Google Files Antitrust Complaint Against Microsoft, Nokia

War by proxy by Night64 · 2012-06-01 01:36 · Score: 2

Europe knows it very, very well.

--
Grey's Law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

Distrust by EzInKy · 2012-06-01 01:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

As much as I distrust Google, which is quite a bit ever since they started asking for phone numbers, they still haven't reached the same level of fear that I have Microsoft and its insistence on forcing everyone into its collective. Add to that the fact that it's also against Nokia, a company I once adored before they jumped in bed with the devil incarnate, I must now say "good on you Google!"

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.

Re:Distrust by EzInKy · 2012-06-01 01:47 · Score: 2

Apple is easy to avoid by buying any of the thousands of other products their software doesn't run on. Microsoft, on the other hand, wants to be on all those thousands of other products.

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Re:Distrust by EzInKy · 2012-06-01 01:48 · Score: 1

Oh, and of course Google wants to be on them all.

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Re:Distrust by drinkypoo · 2012-06-01 01:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

As long as they keep killing the competition with their competence instead of compelling us to consume their crap with coercion then I'm fine with that. I don't use google because there are no alternatives, there are alternatives to everything they offer. I use google because so far it is superior for my needs.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Distrust by EzInKy · 2012-06-01 01:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Killing the competition accomplishes the same thing. Think about it, would Google have asked for phone numbers and insisted on using real names a decade ago? They've got power now and their going to use it.

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Re:Distrust by mclaincausey · 2012-06-01 02:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

That doesn't make any sense. It's easy to avoid Microsoft. Try not using Google. Way harder.

--
(%i1) factor(777353); (%o1) 777353
Re:Distrust by Calos · 2012-06-01 02:06 · Score: 1

Many, if not most people.
Times have changed. Perceptions of technology and the internet have changed. Concerns of trust have waned.
It's not the power grab your seem to think it is. Google isn't forcing anyone to do anything (except "real" names on Google+, which is more like, can't use things that are obviously psuedonyms). It's a sign of a wider cultural shift.

--
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
Re:Distrust by dkf · 2012-06-01 02:19 · Score: 1

Killing the competition accomplishes the same thing. Think about it, would Google have asked for phone numbers and insisted on using real names a decade ago? They've got power now and their going to use it.
So you plan to use a poorly-implemented and unsustainable service deliberately instead? OK, it's your choice, but it is kind-of silly. Yes, competing with Google is hard, very hard, but nobody has the right to get web traffic, especially if they don't provide a service that is any good. Nor is it going to be possible for a service provider to keep providing the service unless they get money from somewhere, and I wouldn't want it to be done by government handouts!

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:Distrust by drinkypoo · 2012-06-01 02:24 · Score: 1

I don't like the real names policy either, but it's not like the competition doesn't have the same policy. The alternative is diaspora (as far as I am aware there are not other credible, directly comparable alternatives) and it has not really been embraced so far.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Distrust by KiloByte · 2012-06-01 02:26 · Score: 1

Depends on the country. The last time I had to create a Google Docs account, they required typing in a code sent via SMS to the phone number you provided, without a way to skip it. The message included the words "in your country", so I guess the rules differ in different parts of the world.
Fortunately, I had an old SIM card from DebConf in Bosnia that still worked :)

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:Distrust by squiggleslash · 2012-06-01 02:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Could you list all the products Google had out a decade ago that now require you provide a phone number and real name to use, that didn't then?
Does Google search require this, for example? (Answer: no)
What about GMail? (Answer: no)
Google groups? (Answer: no)
Google maps? (Answer: no)
Google news? (Answer: no)
OK, well, iGoogle? (Answer: no)
Youtube? (Answer: no)
OK... so what are we talking about here?
I know that the generic Google account system recommends you give it a cellphone number, so you can recover your password more securely. But you're not required to. In fact, the only tool I'm aware of that requires you give your phone number is Google Voice, which it's required you do since its inception, because it needs it in order to work properly.
What about real names? Well, there's Google+, but that's new. And it has plenty of competition. And in fact, the real names thing is probably why Google+ hasn't taken off. So that pretty much kills that argument.
Real names are also required for... well, anything that uses payments (Google Play, for example, if, and only if, you buy something, and AdWords), because, well, credit cards are difficult to charge if you don't have a fucking name. But that's ALWAYS been the case, since Froogle.
AdSense does too, but again always has done. (Yes, Google knows who I am)
So, really, what's your argument here?
Google has always had services that require real names and/or real telephone numbers. They're pushing the latter recently solely to help you recover lost passwords, and they're pushing the former only in relation to one service that, by no stretch of the imagination, can remotely be considered to be having monopoly power, and whose primary competitor, which pre-existed Google+ by many years, has always had the same policy.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Distrust by AdrianKemp · 2012-06-01 02:44 · Score: 1

I wondered where the OP got that impression too... It takes an unreasonably large amount of technical prowess to actually eradicate all of Google's tendrils.
Re:Distrust by IamTheRealMike · 2012-06-01 02:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Hi EzInKy,
Beyond being an avid reader of Slashdot comments (10+ years now!), I also work on Google account security, so am quite familiar with the phone number prompts you're seeing. Let me give you some background and maybe you can at least see our perspective on why we're doing this and why it's not necessarily "evil".
The traditional approach to handling users who forget their passwords, or otherwise need to be identified via a non-password based mechanism, is the secret question and answer. We have spent many years trying to make secret QA work. I myself wrote the code we use to correct typos, handle different abbreviations of street addresses, normalize unicode characters etc to try and increase the success rate. Other people have analyzed the types of questions/answers provided and encouraged users to select better ones. All to no avail. People just suck at choosing these options .... some people choose absurdly easy questions like "Do I like the incredible hulk?" or "In what month did I get married?". Lots of people forget the answer, even with the hint. The suggestions we provide (library card number, frequent flyer number) are often ignored as being too much hassle. Some questions looks superficially strong ("What is my mothers maiden name?") but we've seen fraudsters from Nigeria successfully research the answer to that question starting from nothing more than an email address! To top it all off, the success rate for good users is staggeringly low. Even with all the effort we put in to handling common mistakes, the success rate is rarely higher than 25%.
So we gave up on it. New Google accounts do not prompt you for a secret QA. Instead we ask for a phone number. The reason is that it's a kind of "second password" that cannot be guessed by random strangers unless you happen to publish it on the web (happens, but rare), most people have memorized it, and if we need a strong proof of authentication - like if you forget your password - we make an automated phone call. We have also been asking users to provide a phone number for existing accounts for the same reasons, our stats show users with phone numbers are dramatically less likely to lose their accounts.
You may think, well, I'll never forget my password so this is irrelevant. But nowadays we also use it as a second password in cases where we aren't sure a login is really coming from you (it seems unusual or suspicious in some way). You normally just have to type it in to confirm you know it. In very high risk cases, like using an IP that's been heavily abused before, we may want to send you a message.
You're right that the UI strongly encourages people to provide a number although it's still optional. I'd personally prefer to have the UI you suggest. However that will lead to a lot of users getting locked out of their accounts, no two ways about it. The alternatives for proving your identity are just so much harder. So there are no ideal solutions here. The numbers aren't used for anything else (certainly not advertising or anything like that).
Re:Distrust by Stuarticus · 2012-06-01 02:57 · Score: 1

If I remember correctly Youtube forces you to give phone number to upload videos longer than 15 minutes, I had quite happily avoided giving them mine up tu that point, but I really needed to share that video...

--
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Re:Distrust by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 03:05 · Score: 3, Informative

It takes an unreasonably large amount of technical prowess to actually eradicate all of Google's tendrils.
DuckDuckGo, NoScript, and OpenPGP?
What am I missing? A robots.txt file?
Re:Distrust by RivenAleem · 2012-06-01 03:15 · Score: 2, Informative

I've used Google for years, and didn't know this was the reason behind the phone number (beyond being able to get a password reset sent to me by SMS). I've never received any unsolicited calls on my number, so I know it has not been used for marketing.
Today was the first time they asked me to use the number for anything, when using Google checkout for the first time to buy the new Humble Bundle.
Re:Distrust by RivenAleem · 2012-06-01 03:24 · Score: 1

Care to explain some of this? How do you think I can achieve this in my workplace, where I don't control what Operating system is on my computer? I could chose not to use gmail, reader and chrome browser (the 3 big things I use after search) and switch to other services (losing the @gmail.com address would be difficult at first, I admit) but I don't see how I can avoid Windows, even at home (to play most games).
No, if, in Imaginary Land, everything Microsoft were to disappear tomorrow, we'd feel a much greater loss than if everything Google disappeared. (Shortly after, the world's biggest party would get started)
Re:Distrust by hobarrera · 2012-06-01 03:25 · Score: 1

The search engine is the only product I use. DDG is catching up pretty well though.
Re:Distrust by htnmmo · 2012-06-01 03:29 · Score: 1

It seems that Google+ will be connected with many systems and a Google+ account will be a very important if you put content online that you want to promote.
Want to get more clicks from google searches? Set up your site so it connects to your Google+ account so your picture can be included in the search pages.
I'm not saying if it's good or bad but it's different.
Re:Distrust by oakgrove · 2012-06-01 03:38 · Score: 2

Thank you for this very informative explanation. Sadly, it will be lost on most people as the "Google is teh Evil" meme is so strong on the internet right now. Just a suggestion (you may have done this I haven't checked), but would it be possible to summarize this and put it as a little disclaimer next to the phone number prompt so that people know what's going on and the trolls can't use it as anti-Google fodder?

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Distrust by Nerdfest · 2012-06-01 04:23 · Score: 1

Sigh ... I really should re-read my posts. My apologies for the missing words, etc.
Re:Distrust by TheRaven64 · 2012-06-01 04:30 · Score: 1

I haven't used any Microsoft products for ages, but it's pretty hard to go through the day without visiting a web site that uses Google Analytics or Google Ads, or without sending me a YouTube link.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Distrust by oxdas · 2012-06-01 04:32 · Score: 1

I believe Duck Duck Go uses Bing for searches.
Re:Distrust by tlhIngan · 2012-06-01 04:34 · Score: 1

It takes an unreasonably large amount of technical prowess to actually eradicate all of Google's tendrils.
DuckDuckGo, NoScript, and OpenPGP?
What am I missing? A robots.txt file?
There's also avoiding use of Google's CDN, DNS, various Google-owned companies including DoubleClick and AdMob (try avoiding the latter if you have an Android - it's pretty hard unless you basically don't run any apps at all), YouTube, Picasa, various javascript include files, ReCaptcha, etc..
At this point in time, I don't think avoiding Google at all is even possible. Heck, they're close enough to Too Big To Fail(tm). It's all fixable yes, but should Google disappear overnight, the Internet would be quite broken the next day.
Re:Distrust by IamTheRealMike · 2012-06-01 04:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

It actually is there already, at least in the current versions of the recovery interstitial. It says something like "Hey, this is important: We don't have a password recovery email address or phone number for your account. If you lose access, we may not be able to help you." and mentions that people without a phone number are much more likely to accidentally lose access to their account. I'm not sure we can make it much clearer than that, the more text on the screen the fewer people will read it.
Re:Distrust by CMcQueeny · 2012-06-01 04:51 · Score: 1

I just tried to find my own phone number based on searches on my email address. Even when I made it unrealistically easy by also including my name and/or a few digits of the correct number, no luck. It didn't work with two random friends I selected either. Sure, I didn't conduct a scientific study and try hundreds of times... but a quick empirical check suggests that the poster from Google may be right, or at least that his/her statement wasn't "retarded".
Re:Distrust by VGPowerlord · 2012-06-01 06:51 · Score: 1

Thank you for this very informative explanation. Sadly, it will be lost on most people as the "Google is teh Evil" meme is so strong on the internet right now. Just a suggestion (you may have done this I haven't checked), but would it be possible to summarize this and put it as a little disclaimer next to the phone number prompt so that people know what's going on and the trolls can't use it as anti-Google fodder?
To put things into perspective:
Google is not just the largest advertising company in the world, but thanks to acquisitions, it's the two largest advertising companies in the world.
And you're saying we should all just give our telephone numbers to them?
Since my cell number is unlisted, I'd like to keep it that way, kthx.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Re:Distrust by buglista · 2012-06-01 07:18 · Score: 1

What the actual fuck?
DNS servers? Plenty of others.
Email? Plenty of other providers
ISP? No.
Search? Yes, there are other search providers. You can configure you web browser to use different ones.

How is it hard not to use google?
Re:Distrust by farble1670 · 2012-06-01 07:20 · Score: 1

i think some common sense is in order actually. if you are a paranoid about privacy, then you assume everyone's trying to steal your info and additionally you assume they want it for nefarious purposes.
i know google asks for phone numbers, and i think i've provided mine actually. i don't assume they are going to sell it off because well, that'd be the biggest PR blunder of the decade. common sense says they aren't going to risk their massive profits to sell off their users' phone numbers.
looking now, the only place i can find where they ask for a phone number is when you enable 2-step auth. there's a nice diagram, and even a video explaining the whole thing.
Re:Distrust by cynyr · 2012-06-02 02:24 · Score: 1

Admob is easy to avoid on android, get root install adblock. I do wish though that I could get dnsmasq running locally, and then use that as my default DNS service, and filter all of the add hosts there... Some apps check to see if their add provider is in hosts even though i could be using that to fix things on some networks that are dns blocking it...

--
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
Re:Distrust by Carewolf · 2012-06-03 00:34 · Score: 1

Is it enough to just know the phone number? Or do you have to be in physical possession of that phone so that you can also receive a call/message from Google and use that to access the account? I think it is the later.
Exactly. The post I replied to made the argument that the phone number is a safe password, which is stupid, since phonenumbers are supposed to be used by third persons in the first place. But as an item in your possession it does work a second method of authentication.
Re:Distrust by CCarrot · 2012-06-06 18:26 · Score: 1

Quick question for you: can the user change the phone number at any time? If so, what's to prevent an attacker from immediately changing it once they gain access, just like your recovery email? At least your recovery email gets notified if it is changed for some reason...does the phone also get a text if it is no longer the recovery number? That could be an issue if someone moves a lot, or changes phone numbers a lot, so some random stranger with their old phone number gets a text when they finally remember to update it...
I agree, account recovery is a knotty problem, I just honestly can't see how a recovery phone number is any better than a recovery email...other than the fact that it's a lot harder to be anonymous with a cell phone. Not impossible, just more difficult.

--
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant

Legal Risk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

(Posting AC because I'm at work, not because I'm going to get modded into the stone age for what I'm about to say...)

Google ... described its filing with European regulators as a pre-emptive measure against a developing legal hazard for Android partners. The threat is that if phone makers perceive a significant legal risk in using Android...

Um, if there's a legal hazard in using Android, maybe that means Google/manufacturer's should license patents from Microsoft (or others). I know the current belief on /. is that everybody should be able to make whatever they want, even if they copy someone else's work but, ignoring whether or not I agree with that view, that's simply not how the world works. Sorry - it isn't. The world works such that, if you invent it and you patent it, you have the right to get paid when someone else uses it (or outright block them from using it for a time). You may not like that, and many don't, but that's how the world works. Not just the US - the world. Google may view that as a problem but the solution is simple - build Android so that it doesn't infringe on any patents or license the patents so that there's no legal risk.

I know I'll be in the minority on this one but, sorry - the system is what the system is. It's simple, design around the patent or license it. Or don't and deal with the consequences.

Re:Legal Risk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Licensing patents from trolls is like paying protection money to criminals. You're only providing them resources and incentive to continue their extortion and find new victims. The only right thing to do is put the criminals out of business, not pay them off.
Re:Legal Risk by UnknowingFool · 2012-06-01 01:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Um no. While there are some here that would disregard all intellectual property, the vast majority are in disagreement about whether some IP should be protected as being valid especially in the area of software where patenting things like one-click may be ridiculous. The current situation has been a long time coming as companies like MS and Google have been stockpiling patents for defensive purposes against patent trolls. Unfortunately the cold war has now erupted into open hostilities. From what I can tell, it's easier to track who isn't suing. The situation will be addressed but it will be a bloody fight. At this point it is hard to tell which companies are using patents as weapons against competitors and which are trying to legitimately defend their IP.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Legal Risk by iserlohn · 2012-06-01 02:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or maybe the patent system *itself* is being abused - bad patents are too prevalent and it costs to much to fight frivolous claims.
Why live with a bad system just because it is? Is it wrong to fight for a better society that is more fair and can provide better incentives to create works?

--
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Re:Legal Risk by andydread · 2012-06-01 02:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why bother sitting down at your computer and writing any code? Even if your code is wholly original they still have a right to take ownership of your code through the use of trivial and obvious software patents? So if you write your own code that renders text before images and its completely your code from your brain. And its totally different from any code that MS wrote you are saying that Microsoft should be able come and take ownership of your code? The pathetic people that cheer for this kind of abuse in the marketplace do so against their own interests. pathetic.
Re:Legal Risk by MozeeToby · 2012-06-01 02:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Here's the thing. Every single one of the big phone manufacturers has a thousand patents that every other phone manufacturer has infringed on since the beginning of the industry. They all know this, but for literally decades everyone involved was smart enough to look at the situation and say "Oh hell no! I'm not starting that fight". The in strolled the new kid on the block, they bought some patents on the core technologies (enough to ensure they were inside the circle of mutually assured destruction along with the other manufacturers) but then they went and patented a few (frankly quite silly) UI patents. And so they thought to themselves, we might not be able to start the holy war on the core technologies, but we can certainly fire off just a few shots to protect our user interface. Which is a lot like the US during the cold war saying "surely the Soviets won't mind if we launch nuclear tipped cruise missiles at Kiev, after all, they're not ICBMs".
And the result has been about what you would expect. All out patent war in the cell phone industry, with constantly shifting alliances, tactics, and weapons. We've had import bans because a photo gallery app slid just past the available pictures to communicate to the user that they were at the end. We've had court cases fought over "Swipe to unlock". We've had multi-billion dollar companies bought, sold, and gutted for their patent portfolios. And, most importantly and the issue no one seems to pay attention to, we've created an environment where there is absolutely no chance, literally zero, of a new player entering the game.
So, you say to Google "build Android so that it doesn't infringe on patents". I say 50% of those patents are invalid, and it's just going to take the right court case to show that once and for all. Of the remaining 50%, everyone in the industry stomps all over them, to the point where even the biggest players can't be sure who owns what, who is defending what, and what their next project might infringe upon. It's broken. It's not really Apple's fault, even if they were the ones to set of Armageddon the system has been screwed up for too long to blame them. Any system that relies on cold war style MAD is going to break down eventually.
Re:Legal Risk by oxdas · 2012-06-01 02:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Um, if there's a legal hazard in using Android, maybe that means Google/manufacturer's should license patents from Microsoft (or others). I know the current belief on /. is that everybody should be able to make whatever they want, even if they copy someone else's work but, ignoring whether or not I agree with that view, that's simply not how the world works. Sorry - it isn't. The world works such that, if you invent it and you patent it, you have the right to get paid when someone else uses it (or outright block them from using it for a time). You may not like that, and many don't, but that's how the world works. Not just the US - the world. Google may view that as a problem but the solution is simple - build Android so that it doesn't infringe on any patents or license the patents so that there's no legal risk.
I know I'll be in the minority on this one but, sorry - the system is what the system is. It's simple, design around the patent or license it. Or don't and deal with the consequences.
Software patents are not valid in Europe, so no, this is not the way the "world" works. It is the way the U.S. works, but only since 1981. Prior to that year (and for a practical purposes the early 90's) software patents were expressly forbade by the USPTO and the Supreme Court. The definition of patentable material has expanded immensely in the last 30 years in US. Europe has been drifting toward allowing software patents, but the debate is as fierce there as it is here.
With the U.S. Supreme Court recently reasserting itself into the patent debate, this is a great time for Google to push against software patents and Europe is the place to start.
Re:Legal Risk by Stuarticus · 2012-06-01 03:00 · Score: 1

Assuming the "Invention" and the patent is legitimate and not some rubber stamped "touch a file on a touch screen to open it" type nonsense.

--
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Re:Legal Risk by MozeeToby · 2012-06-01 03:22 · Score: 1

My point was two fold (hence the 50/50 split). 1) Crap patents 2) Crap patent system. Picking off crap patents one by one is inefficient but will get the job of eliminating the crap patents done eventually. The larger problem is the patent system. It's the system that let everyone sit in a Mexican standoff for 20 years, which is what has eventually led to the situation we see today.
And BTW, please at least look at someone's comment history before accusing them of shilling. It's one thing to accuse guy with 5 comments all being pro-whatever of being a shill. It's another to accuse someone with... well crap, I don't even know how many but several hundred comments on several dozen different topics over the past decade or so.
Re:Legal Risk by EvilBudMan · 2012-06-01 03:50 · Score: 1

Apple did that to Samsung. Just look at Samsung's patents. I'm very surprised they have not already sued Apple.
--Any system that relies on cold war style MAD is going to break down eventually.--
Yeah, when you get someone totally crazy on the other side.
Re:Legal Risk by oakgrove · 2012-06-01 04:05 · Score: 1

Google can continue to live in a dream world and pay the price of ignoring patents
What are you talking about, man? Google already licenses a ton of patents and that's not what this is even about anyway. This is about an anti-trust complaint that happens to involve patents.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Legal Risk by oxdas · 2012-06-01 04:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

I just don't get the same impression of the people at Google, or Slashdot for that matter. While a few people on Slashdot are against the concept of intellectual property, the vast majority of those opposed to software patents and 100 year copyright terms do support the concept of intellectual property. As for Google, they are certainly pro intellectual property, but they too strike out at the structure of the current system.
I see the debate as really between two world views on intellectual property. One side believes that intellectual property is akin to physical property and exists primarily to enrich its owners (for example, Florian Mueller recently compared IP to real estate). The other side believes that intellectual property is primarily for the benefit of society and that the enrichment of its owners is valid if and only if the benefits of innovation outweigh the costs to society. If you fall into the former, then the expansion of patents is just the strengthening of property rights. If you fall into the latter, then the expansion of patents is only valid if it results in increases in innovation for society at large. For software patents, the latter camp believes them to be a net hindrance to innovation and therefore invalid (whether or not someone makes money off of them becomes irrelevant).
Re:Legal Risk by EvilBudMan · 2012-06-01 05:09 · Score: 1

That's in South Korea, so it's meaningless, but I have heard that they were going after them big time in the US just as soon as the next iPhone comes out. They have a ton of patents compared to just about anybody. Apple must have been nuts.
Re:Legal Risk by Lorien_the_first_one · 2012-06-01 05:10 · Score: 1

Most of the patents out there are garbage anyway, especially the software patents as they are really just patents on ideas, not inventions. I say, if there's more than one way to reach a claim, it's a patent on an idea, not an invention. Besides, all software is math, and you can't patent math.

--
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
Re:Legal Risk by EvilBudMan · 2012-06-01 05:16 · Score: 1

In any case all of Apples patents have to do with look and feel, whereas Samsung has quite a few hardware patents.
Re:Legal Risk by farble1670 · 2012-06-01 07:41 · Score: 1

the issue is not the patent system in general, it's that software patents were (and are) granted for some really obvious, or vague concepts and these are being used to stifle industry innovation.
do you really think one should be able to patent swiping a finger from left to right? or putting a number next to an icon? or putting icons along the bottom of a screen? patents are there to allow the person that developed the invention to re-coup the loss incurred in research and development. how much r&d do you think goes into those types of ideas? certainly more than "none", but probably in the range of days at most, and most likely, in the order of minutes.
Re:Legal Risk by AdrianKemp · 2012-06-01 09:22 · Score: 1

If you don't want your biases called out, then check them at the door.

Subtle ad? by Linegod · 2012-06-01 01:41 · Score: 4, Funny

"they may opt instead for Microsoft's Windows Phone software"

No one is going to do that.

--
-- I care not for your foolish signatures.

Re:Subtle ad? by cpu6502 · 2012-06-01 01:46 · Score: 1

Yeah just like "Nobody will opt for Microsoft Explorer because Netscape has 90% of the browser share!"
Oh wait.
Nvrmnd.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Subtle ad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:58 · Score: 1

Ok let me know then when every copy of windows ships with a free windows phone.
Re:Subtle ad? by oakgrove · 2012-06-01 02:04 · Score: 1

Web browsers and smart phones are very different things.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Subtle ad? by cpu6502 · 2012-06-01 03:15 · Score: 1

Not really. If it is perceived that Google phones are insecure or too-costly to own, Microsoft phones could easily win over the consumers just as Microsoft browser convinced people to switch from Netscape browser in the late 90s/early 2000s.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Subtle ad? by DragonWriter · 2012-06-01 04:12 · Score: 1

Yeah just like "Nobody will opt for Microsoft Explorer because Netscape has 90% of the browser share!"
IE is -- once you've made an OS choice, which is often made for reasons entirely irrelevant to web browser -- opt-out rather than opt-in.
Not the same thing as a smartphone OS.
Re:Subtle ad? by oakgrove · 2012-06-01 04:42 · Score: 2

If it is perceived that Google phones are insecure or too-costly to own, Microsoft phones could easily win over the consumers just as Microsoft browser convinced people to switch from Netscape browser in the late 90s/early 2000s.
Except people didn't switch to Internet Explorer because they perceived Netscape as too costly or insecure. By the time Netscape had lost it was due to the fact that IE was being bundled with windows as the default and Netscape 4 was a catastrophe. Furthermore, the market forces in play right now between the competing smartphone platforms is very different than what were at play during the (first) browser wars. There is no specific parallel that can be drawn between the two that isn't also general between any other competitive products so your post brings absolutely nothing to the table as far as new or novel information. Please stop posting stupidity to me. Thanks.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Subtle ad? by VGPowerlord · 2012-06-01 07:00 · Score: 1
Or to condense the salient points into a list:
IE was
1. better than Netscape 4
2. free
3. shipped with Windows
For Windows Phone, at most one of those will be true.
Also, thank you Slashdot for not putting numbers next to items in ordered lists.
--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Re:Subtle ad? by cpu6502 · 2012-06-04 04:56 · Score: 1

I used Netscape from inception through 6. I never saw any problems with versions 1, 2, 3, or 4. To claim it lost the war because it was inferior to IE4 or IE5 is ridiculous. IE was a pile of trash in comparison to Netscape.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Welcome to SCO 2.0 by spacepimp · 2012-06-01 01:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Same agenda, only now the desktop isn't at stake, it is the mobile market sector. Same FUD, different day. Linux was proven and hardened after SCO, but in many ways it was too late, the tech world had moved on. MS is hoping for more of the same.

Re:Welcome to SCO 2.0 by Nerdfest · 2012-06-01 01:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem is that right now, they are driving up the real cost of Android phones, making money from it, and spreading FUD. It should be quite clear after the B&N screw-up that what they're doing is extortion.
Re:Welcome to SCO 2.0 by drinkypoo · 2012-06-01 01:55 · Score: 2

Don't worry, if history is any indication the USDoJ will catch Microsoft red-handed for this only ten years from now and at a cost of only tens or hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.
Of course, if history is any indication, Microsoft will be let off the hook without penalties by whoever is sitting where Ashcroft was sitting last time.
I adore that one of the big bad guys in Freelancer is named Ashcroft.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Welcome to SCO 2.0 by defile39 · 2012-06-02 06:26 · Score: 1

The desktop is still at stake because mobile computers are eroding PC sales. MS is threatened more now than ever by inexpensive and widely used OSs.

Linux by Nerdfest · 2012-06-01 01:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'd like to see redHat, Suse, Canonical, etc do the same thing over the UEFI controls coming up. That really needs to be taken out of their hands.

Re:Linux by SgtChaireBourne · 2012-06-01 02:33 · Score: 1

You may have missed it in the news, but Suse is no longer part of the good team. Suse is helping M$ tax Linux. So of the three in your list, Suse does not belong. Red Hat and Canonical might stand up against the UEFI power grab, but Suse is already in bed with M$.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.

This is why I like Google by Erich · 2012-06-01 01:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google is at least trying to say "Hey, this whole patent troll environment sucks. You should really do something about this problem!"

Hopefully someone will listen to their complaint before they are forced to take matters into their own hands.

And I think everyone also sees the next step, which is retaliation. Google just bought all those Motorola patents, and having them shut down Nokia and Apple with all those 17-year-old cell phone patents would really be a step up in the Mutually-Assured-Destruction conflict, and everyone would suffer for it.

Taking this approach with the nukes in your back pocket seems much more civil than approach taken by the others.

--

-- Erich

Slashdot reader since 1997

Re:This is why I like Google by shione · 2012-06-01 02:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

The patent row between motorola and microsoft began even before google considered buying motorola. And the motorola buyout by google was more in response to microsoft suing android phone makers so google went after motorola's phone patents before anyone else (microsoft) could grab it to add to their warchest.
Talking purely patents, cross licensing sucks too because it locks out new players from the playing field. What we need is the abolishment of all patents or the reduction to their lifetime to a very short period.
Re:This is why I like Google by shione · 2012-06-01 02:27 · Score: 1

You mean like them manipulating their search results to catch microsoft red handed stealing their hard work? https://www.google.com/search?q=bing+copying+google?
Re:This is why I like Google by squiggleslash · 2012-06-01 02:32 · Score: 2

You do know that Google didn't own Motorola until LAST WEEK, right? And that Motorola's lawsuits were launched long before Google started the process of buying Motorola?

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:This is why I like Google by AdrianKemp · 2012-06-01 02:59 · Score: 1

Just so we're clear, how long are you giving them to drop that lawsuit?
Never mind the fact that they signed off on the lawsuit as part of the acquisition.
Re:This is why I like Google by salsa.ul- · 2012-06-01 03:12 · Score: 1

Not sure on the validity of this, as I read that this was due to Microsoft using the click stream shared by users using IE. See http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/02/bing-copies-google/ for more information.
Re:This is why I like Google by Missing.Matter · 2012-06-01 03:30 · Score: 1

According to the links, Google installed a Big toolbar, opted to send search results to Bing, sent search results to Bing, and then Bing used the results sent to them. Where exactly is the problem?
Re:This is why I like Google by oxdas · 2012-06-01 04:09 · Score: 1

My problem with that statement is it presumes that all companies took offensive positions at an equal rate. More often than not, some companies on your list initiated the lawsuits instead of cross-licensing, while others primarily sued in retaliation.

Re:Hey by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sorry, but what? When has Google ever used patent trolls? To the contrary, Google has fought patent trolls more aggressively than any tech company.

But Microsoft is suing them directly by Eirenarch · 2012-06-01 01:52 · Score: 2

Microsoft is suing Motorola (now Google) directly. Why the hell would they hide if they already do it openly and even if they do hide behind other companies how is this illegal? Can't a company pay another company to take care of patent fights?

Re:But Microsoft is suing them directly by shione · 2012-06-01 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

They don't do it openly. Ask microsoft which patents android infringes and THEY WILL NOT TELL YOU. Every android phone maker that has paid the blackmail money^h^h^h settled has also had to sign a non disclosure statement. This is either because microsoft doesnt want the other phonemakers it hasnt gone after yet to create a workaround^h^h^h not infringe or because microsoft knows it's standing is very weak.
Re:But Microsoft is suing them directly by MurukeshM · 2012-06-01 02:10 · Score: 1

If you have to deal with only one case or one opponent, instead of a whole swarm of lawsuits and troll companies, expenses go down and things become easier to manage, plus the uncertainity involved (a key element of FUD) also goes down.
Re:But Microsoft is suing them directly by Eirenarch · 2012-06-01 02:36 · Score: 1

This is how they get patent deals but not how they sue. You can't possibly sue someone without showing what you've got in court. After all how will the jury decide if you don't show your patents? That's the whole point of a lawsuit. The patents MS holds against Motorola are well known and you can easily Google for them. Something with syncrhonizing e-mails, battery power blah blah blah.
Re:But Microsoft is suing them directly by Eirenarch · 2012-06-01 02:42 · Score: 1

That's good point but aren't the expenses for the attacker also going up if they have to file multiple lawsuits?
Re:But Microsoft is suing them directly by DragonWriter · 2012-06-01 02:49 · Score: 1

Why the hell would they hide if they already do it openly and even if they do hide behind other companies how is this illegal?
Many jurisdictions have regulations (either as part of the antitrust regime, or their patent regime, or both) which restrict how a patent holder can use a patent to create or protect market power in a market broader than "things that exercise the patent". Assigning patent enforcement rights to a third-party, while itself generally legitimate, can be a manner to obscure an attempt to do what those rules seek to restrict.
Re:But Microsoft is suing them directly by oakgrove · 2012-06-01 03:53 · Score: 2

Or you can do what Barnes & Noble did and fight back hard ending up with a sweet deal and payout. I don't know why more manufacturers don't do that as B&N won big. I'm not saying I agree with what they ended up doing but they did make out like bandits by standing up to the bully.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:But Microsoft is suing them directly by Quince+alPillan · 2012-06-01 05:27 · Score: 1

You're assuming that they're going to court. They don't have to go to court. They just threaten to sue and then settle out of court.
Re:But Microsoft is suing them directly by MurukeshM · 2012-06-01 06:16 · Score: 1

Not if all they care about is getting multiple cases on, damaging the reputation of the target quickly. The quality of the cases themselves doesn't matter much, except for the important few.

Business as usual by Hatta · 2012-06-01 01:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

The threat is that if phone makers perceive a significant legal risk in using Android, they may opt instead for Microsoft's Windows Phone software."

What part of this is illegal? Isn't this how patents are supposed to work?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:Business as usual by MurukeshM · 2012-06-01 02:14 · Score: 1

"Perception of risk" != "Existence of risk". Using agents to incite riots in a mass gathering (say, by pelting stones) is an extreme example of what's happening here. The harm in pelting those stones is limited to non-existant, but the people don't see it that way and the end result is much worse.
Re:Business as usual by Hatta · 2012-06-01 02:45 · Score: 1

That's just marketing. Business as usual.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:Hey by LordLucless · 2012-06-01 01:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

You do know what an antitrust complaint is about don't you? It's not about having a monopoly, it's about abusing one. When has Google abused its search monopoly?

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face

microsoft is so greedy by shione · 2012-06-01 01:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not only do they extract out of android phone makers many times more than make from their own windows phones but now they want to extract cash out of google as well.

If miscrosoft spent less time sabotaging, suing and backstabbing their partners and more time innovating and focussing on their own products, maybe their company would experience more growth. Only then would it be able to turn its reputation around like IBM has.

Re:microsoft is so greedy by interval1066 · 2012-06-01 04:13 · Score: 1

IBM... who?

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Re:microsoft is so greedy by DragonWriter · 2012-06-01 04:21 · Score: 1

Not only do they extract out of android phone makers many times more than make from their own windows phones but now they want to extract cash out of google as well.
Actually, Google's complaint appears to be that MS is arming its proxies to attack Android phone makes to extract more money out of them (that includes Google now that Google owns Motorola Mobility, but the strategy at issue is an extension of MS's attack-the-handset-manufacturers strategy, not a shift to target Google-as-software-vendor.)

Re:Hey by oakgrove · 2012-06-01 02:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Do you have anything other than a tired disingenuous analogy you just pulled out of your ass? Because last I checked this specific anti-trust complaint is about Nokia and Microsoft backing patent trolls. Google has never done this. Furthermore, if there are legitimate complaints to be leveled toward Google then by all means do so. But to just make a blanket statement that Google shouldn't defend their interests (especially against something so underhanded as patent trolling) because "they did bad too HUr dur" is not a rational perspective.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.

Re:Hey by andydread · 2012-06-01 02:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

So Google goes around filing suits on trivial software patents that should have never been filed and should have never been granted? Can you point me to one instance of Google conspiring with others to subdue the marketpace and kill open source software with the use of software patents? One instance? BTW what public relations firm to you work for?

Can't take this seriously. by JustAnotherIdiot · 2012-06-01 02:02 · Score: 1, Troll

Google, as of late, you're just as f*cked up as microsoft.

--
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?

Googles thinks Microsoft is sending proxies by Michalson · 2012-06-01 02:07 · Score: 1

Googles thinks Microsoft is sending proxies to do its legal work, or at the least is trying to convince someone of that fantasy?

Microsoft hasn't shown any problems going after Android makers openly and directly. Sure it doesn't always make the front page but that's because Microsoft wants to licence the technology, not use the patents to block companies from the market entirely like Apple. This has always been Microsoft's business stategy from all the back in the days when it was Bill writing BASIC interpreters - find a place in the middle of the supply or technology chain so that no matter what company or product consumers are wild about this day of the week, Microsoft is getting paid somehow. A 'horizontal' instead of vertical market integration. That Android phone in your hand? Microsoft got paid a cut of it. I believe the slashdotter term is 'the Microsoft tax'.

Either Google is on a conspiracy bent to try and explain why so many companies have dirt on them without considering that maybe it's because they copied from all of them to assemble Android, or they're just cooking up so they can get Microsoft beat up by the EU bigwigs the way Opera did.

Re:Googles thinks Microsoft is sending proxies by shione · 2012-06-01 02:37 · Score: 1

If Apple blocks android, more people would likely flock to ios. If microsoft did the same to android they would only be giving apple more customers. windows mobile is stuck in a chicken and a egg situation where it has a low uptake due to few apps and few apps because few use their phones. If windows mobile had more market share we would probably start seeing microsoft doing what apple is doing now.

Re:Glass houses... by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-06-01 02:12 · Score: 1

Apple is in the process of having HTC complaints against them dismissed by the ITC due to lack of standing. It seems that Google transferred five patents key to HTC complaint just prior to the filing with the ITC (less than week). The ITC hasn't ruled on Apple's motion, but it indicates that HTC is acting as Google's proxy in this matter.

Feel free to google it.

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...

Re:Hey by zero.kalvin · 2012-06-01 02:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes they did, but they didn't force you to use them, and they didn't make it harder for you to use other services nor did they hid the results concerning other services. Lets not name some other company who made it difficult for others to install certain browsers on their OS, and kind of forced you to use their own browser. Good is kind of the equivalent of you going to the only supermarket in the country and when you ask them about coffee they first thing they state is their own coffee but followed by every other brand. I am sorry but that's not abusing a monopoly.

Re:Hey by squiggleslash · 2012-06-01 02:15 · Score: 1

What? Google has patent trolls running proxy fights on phone makers who install Windows Phone, really?

That said, I'm not 100% sure Google is right here. Microsoft seems to be fairly open about wanting a slice of the Android phone cash bonanza, and is negotiating with phone manufacturers (as it should be - those are the people actually selling devices that have a price on them) without demanding amounts that would make Android phones impossible or uncompetitive.

Microsoft has even put some effort into ensuring Android phones fit within a Windows infrastructure, from licensing ActiveSync so it's integrated within the Android's native mail app, to porting across the Lync and OneNote clients.

That doesn't look to me to be Microsoft's usual brand of hostility. That looks, to me at least, more like Microsoft's attitude towards, say, Mac OS and Mac OS X. Provide the integration, and profit by the fact corporations can safely pick Microsoft-only infrastructure rather than rushing into the arms of rivals who provide more open, standard, systems than they do.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Re:Hey by squiggleslash · 2012-06-01 02:17 · Score: 4, Informative

Yes, blaming Google for the actions started years ago of a company they literally bought last week is sure to prove your argument.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Re:Hey by Sparticus789 · 2012-06-01 02:18 · Score: 1

Nobody ever said that Microsoft was any better. I merely wanted to point out the fact that any firm with a market share the size of Google filing anti-trust complaints is funny and entertaining. Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, doesn't matter to me. If any of those firms made the same allegation, I'd say the same thing.

--
sudo make me a sandwich

Re:Glass houses... by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-06-01 02:20 · Score: 1

Here the links for stories discussing HTC acting as Google's proxy:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/09/google-to-htc-take-these-patents-keep-fighting-apple/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-07/htc-sues-apple-alleging-infringement-of-four-u-s-patents.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57435572-37/apple-wants-to-squelch-five-google-patents-issued-to-htc/

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...

glad to see someone call MS on it by YesIAmAScript · 2012-06-01 02:24 · Score: 1

They've been getting away with it for a while. Check out the situation with Dual Shock on the PS3.

Immersion decides to patent troll the gaming industry over rumble force feedback, claiming they have the patents on it even though as a corporation they eschewed simple "rumble".

So MS settles with Immersion, giving Immersion money with the requirement that they continue to press their case against Sony and that MS will get a cut of any monies from those suits if there is a settlement.

We find out about it when MS discovers the risk of deal with an extortionist with low morals after Immersion takes the money from Sony and runs.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/196042/microsoft-lands-force-feedback-payout/

--
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95

Re:Glass houses... by oakgrove · 2012-06-01 02:25 · Score: 2

HTC is not a patent troll. MOSAID is, e.g., non-practicing entity. The distinction is huge. HTC is a very large licensee of Android who was attacked by Apple for the express purpose of an outright shutdown. Not only was that an attack on HTC but it was an attack on Android itself. Of course Google is not going to stand there with their dicks in their hands. Contrast this with what MS and Nokia are doing. They bought a bunch of patents for the express purpose of transferring them to a text book patent troll to attack Android. Google is not attacking Windows phone and they are not attacking Nokia. The patents they transferred to HTC were for defense purposes against Apple. You can try to draw ridiculous parallels until the cows come home but ultimately as we saw with Oracle vs Google it's up to the court to sort it out. Armchair Google haters and paranoid tin hat wearers everywhere notwithstanding.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.

Re:Hey by RaceProUK · 2012-06-01 02:27 · Score: 1

Didn't Google also, for a while at least, artificially downgrade the PageRank for some of their services in response?

--
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun

Re:Hey by zero.kalvin · 2012-06-01 02:37 · Score: 1

I might be willing to concede that point, but to state that Google abused its search monopoly is ridiculous.

Time to change the system by Notlupus · 2012-06-01 02:42 · Score: 1

Hopefully this will finally lead to a revolution in the patent system. There is absolutely nothing more damaging I can think of than when frustrating competitors is a better business tactic than innovation. The abuse of the patent system needs to stop, fast!

Re:Hey by oh2 · 2012-06-01 02:52 · Score: 1

OTOH, if Microsoft was openly working against Android phones and for instance obstructing their use they would have the antitrust people up their ass really quick. Repeat offenders tend to go to the top of the suspect list.

--

Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.

Typical Slashdot Bullshit by recoiledsnake · 2012-06-01 02:56 · Score: 4, Informative

> Because last I checked this specific anti-trust complaint is about Nokia and Microsoft backing patent trolls.

Did you really check it? Or are you just wearing your fanboy blinders?

They're an investor in the biggest patent troll around, Intellectual Ventures.

http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=2f9ac708-83af-42b9-9d3d-5fdf39fdc482

--
This space for rent.

Re:Typical Slashdot Bullshit by mystikkman · 2012-06-01 03:04 · Score: 1

Not to mention that it's just Nokia(which had a huge role in inventing cellphone and related technologies) reacting to Google dumping it's product Android on the market for free by using it's search monopoly profits.
Re:Typical Slashdot Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 03:13 · Score: 1

In order for Android to have been "dumped" on anyone, it would have to have been licensed for less than the cost of making it for the express purpose of undermining competition. The only problem with your little theory is Google charges licensees for Android to be certified and include any of the Google app pack-ins. Stupid ass. I love laying the smack down on armchair slashdork "lawyers".
Re:Typical Slashdot Bullshit by recoiledsnake · 2012-06-01 03:33 · Score: 3, Informative

>They invested in "Defendant Invention Investment Fund I." which is an investment fund that invested in IV.
Umm no. That fund is completely a part of IV. IV has various funds, and Google invested only in that fund. It's not like an general investment fund or mutual fund. And Google's investment was only revealed in a lawsuit or it would be hidden even now, just like Google wants it to be. Who's twisting the truth now?
Why don't you get an account(or login to your real account) and dare to stand behind your posts instead of hiding like a coward taking potshots at me? Or are you a Google shill or employee trying to spin the facts and posting anonymously to hide?

--
This space for rent.
Re:Typical Slashdot Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 03:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Open source projects are now dumping? Nice theory you have there. Andriod was created because Nokia's OS efforts were a catastrophic fucking failure. Andriod's agile open development model turned out to be superior to Nokia's slow, closed model.
That said, open source android is just a base. Google's real android product is a suite of useful premium services that get distributed and accessed on Google's terms, to earn ad revenue. These services run on the android base. You are free to build a phone with or without Google's premium services. There are even 3rd party app stores.
If you want to talk about dumping, lets discuss how much you pay for windows as an OEM install on a new PC vs buying a retail box.
Re:Typical Slashdot Bullshit by recoiledsnake · 2012-06-01 04:19 · Score: 1

I think I need to filter ACs from even showing up as replies, please get an account and dare to stand by what you say.
>Do you think Google or any other investor can just waltz into IV and tell them what and what not to do?
I did not say that Google told IV to do anything, just that they're an investor in IV.
>Do you have any emails/phone calls/documents of Google giving specific reasoning as to why they invested in this particular fund? It is equally possible that Google is taking a "know thy enemy" approach to this dispicable group than they are in league with them. Keep grasping for straws, fucker.
So the best way to do that is to bankroll and encourage them and then make profit $$$ off them? What's there to know about a patent troll? Their practices are well documented. Perhaps you believe that the SS was doing security research with hookers in Colombia while they were having fun with them. Equally possible, right?

--
This space for rent.
Re:Typical Slashdot Bullshit by recoiledsnake · 2012-06-01 05:06 · Score: 2

Android is not really a regular OSS project like Linux or Firefox. Development happens behind secret closed doors and some OEMs get special early access. And when the Nexus device is released to the market(not one day before that), the code is dumped over a wall to the general public and other OEMs who then get into a mad scramble to work on it(no wonder updates to existing OEM phones take ~8 months after the Nexus device) . Contrast that with Linux, Firefox etc. where you can compile the nightlies or even Windows, with everyone getting access to betas and RCs before it is released instead of just catering to special interests.
>If you want to talk about dumping, lets discuss how much you pay for windows as an OEM install on a new PC vs buying a retail box.
Companies can compete with Windows(retail or OEM) on price, which is exactly what Ubuntu is doing on the desktop and servers. You cannot do that with Android. Your comparison of Retail vs. OEM is nonsense, OEMs are wholesalers and get different prices like every other industry in existence. Not to mention that dumping requires a company to take a loss. Windows is one of the most profitable businesses in existence.

--
This space for rent.
Re:Typical Slashdot Bullshit by TheOneTrueOne · 2012-06-01 06:04 · Score: 1

Android is not really a regular OSS project like Linux or Firefox. Development happens behind secret closed doors and some OEMs get special early access. And when the Nexus device is released to the market(not one day before that), the code is dumped over a wall to the general public and other OEMs who then get into a mad scramble to work on it(no wonder updates to existing OEM phones take ~8 months after the Nexus device) . Contrast that with Linux, Firefox etc. where you can compile the nightlies or even Windows, with everyone getting access to betas and RCs before it is released instead of just catering to special interests.
This has been discussed ad nauseum, stupid. Nobody is saying that Android is like Firefox or Linux or any other OSS project. For that matter they are all different from each other in various ways. There is no open source rule book that says you have to develop in the open and there are various projects that are all over the map as far as that goes. The fact that a shit-ass like you tries to use that as FUD is very indicative of your motives. Furthermore, your comment should have been addressed to the GGP rather than the GP but of course you couldn't do that as the GGP is more in tune with your party line.

Companies can compete with Windows(retail or OEM) on price, which is exactly what Ubuntu is doing on the desktop and servers. You cannot do that with Android.
Again you show your ignorance. In order to get the Google blessing and the added apps you have to conform to the requirements and that involves paying a fee so yes, MS and Apple can compete on price with the operating systems in their mobile devices.
Your stupid name is on every website I frequent especially hacker news and slashdot and you have only one track. that track is shitting on Google and defending MS. If you are not a paid shill then you must really have a lot of time on your hands and a demented brain.
Re:Typical Slashdot Bullshit by recoiledsnake · 2012-06-01 09:34 · Score: 1

> In order to get the Google blessing and the added apps you have to conform to the requirements and that involves paying a fee so yes, MS and Apple can compete on price with the operating systems in their mobile devices.
So Android is not really Open you mean? The added apps are not FOSS and access is restricted to the Android market which hurts low cost OEMs.
Eg no Android(OpenTM) market on:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/245495/tablet_priced_under_100_with_android_40_surfaces.html
>Your stupid name is on every website I frequent especially hacker news and slashdot and you have only one track. that track is shitting on Google and defending MS. If you are not a paid shill then you must really have a lot of time on your hands and a demented brain.
I like to take a contrarian stand on the general biases on the sites, not my fault :)

--
This space for rent.
Re:Typical Slashdot Bullshit by scot4875 · 2012-06-06 07:58 · Score: 1

ACs are filtered due to abuse. Dare to stand behind what you say and get an account, it only takes two mins.
A point isn't any less valid just because it's made by an AC, and if these couple of AC replies are what you count as 'abuse,' you really haven't got a clue. I haven't even checked in to your claims, but the fact that you spend more time whining about other people being logged in than you do making your case doesn't really instill a lot of confidence in them.
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:Typical Slashdot Bullshit by recoiledsnake · 2012-06-06 11:06 · Score: 1

ACs are filtered due to abuse. Dare to stand behind what you say and get an account, it only takes two mins.
A point isn't any less valid just because it's made by an AC, and if these couple of AC replies are what you count as 'abuse,' you really haven't got a clue. I haven't even checked in to your claims, but the fact that you spend more time whining about other people being logged in than you do making your case doesn't really instill a lot of confidence in them.
--Jeremy
Not just a couple of replies from AC, I get vile attacks with foul language constantly from many ACs and I attribute some to people who are logged in but are posting anonymously. This is the price of trying to go against Slashdot's general consensus of 'M$ sux'.
Don't you get the irony behind calling someone a paid shill and then posting that attack anonymously? My time is precious so I don't see a need to respond to everyone, especially those who can't even bother to spend 2 minutes to get an account or who are posting AC to conceal their real account and use personal attacks and foul language. Trust me, it gets VERY annoying to come back for most comments and have 4 AC replies with personal attacks and none really addressing the real point or containing any references.

--
This space for rent.

Re:Hey by mystikkman · 2012-06-01 03:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

Yes, blaming Google for the actions started years ago of a company they literally bought last week is sure to prove your argument.

Microsoft and Apple have pledged to license standards-essential patents on FRAND terms and not to seek injunctions and stays based on them, Google refused to do so to the EU.

Also, did Slashdot run a story about Apple and MS filing antitrust complaint again Motorola?

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/253083/european_commission_opens_antitrust_investigation_of_motorola_mobility.html

Re:Glass houses... by DragonWriter · 2012-06-01 03:11 · Score: 2

Apple is in the process of having HTC complaints against them dismissed by the ITC due to lack of standing.

"Seeking to have" rather than "having" would be more accurate.

It seems that Google transferred five patents key to HTC complaint just prior to the filing with the ITC (less than week). The ITC hasn't ruled on Apple's motion, but it indicates that HTC is acting as Google's proxy in this matter.

Actually, what it shows is that when Apple launched a patent attack on HTC over importing devices using Google software -- that is, launched an attack-by-proxy on Google and the entire Android ecosystem through HTC -- Google handed HTC the ammunition to retaliate against Apple.

Since Apple has attacked HTC for allegedly improperly exercising Apple's patents by using Google software on HTC devices, they are hardly in a position to argue credibly that HTC lacks a bona fide domestic industrial use of the patents transferred from Google merely because HTC was a patent licensee rather than the patent owner until shortly before the complaint was issued.

Just because someone argues for something in a legal case (and just because it convinced Florian Mueller) doesn't mean it is credible.

Re:Hey by mystikkman · 2012-06-01 03:13 · Score: 1

> Lets not name some other company who made it difficult for others to install certain browsers on their OS, and kind of forced you to use their own browser.

Apple? If not, then some references please. Netscape basically scored a self goal with the rewrite from 4.0 taking too long. Stop rewriting history.

Re:Hey by Sparticus789 · 2012-06-01 03:16 · Score: 1

Guess all of the "I Love Google" moderators are online this morning. Where are the mods with a sense of humor?

--
sudo make me a sandwich

Re:Hey by hobarrera · 2012-06-01 03:24 · Score: 1

The huge ad that says "Suft the net faster: USE CHROME NOW" on youtube.com and google.com seem a bit of an abuse IMHO.

Re:Hey by dimeglio · 2012-06-01 03:43 · Score: 1

People can always use Bing! Google has the right to present their search results as they please, just like Microsoft does. I'm not saying they actually doctored them, as you claim, but that I expect the results to pro-Google.

Also, Google does no evil.

--
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.

Google can suck on it - Chinese censor hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 03:53 · Score: 1

Google continues to aid the Chinese government oppression of it's people. They care more about patent law than human rights. Way to not be evil Google.

Re:Glass houses... by DragonWriter · 2012-06-01 04:09 · Score: 2

I just pointed out that Google also uses proxies in its patent battles.

You claimed that, but pointed to evidence of Google supporting HTC only after Apple attacked HTC as a proxy for Google. That is, while there is a sense that HTC is a proxy for Google in the Apple-Google patent war, its because Apple choose to make HTC such a proxy by attacking HTC as a way of attacking Android, not because Google made them a proxy.

Re:Hey by Dishevel · 2012-06-01 04:12 · Score: 2

Awesome link. I love random links.
Do you have one that shows Google abusing its monopoly though?

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?

Re:Hey by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 04:28 · Score: 3, Informative

No, saying "You can ONLY use youtube.com and google.com IF YOU ARE USING CHROME" would be abusing their monopoly. advertising their own products (while not penalizing their competitors) is not abusing the monopoly.

Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 04:36 · Score: 1

Android is open source. It can continue without Google.
Also, Google does not care about Android being open. If they did they would have insisted that OEM's not lock bootloaders and such crap. All they want with Android is for your data to flow through their networks so they can mine the shit out of it.

Re:Hey by mister_playboy · 2012-06-01 04:54 · Score: 1

Part of pretending to be a new user is remember there are some things legitimate new users would never say.

"Where are the mods with a sense of humor?" is one such thing.

Try harder.

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will

Thanks. by Lorien_the_first_one · 2012-06-01 04:55 · Score: 1

I really appreciate it when someone who actually does that work steps up and let us know what's really going on. I like the phone number idea as that assures me that I'm going to get a password reset message if someone tries to make trouble with my account. I also have never received unsolicited phone calls as a result of my disclosure of my phone number to Google. I have an Android phone, so it makes sense anyway.

The post by IamTheRealMike is one of the reasons I enjoy reading Slashdot. I am always looking for posts like that to educate myself. It is that spirit that brings me back over and over again.

So thanks, IamTheRealMike.

--
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.

Re:Glass houses... by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-06-01 05:05 · Score: 1

Actually, what it shows is that when Apple launched a patent attack on HTC over importing devices using Google software -- that is, launched an attack-by-proxy on Google...

When you file a complaint with the EU or ITC to ban the importation of a product, you file a claim against that product's manufacturer. You act like Apple purposely went after HTC as a proxy to Google.

Just because someone argues for something in a legal case (and just because it convinced Florian Mueller) doesn't mean it is credible.

I agree. However the same thing can be said about Google's claims against Microsoft and Nokia. In both cases, a claim is being made to the EU and in both cases a finding has not been made. So how is this case different from Apple's?

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...

Antitrust? Against MS in mobile space?? HAHA!! by WaffleMonster · 2012-06-01 05:07 · Score: 1

For anti-trust avenue to stick there ususally has to be a monopoly component either already having one to begin with or some illegal collusion scheme to get one. MS has no market share of any kind at least none worth mentioning and there is no reason to believe this would change significantly even with patent proxies in play.

Looking at it the other way google has a huge slice of the market. Its no cost licensing is essentially dumping because it costs more than nothing to create a mobile operating system unless those costs are subsidised externally.

Either way using patents in a competitive war rather than improving the value your products provide is a lose lose lose for all but the lawyers.

I hope the world takes note of the huge loss of time, progress and productivity their illogical laws are inflicting on all of us. Fucking disgusting.

Re:Glass houses... by DragonWriter · 2012-06-01 05:26 · Score: 1

When you file a complaint with the EU or ITC to ban the importation of a product, you file a claim against that product's manufacturer. You act like Apple purposely went after HTC as a proxy to Google.

That's because Apple purposely went after HTC as a proxy to Google, to wit, they weren't just going after HTC, they were trying to increase the perceived cost to hardware vendors of making and selling Android devices and, by that means, of stopping -- or at least slowing -- Google's erosion of Apple's position as a supplier of mobile operating systems and all the things (app sales, online advertising, e-book sales) where Google and Apple compete where Apple's position is driven by the market position of its mobile OS.

Just because someone argues for something in a legal case (and just because it convinced Florian Mueller) doesn't mean it is credible.
I agree.

This is inconsistent with your characterization of the Apple vs. Google situation, where you presented Apple's characterization as fact, and even the remedy Apple was seeking as if it was predetermined.

However the same thing can be said about Google's claims against Microsoft and Nokia.

Well, not the part about being endorsed by paid Microsoft shill Florian Mueller, but yes, you shouldn't accept Google's claims as fact just because Google claimed them. Were someone doing that, it might be relevant to point that out in response to to that person. But...that's not what you did.

In both cases, a claim is being made to the EU

Well, no, the United States International Trade Commission (where the HTC complaint against Apple is being made) is not an organ of the European Union.

and in both cases a finding has not been made.

Original complaints to regulators and decisions by regulators on complaints aren't the only source of information in the world.

So how is this case different from Apple's?

That's not the issue. You've made the "glass houses" charge, which isn't supported by merely observing that the complaint the target of the charge has made against others has also been made against the complainant. To support the position you have staked out against Google, you need to show evidence that they have actually done what they accuse others of doing, not that they have merely been accused of of the same thing they accuse others of doing.

Re:Hey by makomk · 2012-06-01 05:38 · Score: 2

One of Google's updates to PageRank did downrank so-called vertical search engines. They kind of needed too because they were effectively rendering search unusable - you'd search for information or reviews about some product and just get page after page of links to searches on other websites, most of which hadn't managed to find anything. It made trying to use Google an exercise in frustration that reminded me of the bad old days and why the other search engines lost out to them in the first place. Honestly, if anything they haven't been aggressive enough about it.

Re:Hey by paladinsama · 2012-06-01 06:56 · Score: 1

I don't remember which version of Windows had the message: "We have detected you are trying to install Netscape, so we are going to make this process difficult". And I have always installed Netscape/Mozilla in Windows.

Re:Hey by VGPowerlord · 2012-06-01 07:12 · Score: 1

Lets not name some other company who made it difficult for others to install certain browsers on their OS, and kind of forced you to use their own browser.

That's kind of the standard for mobile devices.

If you're referring to Microsoft Windows, I've had alternative browsers installed on my PC for the past 19 years, so I'm going to say you're full of shit.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011

Re:Awesome! by hairyfeet · 2012-06-01 07:20 · Score: 1

Uhhhh...isn't this pot scraming at kettle because its black? After all Googles DOES own Motorola mobile, which has been filing patent trolling lawsuits left and right, yes? Frankly I think all three of the major players, Apple, Google, and MSFT should be forced to open up any and all patents related to hardware. Let them fight it out over software if they want but mobile hardware needs a chance to become standardized like desktops so that one can run whatever you want on them and won't be trapped by lock in.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.

Re:Hey by Dishevel · 2012-06-01 08:01 · Score: 1

It has nothing to do with abuse of monopoly powers.
Therefore it is just a random bash Google link.
As I said. Not a bad link. But it had nothing to do with the thread.

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?

Pay Up by kiwirob · 2012-06-01 08:19 · Score: 1

Google you have Billions so just pay up and stop being a whiney bitch. For some crazy reason you think that you should be able to use everybody else's hard work for free so you can show your adverts to make money. How much do you pay to spider the billions of pages on the WWW that you use to make up your search engine? Nothing. How much to you pay to your Gmail users so you can data-mine their private emails? Nothing. How much do you pay for using 1000's of patented technologies in your Andriod operating system? Nothing. For christ sake they who battle with Oracle over Java copyrights could have been solved if you GPL'd Andriod to be compatible with GPL'd Java, but no instead you just stole it. Before Eric Schmidt your moto used to be "Do No Evil" and it meant something. Now Google you are just another free loading cheap skate, you are the guy who turn up to a party with 4 beers and gets rotten drunk on everybody else's beer, then has the balls to try take 2 beers home because you didn't actually drink all of your own.

Re:mother's maiden name by TaoPhoenix · 2012-06-01 09:31 · Score: 1

AC asked, "Finding my mother's maiden name is easier than using a phone book?"

About twelve seconds on Facebook?

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Yeah! by wiedzmin · 2012-06-01 10:33 · Score: 1

Yeah, what the hell Microsoft and Nokia! We paid for Motorola patents to be able to use them in court... where do you get off trying to that, without publically shelling out the cash!?

--
Bow before me, for I am root.

Re:Hey by LordLucless · 2012-06-01 11:56 · Score: 1

So, advertising on your own site is anti-trust. Ok, thanks for playing.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face

Re:Hey by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-06-01 15:38 · Score: 1

When has Google *EVER* used patents in an offensive (vs defensive) manner?

Re:Hey by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-06-01 15:39 · Score: 1

Oops, that was meant for the OP.

Re:Hey by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-06-01 15:42 · Score: 1

Now that you mention it, that problem DID suddenly go away a while ago. I had forgotten about the dark days of every search engine simply returning results to the results of other search engines. It was like a map that told you to buy another map which told you to buy another map which told.....

Re:Hey by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-06-01 15:43 · Score: 1

I distinctly rememer when IE7 came out in automatic updates that it would make itself the default even if a 3rd party browser was in place. I remember this because for a fucking month every other phone call I got was from someone who's computer I had put Firefox on to reduce the drive-by malware. The question was basically "where did my bookmarks go?!?".

Re:Hey by cynyr · 2012-06-01 15:44 · Score: 1

Android has browser, chrome, firefox, opera, dolphin, and a few more as well i think. I'm not sure about iOS and i don't even know anyone with a windows phone or a modern blackberry to ask.

--
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.

Re:Awesome! by cynyr · 2012-06-01 15:54 · Score: 1

since google bought Motorola or only before? seeing as it was only a few weeks ago the deal was approved, I'm not sure how we can blame google yet...

Also google can't just drop those cases or they would get smacked by the court for it.

--
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.

Re:Glass houses... by hkmwbz · 2012-06-01 23:57 · Score: 1

Didn't Apple sue HTC first? Comparing Google supporting its partner to protect Android to Microsoft and Nokia using proxies to harass other companies is just silly.

--
Clever signature text goes here.

Re:Hey by hobarrera · 2012-06-02 02:23 · Score: 1

Yup, it's abusing monopoly, just like bundling your product with your flagship OS is also anti-trust (IE in Windows).

Re:Hey by KingMotley · 2012-06-04 02:27 · Score: 1

http://edition.myjoyonline.com/pages/science/201204/84259.php

Slashdot Mirror

Google Files Antitrust Complaint Against Microsoft, Nokia

152 of 233 comments (clear)