5 ms·

Gruber is pretty clear about what's in his mind, so there's no need for terrible analogies. >If you want to argue that the whole patent system stinks, and that

by IBM 13y ago

Gruber is pretty clear about what's in his mind, so there's no need for terrible analogies. >If you want to argue that the whole patent system stinks, and that all of these tech giants are abusing it, I agree. But if you want to argue that Apple and Microsoft are in the wrong, and poor Google and their Android partners are victims of one-sided abuse, I’m going to have to disagree. If there’s a difference between Apple/Microsoft and Google in this war, it’s not over nobility, but rather over how well each side has played the game. These companies pursue what's in their self-interest, and attempts to portray Google as being somehow above it are disingenuous, regardless of how high-minded the PR makes them seem.

cageface 13y ago
It would be naive to think that Google doesn't put its own interests first. That's the nature of any public corporation. However, there's a world of difference between corporations competing in the marketplace and winning by providing superior value for the customer and using a patent system pretty much everybody acknowledges is broken to have a second turn at bat after their own product strategies have failed. Until recently there was a gentleman's agreement among the big tech companies that patents weren't to be used offensively. We all suffer when every trivial detail of any software product is open to expensive litigation.
nileshtrivedi 13y ago
It's not just PR. You didn't address cromwellian's point at all. His central point is that Apple and Microsoft started the "game". Edit: "Playing the game" too is a terrible analogy for patents lawsuits.
- IBM 13y ago
  I addressed it in a comment further down. From FOSS Patents: >A few months after that Zeitgeist talk, in January 2012, Google authorized a Motorola Mobility lawsuit against Apple over six patents in the Southern District of Florida. The merger agreement was publicly available and absolutely unequivocal about the fact that Motorola needed Google's consent prior to bringing new IP assertions while the merger was under antitrust review. And Motorola was the first to sue Apple. I didn't find a wiki article about Microsoft and Motorola so I don't know who started it there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility_v._Apple_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility_v._Apple_Inc.
  - WildUtah 13y ago
    Apple sued Samsung, the world's largest maker of Android phones in dozens of countries, with masses of garbage patents in 2011[0]. Google provided the software that Apple was attacking, but was not considered to have standing to intervene. Instead, Google used its Motorola subsidiary to sue back with its own garbage patents and restore the MAD status quo. But Apple undoubtedly attacked first. Actually Microsoft was the First Evil, but Apple was first between Google, Google's licensed manufacturers (like Samsung and Motorola), and Apple. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.,_Ltd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electroni....
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    The fallacy is looking at Motorola as an individual company and not as a member of the Android ecosystem. This is not about Apple vs Motorola, it is Apple vs Android. As Rockstar's suit shows, it's really Apple/Microsoft vs All_Android_Vendors. In that regard, Microsoft and Apple struck first.
    - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
      So what you’re saying is, Motorola sued Apple because Apple was being mean to Motorola’s friends? “In early October 2010, Motorola Mobility [which would later be bought by Google in August of 2011] filed a complaint with the ITC against Apple alleging patent infringement. The complaint allegations concerned six Motorola patents, and sought remedies of a court-ordered bar on U.S. imports of infringing products, and an injunction prohibiting Apple from importing, marketing and distributing infringing products.”
      - cromwellian 13y ago
        No, what I'm saying is, if you want to claim that Google is responsible for the 2012 Motorola suit (not the 2010 one), that is, Google is responsible for it and not Motorola management, than Google did it on behalf of the Android ecosystem as a whole. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either Motorola is acting independently and carrying forward a battle that started prior to the Google acquisition, in which case, you have a false equivalence, or, Google is carrying out the attack, but if they are, then it is for Android as a whole, just as Google has attempted to assist other Android OEMS in past suits by asking the USPTO for re-examinations. To suggest that this isn't about iOS vs Android vs Windows Phone is ludicrous. Steve Jobs didn't scream "Motorola is a stolen product, I'm going thermonuclear on it", he say "Android is a stolen product..." Apple's suits against practically every Android vendor, from HTC to Samsung, Motorola, Huawei, ZTE, etc is obviously part of an ecosystem war Your suggestion is to act as if the USSR launched a missile at New York in the US, and Washington D.C. ordered California to launch a retaliatory strike, it can't possibly be because New York was attacked, and must be considered a First Strike!
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago
  Nokia filed several lawsuits against Apple in 2009. Nokia later also sued several makers of Android phones. At the time, Kodak and S3 sued just about every phone maker out there, including Apple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars
cromwellian 13y ago
Disingenuous? Let's talk reality. Apple sells hardware, Microsoft has a licensed software business. Android is a fundamental threat to both businesses. Google doesn't make any money from Android. Now, who has an incentive to launch patent lawsuits as an attempt to restrain competitors? The one whose business model is fundamentally threatened by open, free operating systems, or those who don't make any money from them? Which actors have an incentive to try and impose costs on open source? It is fundamentally not in Google's interest to ban iPhones, as they make money on iPhones just like they do the desktop Web. A commoditized mobile industry, or a competitive mobile industry is a net win for Google, only a monopoly monoculture is a loss for Google. Left to their own devices, Google could undermine iPhone by just shipping Android for free, no need for legal fights to undermine it. Microsoft in particular had a plan to try and stop Linux when it started eating up the server-side market by launching or threatening patent IP issues, for much the same reason as the current attacks on Android. The reality is, the only recourse for proprietary vendors to go after something that is free is to use the force of government and the courts. Which company has a founder/CEO who openly proclaimed in inflammatory rhetoric that he was going to "destroy" and go "thermonuclear"? Which company has threatened and asserted more patent attacks? You cite a single instance in which Google inherited a long running fight between Motorola Mobility and Apple, but completely ignore the fact that Apple has sued pretty much every Android vendor, and Microsoft has shaken down many. What do you call Microsoft's shakedown of B&N's Nook? You think that's morally equivalent to Motorola? This is about as intellectually honest as the people who try to compare Fox News to CNN, or claim that the "extreme left" in Congress is just as bad as the "extreme right", despite the fact that none of the "socialists" in Congress have brought the government to a two week shutdown, or a debt crisis. I don't call someone who abuses the system better at "playing the game", that suggests that this is a fun activity with no moral or ethical repercussions. I call someone who is better at abusing the legal system MORE immoral than someone who is doesn't do it as much. In order words, it is not a game. Calling it one is a disingenuous attempt to paper over what is disgusting behavior and whitewash it enough that you can try to draw a moral equivalence by leveling it all out. Yes, Google is pursuing what is in their self interest, but there is nothing immoral about releasing stuff as source for free or competing in the marketplace. It is not evil, despite the fact that Jobs tried to say it was. What is immoral is gumming up the courts and using the force of the government to beat your competitors because you can't stop consumers from choosing other products.

by IBM 13y ago

cageface 13y ago

It would be naive to think that Google doesn't put its own interests first. That's the nature of any public corporation. However, there's a world of difference between corporations competing in the marketplace and winning by providing superior value for the customer and using a patent system pretty much everybody acknowledges is broken to have a second turn at bat after their own product strategies have failed. Until recently there was a gentleman's agreement among the big tech companies that patents weren't to be used offensively. We all suffer when every trivial detail of any software product is open to expensive litigation.

nileshtrivedi 13y ago

It's not just PR. You didn't address cromwellian's point at all. His central point is that Apple and Microsoft started the "game". Edit: "Playing the game" too is a terrible analogy for patents lawsuits.

IBM 13y ago
I addressed it in a comment further down. From FOSS Patents: >A few months after that Zeitgeist talk, in January 2012, Google authorized a Motorola Mobility lawsuit against Apple over six patents in the Southern District of Florida. The merger agreement was publicly available and absolutely unequivocal about the fact that Motorola needed Google's consent prior to bringing new IP assertions while the merger was under antitrust review. And Motorola was the first to sue Apple. I didn't find a wiki article about Microsoft and Motorola so I don't know who started it there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility_v._Apple_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility_v._Apple_Inc.
- WildUtah 13y ago
  Apple sued Samsung, the world's largest maker of Android phones in dozens of countries, with masses of garbage patents in 2011[0]. Google provided the software that Apple was attacking, but was not considered to have standing to intervene. Instead, Google used its Motorola subsidiary to sue back with its own garbage patents and restore the MAD status quo. But Apple undoubtedly attacked first. Actually Microsoft was the First Evil, but Apple was first between Google, Google's licensed manufacturers (like Samsung and Motorola), and Apple. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.,_Ltd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electroni....
- cromwellian 13y ago
  The fallacy is looking at Motorola as an individual company and not as a member of the Android ecosystem. This is not about Apple vs Motorola, it is Apple vs Android. As Rockstar's suit shows, it's really Apple/Microsoft vs All_Android_Vendors. In that regard, Microsoft and Apple struck first.
  - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
    So what you’re saying is, Motorola sued Apple because Apple was being mean to Motorola’s friends? “In early October 2010, Motorola Mobility [which would later be bought by Google in August of 2011] filed a complaint with the ITC against Apple alleging patent infringement. The complaint allegations concerned six Motorola patents, and sought remedies of a court-ordered bar on U.S. imports of infringing products, and an injunction prohibiting Apple from importing, marketing and distributing infringing products.”
    - cromwellian 13y ago
      No, what I'm saying is, if you want to claim that Google is responsible for the 2012 Motorola suit (not the 2010 one), that is, Google is responsible for it and not Motorola management, than Google did it on behalf of the Android ecosystem as a whole. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either Motorola is acting independently and carrying forward a battle that started prior to the Google acquisition, in which case, you have a false equivalence, or, Google is carrying out the attack, but if they are, then it is for Android as a whole, just as Google has attempted to assist other Android OEMS in past suits by asking the USPTO for re-examinations. To suggest that this isn't about iOS vs Android vs Windows Phone is ludicrous. Steve Jobs didn't scream "Motorola is a stolen product, I'm going thermonuclear on it", he say "Android is a stolen product..." Apple's suits against practically every Android vendor, from HTC to Samsung, Motorola, Huawei, ZTE, etc is obviously part of an ecosystem war Your suggestion is to act as if the USSR launched a missile at New York in the US, and Washington D.C. ordered California to launch a retaliatory strike, it can't possibly be because New York was attacked, and must be considered a First Strike!
Samuel_Michon 13y ago
Nokia filed several lawsuits against Apple in 2009. Nokia later also sued several makers of Android phones. At the time, Kodak and S3 sued just about every phone maker out there, including Apple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars

cromwellian 13y ago

Disingenuous? Let's talk reality. Apple sells hardware, Microsoft has a licensed software business. Android is a fundamental threat to both businesses. Google doesn't make any money from Android. Now, who has an incentive to launch patent lawsuits as an attempt to restrain competitors? The one whose business model is fundamentally threatened by open, free operating systems, or those who don't make any money from them? Which actors have an incentive to try and impose costs on open source? It is fundamentally not in Google's interest to ban iPhones, as they make money on iPhones just like they do the desktop Web. A commoditized mobile industry, or a competitive mobile industry is a net win for Google, only a monopoly monoculture is a loss for Google. Left to their own devices, Google could undermine iPhone by just shipping Android for free, no need for legal fights to undermine it. Microsoft in particular had a plan to try and stop Linux when it started eating up the server-side market by launching or threatening patent IP issues, for much the same reason as the current attacks on Android. The reality is, the only recourse for proprietary vendors to go after something that is free is to use the force of government and the courts. Which company has a founder/CEO who openly proclaimed in inflammatory rhetoric that he was going to "destroy" and go "thermonuclear"? Which company has threatened and asserted more patent attacks? You cite a single instance in which Google inherited a long running fight between Motorola Mobility and Apple, but completely ignore the fact that Apple has sued pretty much every Android vendor, and Microsoft has shaken down many. What do you call Microsoft's shakedown of B&N's Nook? You think that's morally equivalent to Motorola? This is about as intellectually honest as the people who try to compare Fox News to CNN, or claim that the "extreme left" in Congress is just as bad as the "extreme right", despite the fact that none of the "socialists" in Congress have brought the government to a two week shutdown, or a debt crisis. I don't call someone who abuses the system better at "playing the game", that suggests that this is a fun activity with no moral or ethical repercussions. I call someone who is better at abusing the legal system MORE immoral than someone who is doesn't do it as much. In order words, it is not a game. Calling it one is a disingenuous attempt to paper over what is disgusting behavior and whitewash it enough that you can try to draw a moral equivalence by leveling it all out. Yes, Google is pursuing what is in their self interest, but there is nothing immoral about releasing stuff as source for free or competing in the marketplace. It is not evil, despite the fact that Jobs tried to say it was. What is immoral is gumming up the courts and using the force of the government to beat your competitors because you can't stop consumers from choosing other products.