Google, Android and patents

Apple a couple of weeks ago acquired Nortel's patents for 4G LTE. Google started the bidding at $1 billion U.S. Then they cried when they could not keep up with Apples $4 billion U.S. winning bid.

These patent issues will only get crazier.

Tom
 
tjbnwi said:
Apple a couple of weeks ago acquired Nortel's patents for 4G LTE. Google started the bidding at $1 billion U.S. Then they cried when they could not keep up with Apples $4 billion U.S. winning bid.
Click to expand...

A little more accuracy please.
Research In Motion Ltd. and thousands of Nortel Networks Corp. pensioners are among the big winners in an auction for Nortel wireless patents that generated $4.5 billion (U.S.) — five times the initial offer tabled by Google Inc.

Analysts said the winning bid, by a group that includes Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp., Sony Corp., Ericsson AB and EMC Corp., raises the bar on the value of intellectual property assets and may push up licensing costs for Google.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1018124--nortel-gets-4-5-billion-for-its-patents
 
Is this the most recent way for american industry to generate wealth?  I am disgusted with the whole thing.  Small wonder the country is teetering on the abyss...
 
tjbnwi said:
With Apples $2.6 billion dollar U.S. contribution to the winning bid, it gives them outright ownership of the of Nortel's 4G LTE patents;

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/29/nortel-completes-4-5-billion-patent-sale-to-apple-led-consortium/
Click to expand...

You like to misconstrue facts that aren't yet in evidence don't you? Read the link you provided a little more closely. Apple is 'claiming' total ownership because of their majority investment, but that 'claim' is not yet a done deal. And, what about the other successful bidders? They invested a large amount of money and have zero control? Consider that U.S. antitrust regulators are continuing their investigation of the Apple-led consortium. Nothing is final yet.
 
If you click through the page links you will find that the pot was divided up by the bidders. Wouldn't you want to know what you were getting for your money? No one else in the consortium is disputing Apples claim.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/03/apple-has-outright-ownership-of-nortels-lte-4g-patents/

As you know Nortel was/is a Canadian company, the regulatory commissions of Canada have approved the sale.

The Justice Department will approve this sale, the caveat will be whether or not the patent holder can go after Google for infringing on the patents.

Tom
 
All I'll say on this is it's a shame that progress has to be stopped through this legal mumbo jumbo. This whole recent business of tech companies suing each other over petty patent infringements is really just halting progress. I'm not taking sides here but competition is necessary for us to get the best of what's out there.
 
I know if I created something that other companies use to make their product better or make money, I would want to be compensated for their use of it. Who here wouldn't?

It cost these companies a lot of money to develop these ideas, R&D cost for most of these patented products is very high.

Tom
 
tjbnwi said:
It cost these companies a lot of money to develop these ideas, R&D cost for most of these patented products is very high.

Tom
Click to expand...

You aren't supposed to be able to patent ideas, only implementations. 
As an engineer, I abhor anyone who believes that "ideas" are valuable.  If you think of something its likely been thought of before and if it hasn't its still worthless unless you choose to take the risk and make it real.

Sure, if someone is stealing your solution you have grounds, but the patent system has been mutated and bastardized to the fullest extent.  There is no reason that old ideas should have a market for companies wishing to stop innovation and advancement through B.S. legal activity. 
 
Innovations, may have been a better word to use. Read my statement you quoted, it does state that the cost is in going from idea to a patentable product.

Did touch screen GUI smart phones exist before the iPhone. I believe not. It is what is done with the idea that the patent is issued to. How much did it cost to develop the iPhone, a lot of money I bet. I have no problem with any company defending their patents.

Yes, I know the first GUI's were on Xerox units in the early '70's. Appears to be an original idea implemented. So, some ideas are new.  From there we got to where we are now with computers and other devices.

My brother is also an engineer, he has developed multiple products that have been patented by the company he works for. The company defends these patents rigorously nationally and internationally.

You should know, one of the hardest things to do is take an idea, and build upon it. Not many are good at thinking outside the box. Most see it and go thats a good idea and leave it at that. It is those that can take the known and create something new with it who's ideas are valuable.

Google did not want to pay Nortel for the use of their patented technology. They have admitted this. The Android (there is no such thing as an Android phone) operating system would not be in place without these technologies they basically stoled. Now that there is the thought of a $15.00 per unit licensing fee, Google is crying foul. These wold be mute points if Google would have paid for these use of Nortel's technology, or should have developed their own system. The Google consortium had the choice to out bid the Apple consortium, but they didn't or couldn't.

Tom
 
tjbnwi said:
per unit licensing fee, Google is crying foul. These wold be mute points if Google would have paid for these use of Nortel's technology, or should have developed their own system. The Google consortium had the choice to out bid the Apple consortium, but they didn't or couldn't.
Click to expand...

All of this is completely besides the point. Apple likes to point to itself as a paragon of virtue with it's great OS and fine hardware. *IF* Apple has purchased these patents with the sole purpose of directly affecting the operation of Google, then, it will show Apple to be just another low class  opportunistic company ready and willing to use any underhanded tactic to affect a competitor.

 
tjbnwi said:
Innovations, may have been a better word to use. Read my statement you quoted, it does state that the cost is in going from idea to a patentable product.

Did touch screen GUI smart phones exist before the iPhone. I believe not. It is what is done with the idea that the patent is issued to. How much did it cost to develop the iPhone, a lot of money I bet. I have no problem with any company defending their patents.

Yes, I know the first GUI's were on Xerox units in the early '70's. Appears to be an original idea implemented. So, some ideas are new.  From there we got to where we are now with computers and other devices.

My brother is also an engineer, he has developed multiple products that have been patented by the company he works for. The company defends these patents rigorously nationally and internationally.

You should know, one of the hardest things to do is take an idea, and build upon it. Not many are good at thinking outside the box. Most see it and go thats a good idea and leave it at that. It is those that can take the known and create something new with it who's ideas are valuable.

Google did not want to pay Nortel for the use of their patented technology. They have admitted this. The Android (there is no such thing as an Android phone) operating system would not be in place without these technologies they basically stoled. Now that there is the thought of a $15.00 per unit licensing fee, Google is crying foul. These wold be mute points if Google would have paid for these use of Nortel's technology, or should have developed their own system. The Google consortium had the choice to out bid the Apple consortium, but they didn't or couldn't.

Tom
Click to expand...
Touch screen GUI existed way before the iPhone so I don't know where you got that from and I owned a few. Apple is no angel and their day is coming.
 
Upscale said:
Apple likes to point to itself as a paragon of virtue with it's great OS and fine hardware.
Click to expand...
I don't think that Apple ever tried to impute any virtue by pointing to its great OS or hardware.  Apple's increasingly heavy-handed  iTunes- , App-store-centric restrictions it places upon iPhone, iPad and now Mac users shows quite clearly that they are a company, like any other, interested in maintaining its own profit margins by any means available to it, however repugnant those means may be.

Google, on the other hand, does have "Don't be evil" as part of its corporate philosophy.  And as of yet, I haven't seen Google move to cut off my freedoms or the way I can - or cannot - interact with my property.

 
tjbnwi said:
Did touch screen GUI smart phones exist before the iPhone. I believe not. It is what is done with the idea that the patent is issued to. How much did it cost to develop the iPhone, a lot of money I bet. I have no problem with any company defending their patents.
Click to expand...

Yes touchscreen phones existed.  I had a Dell PDA that could place calls and had a touchscreen for a personal example.  Same concept, certainly enough to void a patent application.  And yet, Apple has a patent around the use of touchscreens on a phone.  And now they are using it to drive up the costs for everyone.  Shady.

I say this as a man that has sold many of Apple product for them and still will.  I'm not anti-apple, just anti-bs corporation protectionism.

Cheers.
 
Thank you. I did not know of the Dell PDA. I did know there were GUI PDA's, just not one that was also a phone. 

So Google is not evil when they choose to not pay for someone else's technology, but yet they will sue if you infringe on theirs? Sounds fair and kind to me.

I stated GUI existed before the iPhone. Just asked if it was on a phone prior to. Mr. Smith answered that question.

Time will tell what Apple will do with these patents. Like I said they were out to bid and Google should have not let them go to someone else. Maybe Nortel would have survived if they were compensated for their efforts instead if having it admittedly stoleden.

Tom

 
From the googleblog...
Ultimately, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened, forcing Microsoft to sell the patents it bought and demanding that the winning group (Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, EMC) give a license to the open-source community, changes the DoJ said were “necessary to protect competition and innovation in the open source software community.

Apple may not have invented touch screen (PDAs had touch screen -- with the little stick that always got lost -- many years ago), and Microsoft tried for years to make tablet PCs usable; Apple just happened to make it usable in a unique way.  In our system, you get the rewards of innovation.  Many of us love Apple products (probably the same personality flaw that makes us like Festools) because of the way they are.  The control they hold over their products is acceptable to me, and if they choose to use iTunes as control central, it is not a problem to me.  If I did not like it, I would have bought a PC and an Android phone.

We could talk about how Microsoft destroyed Magellan, and all that noise, but I will say that I dont seek the products I use and like to be built by paragons of virtue. Like the Man himself said, "let him who is free of sin to cast the first stone".
 
pugilato said:
Like the Man himself said, "let him who is free of sin to cast the first stone".
Click to expand...

Of course, no one is immune to the free of sin concept, certainly not myself. And, I'll admit that I have a bias against Apple, or specifically, Apple users in particular. As an admitted Microsoft OS user, in the past, I never cared much what OS or hardware someone chooses to use. However, every time I've been in discussion with or been in the company of an Apple user, the conversation invariably ends up with the OS I use being criticised, or me being personally attacked for using that OS.

Some might just consider it competition, but I object to being berated for my OS use. For that reason, I'll never use or buy an Apple product and will go out of my way to avoid having to do so. Similarly, my biased attitude now extends to Apple users, whom I consider to be pompous and arrogant, especially so considering that Apple has only approximately 10% of the market.

Anyway, those are my reasons for my first comment to tjbnwi with his original claim of "Apple's
$4 billion U.S. winning bid". A claim that completely disregarded the other members of the coalition bid and disregarded their sizable monetary involvement in that bid.

So, I'll bow out of this thread before I become too volatile and regret saying something more inappropriate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Festool ETS 125 REQ Issues with 3M XTract
Replies
0
Views
185
pkoud
P
O
Time For Bed...
Replies
0
Views
508
onocoffee
O
S
Tablesaw miter fence that pivots around the kerf edge
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
smorgasbord
S
X
RAS 115-E Set # 570789 - SOLD !
Replies
1
Views
299
xedos
X
J
What is this?
Replies
10
Views
1K
semenza
semenza
Back
Top