Why don't google patent Android stuff to get iPhones banned?

[nuckinfutz]

This should really be a general forum and not the iPhone forum.

I don't think iPhone users really want to come to their section of the forums and read comments about how their phone should be banned.

I think the patent stuff is boorish but at this point if the industry wants to change the process they'll band together and do something about it.

 

[Bobby Corwen]

Looking at the top 20 threads its like 50% of them are android based. I know it's the "offseason" and the iPhone competition is something that has a lot of people curious but I really do agree there should be an Android obsessed subsection. They also love to up vote pro android posts and downvote any pro apple posts with a vengeance.

 

[Mac.World]

. They also love to up vote pro android posts and downvote any pro apple posts with a vengeance.

well, just looking at this thread the OP has more votes than anyone and they are all negative. Second most votes are someone that agreed with him and they are all negative.

Seems as though your statement isn't entirely accurate.

 

[Technarchy]

Looking at the top 20 threads its like 50% of them are android based. I know it's the "offseason" and the iPhone competition is something that has a lot of people curious but I really do agree there should be an Android obsessed subsection. They also love to up vote pro android posts and downvote any pro apple posts with a vengeance.

We don't need and android section. We need to have a few banished trolls. Let them Peddle their idiocy at android central or phandroid.

 

[ChazUK]

We don't need and android section. We need to have a few banished trolls. Let them Peddle their idiocy at android central or phandroid.

If you see anyone trolling, use the

button and let the Mods do their thing.

I sure do.

 

[maflynn]

While that is true, I believe that suit predates the Google acquisition.

It does, but the point remains, google/moto is looking to block apple.

 

[Jb07]

I'm sure they will more than likely begin suing Apple one the Motorola acquisition is complete. Motorola basically invented the cell phone, so once Google has access to those patents, Apple will be in a world of hurt.

 

[kalex]

or maybe google is not threatened by Apple and could care less about banning the iphone and they choose to innovate instead of litigate which is what apple seems to be doing lately

 

[fertilized-egg]

or maybe google is not threatened by Apple and could care less about banning the iphone and they choose to innovate instead of litigate which is what apple seems to be doing lately

That's not the case. It's just that Google doesn't actually make phones so they don't engage Apple directly. Instead Google buys patents and give them to likes of HTC so that the phone makers can use those patents against Apple.

I don't know why nobody mentioned this story line, which happened just last month:

HTC Sues Apple Using Google Patents Bought Last Week As Battle Escalates

Google's plan to transfer patents to HTC fails in case against Apple

With Google, we're talking about a company that just bought a money losing business(Motorola) for over $12 billion mainly for patents. It's silly to think Google doesn't plan to engage in patent battles.

 

[Tarzanman]

So, are you saying Google, Motorola, HTC and Samsung aren't suing anybody for patent violations?

To my knowledge, Google hasn't sued Apple at all.

Motorola sued Apple in retaliation (see: countersuit)
HTC sued Apple in retaliation and lost (see: countersuit)
Nokia sued Apple and won over UMTS patents that Nokia was perfectly willing to license.

If you haven't noticed, Apple has been stepping on some big toes for a while now and their troubles in China seem like they are just getting started. Only time will tell whether they will be able to buy their way out of trouble.

 

[kdarling]

With Google, we're talking about a company that just bought a money losing business(Motorola) for over $12 billion mainly for patents. It's silly to think Google doesn't plan to engage in patent battles.

Or rather, that others will force Google to engage in patent battles.

Many think that Google obtained the MMI patents for defensive purposes.

 

[bozzykid]

Android is free and open-source for everyone to use. Everyone. Even Apple.

That simply isn't true. Yes, the Android core is open source. But Google still is able to obtain patents for many of the ideas in Android.

----------

You can't patent open source software but Motorola has sued Apple over infringing on hardware patents.

You can patent features in open source software. Google has plenty of patents pertaining to Android. They don't patent the source code but the implementations of features. If they are ever granted the notification bar patent they applied for, I suppose Apple will definitely have to pay for it in some way.

 

[Tarzanman]

Yep, because the current smarthphone/tablet ecosystem exist because Google, Motorola, HTC, Samsung create it... with their "innovation". Not because everyone see what apple do, then try to copy it.

Of course, when somebody else - Apple - do the large, hard work of enter new market with new things, is far more easy to add your own things - Google, Motorola, HTC, Samsung - because the initial risk is already mitigated.

Tablets and smartphones existed before the iPhone. Online stores with micropayments for software existed before the iPhone. MP3 players existed before the iPod. Apple didn't invent any of those things.

The plasma TV was invented at the University of Illinois and Pioneer started selling the first sets to consumers in 1997.... do you get all emotional and upset that Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, LG, etc, etc have all 'copied' Pioneer? Of course not. There is basically one way to build a television set, a rectangle screen. Panasonic doesn't sue Sony over having similar volume knobs or power buttons. That would be ridiculous. They also don't sue them over having software that controls onscreen menus that disappear et al.

This is what Apple is doing. I hope it comes back and bites them squarely in the butt. Karma

 

[dejo]

To my knowledge, Google hasn't sued Apple at all.

Motorola sued Apple in retaliation (see: countersuit)
HTC sued Apple in retaliation and lost (see: countersuit)
Nokia sued Apple and won over UMTS patents that Nokia was perfectly willing to license.

So, then your statement that "Google, Motorola, HTC, Samsung and similar are too busy innovating to bother with legal maneuvers that will ultimately get them very little for the money that they cost" isn't exactly true, is it? They are bothering with legal maneuvers.

 

[willmtaylor]

Lawsui Infographic

This is now 6 months old, but it's still a great illustration.

WT

 

[buddgeez]

I don't understand how apple are getting patents for things like clicking on a hyperlink in a text message, or a voice search, voice search has been out way before apple so just because Google makes a better voice search means you must sue. Technically they didnt copy siri, because voice search has been around since before apple and android both. As well as the hyperlink feature, i used to do it with my Samsung touchscreen. The ones from 2000. Does anyone know why apple keeps taking basic features that been around forever and patenting them???

 

[Exio]

I don't understand how apple are getting patents for things like clicking on a hyperlink in a text message, or a voice search, voice search has been out way before apple so just because Google makes a better voice search means you must sue. Technically they didnt copy siri, because voice search has been around since before apple and android both. As well as the hyperlink feature, i used to do it with my Samsung touchscreen. The ones from 2000. Does anyone know why apple keeps taking basic features that been around forever and patenting them???

They are exploiting a flaw in the patent system to try and cripple competition. As of late it seems the only thing they are trying to "innovate" is a monopoly.

 

[Tarzanman]

So, then your statement that "Google, Motorola, HTC, Samsung and similar are too busy innovating to bother with legal maneuvers that will ultimately get them very little for the money that they cost" isn't exactly true, is it? They are bothering with legal maneuvers.

I suppose that depends on your perspective. If someone picks a fight with you, you can either summon your energies to defend yourself or passively take the beating.

I would not call someone fighting back to defend their self from an aggressor in that circumstance an instigator or violent person. Similarly, I would not necessarily call a company filing counter-suits for leverage against a patent troll litigious.

It is no mystery that Apple is playing as dirty as they can to throw as many obstacles as they can in front of Google. The proof is in the pudding, and the former CEO is on record making threats to do just that.

On one hand you have a series of weak or flimsy software or 'community design' patents which are slowly (but surely) being invalidated or worked around with software patches.

On the other hand you have Apple deliberately going after hardware manufacturers and *not* the company that wrote the software in the first place. Apple has not sued Google. Why? Who knows. Maybe their lawyers are concerned about blowback from the poop-storm that would result from two huge software companies....potentially doing some damage to Apple if they found themselves on the wrong side of the biggest software company on the internet.

More net savvy companies than Apple have already tried it (see: Oracle or Sun), and wasted a lot of money in the process of losing to Google.

So, yes... if Motorola or Nokia were really interested in doing anything/everything to crush Apple then they would have sued for iinjunctions back in 2007 over the dozens of UMTS tech in the original iphone. That didn't happen.

It might make you feel bad that Apple is the 'bad guy', but facts are facts. None of the big companies I have mentioned are angels, but there is only one out there acting worse than Microsoft in prime trying to game the system to stifle competition in the mobile computing arena.

 

[realeric]

Burglar sues a homeowner sometimes in the USA. So does Google?.

 

[LoloBond]

 

[18t]

No Google did not invent (nor was it ever patented). You are close if memory serves though, Apple's implementation was based on what a jail breaker developed before Apple actually hired him formally. But there is no patent dealing with this specific implementation therefore the only action would probably be over copyright which I doubt Google has either.

perhaps you meant it hasnt been patented yet? please read the mobile notifications patent filed by google in january 2009....

http://www.google.com/patents/US20090249247?printsec=drawing#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[PatrickW98]

The question is:

Who really cares?

 

[nuckinfutz]

I don't understand how apple are getting patents for things like clicking on a hyperlink in a text message, or a voice search, voice search has been out way before apple so just because Google makes a better voice search means you must sue. Technically they didnt copy siri, because voice search has been around since before apple and android both. As well as the hyperlink feature, i used to do it with my Samsung touchscreen. The ones from 2000. Does anyone know why apple keeps taking basic features that been around forever and patenting them???

Sorry. Law Degrees from a Cracker Jack box don't count.

 

[chiefpavvy]

Patent wars are fun, I've got the bucket of popcorn.

Generally speaking, it is mutually assured destruction. Given the sheer number of patents involved in the modern smart phone and operating system, the odds of infringing somewhere are very high. But you don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Google was extremely weak in the mobile patent department, hence the $12 bils expense to grab Motorola.

 

[mamcx]

Tablets and smartphones existed before the iPhone. Online stores with micropayments for software existed before the iPhone. MP3 players existed before the iPod. Apple didn't invent any of those things.

In what moment I say Apple invent completely something? The old-excuse "before exist" but before (almost) nobody want it? Do you not remember how was that tablets & smartphone before the iPhone/iPad?

Not because everyone see what apple do, then try to copy it.

What was the thing that Apple do, and everything else copy it:

1- Switch to touch screen from keyboards & other inputs
2- The integrated solution (extreme case: MS)
3- The App store
4- Open the development to large pool of devs (before apple, was almost impossible that a person like me develop for phones)
4a - A decent cut of 30%. Back them, you lucky if get 10%
5- Provide decent toolset for devs (the MS toolset - Windows mobile- was the best back them. And was terrible)
6- Push for consumers, instead of business (ie: RIM)
7- Delivery tablet not like a desktop half-attempt at tablet, but with specialized software (7a: Specific api for touch enabled apps, 7b: Native development!)
8- Have a single OS across plataforms (extreme case: MS!)
9- ARM
10- Powerfull hardware (State of art? Windows Mobile like 64 RAM for disk+memory. When I know that the first iphone was 128 I can't believe it. Then the graphic card....)
11- Free, constant updates of the OS (barely matched)

And other things that I forgot. In the mean time, the ENTERY industry was put downside-up, MS lost it, but still have a last try, RIM/Nokia fall, Samsung rise from nothing, Google enter new batlefields and Apple rise to top.

YEP,

That was TOTALLY the innovation provided for others...