Slashdot Mirror
Motorola To Collect Royalties For Android
tlhIngan writes "It looks like Motorola wants to join in on the Android patent licensing fun enjoyed by Microsoft and others. (Yes, the same Motorola that makes Android phones.) Motorola CEO Sanjay Jha has stated they plan to collect licensing royalties from other Android manufacturers. Given Motorola's involvement in the mobile industry, they certainly do have the portfolio to go with it. It's interesting times ahead for Android."
Motorola is one of the oldest (if not the oldest) player in the mobile market. Expect the other big players that dont already have cross-licensing deals with Motorola to be begging for such a deal.
.. at least in the phone space.
Android has a strong future, but its no longer "free beer!"
"His name was James Damore."
Android is based on Linux and other open-source software. Google also open-sourced most of their own contributions under an Apache license. I don't see that as evil. Now the patent trolls are going after them with overly broad patents (yet another indication of the broken patent system), primarily due to the success of Android. The patent infringement allegations have not been proven. Android is just simply better but the established players can't deal with that.
Google's biggest mistake was using the Java language. That has always been a legal time bomb, since it was never made an open standard.
--
The early bird catches the worm. The worm that sleeps late lives to see another day.
Its because things were too simple so the companies decided to complicate things.
What tells you Microsoft has all the patents? Doesn't even look like Apple can protect app developers who use their APIs. Sorry but HTC/Motorola/Samsung/LG knew full well that patents could be levied. It's just the name of the game and they are good at it, Motorola can try to assert it's patent but I'm pretty sure others have patents they infringe. Who looses? Anyone else trying to build a Android device that doesn't have a gazillion patents. Little tablet companies are a good example.
Lets use more appropriate words for the definitions.
Read radical news here
I had the great misfortune of spending a large portion of my life living and doing business under a Communist dictatorship. There was a reason Communism failed; those of us subjected to it hated it! But after reading more and more about how "intellectual property" impacts American businesses, in many ways it makes the Communist system sound better. While we had a lot of bullshit bureaucracy to deal with, it was nevertheless much more efficient than this American nonsense.
When developing a product, we didn't have a larger proportion of the development cost going towards lawyers and IP legalities than we had going to the engineers and manufacturers who actually created the product!
We didn't have products forced out of the marketplace due to licensing problems, depriving consumers of devices that are otherwise safe, useful, and valuable.
We didn't have businesses whose sole purpose was to leech off of the hard work of others by requiring licensing of their "intellectual property". Even the committees and other bureaucratic bullshitters we had to deal with, which in many ways were leeches as well, provided some minimalistic amount of beneficial coordination and consensus-building.
It's no wonder so many Asian countries are wiping the floor with America these days, economically speaking. You Americans have built yourself a "free market" that's extremely stupidly regulated in all of the wrong ways, and extremely inefficient, as well!
All of what I think is based on huge amounts of speculation. But I don't yet see Motorola as an evil company.
The Motorola patents aren't likely to be software patents and I have to wonder if any of them will be. Motorola and mobile phones go way back after all. I think if Motorola strikes deals with other android mobile phone makers which is reasonable and affordable, then it's just fine. It could also prove to be highly defensive of the Android community once they strike deals early on with Android phone namers, they will naturally expand to other phone makers.
(This is where my speculations turn to hopes)
Once Motorola turn to other mobile phone makers, I hope the deals with makers such as Apple include deals which prohibit their actions against Android makers.
As others have pointed out, Apple does NOT want to mess with Motorola. Motorola has been patenting mobile technologies for a LOT longer than Apple has which gives Motorola the upper hand in these kinds of situations.
It starts with a few companies who "only" want to collect $5, or $10, or $35 per Android device. I suppose we can all nod our heads and agree that the mighty should be able to throw their weight around. It feels right. Who cares about the details - we're sure Linux must have stolen something. Otherwise how could it be so great? And so cheap?
But nothing stops the flow of new complaints. Do you know how many software patents there are? How many new applications per day? How many are obvious, trivial, or overly broad? Soon it will be a dozen companies collecting a Linux tax - forget merely on Android - and then it will be 30. A gold rush will ensue - get on the list of people who have to be paid off. Name your own price - the world's high tech giants will have to pay up! But, oh dear. iOS will suddenly have the exact same problem. Do you know how many patents they violate? So will Windows Phone. So will Blackberry. So will those little "learn to read" kiddie computers they sell in Toys R Us. So will everyone.
When it finally becomes more than just a few pariahs and evil actors in the tech industry who try to enforce their patents, it ends with every product having dozens and then hundreds of lawyers showing up to tax them. The only question is, how much economic damage will we do to ourselves before we finally take the obvious step and abolish software patents - which were never even allowed in the first place in Europe, India, and China. This economically pernicious barratry is so obviously stupid that it makes the US an object ridicule abroad.
The tacit policy of allowing software to be patentable reduces competition, stifles innovation, breaks healthy markets, and diverts money to billion-dollar portfolio buys instead of jobs. The only thing it reliably accomplishes is enriching lawyers - the least economically productive activity imaginable.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
By no definition of what constitutes a mobile phone, did Motorola invent the mobile phone as is claimed by the article. They haven't even provided much refinements of pre-existing technology. They introduced the mobile phone to the US market, that's pretty much it. Next somebody claims that Bill Gates invented computers or operating systems.
The early history of mobile phone technology is shrouded in clouds. The Swedish military had mobile/portable phones in the 1930's, but they were likely not alone.
The development and introduction of a mobile phones for non-military use was almost exclusively done by Scandinavian actors. Beginning with the Swedish phones for use in cars and (more important) the technology for city wide mobile phone networks in the late 1940's, and culminating in the NMT system in 1981, that unified the different Scandinavian national network technologies into one, most of it already old and proven technology (the most important inovation of the NMT system, was the idea to dial the phone number and then connect to the phone net, not connect to the phone net and then dial the phone number, as had been done since the first automatic phone systems (also Scandinavian inventions, by the way, the first phones was invented and made by Italians, not Graham Bell (he copied the mechanism of his phone from an article in a paper) or any other US-American, just to set things straight)).
All mobile phone technology that have been invented after that, is just small refinements.
China needs to face some serious issues that are not easily solved before they will rise to "most powerful nation" status.
China is in economic danger because of the threat of social unrest. While they have kept things tight so far, unrest has only been minor. They can't allow hundreds of millions to rise up in protest, and yet the only way to prevent that from happening is to keep giving them more and more of the things they want.
The people demand a better quality of life so the government cannot "simply" keep wages artificially low forever. Keeping pace with the western world, thus maintaining a large wage advantage while still incrementally improving the quality of life is no longer viable, for the western world is sliding backwards now. They must choose between the incremental improvements necessary to prevent unrest and the wage advantage necessary to remain competitive.
My fear is that they will try to maintain the wage advantage and thus eventually have to beat down hundreds of millions.. sparking the largest body count in the history of the world.. making Mao, Stalin, and Hitler look like saints...
"His name was James Damore."
Google's biggest mistake was using the Java language. That has always been a legal time bomb, since it was never made an open standard.
True, since Oracle is the only company targeting Google specifically
Now the patent trolls are going after them with overly broad patents (yet another indication of the broken patent system), primarily due to the success of Android.
I don't think they're targeting Android so much as other phone manufacturers. I think we'll see that most of Motorola's patents relate to phone hardware - they really haven't done much in the phone software space. They're talking about doing more of this to help make their phones stand out compared to other Android phones - either by driving up competitor's prices or forcing them to drop features. This is actually a fairly reasonable use of the patent system since Motorola actually makes phones using their patents - it isn't "trolling" as we usually discuss it here.
Motorola 'may' collect royalties on phones that violate their hardware patents including Android phones. Its not the same thing as collecting royalties for Android or any particular feature of the operating system itself. It still sucks in my opinion but lets get real here this is not about software patents which remain the bulk of the problem with companies like Microsoft, Eolas, Lodsys and Apple. Software is already protected by copyright it should not be stifled with patents. And people on here parroting the notion coined my Microsoft Public Relations such as "Developers should indemnify users" are pathetic trolls. When you claim that developers should 'indemnify' users you are claiming that in order to write software or be a developer you have to have billions of dollars and a massive legal department in order to write code and distribute it. That is a farce notion pioneered and spread throughout the press by Microsoft PR against open source after the SCO fiasco which they funded.
Our wonderful omniscient current production model already has moved manufacturing jobs to South East Asia. Following this strategy of software patents will very soon also move design and innovation abroad. Once it is done all there is left is ownership and royalties. The situation will eclipse as China has grown to be the most powerful nation, which is in 5-10 years.
This is like watching a bacteria culture in a bottle... from inside. Reminds me of the Einstein quote "I know not with what weapons world war 3 will be fought but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones".
Particularly as it's now Chinese companies that annually apply for the most patents - and mostly they're manufacturing patents not stupidity like "device for transferring voice" "idea for word processor". Ten years ago Nokia and Microsoft shares were a good investment. Not anymore. There's a good reason for that.
This one of several blogs I've seen make this claim the past two days, and I'm honestly still at a loss to explain their assumption. There is nothing in Jha's quote to indicate they are going after other Android makers. The blog linked from the summary says during its Q2 earnings conference call Motorola hinted that it is ready to join Android patent racket, and start demanding licensing fees for its IP from other Android manufacturers.
He based that claim on these comments:
With new entrants in the mobile space, resulting from the convergence of mobility, media, computing and the internet, our patent portfolio is increasingly important...Probably a little less well known is our strength in patent portfolio in non-essential patents, which are capabilities that are important to have in delivering competitive products in the marketplace...As we go forward, I think that the introduction of number of players with large revenues, which have come into the marketplace as a result of the convergence of the mobility, computing, internet and other segments, I think that that creates an opportunity for us to monetize and maximize the shareholder value in a number of different ways and we evaluate all of them all the time.
From that, the blogger now knows that Motorola plans to collect $60 per handset from HTC and Samsung. Or so he says. Now, he's made a new post, using a new quote from Jha to cement his position. He claims that this week Motorola’s CEO Sanjay Jha reiterated this message, and made it even more clear – they do indeed have plans to start collecting IP royalties from other Android makers. What did Jha say that so clearly showed Motorola's plans to sue their Android brethren?
I would bring up IP as a very important for differentiation (among Android vendors). We have a very large IP portfolio, and I think in the long term, as things settle down, you will see a meaningful difference in positions of many different Android players. Both, in terms of avoidance of royalties, as well as potentially being able to collect royalties. And that will make a big difference to people who have very strong IP positions.
That seems more likely (to me) to say that Motorola is not HTC and will not be paying Microsoft blackmail money. In fact, they may be able to extract their own pound of flesh from Microsoft and Apple. What in that passage gives any hint that Motorola will be pursuing other Android manufacturers? I'm at a loss.
Most of the value of a Google branded Android phone comes from it being connected to the Internet, just like any PC, only smaller. The actual phone part they don't even make (and it runs in a separate, isolated CPU). Most of what Android is is an application stack that is not very different from desktop applications. I really don't see how some old phone related patents can apply to that. Now the GSM, CDMA, 3G, 4G, etc. implementations do have patents associated with them, but those would rightly be paid by the phone manufacturers. These manufacturers get the application stack side for free to enhance the value of their phones. They also modify it as they see fit, generally making it worse. So Google would like the user experience to be better, so they impose certain restrictions regarding app store access if the OS is drastically modified. What is wrong with that?
--
The early bird catches the worm. The worm that sleeps late lives to see another day.
There's a distinction between patents for hardware and methodology and patents for software. IMHO the software patents should all be invalidated and the tech sector would almost immediately improve. Much of software could still be protected under the copyright and trade secret systems, but this constant legal maneuvering between the major players and their attorneys would be ended. Think of the money saved from that alone.
Apple is selling iPads as fast as they can make them. Xoom and Galaxy aren't anywhere close to denting their sales.
IMO, there are quite a few good reasons to give Apple grief over their Motorola and Samsung lawsuits. But that the allegation that Apple is motivated to bring these suits forward because their products are not able to compete on their own merits in the marketplace is not one of them.
Now, were Apple going after Palm over Newton patents a decade ago, I think you might be able to make such a case. But that allegation over the iPad is just goofy.
Seems like a win for Asian manufacturers to me, as if US based companies don't want to be successful.
They do - it's geographic location and patriotism that blinds people to the truth - business goes where the money is, when it's not in the US, then they (sic) cease to be American companies. Or they base themselves in Washington to avoid US tax, and spend money on killing off profitable mobile phone manufactures just to strip them of patents as a means of avoiding paying US tax on all their European earnings.
If Motorola is targeting Android manufacturers that implies that it is something about Android that is infringing Motorola's patents. Since Android only consists of software, the patents it is infringing by definition must be software patents.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
So Google should provide a free OS and take the liability costs of defending all patent trolls? That seems like a losing proposition. Of course, like Florian the Troll, the real suggestion is that Google should close source Android, charge licensing fee to manufacturers, and provide legal indemnity with it. This is a scene from Ballmer's nastiest wet dream, not a realistic proposal.
Motorola makes Android phones so the prices of their competitors will go up and since Motorola owns the patents they don't have to pay anything extra. At that point Motorola could either keep the prices of their Android phones low to undercut the competition or keep the prices in line with everyone else and take in the extra money as profit.
So that means that the GSM patents are just now in public domain
My droid is the last moto phone I will purchase.
If you're avoiding products from manufacturers who try to enforce their patents, you're going to be living in a cave real soon now.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
Actually, mobile phone patents are one area where the patents indeed are very specific. Most of the oldest companies in the industry (Nokia especially) had to do significant amount of R&D to get the whole industry to where it's now. It's far from the likes of software patents - mobile phone patents are deserved and the companies that have them have spend billions to develop the technology. It's only fair that someone who wants to profit from that research pays some of the costs via patent licenses.
Patents for manufacturing processes are one thing (and I support them), patents for use of language (and ideas) are the tools of bandits. If Nokia wants to double dip and charge people who use their phone and charge people who don't use *their* phones or *their* components - then I'll call thuggery. But we're not talking about manufacturing processes with Nokia or Motorola - it's "idea" patents - which is banditry practised by big players over small players (bullying) - and ultimately bad for Business (shitting in the water supply). When Nokia's patents are for software that pays a royalty to the people and companies that wrote the code libraries, or compiler they where build with - and a royalty to every language they were based on - including the English language (why doesn't anyone think of Shakespeare's children?) then I 'll indulge you in your bullshit justifications. Until then I'll call them what they are - bullshit.
Your justifications smack of the sort of servile paganism that believes if they worship and pay tribute with words to the powers that be - then they too will share in those powers. It doesn't work with worshipping football teams or "stars" either. Of course you may hold large blocks of shares with one of those companies in which case you are protecting your interests and I unreservedly retract the accusation that you are no better than the cock-sucking thieving liars, thugs and bullies you defend.
P.S. Welcome to Slashdot. Today you're the new guy.
Soon it won't be profitable to sell any Android handsets cheaper than an iPhone.
What are they (Motorola) thinking of? Do you ever want to sell another handset or are you transitioning into a patent Troll?
Actually, I think most of the mobile phone industry is in a similar position.
They're trying desperately to avoid phone handsets becoming a commodity. Historically, this has been fairly easy because every manufacturer had their strengths and their weaknesses. Software was often a weakness, hence why they frequently bring it in from outside (cf. Android, Windows Mobile, Symbian).
The problem with Android is that it's a game changer. Already we see companies that produce mobile phones have stepped up their development pace pretty drastically - once a few Chinese companies start punting reference designs the amount of work for any old fred to enter the phone industry is drastically reduced. This is going to hammer the profit-per-phone - and when you've got a $multi-billion global company, you can't really restructure it to account for such a sea change.
So you don't. You look for a way to stop Android from being such a destructive technology - and that's what we're seeing Motorola do. Make no mistake, they won't be the last.
I don't think they're targeting Android so much as other phone manufacturers. I think we'll see that most of Motorola's patents relate to phone hardware - they really haven't done much in the phone software space. They're talking about doing more of this to help make their phones stand out compared to other Android phones - either by driving up competitor's prices or forcing them to drop features. This is actually a fairly reasonable use of the patent system since Motorola actually makes phones using their patents - it isn't "trolling" as we usually discuss it here.
No - it's just double dipping. The US military paid Motorola's initial hardware development costs, at absolutely no risk to Motorola. Motorola now sells the same components on the civilian market (as the restriction period has expired). They made a profit the first time around, the second time around they had zero development costs and they charged less for the hardware - on which they made a profit, now they're charging again. Shitting in the water supply.
Try using the same argument to defend Northrop if your model manufacturer has to pay them a patent fee for your toy helicopter. Fortunately Northrop only patented manufacturing processes. Things may have changed now.
If you still think your ideas are sound, go ask the inventor of graphene didn't patent it (or things that can be made with it) HINT: he had a chat to one of the Motorola lawyers.
Although Apple has been known to buy things out, it's mainly small companies centering on very specific, underrated technology that they see as being able to leverage. Instead of whipping up their own copycat version and risk an established (even if very small) company suing and winning, they just buy them. Many technologies in Apple's hardware and software were purchased, to save on R&D as well as patent lawsuits.
It also gives them a head start on that idea - people watch Apple with a microscope, and when they start working on something, lots of trolls take notice a and start to look for ways to get their claws into a piece of it somehow, since Apple has a history of finding new markets. If they suddenly snatch up a little company that specializes in an unproven technology, the same thing happens, but Apple has a tremendous development head start, and has the necessary patents already in place.
Apple isn't big on buying larger companies. Too much dead weight to deal with. As you were saying, keep the patents and sell the rest. Why bother with the latter when you can buy a trim little company whose primary assets are the patents and the engineers that specialize in what you're interested in? So much easier that way to shed the remainder you don't need. Compare that with say, MS's recent purchase of Skype. They waited longer than they should have for sure, (microsoft's slow reaction time is a heavy burden on them in new arenas) but it's the same idea. But it still gives them a tremendous jumpstart both technologically and legally, without much drag.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
China uses the same tactics as the US did during the cold war. The tell their people how corrupt and evil everyone else is and the only way to be 'pure' is to give up as much as they can to the government. As long as they keep the west as the big bad wolf they will keep their people in line. Oh wait that's the same thing that's happening to us!
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
Don't you even want to wait until they actually do it? Right now it's just speculation. And if and when they do do it, maybe you'd want to evaluate their claims first?
That you, Florian?
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
I believe that if someone spent money developing an idea, they should get to say what people do with it.
The patent system was not designed to stop people copying ideas, it was to stop people copying implementations of ideas.
In software, copyright law already provides that.
There are too many people in the world to give a monopoly to a single person on an idea. There is likely not a single idea you will ever have that someone, somewhere has not thought of before you.
Except for the fact
Citation needed.
that Apple developed many of the technologies used in Android. For instance, I recall "data detectors" being discussed at WWDC in the mid 1990s.
*cough* just after Apple's ex-Nokia staff built the PenMac *cough*
Given the state of development at the time, I would guestimate that they spent millions developing it.
Does Apple pay Xerox a royalty for a GUI? No. Did Apple invent touch screens?? Do you know why Apple's legal department canned the PenMac?
When finally introduced in the iPhone they represented a tremendous advance in usability terms.
Ah those famous wikipedia "opinion" standards - "tremendous" advance in "usability". Do you mean they made doing "things" cooler? Perhaps you meant more efficiently? No? Did the iPhone make using mobile phones simpler - or quicker?
Google simply copied this UI for Android. I don't blame them, as Apple set a bar they had to meet. But as Apple already had a patent and was using it in a shipping product, they must have known they were in violation.
That is your "belief" - it's certainly not a fact.
I believe that if someone spent money developing an idea, they should get to say what people do with it.
Some people believe they are Napoleon - try not to confuse facts with beliefs.
The US military paid Motorola's initial hardware development costs, at absolutely no risk to Motorola.
That's a pretty unusual idea. Care to cite where you got it? Motorola sold its government business back in 2001. What ten-year-old phone hardware components are being used today?
If you wish to make a mobile product you have two choices, you can either pay licenses for all the broad and obvious ideas that are patented in this field thus making it impossible to make a profit or you can ignore the patents and fight in court against them.
Since you haven't actually invented anything, it's easy for you to say that patents are crap.
However, for the people involved, they may have actually put a lot of hard work, thought, and know-how into what the patent covers. Things that are obvious today aren't obvious when you're the first mover in the space.
Mechanical patents can seem just as ridiculous as software patents, if you bother to read them. Does the patent regime make sense?
Let's put it this way: if you were going to spend a few hundred million of your own dollars, wouldn't you want some protection against some yahoo coming along, copying your work, and selling it for less?
What if Motorola charge Google $0.02 per android to cover licence infringement.
Google then charge Motorola $0.02 for every mobile with android sold
on paper Both are getting large royalties from each other but in reality it zero's out.
(*note* figures are examples only and not representative of any financial calculations, but you get the idea.)
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
Or as a consumer, you can vote with your dollars. All my previous cellphones were Motorola. Last week I picked up an LG.
Unfortunately if you boycot the bad guys they'll just waive their falling sales numbers as proof that their 'intellectual property' is being stolen. This will be followed by more lawsuits to 'redress the balance' and lobbying for greater protectionism in law. It is regrettable that the lawmakers across most of the 1st world seem to be far too self serving to work out what is really best for the population as a whole and come up with a balanced approach to IP.
Using parentheses (or "round brackets" as you call them) does not change the fact that you used "sic" incorrectly.
Self-siccing: While chiefly used in text that is not one's own, occasionally, a sic is included by a writer after his or her own word(s) to note that the language has been chosen deliberately, especially where a reader may naturally doubt the writer's intentions.[30] Bryan A. Garner dubbed this kind of siccing as the "ironic use," ...
Nonetheless, a writer's siccing of his or her own words may lead readers to confuse the source of the sic as being the book's editor and is often considered strange even when the sic's source is understood.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
They took the wise (if slightly evil) route of just giving out as "free" and not mentioning that other companies have patents that affects anyone using Android.
Yes, brilliantly evil plan:
1. Make something, give it out for free
2. Other companies use it, then get hit with costs
3. ???
4. PROFIT!
Google is surely laughing all the way to the unbank with all of that not-money they've made from not selling android.
The US military paid Motorola's initial hardware development costs, at absolutely no risk to Motorola.
Motorola sold its government business back in 2001.
You are correct - and most of there defence contracts expired in the early nineties. If you get to meet some of the Motorola engineers that worked on the original backpack phones you can ask them, don't expect an answer (hint: for Cooper and his team development was 2 parts inspiration and 10 parts "acquired" from Europe). Would you like a link to an undisputed source the "proves" the original work was that of duplicating the work of Philips and Nokia? It's in the same filing cabinet as the one showing who killed JFK. What you need is a document that says Motorola wasn't hired to develop - that they simply sold a product.
What ten-year-old phone hardware components are being used today?
Are you being obtuse? Did I say it was hardware components? What technology has Motorola developed since the 90s that isn't based on their military work? Show me a single source of reliable information in the last 5 years of the mobile IP wars where Motorola has been talking about infringement of *hardware* patents. Feel free to do you own research - no reason you should trust mine. Look at the patents Motorola claims have been infringed (hint it's not hardware) - then look at the patent date (hint 1973). Nokia patented a lot of hardware, Motorola patented "ideas". Just do the patent search - it's not rocket science.
Just because companies pay Motorola royalties doesn't mean those companies are using Motorola technology - just means they have lawyers.
Self-siccing: While chiefly used in text that is not one's own, occasionally, a sic is included by a writer after his or her own word(s) to note that the language has been chosen deliberately, especially where a reader may naturally doubt the writer's intentions.[30] Bryan A. Garner dubbed this kind of siccing as the "ironic use," ...
Nonetheless, a writer's siccing of his or her own words may lead readers to confuse the source of the sic as being the book's editor and is often considered strange even when the sic's source is understood.
West's Encyclopaedia of Law ain't Oxford Shorter
Welcome to Slashdot - were some people check facts, especially selectively quoted ones.
Using parentheses (or "round brackets" as you call them) does not change the fact that you used "sic" incorrectly.
Care to share the source of the authority to back your opinion? Or is it a secret between you and your college English lit teacher? I'll stick with the Oxford Shorter and Macquarie definitions until I then.
Sure, then how about spelling them appropriately too?
Carol vs. Ghost
Are you being obtuse? Did I say it was hardware components?
Yes, you did:
The US military paid Motorola's initial hardware development costs, at absolutely no risk to Motorola. Motorola now sells the same components on the civilian market (as the restriction period has expired). They made a profit the first time around, the second time around they had zero development costs and they charged less for the hardware - on which they made a profit, now they're charging again. (Emphasis added.)
So I ask you again: What ten-year-old phone hardware components are being used today?
How about every source on the internet I could find? I checked Wikipedia, the free dictionaries, various grammar sites, Chicago Manual of Style, Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style and so forth. I couldn't find a single reference, nor have I ever seen one, that has "sic" meaning, well, whatever the hell you intended it to mean (it's not at all clear).
Not really.
1980 patent: do something
1990 patent: do something via the internet.
2000 patent: do something on a mobile device.
[...]
2525 patent: do something on a different planet
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Unlike most "can't compete, litigate", assertions made here, this one is pretty true. Motorola can't make a phone that doesn't fall to pieces after six months, so they're obviously trying to make money off everyone's successes. At the start of 2010, they were without a hope in the world, and were looking at leaving the cellphone market entirely, or going under; their massive hit Android phones, the Dext/Cliq, Backflip, Droid/Milestone, basically let them claw their way back up from the depths. I didn't sell a single Motorola last year that didn't have to be sent away multiple times on warranty jobs; I was lucky in that my Backflip held out a month or so longer than others before the hinge mechanism started disconnecting the screen, probably just because I use my phone less.
Cue the dozen replies saying people have never had trouble with their fifteen year old Motorola. I'm sure their old phones are fine, but nothing made in the past seven or so years lasts more than six months.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
The funny thing about technology is that it's hard to get it working, but it's easy to copy. That's why patents exist and it's why they should exist.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Are you being obtuse? Did I say it was hardware components?
Yes, you did:
Indeed! :-(. Certainly not my intention. My apologies for the bum steer.
What I should of written (if it wasn't 3am at the end of 18 day) was:- "the hardware - on which they made a profit, now they're charging again for the "ideas"..
I'd be surprised if anyone uses any of the hardware they developed - but it hasn't been my field for a decade. It's my belief based on reading that none of the patents for which they claim ownership are based on hardware they developed OR concepts first used by them. Here's a few of the things they earn millions of dollars from annually, note that very few of these bear much resemblance to the actual patents:- software application management, GPRS, WCDMA (3G), 802.11, portable radio antenna design, wireless email, proximity sensing, location-based services , multi-device synchronization. That's the main earners and almost everyone is deceptively titled, many are based on work originally done by Sony.
The US military paid Motorola's initial hardware development costs, at absolutely no risk to Motorola. Motorola now sells the same components on the civilian market (as the restriction period has expired). They made a profit the first time around, the second time around they had zero development costs and they charged less for the hardware - on which they made a profit, now they're charging again. (Emphasis added.)
So I ask you again: What ten-year-old phone hardware components are being used today?
I have no idea - probably quite a few. Certainly Motorola sold licenses to many of their components - how many of those designs (like etched antennae) are still in use (but different form factors). And it's irrelevant to the discussion (that's imjustmatthew who claimed it was a reasonable charge for hardware). Motorola is extorting payments for patents on ideas - if recovering costs is their justification for it, as I stated earlier, it's bogus - given that they made a profit on all of that development - and the early "pioneering" work they did (mostly technology theft from other countries) was on no-risk military contracts.
How about every source on the internet I could find? I checked Wikipedia, the free dictionaries, various grammar sites, Chicago Manual of Style,
"quiet copyediting" - (unless where inappropriate or uncertain) instead of inserting a bracketed sic, such as by substituting in brackets the correct word (if known) in place of the incorrect word - that's your Wikipedia quote, attributed to the "American unofficial style guide". Which bears little resemblance to what the "Interpolations and Clarifications" 13.5.9 (16th edition) actually says - but you've read that... right?
Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style
"Usage of sic greatly increased in the mid-twentieth century." A classic 1998 work of fiction by Byraon A. Garner - the deceptively titled rehash of the Dictionary of Modern American Usage
and so forth. I couldn't find a single reference, nor have I ever seen one, that has "sic" meaning, well, whatever the hell you intended it to mean (it's not at all clear).
So you selectively scanned the page at Wikipedia. What next - you're going to use one of their "authoritative" references - like the author's blog? or maybe that article in the Phillipino newspaper?
The accepted usage in the wider English speaking world is [sic] denotes the editor highlighting a verbatim mistake, or (sic) denoting the writer clarifying something ambiguously worded, usually because it requires context.
No, I didn't selectively scan the Wikipedia article. I read the entire damn thing and Googled for usage rules for sic and could not find a single page that said anything other than that "[sic]" in brackets means the previous word in a quote, though incorrect, is retained from the original source and that "(sic)" could be used after a longer piece indicating that there are a number of errors, but they are either obvious or too numerous to be represented with a single "[sic]". Certainly, if your definition of "(sic)" (and I must reiterate, I'm not entirely sure /what/ you were trying to indicate by including "(sic)" after your own sentence) were correct and common, I'd have been able to find some page, some guide somewhere that would have mentioned that. You could easily point me to a source on the internet that explains your supposed usage. But you can't. You just keep making cryptic responses and dismissing all sources that disagree with you. I'm not really sure what to do here.
I don't have access to the Oxford Shorter, but Macquarie gives only this:
adverb so; thus (often used parenthetically to show that something, especially an error, has been copied exactly from the original). [Latin]
Android is based on Linux and other open-source software. Google also open-sourced most of their own contributions under an Apache license. I don't see that as evil.
If i give you something for free and know that you would be breaking the law if you actually used then that is a pretty immoral thing to do.
Now the patent trolls are going after them with overly broad patents (yet another indication of the broken patent system), primarily due to the success of Android.
Patent trolls? You mean competitors that hold patents on things that have been copied by Android (speaking in terms of the reality of the industry, not the way i really see it as i think pretty much all of these so-called 'inventions' are nothing of the sort). I agree the patent system is ridiculous and that many of the patents that Android allegedly infringes upon should not be patentable but you can't just say the patent system is broken and so im not going to abide by it but also do absolutely nothing to get it changed. Play by the rules or make an effort to change the rules, Google is doing neither.
The patent infringement allegations have not been proven. Android is just simply better but the established players can't deal with that.
Google could deal with that, they made the OS, they should start actively defending it and doing something to either eradicate software patents or indemnify their users (handset makers). Personally i prefer the former.
Google's biggest mistake was using the Java language. That has always been a legal time bomb, since it was never made an open standard.
Perhaps, but then again if they came up with their own language the ridiculousness of software patents would probably infect that language too.
on the Wikipedia
that you could search for on the google.
So Google should provide a free OS and take the liability costs of defending all patent trolls?
They should either play the game by defending their product against patent suits or actively work towards eliminating those patents and fixing the patent system. At this point they are doing neither of those things.
So that means that the early GSM patents are just now in public domain
FTFY. The GSM specs have been evolving over the last 20 years, and continue to do so as it enters the last maybe ten or so years of usefulness (and even that's a figure in doubt as the GSM network coverage is so ubiquitous - handset churn rate helps this along, though). GPRS and EDGE and enhancements to the specs, and even UMTS (incl HSPA) and LTE reuse & improve on some aspects of GSM. Patents are still being sought on GSM tech, and the spec still has changes being made by manufacturers and operators - especially when they have a patent on the change proposal
You might possibly be able to make a handset that technically does GSM without infringing on a patent, but it would be rather feature-light (if functioning at all, with modern network infrastructure).
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
hmm Perhaps the hammer is aimed quite well at the nail with this post.... Although I can't see an exit from Android for Motorola quite yet.
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
If i give you something for free and know that you would be breaking the law if you actually used then that is a pretty immoral thing to do.
In as much as infringing on patents is "breaking the law", everybody does it, just to keep doing business. So every tech company is immoral in this respect, and very nearly equally so.
Since the other person also knows about patents, he is expected to do a research and accept the free gift only if they have patents in their portfolios to counter-sue the litigators if they pop up. Nothing immoral here in this respect. It would have been immoral if Google promised that the free does not have patent risks, or that Google will protect the licensees from patent litigators but then actually not defend.
Do you really think Motorola, HTC, Samsung and friends do not have the ability to research for patents? That they didn't know Android could be a patent minefield? Being based on linux itself must have sent warning bells ringing, given Microsoft's rhetoric about the secret patents. They are no kids who were handed poisoned toffee by Google.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Agreed, in every particular - which I think is the first time that's ever happened to me on slashdot!
Kudos.
Z.
This articles seems a little irrelevant now that Google is going to buy Motorola. :)
In as much as infringing on patents is "breaking the law"
Well it is, in the current legal system if you infringe on patents then you are breaking patent laws.
So every tech company is immoral in this respect, and very nearly equally so.
You're missing the point, it's google's product that is infringing but they aren't taking any responsibility for that infringement.
Since the other person also knows about patents, he is expected to do a research and accept the free gift only if they have patents in their portfolios to counter-sue the litigators if they pop up. Nothing immoral here in this respect.
Of course it's immoral, it's google's product, they have the patent portfolio to back their product and defend their product but they choose not to.
Do you really think Motorola, HTC, Samsung and friends do not have the ability to research for patents? That they didn't know Android could be a patent minefield?
Of course they do, that doesn't mean Google shouldn't stand behind and defend its product. Do you really think the only companies targeted by Android are those with huge patent portfolios? Obviously if you don't have a huge patent portfolio you cannot afford to use Android, because the company who made it takes no responsibility for anything illegal in it. Red Hat and Novell stood up for their products, why not google?
In as much as infringing on patents is "breaking the law"
Well it is, in the current legal system if you infringe on patents then you are breaking patent laws.
Well, I said "In as much as", because not all countries recognize all kinds of patents.
Of course it's immoral, it's google's product, they have the patent portfolio to back their product and defend their product
Absolutely false. In the context in which this story appeared (Google had not bought Motorola by then), Google is extremely patent poor by its own admission. It has a totality of 1000 patents, many internet, ads and search related.
Obviously if you don't have a huge patent portfolio you cannot afford to use Android, because the company who made it takes no responsibility for anything illegal in it
Yes. Though, there is another category of companies which can afford to use Android - those which operate outside the software patent world. E.g. Chinese companies using Asia as the major market. EU countries as a market on a case by case basis could be evaluated, but EU too, is much less affected than US and highly US influenced countries.
From your refusal to acknowledge the existence of the world outside the US, you seem to be an American.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Absolutely false. In the context in which this story appeared (Google had not bought Motorola by then), Google is extremely patent poor by its own admission. It has a totality of 1000 patents, many internet, ads and search related.
Where do they have a total of only 1000 patents? And in any case number is irrelevant, it's what the patent is that matters. They have the resources to acquire patents to protect their product but they don't and they leave their own customers to fend for themselves with a product that infringes on patents in most markets.
Yes. Though, there is another category of companies which can afford to use Android - those which operate outside the software patent world. E.g. Chinese companies using Asia as the major market.
Actually i think you'll find the regulations on computer software protection as an extension to copyright cover many aspects of patents in China.
EU countries as a market on a case by case basis could be evaluated, but EU too, is much less affected than US and highly US influenced countries.
Rubbish, look at the way a Korean company (Samsung) has been pummeled by Apple IP lawsuits in those very markets.
From your refusal to acknowledge the existence of the world outside the US, you seem to be an American.
No i am not, i in no way refused to acknowledge the world outside the US, I didn't even mention the US or anything US-specific whatsoever so try to actually comprehend what is written in the post before you reply with rubbish like that and try to stay on topic instead. In fact i just know enough not to be ignorant about the fact that most of the world does in fact work with similar IP laws and that google's primary markets are respect those IP laws. Just look at how counterfeit Apple stores were taken down in China - one of the most lax regions for IP laws.
The fact remains that google's main target market and area of competition is the one in which google refuses to stand up for its own product (google's revenue in china makes up about 1% of their total), you can pretend that isn't the case but it is a fact.
Where do they have a total of only 1000 patents?
They might have the patent certificates in some offices / warehouses. But patent itself is intangible, so exists nowhere in particular.
They have the resources to acquire patents to protect their product but they don't
Who told you they don't? That is exactly what they are doing the Motorola deal for.
Rubbish, look at the way a Korean company (Samsung) has been pummeled by Apple IP lawsuits in those very markets.
"Case by case basis"
Just look at how counterfeit Apple stores were taken down in China - one of the most lax regions for IP laws.
When are you planning to learn the difference between patents and trademarks?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Where do they have a total of only 1000 patents?
They might have the patent certificates in some offices / warehouses. But patent itself is intangible, so exists nowhere in particular.
No, where is this figure presented, what are these patents?
They have the resources to acquire patents to protect their product but they don't
Who told you they don't? That is exactly what they are doing the Motorola deal for.
I don't to be told they don't, im not ignorant, i can see masses of lawsuits over Android and Google doing nothing to protect its customers from lawsuits brought against them because of its product.
Rubbish, look at the way a Korean company (Samsung) has been pummeled by Apple IP lawsuits in those very markets.
"Case by case basis"
Thanks captain obvious, all IP cases are done on a case by case basis.
Just look at how counterfeit Apple stores were taken down in China - one of the most lax regions for IP laws.
When are you planning to learn the difference between patents and trademarks?
Are you incapable of reading what was written? I said 'IP' laws (you even quoted it and still failed to comprehend it), which is what all of this falls under.
The simple irrefutable fact is that if you want to use Android in Google's target market you are likely to be sued for patent infringement over it and Google does nothing to protect you.
No, where is this figure presented, what are these patents?
In your last post, you were so confident Google has all the patents necessary to "defend" Android and its hardware partners. Now you don't know what Google patents are ?
I don't to be told they don't, im not ignorant,
Congratulations for don'ting to be told (whatever it means). As for you ignorance , whether you don't to be told or you don'tn't, :-
They have the resources to acquire patents to protect their product but they don't
Who told you they don't? That is exactly what they are doing the Motorola deal for.
... i can see masses of lawsuits over Android and Google doing nothing to protect its customers from lawsuits brought against them because of its product.
You say Google did nothing to "acquire" patents in spite of having resources. I pointed out that the Motorola deal is acquisition of patents. Which you ignored, or couldn't understand. Not ignorant indeed.
Thanks captain obvious, all IP cases are done on a case by case basis.
Yes
Are you incapable of reading what was written? I said 'IP' laws (you even quoted it and still failed to comprehend it),
The context is, what you cleverly omitted to quote, about patents. You gave an example of trademark law in China in response to my statement about patents in China. Not applicable.
So in spite of trademark law being honoured in China, there is no risk of being sued for USPTO patent violations in China. China protects patents of Chinese patent office, that too laxly. Clubbing them under IP doesn't make trademark examples applicable to patents.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
In your last post, you were so confident Google has all the patents necessary to "defend" Android and its hardware partners. Now you don't know what Google patents are ?
You just said they have only have 1000 patents, however given that you can't even tell me where you came up with that from it seems you made it up. We all know they have many very valuable patents in search and analytics and that the number is irrelevant, it's the content that matters. But you seem to be fixated on this number of 1000 that you seem to think isn't enough but don't seem to actually know what they are or where that number comes from.
I don't to be told they don't, im not ignorant,
Congratulations for don'ting to be told (whatever it means). As for you ignorance , whether you don't to be told or you don'tn't, :-
Oh because it's so hard to figure out: I don't need to be told they don't, im not ignorant,, sorry you ultimately failed to decipher what that could mean (im not sure there is much else given the context).
You say Google did nothing to "acquire" patents in spite of having resources. I pointed out that the Motorola deal is acquisition of patents. Which you ignored, or couldn't understand. Not ignorant indeed.
And where's the indemnification or even an intent to indemnify its customers in fact anyone in the world using android would need google to step up and fight for them, where's the indication of them doing that? It's been many years now and we're still waiting for google to step up and help out their customers. They've always had patents that they could threaten other companies with in areas that would hurt their business (MS with Bing for example) and cross-license but they never did, yet somehow you think this will be different.
The context is, what you cleverly omitted to quote, about patents.
And the context before that was Google's Android, who's primary target market is NOT China, in fact it's everywhere that their customers are getting sued and where they are doing nothing about it. However of course you don't want to admit that so you went off topic.
China protects patents of Chinese patent office
Obviously, and you think companies don't have patents there already? Apple has a whole bunch of design patents already.
You just said they have only have 1000 patents, however given that you can't even tell me where you came up with that from it seems you made it up. We all know they have many very valuable patents in search and analytics and that the number is irrelevant, it's the content that matters.
Yeah, I have to give an example to prove absence. Excellent.
Secondly, this is not search and analytics market we are talking about so those patents don't help, no point harping on it.
Thirdly, Bing doesn't violate PageRank patent.
And where's the indemnification
There is none, and I didn't say there was. Diversionary tactics. I just don't see the immorality of it when it is clear to all parties that there won't be any indemnification.
Motorola deal. On a related note, I don't see an intent in you to understand what you are replying to, because :
For the third and final time : You said Google did nothing to "acquire" patents in spite of having resources. I pointed out that the Motorola deal is acquisition of patents.
I don't see a point of continuing when I have to repeat things thrice with no hope of an intent from you to understand it.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.