Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google: Patently Absurd

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 160 posts

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#71

Post by tensor »

Steko wrote: post #67

"anti-Google", "disingenuous", "deep dishonesty", "willfully dishonest". "very twisted", "oblivious", "shill", "clown" The Engadgetization of HN comments is nearly complete. Get off your high horses, Gruber is exactly right that this screed by Google's counsel is incredibly hypocritical. Regardless of what you think about patents, Google, Apple, etc. the following argument is total bullshit: Group A has a right to bi…

That argument seems completely fine to me. If you have more funds then you can block a competitor from competing by buying up all the resources. Another example of this is cellular providers in Canada. New spectrum opened up, but somehow the established duopoly managed to by all the new spectrum in Quebec leaving none for the incumbent providers. They are not even using the spectrum, but effectively locked competitors out of the market.

Regarding Gruber, your argument may have merit if it wasn't the case that Gruber never publishes anything seriously negative about Apple, and also never says much good about competitors. Sadly, I knew the article was going to be a negative piece about google the minute I saw it was by Gruber.

People are simply calling it as they see it. There is no real favorite here between Apple and Google that I've ever seen.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#72

Post by orangecat »

pcj wrote: post #48
rumpelstiltskin wrote: post #11

How is Google’s argument here different than simply demanding that Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, et al should simply sit back and let Google do whatever it wants with Android, regardless of the patents they hold? And why should it be different? The fact of the matter is that the idea of Google going after Apple, Microsoft etc for violating Google's patents isn't even an issue. Wanna know why? Because Google's competing o…

What choice? Oh wait, you mean what kind of Ads you would receive :P? On a serious note though, assume that you have a sandwich shop and your business is of course to sell sandwich (not free) and people flock to you for your tasty sandwiches. Now, if I open a Sandwich shop that gives away free sandwiches and it also tastes pretty much (close to 85%) like your sandwiches (say, i was inspired by your sandwiches, but i…

Does it mean that I am a philanthropist because I give away free sandwiches to the people?

No. It does mean that the people who choose to eat at your place are better off. Those who stay at the first shop probably are too, because competition will force them to improve their sandwiches. That's exactly how the free market is supposed to work.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#73

Post by nextparadigms »

In his quest of defend everything related to Apple, Gruber is probably stepping on a lot of good principles or ideas - like admitting the patent system is broken. I think he made it obvious before, I don't remember in which case exactly, probably the one with Apple's new policy of taxing content distributors, that he would defend anything Apple does, no matter how absurd. This is no different. I know it's become cliche by now, but I think Gruber has become too engulfed in Steve Jobs reality distortion field, and as others have said here, even he might not realize it.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#74

Post by nextparadigms »

yanw wrote: post #18

It's hard to take Gruber seriously when everything he writes distorts reality and commonsense in the sake of representing them in ways that favor Apple Inc and its endeavors. His thoughts on WebM vs. Apple backed MPEG-LA are equally ridiculous.

Yeah, he is totally fine with the idea of using HTML5 vs Flash, because "Flash is proprietary and bad", even though Flash was and still is the standard for online video!

But then he turns around and says "why bother with the open WebM when you can use this "standardized" codec that is h.264", even though it's proprietary and patent-encumbered.

Completely opposite positions and double standard on his part. The only common ground between them is that the one's he's supporting are the ones Apple is supporting.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#76

Post by nextparadigms »

itg wrote: post #35
rumpelstiltskin wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it's more choices for the customer. Nothing's stopping the original 'innovator' from bring his product to market as well.

Then what incentive does the original company have in spending time & money into R&D to develop new products when some other company can just rip them off?

Why do most people or companies start a new business? Because they acquired the patent for it? No. It's because of consumer demand or the possibility of creating a new market, in which case you actually want others to copy you, because they validate your idea. Usually, new product categories sound pretty crazy at first, but by having others copy you, they're basically giving you social proof for your business, and saying you're not crazy for making that type of product.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#77

Post by smokeyj »

danilocampos wrote: post #49
joebadmo wrote: post #17

It's weird to me that Gruber claims, like he did in a recent episode of his podcast with Dan Benjamin, that he's not anti-Google. I mean, why deny something that's so self-evident? His arguments here are just so disingenuous. "So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK." Yes, because Google isn't forming a cartel to stifle competition. "It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s f…

"Yes, because Google isn't forming a cartel to stifle competition." Hmm. I'm not so sure. There's a way to see Google's behavior where what they're doing is precisely that. Predatory pricing exists when you try to take over a market by selling something so cheap, other competitors are driven out – or prevented from entering, since they couldn't recoup the costs involved in developing a product. In league with their m…

> Predatory pricing exists when you try to take over a market by selling something so cheap, other competitors are driven out

This is what happens when innovation threatens dinosaurs. Phrases such as "predatory pricing" exemplifies a fundamental misunderstanding of how pricing works, or markets in general.

People forget the whole point of the market is to serve the consumer. The point of the market is not to protect the interests of old tech giants because they can't compete with free. They're willing to prevent consumers from enjoying the satisfaction that Android has to offer because they want money for doing what Google offers for free. By this logic I should start a search engine that charges $10 a search, then sue google for anti-competitive practice.

Everything about business is predatory. Every time a company releases a better product it is predatory to their competition. Offering an edge your competitors can't handle is kind of the point. If Google's pricing is so "predatory", why doesn't the competition do the same? Because they're ethical?

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#78

Post by statictype »

Sounds to me like what he's trying to say is that using patents isn't such a terrible idea as long as you've actually used it to make money on your own products. I think that's not an unreasonable statement to make, whether or not you agree with it.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#79

Post by GHFigs »

ender7 wrote: post #55

Gruber's argument is dependent on the assumption that only people like Nathan Myrvold hold what I'm going to call "bullshit patents". "Google isn’t arguing against a handful of never-should-have-been-issued software patents. They’re not arguing against patent trolls like Myrvold and his shell companies like Lodsys — companies that have no products of their own, no actual inventions, just patents for ideas for product…

Copyright should protect UI

But it doesn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_v._Borland

Post reply on HN