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

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#151

Post by linuxhansl »

tomerico wrote: post #38
cheald wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That one line doesn't really discount the tone of the whole rest of the post. Google supporters claim that Google only wants to use patents defensively. But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates? - Also Gruber. The implication is that these are legitimate, unassailable patents that Google has ripped off in some nefarious scheme to steal Apple's good ol' homeg…

The implication is that these are legitimate, unassailable patents that Google has ripped off in some nefarious scheme to steal Apple's good ol' homegrown American hard work I would argue that android "borrowed" a lot from Apple, and that the iPhone was truly innovative in many ways. The question whether they copied too much , or whether Apple's idea were innovative in the first place is what the Patent system is try…

What exactly did Android borrow from Apple?

If Android was an exact copy of the iOS but developed separately (with no code copying) that would be perfectly OK. Why shouldn't it?

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#152

Post by fpgeek »

pohl wrote: post #64
b0sk wrote: post #30

Since Microsoft, Apple cartel bought the Nortel patents aren't they exactly behaving like patent trolls ( Intellectual Ventures ) in this context? You have to be wilfully ignorant not to see the similarity.

I would think not having used an acquired patent in offensive litigation is the salient dissimilarity. One would have to be willfully ignorant not to see that.

Doesn't everyone expect that the acquired patents are going to be used against Android? Doesn't the makeup of the winning consortium argue for that interpretation?

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#153

Post by mung »

smokeyj wrote: post #98
triaboat wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preventing a company from offering a free product in no way serves the consumer. In a general context, a company practicing 'predatory pricing' may do so to drive the other competitors out of business. Once that happens, it's free to raise prices to monopolistic levels which would end up hurting consumers eventually.

> Once that happens, it's free to raise prices to monopolistic levels These fears are not based on evidence. When has someone released a free product only until they wiped out all the competition, proceeding to jack up prices? I mean, once they jack up the prices there is an established market ripe to pick customers from. Furthermore, the temporary profits, if any, would only be temporary and would be a greater cost…

Adobe InDesign hiked in price once it was clear that Quark was no longer a real threat. That said, InDesign was a better product almost right from the start. But just sayin'

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#154

Post by KaeseEs »

Lewisham wrote: post #109
Caballera wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? Google is a relatively new company. To say they would spend all that money on patents and then not attempt to enforce them is very naive.

Sun Microsystems did exactly what you are saying, and Google has gone on record, multiple times, saying it would do exactly what you are saying. It is not without precedent at all.

I don't think Google wants to follow Sun's example of developing amazing tech and going out of business anyways because the folks in charge don't know how to run a business.

Not that non-assertion of patents was necessarily a contributing factor to Sun's demise.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#155

Post by srik »

Could somebody shed some light as to what kind of patents that Android is allegedly violating. I am curious as to whether they are "real" innovations or something akin to Amoazon's 1-click.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#156

Post by mhw »

nextparadigms wrote: post #76
itg wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sa…

> 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.

Ah, of course. Because everyone held off buying the iPad until all these Android devices turned up and validated the whole product category. You're on to something there, you know.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#157

Post by Steko »

tensor wrote: post #93
Steko wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gruber is fairly critical of Apple at times but generally takes a "I wish Apple would do X but I understand why they're doing Y (or ~X)" position when he does so. Apple's a company that hasn't missed that often or that big recently though so it's hard for me to judge where he should have gone hugely negative on them in your view.

MobileMe was a nearly complete failure. The original Apple TV was not a strong product at all. The new iCal and Contacts in Lion are a huge design failure. Their server line was pretty much a failure too. Those are Apple's biggest failures in recent times. Looking at Gruber's blog archives, I don't think it's a much of a stretch to say that he's a biased writer.

MobileMe was a modest money maker and ok reviewed product. if you grade on a curve, I guess that's a "complete failure" next to Apple's core products.

The original Apple TV was always seen as a hobby, just as the new, more successful one is. They still sold what 6-7 million of them, made a bundle of money. Compare to Google TV 1.0 it was a roaring success.

Cant vouch for iCal and Contacts in Lion but reviews overall are positive. You seem to be reaching here.

The server line was another well reviewed product and modest money maker.

You seem overall to be grading everything on a huge curve as if anything short of a home run is a massive failure.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#158

Post by danmaz74 »

triaboat wrote: post #91
smokeyj wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-competition isn't an empirically observable phenomena. In theory it was supposed to serve the consumer, but there is a disconnect between the alleged intention and reality. Kind of a big problem. Preventing a company from offering a free product in no way serves the consumer. I don't want to imply google is more ethical than the competition, but in this instance calling for an abolition of patents is in line wit…

Preventing a company from offering a free product in no way serves the consumer. In a general context, a company practicing 'predatory pricing' may do so to drive the other competitors out of business. Once that happens, it's free to raise prices to monopolistic levels which would end up hurting consumers eventually.

Don't forget that Android is open source (except version 3, but we're talking about phones now). This means that if Google decided to charge for it, they could only do so on new versions, and anybody could start from an old one, fork it and bring it further. This is completely different from free non-open-source software, where it could be actually possible to raise prices once the competition is wiped out.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#160

Post by nextparadigms »

mhw wrote: post #156
nextparadigms wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sa…

> 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. Ah, of course. Because everyone held off buying the iPad until all these Android devices turned up and validated the whole product category. You're on to something there, you know.

I don't think there are that many companies out there that can turn a "big iPod touch" into a success, especially not a startup. People are much more willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt and try their products than they would be with a startup or with most other companies.

This is why I want to laugh when companies like HP and others think they just need their own OS, and then they can be just like Apple. Apple has a lot of other advantages and factors working for them, that the other companies can't easily replicate.

The whole world spins around copying others and putting our own spin on it. 99% is copying, 1% is innovation. Thinking otherwise will not be compatible with reality.

http://vimeo.com/25380454

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/22380510974/why-im...

Post reply on HN