5 ms·

Well, yes, you are right with this in that both will continue to manufacture and litigate each other... Surely, efforts would be better directed against the br

by molmalo 14y ago

Well, yes, you are right with this in that both will continue to manufacture and litigate each other... Surely, efforts would be better directed against the broken system that is being gamed by those companies, instead of dividing consumer forces, you know: Apple fans vs Google fans vs Microsoft fans vs x Other fans.... It would be much better to have everybody in action vs Broken Patent System.

ralfn 14y ago
It is generally acknowledged that Apple is at the offense. Google hasnt used IP laws in any way other than defensive. Microsoft strategy is more interesting: they dont block products but rather use liscense fees that are slightly less than the costs of going to court against Microsoft. Eventhough, their patents are hard to enforce, and likely wouldnt win, its irrelevant. So, to compare the behavior to other industries: Microsofts strategy is racketeering Italian mob style "we own this town", while Apple is raging a full on war, with any competitor, much like how a mexican drug cartel operates. Google on the other hand, behaves more like a community bank. The members get free tech, but also take most of the risk, yet if they succeed, end up making Google more profitable. The notion that all three companies are equally abusive, is ridiculus. They are definately operating with different policies. Whether that is due to convience or moral convinctions, is up for debate, but when looking purely at behavior in this space, Google is the good guy...
- raganesh 14y ago
  Since you are taking Mobster analogy, I'd like to propose one for Google/Motorola: Loan Shark (not a community bank). They pledged to license certain patents in Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms, when they contributed them to Telecom & H.264 patent pools; but now they are not very keen on keeping their commitment.
  - ralfn 14y ago
    Loan shark. Fair enough. Although i do want to emphasize that only offensive parties are being hit with the frand patents. I really do think thats the most relevant moral ground here.
    - raganesh 14y ago
      I disagree on the offensive party part - in Feb 2012, Google/Motorola used a pager-era patent to get an injunction against multiple Apple devices[1] in Germany. Apple had to disable iCloud push email feature to get their products back on shelf. [1]http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/02/apple-faces-double-whammy-in-germany-icloud-injunction-3g-device-enforcement/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/02/apple-faces-double-wham...
      - recoiledsnake 14y ago
        I am sorry, but given your submission history I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of the fact that Apple started suing Motorola in Germany first. http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/apple-is-also-suing-motorola-in-europe.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/apple-is-also-suing-motor...
        raganesh 14y ago
        I do follow the patent law suites. In case of Apple vs. Motorola, it was in fact Motorola that set the ball rolling with its first suit in October 2010 in the US. It was the same fight over the same set of patents that has spilled over into German courts.
        cooldeal 14y ago
        That's simply not true. http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/proof-apple-attacked-motorola-not-other.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/proof-apple-attacked-moto...
        raganesh 14y ago
        Same blog, earlier article: http://www.fosspatents.com/2010/12/apple-vs-motorola-now-42-patents-in.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2010/12/apple-vs-motorola-now-42-... Motorola filed the first suit. Even in the article you have linked, the author says "...why my position is that Apple attacked Motorola even though Motorola technically won the race to the courthouse". Irrespective of what the author thinks went in the background, he admits Motorola filed the suit first.
- Terretta 14y ago
  Apple wasn't playing the game, and got attacked by smartphone incumbents and their proxies. Apple countered, and is indeed pressing the counterattack. As an aside, Samsung's slavish cargo cult aping of Apple designs is unnecessary. They could come up with non look alike packaging or connectors, for example, but they are deliberately imitating down to the last detail, even in their TV commercials. This across the board play signals an intent, and may be influencing judges as much as the arguments. Could be why the coin flip court cases seem more often than not to land Apple's way.
  - noble 14y ago
    The device in question is almost completely designed by Google , atleast the s/w part. So , saying that samsung copies apple is invalid in this case

by molmalo 14y ago

ralfn 14y ago

It is generally acknowledged that Apple is at the offense. Google hasnt used IP laws in any way other than defensive. Microsoft strategy is more interesting: they dont block products but rather use liscense fees that are slightly less than the costs of going to court against Microsoft. Eventhough, their patents are hard to enforce, and likely wouldnt win, its irrelevant. So, to compare the behavior to other industries: Microsofts strategy is racketeering Italian mob style "we own this town", while Apple is raging a full on war, with any competitor, much like how a mexican drug cartel operates. Google on the other hand, behaves more like a community bank. The members get free tech, but also take most of the risk, yet if they succeed, end up making Google more profitable. The notion that all three companies are equally abusive, is ridiculus. They are definately operating with different policies. Whether that is due to convience or moral convinctions, is up for debate, but when looking purely at behavior in this space, Google is the good guy...

raganesh 14y ago
Since you are taking Mobster analogy, I'd like to propose one for Google/Motorola: Loan Shark (not a community bank). They pledged to license certain patents in Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms, when they contributed them to Telecom & H.264 patent pools; but now they are not very keen on keeping their commitment.
- ralfn 14y ago
  Loan shark. Fair enough. Although i do want to emphasize that only offensive parties are being hit with the frand patents. I really do think thats the most relevant moral ground here.
  - raganesh 14y ago
    I disagree on the offensive party part - in Feb 2012, Google/Motorola used a pager-era patent to get an injunction against multiple Apple devices[1] in Germany. Apple had to disable iCloud push email feature to get their products back on shelf. [1]http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/02/apple-faces-double-whammy-in-germany-icloud-injunction-3g-device-enforcement/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/02/apple-faces-double-wham...
    - recoiledsnake 14y ago
      I am sorry, but given your submission history I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of the fact that Apple started suing Motorola in Germany first. http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/apple-is-also-suing-motorola-in-europe.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/apple-is-also-suing-motor...
      - raganesh 14y ago
        I do follow the patent law suites. In case of Apple vs. Motorola, it was in fact Motorola that set the ball rolling with its first suit in October 2010 in the US. It was the same fight over the same set of patents that has spilled over into German courts.
        cooldeal 14y ago
        That's simply not true. http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/proof-apple-attacked-motorola-not-other.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/proof-apple-attacked-moto...
        raganesh 14y ago
        Same blog, earlier article: http://www.fosspatents.com/2010/12/apple-vs-motorola-now-42-patents-in.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2010/12/apple-vs-motorola-now-42-... Motorola filed the first suit. Even in the article you have linked, the author says "...why my position is that Apple attacked Motorola even though Motorola technically won the race to the courthouse". Irrespective of what the author thinks went in the background, he admits Motorola filed the suit first.
Terretta 14y ago
Apple wasn't playing the game, and got attacked by smartphone incumbents and their proxies. Apple countered, and is indeed pressing the counterattack. As an aside, Samsung's slavish cargo cult aping of Apple designs is unnecessary. They could come up with non look alike packaging or connectors, for example, but they are deliberately imitating down to the last detail, even in their TV commercials. This across the board play signals an intent, and may be influencing judges as much as the arguments. Could be why the coin flip court cases seem more often than not to land Apple's way.
- noble 14y ago
  The device in question is almost completely designed by Google , atleast the s/w part. So , saying that samsung copies apple is invalid in this case