In attempting to fend off Apple and Microsoft’s suits against Motorola Mobility and advancing its own patent litigation against both companies, Google, which is facing a lot of regulatory scrutiny in the U.S. and abroad over what some allege is abuse of SEPs, has been arguing that proprietary non-standardized technologies that become ubiquitous due to their popularity with consumers should be considered de facto standards.
So, Let me get this straight. Apple spent billions of dollars researching the best interface for mobile devices and patented their findings. Those methods of interacting with a mobile device became so popular, Google illegally integrated them in its inferior Android operating system.
Now that they’ve been caught, they are arguing that the features are standards and are not Apple’s at all.
You know what else is ubiquitous? Search. Why not hand the code for that over to Apple and let them make a search engine to compete with Google.
Dirtbags.
When will Google lose its trademark? Googled/googling is a pretty common term for search these days.
You’re undermining your own argument, Jim. Google didn’t steal Apple’s code. If anything, they “stole” Apple’s ideas.
A proper analogy to Apple’s patent lawsuits would be Google preventing others from implementing working Internet search, because Google was first to have an Internet search engine that actually worked. We all realize that this would be ridiculous – just like Apple’s patents.
Awesome comment. Made me chuckle 🙂
Well said.
I cannot believe that google would propose something becoming popular should then become available to everyone: one of the most ludicrous statements I’ve heard. 2. Why is there such a lack of coverage from other news sites when they happily cover other patent news. Strange indeed.
Is this basically an admission of stealing IP?
Lukas, Apple’s patents aren’t ridiculous. Take the “slide to unlock” patent: the problem was that Apple wanted to make it difficult for users to unintentionally activate their phones. There are many alternative ways to solve that problem, including Android’s unlock pattern solution. Google can legitimately patent that, as others can patent their own alternative solutions. What they can’t do is use Apple’s own solution.
Apple’s “slide” solution was first to market, elegantly designed and smoothly implemented, so it became popular with users. To allow this popularity—the result of first-mover advantage AND sizable investment and hard work—to justify handing over the innovation to competitors would, as Apple has said, reduce the incentives for innovation.
Apple got recently a few multitouch-Patents that cover some very basic multitouch tech (for example those scrollbars that hide when you are not moving a document): Google probably knows that Apple WILL bury Android with those so the Android Interface has to be redesigned.
They probably do not believe that this Arguments will get any legal hold but its a talking point for Android Fans: “This UI is standard, Apple is mean again”
The easiest reason you’re full of it on slide-to-unlock: Neonode N1m
The validity of a particular patent is a separate issue entirely.
Microsoft used the same argument to copy the Mac interface for Windows and were successful. There is precedent for this argument.
Won’t be easier to burn all that patent system? With transient 20 years long period, when old patents are still valid, but no new patents taken any more.
But are they evil dirtbags?
It seems you don’t know what a patent is.
It is government issue 20 year exclusive right
to that particular implementation which is
what is Apple using test its patents in the court of law.
It is in the constitution. may be you have heard of it.
Not the sort of d-bags I would have called them, but it echoes my sentiments.
Can you patent ” making a new model by changing the number on the end and making it slightly shinier”? I if you can apple should patent that too. I bet you shit heads just eat that shit up
Written on my not so shiny cheap dirt bag Nexus 7.
Google’s Next step : Printing US Dollar, after all they are ubiquitous, no?
Come on Jim, that is a lame analogy. Google isn’t claiming they should be given Apple’s implementation of these ideas; just that they should be free to implement variants of them for themselves. And they’re at least partially right: the customer is going to suffer if every minor multitouch detail becomes a legal battle.
As far as I know, there are no questionable patents preventing Apple from indexing the web, and creating a web page with a text box and a search button on it.
This isn’t be 90s anymore. Todays Apple is not going to let its IP slip away due to bad deals and inaction. They certainly won’t allow anyone ro pretend that Apple’s designs are so intrinsic to modem mobile computing that Apple shouldn’t be allowed to reap the benefits of their own R&D.
Pelle: Take your trolling back to your own shit-stained house. This isn’t it.
er, how is double the space, double the ram, 7x the gpu, faster cpu, and brand new antenna system “slightly” better? the form factor doesnt need a major redesign every year, nor are you supposed to upgrade every year. duh.
apple’s products just evolve more & more every year, one feature at a time. just like a car’s. over many years you have much improvement.
Is it that hard for Google to come up with a new idea?