Support NeoGAF

[Bboy AJ]

Undercutting is being used by MS and Apple. Wonderful!

This is not Mom and Pop against Wal*Mart. Get out of here with that nonsense.

 

[Hyuga]

google has my sword!

!!

 

[felipeko]

TLDR: Microsoft/Apple and the consortium are trying to reduce patent litigation by sharing them. Google wants to buy the patents to use as leverage for more patent litigation.

Except that half of the litigation does come from Apple (vs HTC, Motorola, Samsung) and Microsoft (vs Motorla, B&N) against Google partners.
That's exactly the opposite definition of share.

Only if you take Microsoft's position of asking OEM to buy patent license per device it would be somewhat close to share.

Microsoft and Apple are buying patents so Google is left without a portfolio to cross license and stop this madness.

Even if Google accepted Microsoft's deal this scenario would still be the same.

 

[brotkasten]

Didn't....didn't you post it already in like page 2?

At least someone who understands me. This is why I like you, Copernicus.

 

[numble]

No, I'm saying that developing products is in fact, taking a risk - you don't know if your products will be successful or how people will react to them hence why it is a risk. How big of a risk it is depends on how much investment and R&D a company puts into a product (i.e. why something like Apple TV is labeled as a "hobby" because there isn't a lot of investment there relative to other products like iPhone) as well as other factors that point to the overall health/performance of a company, but the point remains that it is still a risk.

If you label every product decision a risk, then sure Google is taking risks, just like every other company. There's a risk embedded into every contract. But if defined so broadly, then the statement must be turned on its head, every company is making risky decisions left and right! That's just not how I personally define "taking risks left and right."

Except that half of the litigation does come from Apple (vs HTC, Motorola, Samsung) and Microsoft (vs Motorla, B&N) against Google partners.
That's exactly the opposite definition of share.

Only if you take Microsoft's position of asking OEM to buy patent license per device it would be somewhat close to share.

Microsoft and Apple are buying patents so Google is left without a portfolio to cross license and stop this madness.

Even if Google accepted Microsoft's deal this scenario would still be the same.

Where do you get the idea that half the litigation comes from Apple and Microsoft? Apple is being sued more than any other company in the mobile industry. Apple is paying $500 million/quarter to Nokia to license 3G patents, and it has been paying millions to InterDigital to license its patents--it has legitimate reasons for purchasing Nortel's 4G patents and InterDigital's patents.

 

[felipeko]

Where do you get the idea that half the litigation comes from Apple and Microsoft?

Apple and Microsoft have been suing top Google partners in the last year. Not sure where you don't get this idea.

Apple is being sued more than any other company in the mobile industry. Apple is paying $500 million/quarter to Nokia to license 3G patents, and it has been paying millions to InterDigital to license its patents--it has legitimate reasons for purchasing Nortel's 4G patents and InterDigital's patents.

While i agree that Apple is the most sued, if they don't plan on being anti-competitive with those patents, they have nothing to lose with letting Google get the patents, actually, they would have a few billions more on the bank and a cross license with Android alliance.

The whole whining of Google is just because anti-competitive issues those patents are bringing in the hands of Apple and Microsoft, who are already suing Google partners to death.

 

[Boards of Canada]

Apple is trying to destroy Android? As if Google wasn't trying to destroy Apple by releasing Android as a free OS.

Puh-lease. What a bunch of b.s.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Apple is trying to destroy Android? As if Google wasn't trying to destroy Apple by releasing Android as a free OS.

Puh-lease. What a bunch of b.s.

Because going after a competitor through litigation rather than competition is surely the same thing.

 

[numble]

Apple and Microsoft have been suing top Google partners in the last year. Not sure where you don't get this idea.


While i agree that Apple is the most sued, if they don't plan on being anti-competitive with those patents, they have nothing to lose with letting Google get the patents, actually, they would have a few billions more on the bank and a cross license with Android alliance.

The whole whining of Google is just because anti-competitive issues those patents are bringing in the hands of Apple and Microsoft, who are already suing Google partners to death.

I don't disagree that Apple has sued some companies, but they have been sued much more than they have sued others, so it's incorrect to say that half of the litigation comes from Apple and Microsoft. To date, Apple has to shell out millions to Nokia and InterDigital for access to mobile hardware patents, so it's difficult to really argue that Apple was in the auction for anti-competitive purposes.

I think if Google were interested in cross-licensing the Novell patents, they would have joined the consortium they were invited to, if they were interested in cross-licensing the Nortel patents, they would have let RPX join their bid (which would have put them over the top), and Apple could have signed on as a member of RPX (Microsoft is already a member). After having to shell out $500 million per quarter for 3G after the Nokia lawsuit, there is no reason that Apple should let a competitor grab important patents in 4G/LTE on the hope that the competitor will not hold the patents over their heads like Nokia did.

 

[felipeko]

I don't disagree that Apple has sued some companies, but they have been sued much more than they have sued others, so it's incorrect to say that half of the litigation comes from Apple and Microsoft. To date, Apple has to shell out millions to Nokia and InterDigital for access to mobile hardware patents, so it's difficult to really argue that Apple was in the auction for anti-competitive purposes.

I think if Google were interested in cross-licensing the Novell patents, they would have joined the consortium they were invited to, if they were interested in cross-licensing the Nortel patents, they would have let RPX join their bid (which would have put them over the top), and Apple could have signed on as a member of RPX (Microsoft is already a member). After having to shell out $500 million per quarter for 3G after the Nokia lawsuit, there is no reason that Apple should let a competitor grab important patents in 4G/LTE on the hope that the competitor will not hold the patents over their heads like Nokia did.

The problem is that Google has nothing to gain joining Microsoft and Apple, because they are suing Google partners with non-Nortel/Novell patents, so those consortium would've helped them nothing.

And Apple/Microsoft (especially Microsoft who had Nortel's perpetual license) had nothing to lose (if they don't mean to be anti-competitive) if Google were to buy Novell or Nortel patents, because Google wouldn't sue them if they were willing to cross license - thus they would be in the same position they are now, a consortium of patents, but without paying $4.5 billions - and both Nortel and Novell wouldn't help Apple's case with Kodak, Interdigital and even Nokia.

Clearly, both Apple and Microsoft want those patents out of Google's hand because of Android position, nothing to do with "litigation defense" strategy.

 

[numble]

The problem is that Google has nothing to gain joining Microsoft and Apple, because they are suing Google partners with non-Nortel/Novell patents, so those consortium would've helped them nothing.

And Apple/Microsoft (especially Microsoft who had Nortel's perpetual license) had nothing to lose (if they don't mean to be anti-competitive) if Google were to buy Novell or Nortel patents, because Google wouldn't sue them if they were willing to cross license - thus they would be in the same position they are now, a consortium of patents, but without paying $4.5 billions - and both Nortel and Novell wouldn't help Apple's case with Kodak, Interdigital and even Nokia.

Clearly, both Apple and Microsoft want those patents out of Google's hand because of Android position, nothing to do with "litigation defense" strategy.

Where do you get the information that Google was willing to cross license? If they were willing to cross-license, they would have let RPX join their bid and win, and Apple could join RPX as a member, since the sole purpose of RPX is to give members access to its patents. On the other hand, Google's bid partner, Intel, has been agressive in patent litigation in the past, and might have wanted to use those patents to assert against ARM chipsets like the ones Apple uses.

Apple needed the Nortel patents because they do not have a strong 4G/LTE patent portfolio--they didn't even have a strong 3G portfolio, which is why they need to pay $500 million/quarter to Nokia.

It could very well be Nokia suing again after Apple implements 4G/LTE on its devices (since Nokia has a strong 4G portfolio), so I don't see why you think the Nortel patents don't help them against Nokia.

They don't have a case against InterDigital, they have a deal that lasts until 2014. I don't see why the Nortel portfolio could not help them when they renegotiate the deal. More importantly, they are paying millions to InterDigital right now to use their patents, and the upcoming sale of InterDigital patents means they don't need to pay the patent owner anymore if they purchase those patents outright.

 

[Vyer]

The problem is that Google has nothing to gain joining Microsoft and Apple, because they are suing Google partners with non-Nortel/Novell patents, so those consortium would've helped them nothing.

.

A big part of the patent issue has nothing to do with the big players suing each other. Google (and Apple and Microsoft and so on) have to protect themselves from much more than just each other.

 

[kehs]

Google should update the blog again and announce they're suing apple for the notification center, and microsoft for the search button on devices.

 

[felipeko]

Where do you get the information that Google was willing to cross license? If they were willing to cross-license, they would have let RPX join their bid and win, and Apple could join RPX as a member, since the sole purpose of RPX is to give members access to its patents. On the other hand, Google's bid partner, Intel, has been agressive in patent litigation in the past, and might have wanted to use those patents to assert against ARM chipsets like the ones Apple uses.

Again, having the cross license only on Nortel patents would do nothing to Google, they (their partners) would still have to face Apple's and Microsft's own patents. What Google wanted to cross license was Apple's patents with the Nortel patents. All Apple had to do was let Google win, and they could call Larry Page and say "hey, we will stop suing your partners if you cross license that with our patents".
Google was betting alone, they joined Intel after Apple approached Microsoft's group to join them.

Apple needed the Nortel patents because they do not have a strong 4G/LTE patent portfolio--they didn't even have a strong 3G portfolio, which is why they need to pay $500 million/quarter to Nokia.

It could very well be Nokia suing again after Apple implements 4G/LTE on its devices (since Nokia has a strong 4G portfolio), so I don't see why you think the Nortel patents don't help them against Nokia.

While i agree that this would help them fight Nokia's 4G patents, i don't see the problem of they having to pay $500 million (this number is not official by the way) per quarter. The only way they would not pay license is if they get all the patents in the world, and that's not going to happen anytime soon. Untill then, Apple, Google, Nokia, Motorola, Microsoft... will still be paying license for one entity or another.

As Nokia is always willing to license patents, so i'm pretty sure Apple's is way more concerned of their losing market share to Android then having to pay $500 million per quarter.
That's why Apple is being agressive with patents and litigations against Android OEMs, and they are not asking for license, they want to ban the sale of Android smartphones on the USA. That's why Google is saying this is anti-competitive, they (Apple and Microsoft) want to kill Android with litigations on a broken system. (really, if you can't agree with me here, let's just stop discussing.)

They don't have a case against InterDigital, they have a deal that lasts until 2014. I don't see why the Nortel portfolio could not help them when they renegotiate the deal. More importantly, they are paying millions to InterDigital right now to use their patents, and the upcoming sale of InterDigital patents means they don't need to pay the patent owner anymore if they purchase those patents outright.

Nortel/Novell patents help nothing against NPEs. The upcoming sale of InterDigital will take the patents of a NPE, to a practicing entity, being either Google or Apple, is a good thing.

But if Apple get these patents the scenario will be this:
Apple will have Nortel, Novell and InterDigital.
Google will have nothing.

Apple will sue Android OEMs (as is already doing, and so is Microsoft) on Apple's, Nortel's, Novell's and InterDigital's patents. And Google is left with an OS that no consumer will be able to buy.

 

[Rourkey]

Because going after a competitor through litigation rather than competition is surely the same thing.

Using the fact you have a near monopoly on search (and therefore vast ad revenues) to give an OS for free in an attempt to run everyone else out of the game doesn't exactly sit well either, isn't that the sort of tactic everyone ended up hating MS for?

If google charged even a nominal sum then perhaps they wouldn't have resorted to these tactics?

 

[Zeppu]

So if I've understood this discussion correctly, in order to solve this problem the best thing is for Google to worsen their search, start charging us (a lot ideally) for all the services and products they provide us with, and start showing us untargetted ads from some other third party company. Right?









Edit: Also, http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/

 

[kehs]

Using the fact you have a near monopoly on search (and therefore vast ad revenues) to give an OS for free in an attempt to run everyone else out of the game doesn't exactly sit well either, isn't that the sort of tactic everyone ended up hating MS for?

If google charged even a nominal sum then perhaps they wouldn't have resorted to these tactics?

Look up the definition of words before you start using them.

 

[numble]

Again, having the cross license only on Nortel patents would do nothing to Google, they (their partners) would still have to face Apple's and Microsft's own patents. What Google wanted to cross license was Apple's patents with the Nortel patents. All Apple had to do was let Google win, and they could call Larry Page and say "hey, we will stop suing your partners if you cross license that with our patents".
Google was betting alone, they joined Intel after Apple approached Microsoft's group to join them.


While i agree that this would help them fight Nokia's 4G patents, i don't see the problem of they having to pay $500 million (this number is not official by the way) per quarter. The only way they would not pay license is if they get all the patents in the world, and that's not going to happen anytime soon. Untill then, Apple, Google, Nokia, Motorola, Microsoft... will still be paying license for one entity or another.

As Nokia is always willing to license patents, so i'm pretty sure Apple's is way more concerned of their losing market share to Android then having to pay $500 million per quarter.
That's why Apple is being agressive with patents and litigations against Android OEMs, and they are not asking for license, they want to ban the sale of Android smartphones on the USA. That's why Google is saying this is anti-competitive, they (Apple and Microsoft) want to kill Android with litigations on a broken system. (really, if you can't agree with me here, let's just stop discussing.)


Nortel/Novell patents help nothing against NPEs. The upcoming sale of InterDigital will take the patents of a NPE, to a practicing entity, being either Google or Apple, is a good thing.

But if Apple get these patents the scenario will be this:
Apple will have Nortel, Novell and InterDigital.
Google will have nothing.

Apple will sue Android OEMs (as is already doing, and so is Microsoft) on Apple's, Nortel's, Novell's and InterDigital's patents. And Google is left with an OS that no consumer will be able to buy.

Nokia was not always willing to license its patents, they went to the brink in litigation that took up 3 years, they ended up with a cross-licensing deal, and Apple still needed to pay. Apple's arguments throughout litigation with Nokia was that they were willing to pay a license fee, but Nokia was trying to extort Apple for more under the threat of a ban on all Apple 3G products.

There has been no open offer to cross-license from Google, so you continue to make things up. If Google were interested in sharing, they would have bid with RPX.

If you cannot see why a 1-time payment of $2.5 billion is better than paying $2 billion per year to Nokia or others for 4G patent rights, you cannot understand why Apple would want the patents. Apple cannot count on the fact that Google or Intel will end up being gracious with them while holding patents that are essential to 4G.

 

[kehs]

There has been no open offer to cross-license from Google, so you continue to make things up. If Google were interested in sharing, they would have bid with RPX.

You should probably stop responding to conjecture with conjecture.

 

[Jin34]

A Song of Silicon and Plastic

Book 1: A Game of Phones

Book 2: A Clash of Corps

Book 3: A Storm of Lawsuits

Book 4: A Feast for Lawyers

Book 5: A Dance with Patents

Book 6: The Winds of Bankruptcy

Book 7: A Dream of Settlements

 

[felipeko]

Nokia was not always willing to license its patents, they went to the brink in litigation that took up 3 years, they ended up with a cross-licensing deal, and Apple still needed to pay. Apple's arguments throughout litigation with Nokia was that they were willing to pay a license fee, but Nokia was trying to extort Apple for more under the threat of a ban on all Apple 3G products.

There has been no open offer to cross-license from Google, so you continue to make things up. If Google were interested in sharing, they would have bid with RPX.

If you cannot see why a 1-time payment of $2.5 billion is better than paying $2 billion per year to Nokia or others for 4G patent rights, you cannot understand why Apple would want the patents. Apple cannot count on the fact that Google or Intel will end up being gracious with them while holding patents that are essential to 4G.

Google has been very open of why they want the patents: to stop Apple and Microsoft suing Android to death. The only way they can do that is entering in cross license.

Not sure how i am making this up.

 

[chaostrophy]

Using the fact you have a near monopoly on search (and therefore vast ad revenues) to give an OS for free in an attempt to run everyone else out of the game doesn't exactly sit well either, isn't that the sort of tactic everyone ended up hating MS for?

If google charged even a nominal sum then perhaps they wouldn't have resorted to these tactics?

Doesn't Apple provide iOS for free using the fact that they have vast hardware sales revenues?

 

[numble]

Google has been very open of why they want the patents: to stop Apple and Microsoft suing Android to death. The only way they can do that is entering in cross license.

Not sure how i am making this up.

But a cross license is still not "free." Apple is in a cross-licensing agreement with Nokia, but they still are paying ~$2 billion a year because Nokia held essential 3G patents.

The only way Google or Intel would start cross-licensing talks would be to sue Apple on those patents, leaving Apple with another possible 3 years of litigation costs and still end up with what happened with Nokia--a cross licensing agreement that still required heavy payments because of strong mobile data patents.

 

[iamblades]

Google should just say fuck it, have their partners sell blank phones with no OS(or a minimalist one that doesn't do anything) and have users download the real thing when they activate it.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Google should just say fuck it, have their partners sell blank phones with no OS(or a minimalist one that doesn't do anything) and have users download the real thing when they activate it.

Google could the open their own Android stores where trained professionals install the ROM of your choice.

 

[6.8]

Paranoid android

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

Google should just say fuck it, have their partners sell blank phones with no OS(or a minimalist one that doesn't do anything) and have users download the real thing when they activate it.

That's awful.

Spoiler

I'd use it to install MeeGo.

 

[Treefingers]

Paranoid android

How did it take 5 pages for this to be posted

 

[Tobor]

Google should just say fuck it, have their partners sell blank phones with no OS(or a minimalist one that doesn't do anything) and have users download the real thing when they activate it.

"In surprising results just released, the Android platform dropped from 40% of smartphone marketshare to 5% in just one quarter. This colossal drop is attributed to Googles new policy, only offering it's software as a post purchase download. This decision led to Google's largest hardware partners, such as HTC and Motorola, to drop the search giant in favor of Microsoft and it's Windows Phone 7 OS. Google representatives refused comment."

 

[DECK'ARD]

Paranoid android

A+

 

[AstroLad]

hey look an article from someone who actually understands the law and policy at issue rather than some fanboy know-nothing pseudo-netceleb like gruber who decides he's a legal expert because apple is involved

A Brief Explanation of Microsoft's Anti-Google Patent FUD

The trouble with FUD is at first it sounds correct, or at least plausible. So when Google complained about the Apple-Microsoft partnership and the deliberate patent policy against Google, Microsoft's first response sounded like a killer blow. It said it had asked Google to join them. But… let's take a little bit closer look, because in doing so, it let slip a fact that we did not know until now -- that Google tried to get the 800 or so Novell patents that CPTN, an entity Microsoft set up with Oracle, Apple and EMC, eventually won.

That revelation tells us the most fundamental fact about patent law in the US today -- namely that even if you have as much money as Google, you can't freely innovate and provide fabulous products because the patent thicket is so dense already and the Proprietary Patent Club is joining hands to keep any newcomer out of the competition. And that's exactly why articles about Google "whining" or viewing this as just a verbal war are missing the point Google was making, namely pointing out that it can be *illegal* to use patents for an anticompetitive purpose. There's a line, and Google is indicating that it thinks that line has been crossed.

As we saw in the Novell patent scenario, the Department of Justice agreed that the deal was not acceptable, intervening to protect the Open Source community, so it understood the danger and altered what Microsoft in particular was allowed to do with the patents it arranged to buy.

So Google isn't dreaming. This is antitrust reality and that may be why Microsoft took Google's initial complaint seriously enough to respond.

This isn't about patents. It's about antitrust.
. . . .
So the issue Google was highlighting was a joining together of the big boys with the goal of making Android cost more, so people would be less inclined to get one. Is that what patents are for? I mean, legally, is that the purpose of patents? As examples, it cited two events, the CPTN buy of Novell's patents and the Rockstar purchase of the Nortel patents.

Both CPTN and Rockstar are nyms for the group of proprietary big boys, led by Microsoft and Apple.

Google's complaint is that this is illegal conduct, not that it's unfair or mean, although it likely would say it's all of the above:
. . . .
Again, Google is pointing to the main issue, not that Microsoft and its satellite helpers are meanies, but that what they are doing is *illegal*. They are attacking the open source community, with patents as the weapon and not just as individual companies but as an artificial group designed to "strangle" Android. And if you look at the mobile litigation going on as we speak, ask yourself: who is suing and who is being sued? Does it look coordinated to you?

It does to me. It's always the same direction. Android gets sued. Sometimes it's the vendors. Sometimes it's Google. Does that mean Google is casual with patents? Ask any engineer or any lawyer in the tech space whether it's possible to make any software product today without violating someone's patents, and they'll say no. It's no longer possible, and in fact, it's so complex and stupid now in the US patent law space, it's not even possible to know in advance if you are doing so. Look at the Lodsys patents. Could any rational person have anticipated getting sued by Lodsys using those patents? Hardly. They don't describe what Apple and Android apps developers do.

But it happened. How about the Paul Allen patents? They seem to be falling like dominoes currently, on reexamination, so people are being accused of infringing what it turns out are likely not even valid patents. Same with Oracle's patents asserted against Google. Most of them on reexamination are now declared invalid.

How do you protect yourself from that? Google's blog post pointed out that a smartphone is such complicated technology that it could result in as many as 250,000 patent claims, most of them "questionable". Now do you understand why Google used the word "strangle" when saying that is what competitors were trying to do to Android? What company in the world could withstand that much litigation? That is already happening, of course, as we see Android vendors and Google being sued over patents that don't stand up to reexamination.

So if people are willing to assert invalid patents in litigation, how do you prepare for that?

You can't. No matter how diligent you are to avoid stepping on anyone's toes, someone will sue you, because the twisted patent system lets them. It's your burden to prove the patents invalid, on your dime. All you can do is react. You can file for reexamination, showing prior art, which is what has been happening. And one traditional way to defend yourself when prior art won't work is to counterclaim with patents of your own, so that at least you can get a decent settlement instead of paying over millions or even billions. It creates a better environment for settlement. And that is what Google was looking for, some patents of its own to use for defense. Had it signed on with Microsoft, it would have meant it could no longer do that. It was, as Google pointed out, a trap. Does that not clarify why Google would try to buy up these patents, even if they thought they were bogus? Obviously, they are trying to minimize how many stupid patents are used as weapons against them and their partners. Is it not ridiculous to have to come up with a way to avoid being sued over bogus patents?

And how cynical for Mr. Shaw to tweet that Google wanted to buy the patents to sue people:
. . . .
Hardly. Who is Google suing for patent infringement? Got a list? Anyone? Buehler?
Journalists missed that. But Carlo Piana, the lawyer who successfully represented Samba and FSFE in the antitrust litigation against Microsoft before the EU Commission, tweeted, in part: "So msft, appl et al tried to have goog pay a share of Nortel patents goog needed for counter-warfare, just to neutralize them in a cross license, and wonder why it refused? Is Brad an amateur or does he think we are all stupid?"

Well. He's not an amateur. The lawyers get it. It was a trap, but looking at media accounts of the dispute and how almost everyone has missed the point that this is about antitrust law, not patent law, I would guess, if I have to choose one or the other, it's the latter, that he thinks we are all stupid.
. . . .
But that is disturbing also. If Google doesn't have enough money to buy up patents, who does? Twice it has tried and been outbid, not by a single competitor but by a group of them joining together. In fact, that's where, to me, the real antitrust issue surfaces, that by joining together to squeeze Google out of two auctions, Google's competitors appear to have been plotting against it in ways that really must invite scrutiny, which, by all reports is now happening again.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110805154137803

 

[Bboy AJ]

Gruber is SCOTUS clerk material. I'm talking Scalia here, not Thomas.

 

[brotkasten]

hey look an article from someone who actually understands the law and policy at issue rather than some fanboy know-nothing pseudo-netceleb like gruber who decides he's a legal expert because apple is involved


http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110805154137803

I really can't wait for Nilay's take on this.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Microsoft responded too. Taken from http://www.wpcentral.com/google-responds-microsoft-and-vice-versa:



TLDR: Microsoft/Apple and the consortium are trying to reduce patent litigation by sharing them. Google wants to buy the patents to use as leverage for more patent litigation.

I don't know if our Google-apologists will be able to handle the truth.

Also, when Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows and gave it away for free, it triggered the legendary DoJ antitrust investigation. Google giving Android away for free and bundling their ubiquitous web services should be attracting attention for exactly the same reason.

I wonder if people understand that taking a previously-commercial product, writing "OPEN" on it with a magic marker, and giving it away for free doesn't exonerate a product from any prior patents it may be derived from or infringing on. Google giving VP8 away for free doesn't magically change that it was previously a commercial product, developed in secret by On2, which may or may not have passed patent scrutiny. Google giving Android away for free doesn't magically change the fact that it uses underlying technology from many places, it's based on Linux, uses something a lot like Java (which Oracle recently tried to sue them for), uses pretty standard wireless technology, and is leveraged on services which AREN'T free and open-source like Android Market and the various Google web apps. There's actually very little "OPEN" about Android, and like most commercial operating systems it's derived from something, somewhere. If Google hasn't passed all patent scrutiny with Android, they should have been a little less antagonistic with Microsoft and Apple. Google's a big corporation now, they can't go crying on blogs about how big bad M$ and Apple are picking on them, not when they quite literally control what people see on the Internet as the world's largest search engine.

The EU is already pursuing antitrust investigation of Google and the DoJ might get on board too if the EU's investigation proceeds far enough. Google controls entire swaths of the Internet with their Search, with Google Maps, with YouTube, and they are now trying to take on Facebook with Google+, so to see them whining about Microsoft and Apple is completely hilarious.

 

[Marty Chinn]

hey look an article from someone who actually understands the law and policy at issue rather than some fanboy know-nothing pseudo-netceleb like gruber who decides he's a legal expert because apple is involved


http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110805154137803

But, but Apple is the victim here. They're sued the most.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

But, but Apple is the victim here. They're sued the most.

They also do the most suing. Apple is like a crossroads of patent litigation these days.

 

[numble]

But, but Apple is the victim here. They're sued the most.

This Groklaw guy definitely neglects to mention Apple's issues when he says its a one-sided pattern of suits against Android. The Nokia suit, where Apple couldn't even escape onerous licensing terms with a cross-licensing deal, demonstrates why Apple needed the 4G patents. RIM looked like it got into the deal in part to obtain Canadian carryover losses for a tax benefit. Any beef should be with Microsoft, who already had a license to the patents, but I still think one should also question the motivations of Intel wanting to acquire mobile patents, they have basically been shut out of the mobile scene and acquisition of 4G patents by them could have been a weapon for them to get back on the game. Sony and Ericcson are Android manufacturers that helped put the Apple bid in a winning position, and I think EMC just wanted some patents unrelated to the mobile ones and didn't care who they bid with. Oracle is the only one suing Google at the moment, and would have the most to gain by preventing Google from acquiring any patents it could possibly assert against Oracle, but they didn't participate in the Nortel auction. And there is the whole RPX issue and Google not joining up with Android OEMs to bid.

I don't think this can be framed in simple, "Android vs. Everyone else" terms.

 

[kehs]

I don't know if our Google-apologists will be able to handle the truth.

Also, when Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows and gave it away for free, it triggered the legendary DoJ antitrust investigation. Google giving Android away for free and bundling their ubiquitous web services should be attracting attention for exactly the same reason.
.

Google doesn't bundle their Apps with Android.

Google licenses out their Apps to companies who want to include them in android phones.

 

[brotkasten]

Google doesn't bundle their Apps with Android.

Google licenses out their Apps to companies who want to include them in android phones.

And how they license them, oh boy.

 

[strata8]

Google doesn't bundle their Apps with Android.

Google licenses out their Apps to companies who want to include them in android phones.

They technically do with the Nexus One/Nexus S.

I think the whole 'antitrust' bundling fiasco is just ridiculous, anyway. I can't see why a company shouldn't be able to provide default services on their own software platform.

 

[JonnyBrad]

Google doesn't bundle their Apps with Android.

Google licenses out their Apps to companies who want to include them in android phones.

How does that work with Cyanogen? When you install it GAPPS are not included. However you can freely go and get the latest Gapps from their wiki to install. Are you covered by your original hardware license there? Or are you effectively unlicensed to use them?

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

This Groklaw guy definitely neglects to mention Apple's issues when he says its a one-sided pattern of suits against Android. The Nokia suit, where Apple couldn't even escape onerous licensing terms with a cross-licensing deal, demonstrates why Apple needed the 4G patents. RIM looked like it got into the deal in part to obtain Canadian carryover losses for a tax benefit. Any beef should be with Microsoft, who already had a license to the patents, but I still think one should also question the motivations of Intel wanting to acquire mobile patents, they have basically been shut out of the mobile scene and acquisition of 4G patents by them could have been a weapon for them to get back on the game. Sony and Ericcson are Android manufacturers that helped put the Apple bid in a winning position, and I think EMC just wanted some patents unrelated to the mobile ones and didn't care who they bid with. Oracle is the only one suing Google at the moment, and would have the most to gain by preventing Google from acquiring any patents it could possibly assert against Oracle, but they didn't participate in the Nortel auction. And there is the whole RPX issue and Google not joining up with Android OEMs to bid.

I don't think this can be framed in simple, "Android vs. Everyone else" terms.

You are conflating two issues the topic he is addressing is specifically "Is there are coordinated use of patent litigation to handicap Android by Google's competitors?" To which he answered yes. The question you are asking is "Is there a litigation problem in the application of US patent law, which in turn affects Apple?" To which the answer is also yes. The first question points to illegality the second does not but it points to a broken legal system.

 

[firehawk12]

I'm just amused at this situation because 10 years ago, Microsoft was going through antitrust stuff because of, among other things, browsers. I wonder how long it will take for this kind of patent monopolization to become considered anti-competitive and illegal activity.

Of course, I also don't give a shit about any of the players in this game... so I'm just amused at all the crap that's going on. :lol:

 

[JonnyBrad]

How does that work with Cyanogen? When you install it GAPPS are not included. However you can freely go and get the latest Gapps from their wiki to install. Are you covered by your original hardware license there? Or are you effectively unlicensed to use them?

Having read the wiki we're effectively supposed to be using backup copies from our orig. Firmware. Even tho nobody normally does and just downloads the gapps pack.

 

[kehs]

They technically do with the Nexus One/Nexus S.

I think the whole 'antitrust' bundling fiasco is just ridiculous, anyway. I can't see why a company shouldn't be able to provide default services on their own software platform.

Not really, since Google themselves is the one putting together the Nexus line, it's theirs to do as they wish.

Regarding Cyanogen: Gapps are not included with CM, as someone mentioned, there is illicit copies of the GApps floating around that can be installed.

And how they license them, oh boy.

That's just them being assholes, lol, but it doesn't prevent anyone from release using Android without them.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

I'm pretty sure some Chinese companies use Android without Google's apps. Amazon's tablets and phones might lack them as well if they want people to use their app store exclusively.

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

That's just them being assholes, lol, but it doesn't prevent anyone from release using Android without them.

No, but it looks like a case of leading the dance with one hand and smacking the back of the head with the other.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news...ponse-to-android-critics-misses-the-point.ars
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-oems-break-business-deals-ripped-patents.ars

All of these companies play dirty games, Google included.

 

[kehs]

No, but it looks like a case of leading the dance with one hand and smacking the back of the head with the other.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news...ponse-to-android-critics-misses-the-point.ars
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-oems-break-business-deals-ripped-patents.ars

All of these companies play dirty games, Google included.

Motorola and Verizon could have gone ahead and released a Google free Android phone. Google apps aren't required to have a complete android OS, they just complement them very very nicely. Like I said, it's them being assholes.

 

[numble]

You are conflating two issues the topic he is addressing is specifically "Is there are coordinated use of patent litigation to handicap Android by Google's competitors?" To which he answered yes. The question you are asking is "Is there a litigation problem in the application of US patent law, which in turn affects Apple?" To which the answer is also yes. The first question points to illegality the second does not but it points to a broken legal system.

Where is the coordination? Would it follow that there's a coordinated patent attack on Apple, then, because of all the suits against them? Did all of GSMA conspire to prevent Apple from getting access to 3G patents so that they would lose to Nokia and have to pay and license mobile patents from InterDigital?

Apple had legitimate reasons to purchase the Nortel patents. I also fail to see why Android manufacturers Sony and Ericcson are part of this coordination to hamper Android. From reports, it looked like RIM entered to get Nortel's Canadian carryover losses for tax purposes.

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

Where is the coordination? Would it follow that there's a coordinated patent attack on Apple, then, because of all the suits against them? Did all of GSMA conspire to prevent Apple from getting access to 3G patents so that they would lose to Nokia and have to pay and license mobile patents from InterDigital?

Apple had legitimate reasons to purchase the Nortel patents. I also fail to see why Android manufacturers Sony and Ericcson are part of this coordination to hamper Android. From reports, it looked like RIM entered to get Nortel's Canadian carryover losses for tax purposes.

The coordination as in the Apple v Samsung litigation and the suspension of sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab in Aus., the MS v HTC, I believe MS has also sued a number of other Android manufacturers and are at present earning a fair bit of dough from that. The acquisition of the patents by Google competitors and Google's response points to the fact that Google feels these competitors who are already suing their Android partners and in some cases Google itself, are acquiring these patents solely for the purpose of handicapping Android. If this is the case that it illegal which is what Google were pointing out. (I believe MS was a part of another consortium which sued Google itself for patent violation).

If the entities suing Apple (the ones which are Apple competitors at least) suddenly went on a mobile patents acquisition spree, Apple would be very concerned.

As for Sony Ericsson (1 company) they are part of that coalition for the express purpose of protecting themselves from future litigation by the consortium (other reasons as well I am sure). The point is Android is open source plenty of people distribute Android software on a number of devices without express permission from anyone, Google included, with no added cost. If for any reason everyone had to start making royalty payments to another party cost goes up and stifles Android growth. If all large Android manufacturers jumped in what about the smaller guys that no one has ever heard of in China, Taiwan and India for example Odroid. There are $100 Android phones, royalty payments mean that market is dead.