Big deal
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Fettoosh Jul 01, 2011 2:48 PM EDT |
Quoting:Patent-watcher Florian Mueller concludes that this means Google isn't serious about Android, which seems a little harsh, but it does indicate a limit to the protection that Google is willing to provide. Google is playing a smart strategy. Why does it need to protect Android if it is giving it for free and has not been sued itself? There is no good reason yet as long as Android beating the IiPhone, is proliferating quite fast, and so far has prevented MS Mobile from making any noticeable progress. So what, let MS make a little money for the time being. And yea, big freaking deal, I conclude that, for $4.5bn, Google is capable and able of innovating and developing new technologies that are far superior and don't need any of the purchased patents. |
| Jose_X Jul 01, 2011 3:40 PM EDT |
Software patents are really broad. You can't create many interesting things without violating some. Software patents might not be constitutional or even a part of the law, depending on how you interpret things. Many current tech patents are "software" patents. I would love if Google has decided to double up on helping give a knock out blow to software patents. Eg, by supporting Constitutional arguments before the SCOTUS. |
| hkwint Jul 03, 2011 9:09 AM EDT |
Well said Fettoosh, I thought it was dumb Google didn't buy the portfolio. But hadn't considered the other things they could do with that amount of money. Since a week or so, I have a Samsung Galaxy S2, my first "mobile Linux"-device and my first smartphone. It's a really complicated thing, even simply picking up the phone is a real excercise - while it should be obvious. Reading the license of the "free" game Angry Birds is a real nightmare, so bad I simple refrained from installing it. Google Maps comes with a ridiculous license as well, which allows them to do about anything. "Then why the heck did I buy it?" - I found myself asking last week. Well, lots of the stuff on the phone (probably any Android-phone) cause a bit of a lock-in. Google maps: All people are suing it, so all companies / restaurants etc. have to be on it. And because all restaurants / companies etc. are on it, all people are using it. Effectively a lock-in, dis-encouraging people to turn to Bing. The same goes for Youtube, their Android app-market and GMail. My conclusion would be, many people are locked-in to Google services, Android serves as a great tool to lock more people in, and they won't go away soon. After all those people are locked in to the 'toll booth' of the internet - being Google, for Google it doesn't matter if those people are using Windows, WebOS, iOS or QNX. If one of those platforms wouldn't support Google Maps, GMail and Youtube, I think it would be dead on arrival. So yeah, it makes sense Google not defending Android, it already served its purpose very well. Samsung - I think at this moment the no. 1. selling Android-company has more software patents than Microsoft (which only few people know it seems, Samsung is no. 2 straight after IBM!), so they won't be sued away and will probably settle with MS if they're sued. For Google, Samsung backing Android will probably be enough of a guarantee to not feel the need to defend the thing. And if MS earns like 10 bucks from every sold Android device, they'll probably try less hard to make Bing-maps / Windows Live mail etc. beat the Google-platforms. Jose_X: Yeah, I think we would all love to see the current software patents go away! Most Apple-inventions mention an 'idea, but to implement the idea mentioned in the patent, you'd have to 'innovate the implementation' yourself. So, nothing is really disclosed, and there's no invention in the patent. I think the idea of the patent system though, was to enable someone who read the patent to implement it themselves. |
| dinotrac Jul 03, 2011 9:25 AM EDT |
Did you notice that, with exception of compulsive patent whore Microsoft, those companies all make hardware? Android is software and, given recent hints by the SCOTUS wrt to standards for patents on non-physical inventions, the patents might not be worth enough to Google to care, especially when you consider all the really smart folks they employ, folks who just might be able to invent around any trouble they might encounter. |
| purplewizard Jul 03, 2011 1:37 PM EDT |
Looks a lot like acting as a cartel to me in an anti-competitive way. So hopefully it will incur some investigation of all parties if they start using them to throw their weight around or (Microsoft) continue to extort Linux licensing deals from vendors. |
| Fettoosh Jul 06, 2011 11:35 AM EDT |
Quoting:Did you notice that, with exception of compulsive patent whore Microsoft, those companies all make hardware? Pretty good observation Dino. The same could also be said about the companies MS sued so far. It will be interesting to see what MS will do when HP starts licensing their WebOS. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!