And why should he mention Apple? It's not like he's making a pro-patent argument and just failing to address a huge counterexample. He's disagreeing with Google's behavior - should he take the chance to bash every large company other there?
Generally it is very easy to attack big companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc.. However the recent change of direction[^1] that Google announced for Android (or, Android source), should make everyone agree with Marco when he says
>Sure. It’s in everyone’s best interest. Unless Google wants to sue you, or the vendor of a product you use, for patent infringement.
[^1]: Not that the change is bad per se: it could be very good for the end user, which is now subject to the carrier will more than what he should.
How does Google deciding to hold back on releasing the source code for a tablet version of android until they merge it with the phone version have anything to do with Google building up a larger patent portfolio, other than that they're both things that people are getting irritated at Google about? Really, I can't understand how you're connecting them, much less reaching the conclusion that the former means that everyone needs to agree with a statement about the latter.
They said that the definition of open means being able to use git with the source code of Android. And freedom. This is no longer the case, they changed direction. Now carriers need to talk to Rubin and tell him what their plans are.
They said that they want to acquire patents to prevent companies to sue them. Unless they change idea, as with the aforementioned.
Then you're right, everybody has to agree with part I cited from Marco, since when they sue you, it's not in everyone's best interest. Everyone but you, at least.
> Now carriers need to talk to Rubin and tell him what their plans are.
That is not correct.
Carriers need to talk to Rubin and tell him what their plans are in order to gain early access to the source code.
The source code will still be published into a public git repository, and anyone, including carriers and manufacturers, can still acquire, modify, redistribute and ship it from there.
Is it the fact that they're buying patents and feeding into a dysfunctional system? He seems to acknowledge that Google needs a large patent portfolio in order to defend itself from others, so it's probably not that. Or is it the fact that Google appears to be hypocritical in its stance towards patents, by taking actions which it could theoretically use to attack underdogs that can't defend themselves while claiming that they're just for their own protection? If that is indeed what he's claiming, then until that actually happens, this is just FUD.
Even if Google turns evil, or goes bust in say 5 years time and sells these patents to trolls, they'll still have taken these patents off the market for that time period.
It's not something to celebrate, but it's a thin silver lining on the grey cloud of patent insanity that hangs over the tech world.
Relatedly, I've realised that it's a shame that Google didn't adopt the motto "At least we're better than Hitler and the Nazis". Then any random fanboy troll unhappy with them offering too much competition for their favourite corporation would have to say things like:
"Google is using this blog post to pre-spin their attempt to get a much larger patent portfolio so we don’t all accuse them of trying to accumulate too many patents, since that’s “worse than Hitler and the Nazis”"
12 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 41.3 ms ] thread>Sure. It’s in everyone’s best interest. Unless Google wants to sue you, or the vendor of a product you use, for patent infringement.
[^1]: Not that the change is bad per se: it could be very good for the end user, which is now subject to the carrier will more than what he should.
They said that they want to acquire patents to prevent companies to sue them. Unless they change idea, as with the aforementioned.
Then you're right, everybody has to agree with part I cited from Marco, since when they sue you, it's not in everyone's best interest. Everyone but you, at least.
That is not correct.
Carriers need to talk to Rubin and tell him what their plans are in order to gain early access to the source code.
The source code will still be published into a public git repository, and anyone, including carriers and manufacturers, can still acquire, modify, redistribute and ship it from there.
Is it the fact that they're buying patents and feeding into a dysfunctional system? He seems to acknowledge that Google needs a large patent portfolio in order to defend itself from others, so it's probably not that. Or is it the fact that Google appears to be hypocritical in its stance towards patents, by taking actions which it could theoretically use to attack underdogs that can't defend themselves while claiming that they're just for their own protection? If that is indeed what he's claiming, then until that actually happens, this is just FUD.
It's not something to celebrate, but it's a thin silver lining on the grey cloud of patent insanity that hangs over the tech world.
Relatedly, I've realised that it's a shame that Google didn't adopt the motto "At least we're better than Hitler and the Nazis". Then any random fanboy troll unhappy with them offering too much competition for their favourite corporation would have to say things like:
"Google is using this blog post to pre-spin their attempt to get a much larger patent portfolio so we don’t all accuse them of trying to accumulate too many patents, since that’s “worse than Hitler and the Nazis”"
and then Godwin themselves.
It's a fact that, in this messed up system, they need them in order to succeed.
Now, if they can just stop pretending that they are in this business for us, and not to make a profit, would be nice.