
Google reacts to Apple's US patent victory over Samsung - nsns
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19389732
======
freehunter
I wonder what the likelihood of a cross-license deal between Apple and Google
would be, and if their OEM manufacturers would be covered. Apple could stand
to make a lot of money from Android if every maker is paying them, much in the
way Microsoft makes money from Android OEMs. Using the free mobile OS could
become very expensive.

As much as I'd like to see the marketshare of Windows Phone increase, it
concerns me that the obvious result of this lawsuit is that the only way to
make a smartphone is to be in position to have a cross-license, no-copy-no-
lawsuit agreement like Apple and Microsoft have. This severely restricts
competition. I'd like to see Windows Phone succeed in the market, but I
wouldn't want to see more independent OSes crushed underfoot in the process.

------
derekp7
There is a simple way to solve this. Ship the phones without an OS. Then
consumers would have the choice of installing Android, Windows, Symbian, or
what have you. Ideally the OS would boot from a micro SD card, or at least
installed from one.

~~~
herval
That's a great idea! That way you'd have the worst of possibilities: software
upgrade hell all around ("company X is not upgrading the OS Y on devices Z and
W anymore"), hyper-confused buyers (most consumers can't even insert a sim-
card without help, let alone _pick an OS_ ) and an all-around tendency to
nightmarish support experiences ("we don't fix X phones if you install Y on
them!")

That would be a huge step back from a consumer perspective, IMHO. The "mobile
revolution" is in full effect because the devices have got SIMPLER, not "more
open". But I'm sure Stallman and others of his kind would LOVE it...

edit: removed "neckbeards" reference that could sound offensive to more
zealous uber-nerds.

~~~
anatoli
While most of your argument is solid, there's no need to bring the level of
discussion down to Reddit standards by using terms like "neckbeards". Your
last sentence overshadows an otherwise good comment.

~~~
herval
I'm really sorry, mentioning Stallman always brings out the worst in me...

------
wklauss
No matter what Google says now, this sets a bad precedent and some of these
patents could be used to go against Google on a trial. Wether or not Apple
chooses to do so is another story.

I see this trial as a missed opportunity to rethink patent law in the US.
However I don't blame Apple on this one, I blame Samsung. They made it so easy
for Apple to make a case that now these patents have been somehow ratified.
Had they not make their products so damn similar the jurors would have
probably thought twice before the verdict and its implications.

~~~
luriel
What about blaming the insane counterproductive patent system instead?

~~~
lttlrck
counter-productive for??????

------
epo
This judgement says nothing about innovation. Note to whiners: copying isn't
innovation. Apple innovate (and have exceptional design taste), that is why
they are successful. Samsung just produce thinly disguised, poorly made knock-
offs. Samsung have history, before the iPhone Samsung made Blackberry knock-
offs, its what they do.

The important aspect here is that Apple went after the most obvious plagiarist
(and softest target) first. Now there is a precedent, Google were the most
blatant IP thieves and I have no doubt (nor do Google) that Apple are just
warming up for the big game.

~~~
DrHankPym
Obviously, you didn't look at all the designs Apple claims are copies. Unless
you believe Apple invented the mobile phone, I don't think you can just claim
that this isn't preventing innovation.

------
anuraj
Google is clearly not too happy about Samsung cornering the Android Market.
Samsung can wrest the control any time and popularize their version of Android
leaving the rest of the android crowd in dust. Samsung makes huge profits on
Android while Google does not. And that explains Google's stance.

That said, Android makers already pay substantial amounts to Microsoft as
royalties. So Google posturing is just plain farce. Android is not free.

------
CookWithMe
>> Following the Samsung verdict, Bill Cox, marketing director for Microsoft's
Windows Phone Division tweeted: "Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now."

Is he saying that Windows Phone isn't looking good compared to Android if you
ignore the legal troubles Android is in?

------
at-fates-hands
"Following the Samsung verdict, Bill Cox, marketing director for Microsoft's
Windows Phone Division tweeted: "Windows Phone is looking gooooood right
now.""

Too bad the carriers aren't listening much. I've been waiting for Verizon to
carry more Windows 7 models. The only one they currently have is the HTC
Trophy which is already a few years old.

In some regards, it doesn't matter what happens to the handset manufacturers,
the carriers still have the last word on whether they're going to carry them.
They're effectively controlling the supply of the handset, regardless of
demand.

~~~
happycube
One of the problems I think is that MS dictated specs _too_ tightly. So
basically there are about 10 versions of what's basically the same phone in
different packaging, which really doesn't appeal to carriers much.

------
programminggeek
To be fair, Apple offered to license its patents to Samsung already and
Samsung said no. Sure, Apple was asking for a lot, but Samsung could have
negotiated for a better deal, they just didn't think they had to.

Ultimately, there will be cross licensing deals and patent trades made and
this isn't going to "slow innovation" as much as pundits believe. It's just
going to be a case of trading money to buy innovation instead of doing your
own R&D like Apple, MSFT, Motorola, and Nokia have done.

~~~
robertskmiles
That situation would completely lock out any new innovators from entering the
market, since they would need (a) enough money up-front and (b) the explicit
permission of most if not all leading patent holders.

The major companies would effectively be using unjustified patents as a form
of collusion to erect insurmountable barriers to entry around the US mobile
market.

------
indiecore
This is a ridiculous farce and it's going to end up destroying all three phone
OS manufacturers and dealing massive damage to the entire mobile technology
space, especially to smaller developers and possible innovators. Everyone knew
if the patents came out it was a MAD situation but I guess someone thought
they could win.

Edit:

Changed the wording on the first sentence. Good points from replies about it
really being smaller innovators getting caught in the crossfire.

~~~
vibrunazo
This is naive, this won't hurt much the big guys. It will only hurt small
startups trying to enter the market. Samsung, Google and Apple can afford this
fight. Google already paid over $10b for motorola and is already using that to
sue Apple. They'll keep doing that until Apple is cornered to cross license
its patents. Just like Apple and Microsoft did. Eventually, Apple, Google and
Samsung will have cross licensed patents and will stop suing each other. Life
will go on.

But small startups who can't afford the dozens of billions of dollars these
companies are spending to keep Apple off. Those are the ones who will be hurt.
Next time an innovative startups tries to disrupt anything Apple is doing.
They'll be put out of business because they use pinch to zoom. And this trial
has set precedence in Apple's favor. This result is terrible for any small app
developer. You should be worried about them, not Apple or Google.

~~~
herval
It could hurt _some_ of the big guys. Whoever gets sales blocked in their
biggest markets could suffer big time (or even go out of business)...

That "Apple is the bogey-man and they'll eat anyone that does pinch and zoom"
argument is turning into a hollow fallacy. It's not _just_ Apple and they
won't sue _everyone_ \- it's an all-out war against very specific players
(Google, Apple, Samsung and a couple others) that was even _announced_ by Jobs
before it happened. Not like they're moving entirely to the business of
"patent trolling the world". "Innovative startups that try to disrupt
anything" will be safe, IMHO... (except, of course, if "disrupting anything"
means blatantly copying everything, from hardware design to icons...)

~~~
luriel
> "Innovative startups that try to disrupt anything" will be safe, IMHO...

And you expect people to invest in business in the hopes that your "Humble
Opinion" holds true?

I'm sure most startups are safe from being sued by Apple... as long as they
don't become a threat to their business.

And of course, no startup is safe from IV and other patent trolls that are
feeding this patent insanity.

~~~
lttlrck
They are more likely to get bought...

