4 ms·

> Though the award was just half of the $29 million in damages Microsoft had sought, the company hailed today’s ruling as a landmark victory “telling Google to

by pavanky 13y ago

> Though the award was just half of the $29 million in damages Microsoft had sought, the company hailed today’s ruling as a landmark victory “telling Google to stop abusing patents.” But the patent battle predates Google’s 2011 acquisition of Motorola Mobility. Microsoft first sued the phone maker in 2010 for overcharging on patent licensing. Source: http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/04/motorola-versus-microsoft/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/04/motorola-versus-microsoft/ Please try to stop inventing facts. EFF does this thing for a living, I would think they would not miss something as obvious.

skj 13y ago
I see examples, time and time again, of companies (especially Microsoft) twisting facts to make sound-byte-style comments that make Google look bad. However, I cannot think of a single example where Google has done that about any company. Can someone prove me wrong?
- throwawaykf02 13y ago
  See the whole "Bing rips off Google's results" thing. No less than Stephen Colbert fell for it and the truth never got as much publicity. People still believe Bing scrapes Google. Interestingly, the whole thing was instigated by Vic Gundotra, who's ex-Microsoft...
  - jmillikin 13y ago
    > See the whole "Bing rips off Google's results" thing. > No less than Stephen Colbert fell for it and the truth > never got as much publicity. People still believe Bing > scrapes Google. http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-search-results-62914 http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-... is a comprehensive and detailed writeup of the accusations. Do you have an alternative explanation for how the results for those particular obscure random text strings propagated from Google to Bing? > Interestingly, the whole thing was instigated by Vic > Gundotra, who's ex-Microsoft... In that same article the author says he was contacted by Amit Singhal and Matt Cutts, not Vic Gundotra (they don't even work in the same division): > My last meeting of the day was with Singhal and Cutts — > where they shared everything I’ve described above, > explaining this is one reason why Google and Bing might > be looking so similar, as our columnist found.
    - throwawaykf02 13y ago
      > Do you have an alternative explanation for how the results for those particular obscure random text strings propagated from Google to Bing? How about this link from the very article you quoted? http://searchengineland.com/bing-why-googles-wrong-in-its-accusations-63279 http://searchengineland.com/bing-why-googles-wrong-in-its-ac... I know you work for Google, so you must have the technical competency to see the nuance; can you say with a straight face that this was "copying"? Is it any different from the tracking Google of Facebook do across the web via their various products? Like I said, the truth is more nuanced, but people only remember the scandalous version. > Amit Singhal You're right, my bad. I completely misremembered.
      - jmillikin 13y ago
        > I know you work for Google, so you must have the > technical competency to see the nuance; can you say with > a straight face that this was "copying"? My personal belief is that it was copying, yes. There is no other legitimate reason to phone home which results a user clicked on in a competing search engine. > Is it any different from the tracking Google of Facebook > do across the web via their various products? When I go to a site with Analytics on it, the site operator chose to put that code on their page and they're the ones using the resulting data. In my opinion, tracking scripts are morally no different from analyzing server logs. In contrast, the toolbar in question appears to record the user's behavior across the entire web, then send it back to the toolbar's developer. The purpose appears to be distributed scraping of search results across various search engines (it's not just Google being copied from, here). If Chrome reported which links people clicked on to Google, there would be an uproar (and rightly so). In terms of malicious behavior, tracking a user's clicks on web sites and sending them to a third party is only one step above a keylogger.
        throwawaykf02 13y ago
        > My personal belief is that it was copying, yes. There is no other legitimate reason to phone home which results a user clicked on in a competing search engine. It phones home with all the links a user clicks, not just on a competing search engine. The legitimate reason is that users have chosen to do so in order to "enhance their surfing experience". The reason may be BS but users are given an option. Suggested Sites is explicitly opt-in and IIRC (can't verify, on a Mac), the toolbar installer defaults the checkboxes to opt-in but presents a screen to opt-out during installation. So at least users are given a choice. Websites that use Google Analytics and similar products don't even do that. (Except if you're in the UK and have to obey the "cookie" law.) I would argue that a website operator has less of a right to say what happens to the data about users' behavior than the users themselves. So, in my opinion it's fair game for Bing to use that data. You could argue users are technically clueless and don't know what they're opting in to, but again, even giving them an option is more than what website operators and Google (and Facebook and Bing itself) does all over the Internet. >If Chrome reported which links people clicked on to Google, there would be an uproar (and rightly so). In terms of malicious behavior, tracking a user's clicks on web sites and sending them to a third party is only one step above a keylogger. Google itself tracks which of the links on its search results users click, so that they can use it in their search rankings. And, of course, Google also tracks users across the entire web so that targeted ads can follow users across sites. Just because it's the web page itself that does the tracking rather than the browser does not mean you are not tracking them. Why is one "just a step above malicious" and the other perfectly alright even when the end result is exactly the same?
  - mda 13y ago
    Because they blatantly scraped Google. Funny thing was how all Ms employees parroted the same PR bullshit at the time.
    - throwawaykf02 13y ago
      As linked above: http://searchengineland.com/bing-why-googles-wrong-in-its-accusations-63279 http://searchengineland.com/bing-why-googles-wrong-in-its-ac... This is from the same site that published Google's original accusations, so I think it's less likely that it's a PR piece. See also the sibling discussion with jmillikin.
      - mda 13y ago
        "We’re not copying but watching users". Heh.
throwawaykf02 13y ago
As always, things are more nuanced than "it started before the acquisition". (A previous comment of mine has a bit more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6332432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6332432) Basically, Google had more than a year after the acquisition to settle rather than, not only losing the patent lawsuit, but being convicted for pursuing it in bad faith. I mean, that makes them look pretty darn bad, and I was surprised Google let it happen. But given that tech forums and media has decided not to care about it, I guess it was the right choice for them. > Please try to stop inventing facts. EFF does this thing for a living, I would think they would not miss something as obvious. Non sequitur. I have seen the EFF use embellishment when it suits their agenda.
- air 13y ago
  But the patent fight was started by Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars so Motorola are using them defensively.
  - throwawaykf02 13y ago
    I did mention that MS "cast the first stone" in the comment I linked. However, if you look deeper, Motorola had started with the outrageous demands (which they got convicted for) even earlier, and MS sued preemptively. They definitely sued first, but when a lawsuit is inevitable, it's tactically better to sue first, because e.g. you can choose a more favorable jurisdiction etc. So if the demands were so outrageous that they got fined millions for it, can you still say they were using them "defensively"?
    - magicalist 13y ago
      Let's get some things straight, so at least we can have an intellectually honest discussion. First, Motorola's h.264 and 802.11 license demands didn't happen until after Microsoft filed suit[1]. They were asking for a ridiculous rate, but let's get the timing right. Second, no one was convicted; it was a civil case over breach of contract. No one gets convicted in those. Finally, it wasn't a statutory fine (and what's with the scare italics?). It was damages -- notably, at half of what Microsoft was asking for -- for legal fees and breach of contract obligations by asking for far more than what was judged "reasonable". [1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/court-shreds-power-of-motorolas-standard-based-patents/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/court-shreds-powe...

by pavanky 13y ago

skj 13y ago

I see examples, time and time again, of companies (especially Microsoft) twisting facts to make sound-byte-style comments that make Google look bad. However, I cannot think of a single example where Google has done that about any company. Can someone prove me wrong?

throwawaykf02 13y ago
See the whole "Bing rips off Google's results" thing. No less than Stephen Colbert fell for it and the truth never got as much publicity. People still believe Bing scrapes Google. Interestingly, the whole thing was instigated by Vic Gundotra, who's ex-Microsoft...
- jmillikin 13y ago
  > See the whole "Bing rips off Google's results" thing. > No less than Stephen Colbert fell for it and the truth > never got as much publicity. People still believe Bing > scrapes Google. http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-search-results-62914 http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-... is a comprehensive and detailed writeup of the accusations. Do you have an alternative explanation for how the results for those particular obscure random text strings propagated from Google to Bing? > Interestingly, the whole thing was instigated by Vic > Gundotra, who's ex-Microsoft... In that same article the author says he was contacted by Amit Singhal and Matt Cutts, not Vic Gundotra (they don't even work in the same division): > My last meeting of the day was with Singhal and Cutts — > where they shared everything I’ve described above, > explaining this is one reason why Google and Bing might > be looking so similar, as our columnist found.
  - throwawaykf02 13y ago
    > Do you have an alternative explanation for how the results for those particular obscure random text strings propagated from Google to Bing? How about this link from the very article you quoted? http://searchengineland.com/bing-why-googles-wrong-in-its-accusations-63279 http://searchengineland.com/bing-why-googles-wrong-in-its-ac... I know you work for Google, so you must have the technical competency to see the nuance; can you say with a straight face that this was "copying"? Is it any different from the tracking Google of Facebook do across the web via their various products? Like I said, the truth is more nuanced, but people only remember the scandalous version. > Amit Singhal You're right, my bad. I completely misremembered.
    - jmillikin 13y ago
      > I know you work for Google, so you must have the > technical competency to see the nuance; can you say with > a straight face that this was "copying"? My personal belief is that it was copying, yes. There is no other legitimate reason to phone home which results a user clicked on in a competing search engine. > Is it any different from the tracking Google of Facebook > do across the web via their various products? When I go to a site with Analytics on it, the site operator chose to put that code on their page and they're the ones using the resulting data. In my opinion, tracking scripts are morally no different from analyzing server logs. In contrast, the toolbar in question appears to record the user's behavior across the entire web, then send it back to the toolbar's developer. The purpose appears to be distributed scraping of search results across various search engines (it's not just Google being copied from, here). If Chrome reported which links people clicked on to Google, there would be an uproar (and rightly so). In terms of malicious behavior, tracking a user's clicks on web sites and sending them to a third party is only one step above a keylogger.
      - throwawaykf02 13y ago
        > My personal belief is that it was copying, yes. There is no other legitimate reason to phone home which results a user clicked on in a competing search engine. It phones home with all the links a user clicks, not just on a competing search engine. The legitimate reason is that users have chosen to do so in order to "enhance their surfing experience". The reason may be BS but users are given an option. Suggested Sites is explicitly opt-in and IIRC (can't verify, on a Mac), the toolbar installer defaults the checkboxes to opt-in but presents a screen to opt-out during installation. So at least users are given a choice. Websites that use Google Analytics and similar products don't even do that. (Except if you're in the UK and have to obey the "cookie" law.) I would argue that a website operator has less of a right to say what happens to the data about users' behavior than the users themselves. So, in my opinion it's fair game for Bing to use that data. You could argue users are technically clueless and don't know what they're opting in to, but again, even giving them an option is more than what website operators and Google (and Facebook and Bing itself) does all over the Internet. >If Chrome reported which links people clicked on to Google, there would be an uproar (and rightly so). In terms of malicious behavior, tracking a user's clicks on web sites and sending them to a third party is only one step above a keylogger. Google itself tracks which of the links on its search results users click, so that they can use it in their search rankings. And, of course, Google also tracks users across the entire web so that targeted ads can follow users across sites. Just because it's the web page itself that does the tracking rather than the browser does not mean you are not tracking them. Why is one "just a step above malicious" and the other perfectly alright even when the end result is exactly the same?
- mda 13y ago
  Because they blatantly scraped Google. Funny thing was how all Ms employees parroted the same PR bullshit at the time.
  - throwawaykf02 13y ago
    As linked above: http://searchengineland.com/bing-why-googles-wrong-in-its-accusations-63279 http://searchengineland.com/bing-why-googles-wrong-in-its-ac... This is from the same site that published Google's original accusations, so I think it's less likely that it's a PR piece. See also the sibling discussion with jmillikin.
    - mda 13y ago
      "We’re not copying but watching users". Heh.

throwawaykf02 13y ago

As always, things are more nuanced than "it started before the acquisition". (A previous comment of mine has a bit more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6332432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6332432) Basically, Google had more than a year after the acquisition to settle rather than, not only losing the patent lawsuit, but being convicted for pursuing it in bad faith. I mean, that makes them look pretty darn bad, and I was surprised Google let it happen. But given that tech forums and media has decided not to care about it, I guess it was the right choice for them. > Please try to stop inventing facts. EFF does this thing for a living, I would think they would not miss something as obvious. Non sequitur. I have seen the EFF use embellishment when it suits their agenda.

air 13y ago
But the patent fight was started by Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars so Motorola are using them defensively.
- throwawaykf02 13y ago
  I did mention that MS "cast the first stone" in the comment I linked. However, if you look deeper, Motorola had started with the outrageous demands (which they got convicted for) even earlier, and MS sued preemptively. They definitely sued first, but when a lawsuit is inevitable, it's tactically better to sue first, because e.g. you can choose a more favorable jurisdiction etc. So if the demands were so outrageous that they got fined millions for it, can you still say they were using them "defensively"?
  - magicalist 13y ago
    Let's get some things straight, so at least we can have an intellectually honest discussion. First, Motorola's h.264 and 802.11 license demands didn't happen until after Microsoft filed suit[1]. They were asking for a ridiculous rate, but let's get the timing right. Second, no one was convicted; it was a civil case over breach of contract. No one gets convicted in those. Finally, it wasn't a statutory fine (and what's with the scare italics?). It was damages -- notably, at half of what Microsoft was asking for -- for legal fees and breach of contract obligations by asking for far more than what was judged "reasonable". [1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/court-shreds-power-of-motorolas-standard-based-patents/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/court-shreds-powe...