281–290 of 291 posts
It's blatantly incorrect to say of Apple (and even Microsoft) that "Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation." Regardless of one's feelings about software patent lawsuits (I'm opposed), a better phrase than "instead of" might be "in addition to".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hypocrisy is unbelievable: Google is a major investor in patent troll firm Intellectual Ventures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/05/intellectual-ventur... Amazon, Apple, Cisco, eBay, Microsoft, etc. are also investors but they are not acting like whiny babies and acting all high and mighty going around preaching about how patents are destroying innovation.…
Indeed. And once Google stocks up on thousands of purchased patents (humorously they just bought a bunch of database patents from IBM, which I have no doubt they're going to start leveraging against Oracle), you will be fully supporting it as they start demanding injunctions and stoppages against Apple and Microsoft products. Right? Those products that, to put in your don't-understand-software-patents way, STOLE from…
Google is a young company, but it's been in the phone industry at least since it bought Android in 2005. Apple created its iPhone and released it in 2007, so in the phone industry, Google's the senior.
No one has a right to billions of quarterly profits, but no one has a right to violate others' intellectual property, either. Apple and Microsoft are profiting at these levels despite the infringement of other companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being an exclusive licensee provides significant rights to Google, for example, they could sue for infringement of that patent.
I'm not sure that they can. I don't believe patent law provides for anyone by the patent holder to sue for infringement. Could be wrong, though, but I seem to recall a similar story in the news not too long ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're more than welcome to forego the contract subsidy to buy a Nexus S (or many other phones) at full price and use it on any GSM network. Nothing stops you from pulling your SIM card out and using it in another device, provided said device supports your carrier's frequencies. The rest of your complaints are the fault of the carriers, not Google or OEMs.
And so I would like to see Google, who are so intent on fighting anti-competitive business practices, throw its weight behind this in their negotiations with carriers, so that they can make such an offer on their home page. I seem to remember them trying this originally, with the nexus one, and it didn't go very well. But, the nexus one was a mediocre phone and it was relatively early days for android. Now the phones…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is illuminating in a way regarding HN. Regardless of the arguments on patents, there are 2 large contingents on HN, Apple supporters and Google supporters. Thus if this were Google Vs. MS or Apple Vs.MS(with the same arguments like patents(, the arguments and modding would be too predictable... just bash MS regardless(they can't innovte so they sue) and move on with the upvotes for pro-Apple/Google comments and…
Agree with most here here but I think we should break people out into 5 categories for these threads: Apple zealots Mostly rational people who prefer iOS Mostly rational people who like both Mostly rational people who prefer Google Android zealots There should be some way algorithmically to determine the people who are in the extreme categories, say... extremism quotient:= (|upv| + |dwnv|) / max (1,|net score|) Then…
It's sad that pro-patent asstroturf hijacks serious anti-patent discussions on HN, it's obvious that the HN sentiment towards software patents is that of disgust, yet when a passionate and rare post like this makes headlines somehow a pro-patent sentiment creeps out. Software patents are a joke, just listen to this now famous 'This American Life' piece: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w...…
This piece really is all about the Nortel patents. Google wanted the Nortel patents very badly but couldn't find enough fellow bidders whose interests matched its own to overcome the concerted efforts of Apple, Microsoft, and others who have a stake in pulling Android down. An interesting analysis of who the winners and losers were in this bidding process appears here: http://www.tangible-ip.com/2011/what-does-nortel…
My suspicion is that SE actually need the patents in order to continue produce devices. Whereas Google can take the money/time they were prepared to invest and clean up the code removing infringing components for the Icecream sandwich release.
Thats ignoring the "lets play patent monopoly" and just focusing on the core products being produced. Code and Handsets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making a blanket statement about all innovators and all followers is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence. A reference to a single court case between a pair of companies hardly passes that bar. Regardless, reading your linked article, it seems to have a pretty positive (or at least neutral) view of being a so-called "follower". It's interesting to point out the NKOTB-follower groups like Back…
It seems fairly intuitive to me that innovations are protected by IP so innovators are always for stronger IP protections and wheras followers are always trying to skirt close to the line of infringement without passing it, and thus are disposed towards weaker penalties towards infringement. I'm surprised at the level of disagreement this assertion has provoked. How much evidence do you really want? Are the Chinese v…
Many of the commenters here on Hacker News are innovators in the sense that they are creating new software with new combinations of ideas that have not previously existed. They are also against stronger IP protection, because to date, "stronger IP" has meant ridiculously long copyright terms, broad, non-novel, and painfully obvious patents, etc. Many obvious patents cover things that are essential to the writing of software and have been previously documented by academics, but companies are still using them to demand a tax on the work of true innovators, large and small. A sufficiently-skilled corporate lawyer can paint broad and obtusely-worded patents as covering anything they want in the minds of a lay jury. Patent holders claim to have "invented" things that are considered by programmers as trivial, everyday tasks in their programming. We are not "stealing" their ideas, as we never even hear they exist until a lawsuit comes out of the blue.
I could go on. Such are the landmines facing small, independent and/or open source software creators, and they do nothing but slow down innovation and limit the growth our sector of the economy. Alas, this thread has long since fallen off the front page, so it is probably best left to rest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And so I would like to see Google, who are so intent on fighting anti-competitive business practices, throw its weight behind this in their negotiations with carriers, so that they can make such an offer on their home page. I seem to remember them trying this originally, with the nexus one, and it didn't go very well. But, the nexus one was a mediocre phone and it was relatively early days for android. Now the phones…
Not quite; the N1 came out right as Android was exploding (thanks to the Droid/Milestone a few months prior), and IMHO (as well as many others) it was the best phone on the market. It failed because Google didn't bother to advertise it, and your average person will flip at the idea of paying $529 for a phone (and these people won't see/care about being in a contract). The Nexus S is the same concept as the N1, and it…
If Google's phones are not SIM-locked, that's great :)
My main remaining gripe is that if I can save on the price of a phone by entering a contract with a carrier, I want to also be able to go the other way: get more favorable contract terms if I already have a phone. Or get month-to-month service at a reasonable price without the need for any contract at all.
To the extent that these options are not available, the market for mobile internet service is not as open and efficient as it really ought to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software developers, and Open Source developers in particular, have been adamantly against software patents for a very long time. It seems equally as likely that independent developers are taking advantage of Google's predicament to further their own goal of abolishing software patents. Edit: I will add that I personally have done exactly this in conversation. But, in the worst case, Google is exploiting a sentiment…
"Software developers, and Open Source developers in particular, have been adamantly against software patents for a very long time." This is exactly as true as the claim that all scientists support AGW theory. Reality-- most scientists don't support that theory. But proponents of the theory say that they all do, all over the place. And since there is nobody who actually speaks for all scientists, there's nobody to pro…
powerje 3 days ago | link [dead]
>> Reality-- most scientists don't support that theory.
Citation needed.
Anecdotally I think the statement about software
developers in general being anti-software patent is true,
but especially OSS developers - you really think this is
incorrect?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That a company that copies things might infringe patents? Wow, seems like you have a pretty big bias here. That hurts your argument quite a bit. Are you aware that Apple doesn't cry about how it's the end of the world and we're all going to have to pay more for the next iphone because they had to write Nokia a check for Nokia's previous and substantial innovations to mobile? It's one thing to license a patent filed a…
"It's quite another to collude with other companies to buy up huge patent portfolios for the sole purpose of extorting your competitors and stifling competition.." Wait I'm biased but according to you, Apple is using this for the sole purpose of extortion? Come off of it. Back here in the real world Apple has probably paid out many times more in patent suits then it has or will collect any time soon. Why can't Apple…