3 ms·

Reality? Let's talk biased viewpoints. > Google doesn't make any money from Android. Are you claiming Google puts out Android as an exercise in charity? If no

Reality? Let's talk biased viewpoints. > Google doesn't make any money from Android. Are you claiming Google puts out Android as an exercise in charity? If not, this is a non-sequitur. > Which company has a founder/CEO who openly proclaimed in inflammatory rhetoric that he was going to "destroy" and go "thermonuclear"? Ok, let's play this game too! Which company has a CEO who openly proclaimed "if you have something you don't want other people to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place"? Oh, hey, look, Google supports the NSA! > shaken down > abusing > abusing the legal system > Microsoft's shakedown of B&N's Nook I thought we had discussed the usage of this rhetoric in view of your employer's antics. Don't remember? Read on! > You think that's morally equivalent to Motorola? Oh, you want to bring up Motorola? Well, aren't you in for a treat! Read on! > This is about as intellectually honest as... Oh, you want to talk intellectual honesty, do you? Well, why don't you read on to see what your employer has been up to! > 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. And there is nothing immoral about protecting your legally given IP rights. Unless, of course, you assume your definition of morality. Which oddly enough, happens to align with Google's whenever it's convenient. > It is not evil, despite the fact that Jobs tried to say it was. (This is an aside and actually detracts from my point, but I'm genuinely curious; did Jobs actually say that?) >* 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.* No, what is immoral is trampling on other people's Intellectual Property rights, ripping off their creative work without proper compensation, avoiding the extreme risks and expenses in creating a new market that they undertook, and then competing unfairly by undercutting them by dumping a product for free funded by search monopoly profits. See? I can spin things to fit a narrative too! And customers' choice?? Hah! Customers will choose whatever is cheaper, which is exactly why antitrust law has provisions against predatory pricing. Wait, what's that? Google has not been sued under antitrust laws? Well, guess what, Microsoft and Apple have not been sued (successfully, at least) for abusing patents either, yet you and others here sling that accusation around here pretty freely. But wait! Did someone say "sued for abusing patents"? (And here's the pay-off) Guess who has been sued and slapped by a federal jury with millions in damages for abusing patents!

cromwellian 13y ago
>Are you claiming Google puts out Android as an exercise in charity? If not, this is a non-sequitur. Where did I say that? There's a difference between giving something away for free and altruistic charity. Apple gave away OSX, are you suggesting it's an exercise in charity? Android is a strategic moat for Google's main business, it is not a profit center. On Steve Jobs, http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-says-googles-dont-be-evil-motto-is-bullshit-2010-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-says-googles-dont-... "We did not enter the search business, Jobs said. They entered the phone business. ... This don’t be evil mantra: “It’s bullshit.” The implication in Job's quote is that Google was wrong, unethical, or evil to "enter the phone business", as if Apple has some god given right to own the phone business? The rest of your post comes down to a disagreement on basic principles for which we will never agree. I have opposed software patents for decades, far longer than I've been a Google employee (indeed, I was attracted to Google because of its stance on software freedom) From your profile and your posts, you seem to have a vested interest in patents, possibly even a lawyer or an employee of IP vultures. That's fine, as Upton Sinclair said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" My salary doesn't depend on open source or being against software patents, I have hated them since I began programming software in the 80s. I stand against them on principle, and I don't believe in intellectual property in general. All the other attempted utilitarian justifications are bullshit. They might hold for pharmaceuticals, or other industries where it may take 10 years to R&D a drug, but the idea that software patents represent extreme risks and expenses in development is ludicrous, and anyone who has written more than a few thousand lines of code knows that. The VC justification is bullshit too, I founded, raised funding, and sold two startup companies without patents. The concept of predatory pricing makes no sense for something owned by the public (open source). I would argue that if companies battling it out is creating and giving away knowledge or information to be owned by the public and freely copied, then it is a good for society and is exactly the kind of thing we want to be encouraging. Your vested interest is in protecting corporate interests against the public it seems. If Google stood against the public interest in this regard, I would be the first to raise hell. It just happens my employer, for the most part, shares the same view I've always held.
- comex 13y ago

cromwellian 13y ago

>Are you claiming Google puts out Android as an exercise in charity? If not, this is a non-sequitur. Where did I say that? There's a difference between giving something away for free and altruistic charity. Apple gave away OSX, are you suggesting it's an exercise in charity? Android is a strategic moat for Google's main business, it is not a profit center. On Steve Jobs, http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-says-googles-dont-be-evil-motto-is-bullshit-2010-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-says-googles-dont-... "We did not enter the search business, Jobs said. They entered the phone business. ... This don’t be evil mantra: “It’s bullshit.” The implication in Job's quote is that Google was wrong, unethical, or evil to "enter the phone business", as if Apple has some god given right to own the phone business? The rest of your post comes down to a disagreement on basic principles for which we will never agree. I have opposed software patents for decades, far longer than I've been a Google employee (indeed, I was attracted to Google because of its stance on software freedom) From your profile and your posts, you seem to have a vested interest in patents, possibly even a lawyer or an employee of IP vultures. That's fine, as Upton Sinclair said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" My salary doesn't depend on open source or being against software patents, I have hated them since I began programming software in the 80s. I stand against them on principle, and I don't believe in intellectual property in general. All the other attempted utilitarian justifications are bullshit. They might hold for pharmaceuticals, or other industries where it may take 10 years to R&D a drug, but the idea that software patents represent extreme risks and expenses in development is ludicrous, and anyone who has written more than a few thousand lines of code knows that. The VC justification is bullshit too, I founded, raised funding, and sold two startup companies without patents. The concept of predatory pricing makes no sense for something owned by the public (open source). I would argue that if companies battling it out is creating and giving away knowledge or information to be owned by the public and freely copied, then it is a good for society and is exactly the kind of thing we want to be encouraging. Your vested interest is in protecting corporate interests against the public it seems. If Google stood against the public interest in this regard, I would be the first to raise hell. It just happens my employer, for the most part, shares the same view I've always held.

comex 13y ago