| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| How Apple and Microsoft intend to destroy Android |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-07-29 10:48:54 |
| Groklaw nails it: "In other words, [Apple and Microsoft] want to disarm the companies that got there first, built the standards, and created the field, while the come-later types clean up on patents on things like slide to unlock or a tablet shape with rounded corners. Then the money flows to Apple and Microsoft, and away from Android - and isn't that really the point of all this, to destroy Android by hook or by crook? The parties who were in the mobile phone business years before Apple or Microsoft even thought about doing it thus get nothing much for their earlier issued patents that have become standards. Apple and Microsoft can't compete on an even field, because the patent system rewards the first to invent (or now, after the recent patent reform, the first to file). Neither Apple nor Microsoft got there first. Samsung was there, since the '90s." To illustrate: Apple is demanding $24 (!) per Samsung device for design patents, while at the same time, Apple also demands that Samsung does not charge more than $0.0049 per standards essential patent per device. This is absolutely, utterly, and entirely indefensible. And then Apple and its supporters have the nerve to claim Samsung is ripping them off. Yes, this pisses me off, and no, that's not because it's Apple doing it (Microsoft is just as guilty). It's because this is plainly, utterly, clearly, and intrinsically unfair. |
|
| Any point to the complaining? |
| By leos on 2012-07-30 05:04:43 |
|
All these companies are massive behemoths and are perfectly capable of defending themselves. It's funny how people keep pretending like Apple and Microsoft are some sort of schoolyard bullies while poor little Google and Samsung are the defenceless nerdy kids being pushed around. Samsung and Google are both multibillion dollar companies. So what if Apple wants $24/device from Samsung? Samsung has armies of lawyers and they will fight it out and the courts will decide. Why spend all this time whining about how this or that isn't fair? It's different when big companies use their might to squash little companies, but why on earth anyone would feel sorry for Google or Samsung is absolutely beyond me. |
 - Score: 5 |
| RE[3]: Disarm the companies that got there first |
| By Morgan on 2012-07-30 05:10:52 |
| Not true. IBM beat Nokia by a couple of years with the Simon Personal Communicator, and it was even touch screen. |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE[3]: Comment by marcp |
| By Soulbender on 2012-07-30 08:42:49 |
|
From your original post: > Google is NOT open. Google profits from your data One has nothing to do with the other. A company can be open and at the same time profit from data it collects from you. > Closed source is all about the patents No, it's about keeping your perceived advantages a secret. You don't have to agree with this (I think it's bogus most of the time) but this is the reasoning behind it. > Free Software is all about anti-patent system. No, it's about free and open access to the source code. > I can't see where your point is actually valid You can't see that it is possible for OSS to violate patents? > Only the ones who claim they give you something "free", while in fact you are paying for it with your own data Maybe this "payment" is perfectly acceptable to me. > So right: go ahead, give up all your liberties, because "everyone is invading my privacy these days". Exactly what of my civil liberties are violated by Google? Is it not up to the individual to decide how much they value their "privacy"? Maybe I don't give a shit if Google collects this data. > it explains why people say ludicrous things in discussions like this. Ahum.... Edited 2012-07-30 08:43 UTC |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Whining by proxy |
| By cdude on 2012-07-30 08:46:57 |
|
> revenues stream [...] used to destroy other companies business model by giving away free equivalenta. Then you are also against, for example, the Red Hat business model? Or just against any business model that utilizes free equivalents and compets against other business models? Face it. On the market different business models compete with each other. If one of those models cannot survive against a compitor then its probably the wrong model. Microsoft's business model of expensive licenses for closed software is doomed. Not only cause of compitors like google and Red Hat but also cause the devices are more cheap today then 10 years ago making the previous small % for licenses exorbitant higher today and an disadvantage when competing. Microsoft's business model also compets with the Apple business model which is very different. Apple makes its profit from Hardware, not software. That is why Microsoft changed its business model to software plus service and just recently to software plus hardware plus service. But the are not close as good as Apple and Google. Welcome to competition in an open market. This may a problem for Microsoft but who cares? Compitors win cause customers find there products better. Its so easy. Also note that both, Apple and Microsoft, utilize FLOSS in there products. Yes, they profit too. So how is it bad if google does but not bad if Microsoft or Apple do? Cause Google keeps the end-product open? Cause google's business model, execution and products are better and customers love them more then compitors products? Yeah, right, the view of someone who failed to proper compete with products... Edited 2012-07-30 08:49 UTC |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr |
| By cdude on 2012-07-30 08:56:58 |
|
Moto, under google, is relative new. Give them some time to focus and execute. I think not long and they are making money again. The 12 billion where cheap. There was recently an article somewhere that estimates the patents alone to be higher. But Google got also a strong company that is in the business for so long that I have.no doubt they can be profitable again soon. Edited 2012-07-30 08:59 UTC |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Comment by NuxRo |
| By phoudoin on 2012-07-30 08:58:29 |
| For once, a Godwin point which *is* a valid argument. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE: Oh please... |
| By cdude on 2012-07-30 09:04:04 |
|
You make it sound as Samsung is the only one making Android devices. Last year or so HTC was the Android company but they lost. Happens and can happen anytime to Samsung too. Android enables such kind of competition. Also you forget about Amazon and B&N and the likes which make good profit with Android too. But well... Edited 2012-07-30 09:06 UTC |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[5]: Comment by some1 |
| By cfgr on 2012-07-30 09:17:23 |
| Enforcing their patents is one thing, forcing everyone to use their patents through their desktop monopoly is quite another. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Whining by proxy |
| By cdude on 2012-07-30 09:23:38 |
|
> Google is used here as example since Android is successful. Android is not really open, Why not? If its about control fork what is possible with Android! Android is 100% open, the development process may not but that is irrelevant for the result, Android. > but do you think any truly open system won't be attacked by evil empires (MS and Apple) using patent racket? I bet it would. It already happened and happens. With TomTom and the FAT patent for example. > In this case they aren't aiming to destroy Android, they are aiming to be parasites and to profit from patent fees. They do try to destroy but destroy the commercial success by raising the cost it takes to deploy and ship Linux basex products. As more money it takes till you can make a Linux based product as more alternates, like Microsoft products, become interesting again. They cannot compete so they try to make the compition unacctractive. If there would be any possibility to succeed by sueing e.g. the Linux kernel community they would do. Its just that they would not succeed with that. They would fail and demage themselfs on that. So they decided to go another way. A way where they are able to end with an agreement behind closed doors at the end of the day, keeping the weapons working (trivial patents which would otherwise be lost maybe) and putting the message out that now even company X pays cause Linux uses Microsoft technology. Edited 2012-07-30 09:26 UTC |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: Comment by El_Exigente |
| By viton on 2012-07-30 09:29:06 |
|
Apple stole this design from Sony. The photo you're referencing has been designed by Apple in "sony-style". It is not a Sony product. Edited 2012-07-30 09:32 UTC |
| - Score: 4 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |