Slashdot Mirror
Google Seeks US Ban On iPhones, iPads, Macs
theodp writes "Following up on an announcement that it would rid itself of 4,000 employees world-wide and renege on a deal with the State of Illinois, Google's Motorola Mobility unit said it has filed a new patent-infringement case against Apple, which seeks a ban on U.S. imports of devices including the iPhone, iPad and Mac computers. 'Apple's unwillingness to work out a license leaves us little choice but to defend ourselves and our engineers' innovations,' Motorola Mobility said in an e-mailed statement."
Why not ban the two companies from doing business in the US until they iron out a deal?
here we go again...
when will someone get the balls to hit the destruct button on the broken patent industry. I'm tired of reading about it, yet alone trying to keep abreast of it.
PS haven't RTFA but I am assuming this is another trivial software patent (although with MM there is a chance it is a valid hardware patent)
Self defense isn't evil. If someone hits you, you are allowed to hit them back.
If this were to succeed, just imagine the economic impact.
First, the Web 2.0 would collapse. Without Apple devices to participate in all sorts of useless "social media", the entire hipster culture would implode. This means Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, reddit and all of the other big names would be no more. (As a side-effect, there'd also be no further need for Ruby on Rails "developers" and NoSQL "experts" to build these kind of sites.)
If these hipsters aren't wasting time on web sites like those, or on trying to build the "next big startup", then they won't need to be sitting in Starbucks all day. Starbucks and its ilk could very well become the next victims!
Now you've got roving bands of hipsters on the loose, suffering severe withdrawal symptoms due to not having Apple devices in their possession, AND not having had any choco-latte-mochachinos lately. In uncontrolled outbursts, they lash out at their trust fund administrators. Stricken with fear after dealing with numerous crazed hipsters, these administrators flee their jobs, causing the financial sector to collapse into ruin.
The financial sector collapse causes economic ruin across the nation. There is no employment, imports eventually trail off, and people starve to death. Entire communities disappear, and their infrastructure crumbles. The country is destroyed.
I have some beer and chips left from the Samsung vs Apple case. But I'll buy a new couch for this one!
-- Cheers!
that is my thought, the problem with FRAND is this exactly. you license your product to one company who then sells it to another as allowed in the license. That third company then makes billions and you only get millions for your FRAND so you sue not realizing you already allowed it to happen.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
...the headline is all that anyone is going to read (here and elsewhere). And it's not good PR for Google.
Koans and fables for the software engineer
So this is just a retaliatory action by Google. Some great court showdown is gonna happen soon, Apple is likely to unite with Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle against their arch enemy Google. So this is gonna be fun to watch.
Isn't it about time that the patent trolls, legitimite patent holders, and the whole litigation industry built up around them were pimp-slapped into realizing that patents are not business models.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Either:
A: they are desperately trying to do anything to help make their purchase of Motorola Mobile not look like the giant steaming turd that it is or
B: they purchased Motorola Mobile solely for this purpose...
Monstar L
This is all in response to Apple trying to kill the Android phone market by preventing their devices from being imported, and nothing more. Apple started all this lawsuit garbage, and deserves to be slapped down hard for the MANY cases of THEIR copying of ideas from others.
Google is good and would never sue anyone. I guess they are just looking for some more FRAND abuse smackdown.
Defensive (or even retaliatory) litigation is not looked at as unkindly as patent trolling (or other common abuses of the patent system)
Google will learn this is the worst 12.5b anyone ever spent.
Uh-huh. Google's a pretty smart company, I recollect the number of slashdot armchair analysts who say they'd regret the price they paid for youtube. I think the MM buy is going to work out just as well for them.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Just get rid of software patents. Get rid of them entirely. Invalidate all the current ones and stop issuing new software patents. They are essentially patents on math and certain long numbers, which is absurd.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Appleâ(TM)s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. Iâ(TM)m going to destroy Android, because itâ(TM)s a stolen product. Iâ(TM)m willing to go thermonuclear war on this."
"I don't want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won't want it. I've got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, thatâ(TM)s all I want."
- Steve Jobs
Looks like Google's taken them up on the offer for war since the new Dictator is carrying out the same stupid plan. Hopefully this mutually assured destruction will get Apple to pull it's head out of it's ass. You don't stay rich giving all your money to lawyers. Would you simply acquiescing to the asshole's irrational demands? I wouldn't either.
I read the linked article. I don't see anywhere in it where it talks about a deal being reneged on. I only saw they they were going to loose some of their tax breaks.
"seven Motorola Mobility patents on features including location reminders, e-mail notification and phone/video players" -- doesn't sound very standards essential to me.
Maybe the thought of not being able to buy iPads and iPhones will wake up the U.S. to how badly screwed up the patent system is? Or maybe that thought will stop ITC from treating the case the same way it has treated cases against MotoGoogle.
The gloves are really off, the floodgates are open, the fat is on the fire etc. Although Google inherited cases from Motorola, this is the first time Google has directly sued Apple. Google has been reticent to take on Apple directly but they don't have much choice left now.
Interestingly, probably the sole patent victory for any Android manufacturer has been the ban on push e-mail from iCloud on Apple devices won by MotoGoogle, which still exists: http://www.tuaw.com/2012/04/13/apple-still-blocked-from-using-push-email-in-germany/
It is possible that a similar patent is among those involved here. Maybe the Motorola purchase wasn't as useless as Florian Muller makes it out to be...
ahh man that was so weird to read, but kinda satisfying to finally see apple get a taste of its own medicine.
'Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail'. Emerson
Their purchase of Motorola was indeed primarily for this. They needed to be able to defend Android, and Google itself didn't have sufficient mobile patents to have a decent chance at prevailing in a court against Apple. Google + Moto on the other hand, very much the reverse.
Google's choices were - buy Nokia, RIM, Motorola, or the Nortel patents. Of that lot, Motorola made by far the most strategic sense since they had an enormous trove of on point patents, were affordable, and were already an Android partner. At the time, their losing the Nortel patent auction looked bad, but when they snapped up Motorola shortly thereafter, it all made sense.
Would they have been better off winning Nortel patents for (say) $5bn than spending $13.5+ for Motorola? [I'm counting anticipated restructuring costs in with the purchase price] Maybe. But it's entirely possible that Apple, Microsoft, RIM, etc. would have pushed the bidding on Nortel patents well above $5bn. Also, a lot of the Nortel patents would have been neither applicable nor remotely useful to Google. For a patent defense, Motorola is a much better fit.
Does it suck that companies have to spend billions in this fashion to create a legal defense? Yes. If you're an ardent Apple fan, it sucks that Google gets to attack Apple just because they bought a bunch of patents; if you're an ardent Google fan, it sucks that Apple is attacking Android manufacturers in the first place. For the rest of us, firing engineers and hiring lawyers does not seem a winning plan for engineers or the economy-at-large. Nice for lawyers though.
If I remember correctly the whole Motorola vs Apple ordeal or war predicates that of any other cases regarding patents. I personally think it had a lot to do with the fact that Microsoft threaded Motorola with a lawsuit which ended in Motorola taken a license on those patents. Not long after that Motorola sued Apple.
So I have a bit of sour taste in my mouth when I see people telling that this is a "defensive" stance or "only because Apple has lawsuits". Or maybe Motorola also develops crystal balls that they can predict the future.
I'm of the opinion that cheerleading for Motorola is a bit hypocritical. You are against "software" patents (which I am) or you are not, software patents aren't suddenly good things because it is used against a company that you hate.
Best defence is good offence,
and this clearly makes sense.
Patents, copyrights, government protection of all of these things, what can possibly go wrong?
You can't handle the truth.
You're bringing up Youtube?! Why?
They paid 1.65 billion for it in 2006, and only in July 2012 (in the earnings call that Page missed) did Google say Youtube was finally profitable. And they refused to say by how much.
So 6 years have passed.. they still haven't earned back their money.
And you're saying: Motorola is going to work out because Youtube worked out? Is that some kind of joke?
The article says that if they retain 2500 then they get the tax breaks: if they don't, they don't. They've clearly decided that the extra payroll isn't worth the breaks so they have chosen to give them up. That's the deal. Nothing is being "reneged" on. They are complying with the agreement.
IMHO such deals should not exist, but that's a seperate issue.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Only the bits that allow them to be judgmental of others.
I dunno, I think it is Apple who will ultimately regret their strategy.
Even if you think Apple have brought a lot to the mobile phone space you have to acknowledge they are depending on an awful lot of other peoples IP. Pre Apple (and still between other companies) IP issues in the mobile space seem to have been handled fairly amicably. Companies competed with their products, not lawsuits. Then Apple walks in, uses everybody else's IP but is incredibly unfriendly with their own.
I think this is a mistake for two reasons.
1) Outside identified FRAND patents all these other companies with years of mobile experience will inevitably have patents on things Apple does in iPhones and IPads.
2) Apple grows it's business by entering and disrupting existing markets. The existing mobile phone companies were perhaps asleep at the wheel in allowing Apple to get a foot in the door. They just viewed them as another competitor and thought they'd continue to do business the old way. No other market will make that mistake now. If Apple try to expand into a new market now then existing players will surely note their litigious nature and preemptively use whatever legal means are available to stop them getting a foot in the door.
Apple went "nuclear" without realizing what that means. You can use them if no one else also has nuclear capability or you can sit on them as a deterrent if other people do. By deploying their weapons Apple has ensured that every other company will feel it necessary to use theirs too (and in future, perhaps first).
TFA makes it pretty clear that they're not suing over the radio patents at all... this is over things like location awareness, e-mail push, and embedded video players....
It's not quite as clear-cut as that. Apple is the most visible aggressor - well, certainly the one reported most on sites like /. - but the entire mobile phone industry is a great big mess of everyone suing everyone else, and has been for a couple of years now.
the ice cream licks back.
This reminds me of the line from the film Raging Bull by Martin Scorsese when Robert DeNiro, playing boxer Jake LaMotta, tells a thug, "Why don't I put the two of ya's in the ring together and watch you fuck each other?"
He was referring to a comment repeated that LaMotta's opponent was "pretty" because he hadn't taken hits to the face. LaMotta had responded "Yeah, he's so pretty I don't know whether to fight him or fuck him" and the thug had thought this was funny enough to repeat.
I don't know exactly what this has to do with the story of Apple and Google except it's amusing to see these two giants who ought to be fighting one another with honest competition trying to fuck each other with the same patent laws that are being used to fuck all of us.
You are welcome on my lawn.
... it's offense.
well, would be if apple hadn't tried to block nexus sales...
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
It is not all about profit. Youtube is one of the most recognised brands in the world. In this space Earnings Per Share mean much less than market presence.
If I remember correctly the whole Motorola vs Apple ordeal or war predicates that of any other cases regarding patents. I personally think it had a lot to do with the fact that Microsoft threaded Motorola with a lawsuit which ended in Motorola taken a license on those patents. Not long after that Motorola sued Apple. So I have a bit of sour taste in my mouth when I see people telling that this is a "defensive" stance or "only because Apple has lawsuits". Or maybe Motorola also develops crystal balls that they can predict the future. I'm of the opinion that cheerleading for Motorola is a bit hypocritical. You are against "software" patents (which I am) or you are not, software patents aren't suddenly good things because it is used against a company that you hate.
Hello! Apple was threatening to SUE Motorola over swipe to unlock and others right when Microsoft threaned to sue them over FAT and ActiveSync. Motorolla fired back with actual litigation against the agressors. Please stop spreading misinformation.
lol... thanks for that.. needed a laugh for today. If that's the standard, then I guess Google is already successful with Motorola. Good job Google!
Really?? Google's evil now because they're defending Android? Apple has been nothing but asshole towards all competition, filing countless frivolous lawsuits, finally Google stands up to say "have a taste of your own medicine" and that makes Google evil? Lame.
Google is probably just about as evil as Apple, but not for fighting back.
My memory is fuzzy, and I'm too lazy to research this myself, but my understanding is that part of the deal in the US (and probably other nations) that allowed the acquisition to go through was that Google would not aggressively attack others with the IP that they acquired from the deal.
Is this not the case? And if it is, wouldn't these actions be in violation of that agreement? Could Google face some sort of kickback for breaching this agreement, or possibly even an antitrust case?
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
What do you want to bet that Google bought Motorola purely to do this - i.e., that they don't really care about making the hardware, and so are willing to gut Motorola,in order to sue Apple ?
Note that much of the Internet runs on RAND, and RAND terms can always be dropped against your attacker if you get sued. Look for a major countersuit from Apple.
I guess they are just looking for some more FRAND abuse smackdown.
Just because these are FRAND patents doesn't mean you don't have to license them. My understanding is that Apple is basically the only manufactuer that doesn't license these patents.
What I don't understand is why Apple expects others to respect patents to shapes and colors while the radio technology in their phones isn't worth their dime.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Would that logic suggest that MS should have already killed the Xbox and their entire online division?
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
I'm of the opinion that cheerleading for Motorola is a bit hypocritical. You are against "software" patents (which I am) or you are not, software patents aren't suddenly good things because it is used against a company that you hate.
There is nothing hypocritical about taking multiple factors into account in your moral judgements. You may generally be opposed to shooting strangers but think that such things are acceptable in war or in defense of your home. I'm normally against locking people in cages, but totally in favor of it when it comes to most murderers.
Life is a series of situations and what is acceptable in some situations is not in others. In this case one of the main reasons people hate Apple is because of their use of software patents. Having a policy where a company that attempts to use software patents finds itself suffering a PR hit and paying out much more heavily than they collect is not a bad outcome.
Yes but prior to Apple's involvement the tradition was a lot of cross licensing agreements. I like Apple, but they started this war.
They are also vulnerable on the FRAND stuff. Apple's defense there, is they want protections over and above the law.
No one said anything about killing Youtube. In fact, it's going in the right direction (they've increased revenue substantially).. so that would be stupid.
But just because something is going in the right direction, does not make it a success.
Do I really need to explain the difference?
Um, Christians, by definition, do not have to adhere to Old Testament teachings/laws. You know, the ones that came before Christ?
Ironic, given your criticism of the GP being intellectually wrong. But, that's Slashdot!
It's to burn the competition to the ground. Its no different than any other large corporation wants to do. Its the way the world works. If you honestly believe its for anything less and somehow Google is the 'good guy' you are sadly deluding yourself.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
He sued the mac rumors website for talking about rumors for upcoming products. I believe it was over the G4 toaster design,
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Just make it rational and award them when they are truly deserving. Not just because you had an idea for a black box that does magic.
The concept of patent protection is a good thing, but how its being used in today's world is not.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Motorola Mobility did not renege on a deal. They are still moving from Libertyville to Chicago as planned. What they haven't done is maintained a high enough workforce to earn tax breaks.
According to the linked article you are led to believe that they are fighting over 'interoperability standards' ( with wifi )
If this is really what this is about, personally, i don't think a 'standard' should be patented or licensed. Once a standard like this is adopted by some governing body everyone gets access to it. Sure, have some sort of compatibility test so you can use the pretty logo, but its 100% free to everyone to see and implement on their own.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Either:
A: they are desperately trying to do anything to help make their purchase of Motorola Mobile not look like the giant steaming turd that it is or
B: they purchased Motorola Mobile solely for this purpose...
C: You don't understand what long-term planning is
I don't blame you, seems like 99% of population (aka 'instant gratification' crowd) doesn't understand it either.
FYI, the bible is a collection of books by various authors which most Christians belive to be a document of salvation history, so the evolution of who God is and what his plan for Humanity changes a bit as he revels more of himself until the comming of Christ who fufils and perfects all that came before.
What you are doing is like looking at a history of science book and calling science hyprocritically wrong because Issac Newton's theories are incompatible with Quantum Mechanics.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
The patents you question that they won't use offensively, I do not at all see in the list of patents they are suing over. There is no mention of the radio or cellular protocol patents in that teeny one page link in the summary. Only location awareness, e-mail push, video players, and the like.
Though I'm not quite convinced Apple will not in the future fire the first lawsuits in that area too. Google/MM are allowed to use those patents defensively. I suspect it is just a matter of time before that little package gets opened in court.
They haven't made ANYTHING. Forget about 100%... right now it's at 0% ROI
You evidently don't understand how business development works.
Demanding 100% ROI in six years is not realistic. At a nominal 8% return, it will take about 9 years to recover their money. And that's nominal (i.e., assuming a "normal" rate of return based on the empirical average). Youtube just became profitable. So it will nominally pay for itself in 9 years.
On the other hand, acquiring Youtube turned Google into a media company. Have you noticed how Google is using resources to combat copyright infringement of movies recently? Why do you think that is? To drive users to legitimately licensed Google owned media distribution channels, which will increase the rate of return of the investment.
They also control a massive content distribution infrastructure, putting pressure on other distribution networks. Cable television companies are finding that they must lower their prices for all of their services in order to compete with the internet -- the largest legitimate chunks of which are represented by Youtube, Netflix, and Hulu. Eventually, the cable companies will be nothing but ISPs with perhaps some "premium" content for subscribers. But even that is doubtful -- the media companies are much better off selling licenses to anybody who wants them. Including Google. The only thing keeping the cable companies at all relevant is their valuable networking infrastructure.
Either way, Google gets more eye balls on their pages and more licensing deals for Youtube distribution.
They bought a lot more than 1.65B worth of market power.
After all, I am strangely colored.
You're bringing up Youtube?! Why?
Youtube gave google a BIG voice in the war to define web video standards. Sure, their choice didn't win in the end, but its presence changed the state of play considerably. Youtube's strategic value is immense. Worth far more today than what google paid.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
How pretell was overpaying for a quickly failing hardware manufacturer "long term planning"? If they wanted something long term they could have done a HELL of a lot better than Motorola.
Monstar L
Apple will be able to buy Google lock, stock and barrel without breaking a sweat,
Apart from the minor issue that the US and/or EU competition bodies would definitely block such a takeover.
Not as cut and dry as we'd initially expect... technically, Google and Apple are not really competing. Apple is a hardware company, and Google is a web technolgies company... but actually, and by the vast majority, Google's revenue stream comes from advertising, while Apple's comes from, again, hardware. Apple doesn't license iOS, and Google gives Android away... so the competition between the two companies is not so obvious. With Motorola mobile in the mix, it appears it might be different but it is not... Apple could have bought Motorola with no problem, as there are countless other mobile competitors. In the same way Microsoft has many times purchased companies simply to kill a single competitor, Apple could do the same, so long as there is plenty of other competition in the market, and there is that. Slashdot commenters seem to forget, Android is not a company, nor is it a typical 'product.' It is Apache licensed open source software. Again, in the same way Oracle purchased Sun and killed Open Solaris (and, effectively, Solaris), Apple could do the same to Google and Android. However, as Android is OSS, it could fork and Apple would have no control over that even if they did purchase Google... the same way Oracle has no control over nor can Solaris benefit from illumOS or projects based on the forks of Open Solaris.
The Admin and the Engineer
From what I read: Apple's is using a Qualcomm communication chip in their devices. Qualcomm has already paid into the FRAND license pool (which is built into the price of their chips). That license is then extended to the customers that buy Qualcomm's chips. Since Apple (among many other companies) is Qualcomm's customer, the FRAND license is already covered.
Motorola going back and suddenly demanding 2.5% for iPhones using their FRAND looks like double dipping. If they get any kind of settlement, you will quickly see MM going after ANYBODY that uses communication chips based on their FRAND technology -- including Windows Phones, all other (non Motorola) Android phones, dumb phones, etc. Lawyers tend to keep doing what they do so long as money is involved.
They can keep doing what their lobbyist tell them and openly say that fuck law, they do what they want. Or they can recognize that there is something very rotten in all the patent bussiness. Banning Apple won't be an option for them.
Stepping back a bit, does it strike anyone else as extremely strange that we have a system in place in which the bodies that understand what they are doing (Google, Apple, Moto, etc.) turn to a body that doesn't (the courts) for decisions of can-or-cannot do?
Defending a patent from a frequent attacker is not attacking someone outright.
If I walk up and punch someone, it's an attack. If that person has been provoking me for an hour, and I deck him, it's self-defense.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Um, no true Christian has to adhere to Old Testament teachings/laws
Here, FTFY. As GP said, pick and choose, when it's about bashing gays, Christians thump the Bible (where it's in Old Testament), when it gets inconvenient - "by definition, do not have to adhere".
Sorry but your attitude is hypocrisy. You pick and choose what you consider immoral. Homosexual sex is considered a sin in the new testament as is heterosexual sin outside of a marriage as is adultery as is even lusting. So what kind of messed up logic do you people use that a guy fucking another guy up his ass is not immoral but adultery and sex before marriage are? What about statutory rape? It's all just sex right? I'm not just talking to the so-called "moral" atheists who support gays but the liberal "christians" as well. They are picking and choosing their sins. Sin is sin and sexual sin is sexual sin. Since same sex couples cannot ever be married in the eyes of god then they are perpetually in sexual sin. Gays do not get a free pass on sin. If you claim to be a christian but support gay marriage then you are a hypocrite and will burn in hell.
You can be against gay marriage and "gay" rights and yet not "bash" gays. It is not a binary choice. You can simply not support them while tolerating them in society.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Looks like a shoving match to me. (How many steps did I leave out?
Time to play the Apple game. I think this is a good idea, how about stopping the one company who's personal mission it is to cripple everyone else. Apple is the school yard bully and no one does anything to stop it, not the teachers, not the parents and not the principal, so maybe it's time that Apple gets put in timeout.
I guess they are just looking for some more FRAND abuse smackdown.
Just because these are FRAND patents doesn't mean you don't have to license them. My understanding is that Apple is basically the only manufactuer that doesn't license these patents.
What I don't understand is why Apple expects others to respect patents to shapes and colors while the radio technology in their phones isn't worth their dime.
Then your understanding is misplaced. Apple do licence the FRAND patents required to create a working mobile phone.
The lawsuits relating to the FRAND abuse/licensing issues revolve around the argument that Apple are being unfairly charged more because they don't want to cross licence other patents that they hold (they have no obligation to - you can pay for FRAND patents in cash, goats, cheese or cross licensing deals or anything else you can barter with), and some FRAND holders are crying foul.
The entire Nokia case was one huge clusterfuck of that. There was never any doubt *at all* that Apple was trying to avoid licensing FRAND patents - it's an absolute requirement for the creation of a functioning GSM phone - the argument was over the costs associated with it and the long, drawn out negotiations over the value of things that Apple was offering (and/or Nokia was requesting) in exchange. The value of the stuff on Nokia's side is fixed - it;s whatever everyone else paid. Apple argued Nokia was asking too much, Nokia argued Apple was over-valuing what it was offering and also crying foul that certain patents Apple held were off the table since it really wanted them.
Apple absolutely *does* licence all of the necessary FRAND patents required to make the radios in the iPhone work - that was likely the very first thing they put into the "things to do" column, since you need GSM hardware and various other chips to be able to make a phone, which they bought from third party manufacturers like Qualcomm. The various patents that they had to licence and their cost will have all been in the early projections - it's hardly complex, since it's the exact same set of patents everyone else who makes a phone has to licence.
Hello! Apple was threatening to SUE Motorola over swipe to unlock and others right when Microsoft threaned to sue them over FAT and ActiveSync. Motorolla fired back with actual litigation against the agressors. Please stop spreading misinformation.
Corrections:
Apple did not just threaten to sue Motorola over Swipe-to-Unlock, it actually did sue them and won. Swipe to unlock is a common idea, present long before any sort of smartphone or touch-screen device ever had it, and is entirely a software patent.
Motorola sued Apple and won over the method the 3G radio chips use to time the signals to and from the tower. A hardware and software patent that is exclusively relevant to 3G mobile devices.
Apple has been the clear aggressor all along, and their patent claims are largely trollish and petty rather than valid technical patents. Please stop spreading disinformation.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Google's marketable shares are entirely class B and possess fewer than half the voting rights. Apple could buy all they want and still not control google.
Google class A shares are held entirely by insiders who I doubt would be willing to sell.
Apple has repeatedly refused to license the patents and instead continues to just use them without paying. Was anyone actually surprised to see this happen? The word inevitable comes to mind. Not that I am particularly in love with the patent system, but Apple enjoys suing everyone else for patent violations and then they turn around and blatantly do it themselves. Someone at apple has been taking their stupid pills on the reg.
What self defense? Motorola was the one who sued Apple first.
Whoa, an AC confirmed your conspiracy theory, call the press!
I couldn't give a rats ass who made feature X first, "stealing" features dates back to stone age.
However, Apple directly hurts my interests as the consumer - by blocking competing products, which
is why they don't deserve my money(even though their hardware is nice).
Whoa, an AC confirmed your conspiracy theory, call the press!
I couldn't give a rats ass who made feature X first, "stealing" features dates back to stone age.
However, Apple directly hurts my interests as the consumer - by blocking competing products, which
is why they don't deserve my money(even though their hardware is nice).
You seem to miss my sarcasm.
I'd post a "whooosh" but I fear you'd assume you had a leaking pipe in your house.
Lighten up folks, it was a joke. I guess the painfully obvious cliche punchline was too subtle. I'll use the html blink tag next time.
They are picking and choosing their sins.
EVERYONE picks and chooses their sins. Some people MAY choose to pick "all sins as dictated in the Bible", but that's no less "choosing sins" than anyone else. And, I know almost no one who actually selects "all sins as dictated in the Bible" as their sin list. There's some pretty archaic stuff in there.
Homosexual sex is considered a sin in the new testament as is heterosexual sin outside of a marriage as is adultery as is even lusting. So what kind of messed up logic do you people use that a guy fucking another guy up his ass is not immoral but adultery and sex before marriage are?
Under what kind of messed up logic must everyone's moral code be logically consistent with an arbitrarily selected book?
paintball
What you are doing is like looking at a history of science book and calling science hyprocritically wrong because Issac Newton's theories are incompatible with Quantum Mechanics.
No, it's like complaining that your science teacher has randomly scored the answers to your test, and when confronted about it, references alchemy when it supports their grading, but ignores alchemy when it refutes their grading.
paintball
Apple only switched to a supplier of radio hardware that had licenses for some of the FRAND patents after they'd already been taken to court by I think Nokia for failing to license the patents at all - as in, neither Apple nor any of the manufacturers they used had licenses for the patents - and then probably only so they could drag the court case for damages for willful infringement out without having to worry about Nokia getting an injunction against them selling more iPhones.
We need something much better to encourage innovation, something that is as fair and unobtrusive as possible. Above all, it must respect freedom.
Until Apple got sued over it, they were using a chip from a manufacturer that paid no licensing fees and Apple also refused to pay licensing fees. The switch to Qualcomm was basically their way of stopping companies like Nokia and Motorola from pressuring them into paying the money they owe through injunctions preventing the sale of the iPhone, as far as observers can tell.
Then your understanding is misplaced. Apple do licence the FRAND patents required to create a working mobile phone.
Actually, with the original iPhone they didn't license the FRAND patents - not directly, not through their component suppliers, not at all full stop - and Nokia wound up suing them over it. I believe Apple are still trying to weasel out of paying damages or license fees or anything for their patent infringement.
WebM was a Xanatos Gambit, they would have won with an immediate takeover, they did win by keeping H.264 affordable, they are winning on slowly pushing it onto a lot of new devices, which in turn sets them up to win by either having WebM prevail long term or keeping H.264 affordable when the next review date hits. It might not have been a win for web standards nor Google's best case scenario, but they came out ahead anyway.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
I see you didn't read the rest of my post.
I wrote more than just that opening line that had you rushing for the reply button.
You should probably read those paragraphs - it won't take long.
Since no one has thrown it out on the basis of Qualcomm having such license it is quite clear that you have read fanboy wishful thinking. They read that Qualcomm has paid to make the chips (duh, they are an established mobile player, playing by the rules) and, not understanding the first thing about how fucked the patent system is (e.g. H.264 licenses covering cameras still leave the user on the hook for commercial use of the files), extrapolate that to mean that Apple is somehow automatically clear. Then they either write it up as fact, or confusingly enough for people to go "I read that" and recite it as fact. A very obvious clue that you all get it from the same wrong source is the 'double dipping' catchphrase, you didn't come up with that, your whole post looks like the dozens of others I've seen repeating this shit mindlessly. Sorry to be harsh, but you're not contributing to the discussion if you don't filter what "you read" through your frontal cortex.
It looks like it is getting thrown out (or at least heading there).
Um, Christians, by definition, do not have to adhere to Old Testament teachings/laws. You know, the ones that came before Christ?
"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place"
I'm saying the patent war. I think the copying is a bit more complex than that. There are certainly features of Android not present in iOS.
Too bad all the hipsters have moved onto Android since grandma started using iDevices a few years ago.
Gr8Apes (679165) wrote:
I do believe Google started the entire shebang by ripping off Apple's designs, or so says the lawsuits.
ALERT !!
Sock Puppet from Apple, Inc. Sighted !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
model of science argue exactly that—individual personalities (and indeed bodies) are the same kind of emergent order (hence behavior) that a company, or indeed a society is, at the abstract level. Just a giant information processing system that imports energy from connected systems and exports entropy; the particular characteristics are the emergent epiphenomena of the system.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
But wasn't one of the terms of Qualcomm's license that it and its customers could not sue MM. Once it (Qualcomm) or one of its customer did sue MM then all or some parts of the license became void.
So because Apple have sued MM this action voided the protection they (Apple) had via Qualcomm's licensing.
Well, If you are a Christian ( and there are some wackos out there that believe this) that does believe that every thing in the Bible is a binding commandment that they must follow, then yes. These aren't what you would call fundamentalists, but a crazy group of people that follow a good deal of the kosher laws as well as the Christian ones.
If you are not a Christian at all, then you can't really say what it means because you don't beleive any of it anyway. Or at lease you sound very odd telling people who do believe that they should believe something else, but you yourself don't beleive that. Like a mortally obese guy trying to get some thin people to switch gyms.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Jesus does not give you a free reign to be an asshole, which is what most christians believe they are given.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The diff is Apple sueing things that look like there things Google sueing to make all Apple things computers and all go bye bye Point is that Google is countering a gun shot with a rocket launcher.