to ignore past action as a predictor for future behavior.

podperson 15y ago

Well let's see: Google bought Motorola to use it as a patent hammer. Microsoft has a long history of strategically settling lawsuits with patent and IP trolls (remember SCO's lawsuit against Linux? Funded by Microsoft paying them to license stuff that they could (a) easily have fought or (b) paid far less for; similarly Burst's lawsuit against Apple over QuickTime was funded by a Microsoft settlement).

juliano_q 15y ago
I dont agree. Google refused to enter the patent war and was heavily bashed for years. They bought Morotola to use the patents to defend their partners. They are not using patents offensively, as far as I know.
kaffiene 15y ago
Google bought Motorola after they (and Android OEMs) been under patent assault by Apple for years. That was a purely defensive action. They have not offensively asserted their patent rights against anyone.

poutine 15y ago

Both Apple and Google are massive multinationals driven by shareholders for profit and couldn't give a shit about your interests where they don't align with their own. It's time that a good portion of the community here grows up and stops identifying personally with large corporate products.