Google's Chavez says software patents don't help the market or consumer
The only answer is that Apple has upset the top brass at Google so much that the Mountain View based search giant doesn't mind contradicting itself for a chance to get a U.S. ban on the Apple iPhone and the Apple iPad. Revenge is a powerful emotion and it looks like Google would love to get payback on Apple for its role in temporarily banning the HTC One X and HTC Evo 4G LTE from the U.S. earlier this year.
1. No_Nonsense posted on 20 Aug 2012, 21:23 13 1
And certainly not when they are a patented rectangle
2. denied911 (banned) posted on 20 Aug 2012, 21:32 8 0
It's not ironic moto is just defending against this fruity man company
34. anywherehome posted on 21 Aug 2012, 04:55 1 0
do not lie, author...it is not "ironic" it's just a defense against rotten Apple ;)
so do not mislead readers, no dear author!
3. aikonix posted on 20 Aug 2012, 21:39 11 0
its just that google knows and does what the consumers want. Apple does what apple wants. Oh and by the way, you were holding that wrong and now you are texting it wrong! =) no offense
4. XPERIA-KNIGHT posted on 20 Aug 2012, 21:58 1 0
Things are on the horizon! and not good things........for apple that is.
6. smartphone posted on 20 Aug 2012, 22:01 0 7
Patents of silly things aside like rectangle or black colour software patents are necessary.
The question in not 'how a company innovate' but 'why a company will innovate' if others will be using it the next day.
Google is great at improving others ideas. They hardly invent something new that's why android manufacturers had to pay royalties to M$.
16. phitch posted on 21 Aug 2012, 00:51 2 0
Name one thing that Apple invented, I can wait all day.
21. lubba posted on 21 Aug 2012, 01:49 0 2
Apple invented the iPhone that Google copied. Only difference, open source.
51. gwuhua1984 posted on 21 Aug 2012, 15:53 0 0
Um... taking a shape that's already been around for years and adding an OS to it really isn't much of an invention. Apparently you're not too updated on facts, Google had several prototypes in store before the release of iPhone. One of them was a rectangular device with a large touchscreen. So like I said... No one copied anything, just someone release it to the public first.
26. smartphone posted on 21 Aug 2012, 03:00 0 0
I am not an Apple fan, but google also never invented something big even android was bought.
Google had always taken others ideas and improved which is not a bad thing at all.
But to say software patents are useless is foolish.
Nobody likes their work to be stolen.
27. Sniggly posted on 21 Aug 2012, 03:16 2 1
The concept of patents was originally to make sure that the originator of an invention was able to actually benefit from his creation. However, patent bulls**t goes all the way back to the turn of the last century. Patent abuse is old news; Apple is simply the latest entity to get really trigger happy with it.
28. TylerGrunter posted on 21 Aug 2012, 03:31 2 0
The "work" for software is already covered by copyright.
People can copy ideas when they are implemented in software, what they can't do is to copy the exact same code.
Patents should be used to protect the investement of a company in innovation only where there was actually a big investment.
How much do you think is needed to invest to create patents like "slide to unlock" or "one click purchase"? Very little, so software patents should not be allowed. There are many countries where software patents are invalid and you can't use them in court.
36. smartphone posted on 21 Aug 2012, 05:50 0 0
I agree there should not be silly patents. But software patents are as important as hardware patents and you can't copy looks and same GUI.
These patents not only cover mobile software they includes productivity tools, video games, robotics, embedded electronics etc.
Apple vs Samsung is making these ridiculous.
both can improve Apple should be less bullying and Samsung with better design of phone and UI.
41. TylerGrunter posted on 21 Aug 2012, 07:18 0 0
GUIs can be covered by desing and images copyrights, there is absolutely no need for patents there. With the copyrights is enough.
As for productivity tools, robotics and embedded electronics: they are (normally) not software patents, as they normally include hardware and they are more specific that the silly patents Apple has. As joey said in next comment the EU does not have software patents, and therefore this kind of silly games are avoided.
35. joey_sfb posted on 21 Aug 2012, 05:44 2 0
The european union thinks that software patent is foolish and has abolished it.
Software are expression of mathematic, procedural routines. To patent it is like to patent the english language and expression.
Its stupid, and will hinger progress of the human civilisation.
7. Dr.Phil posted on 20 Aug 2012, 22:10 6 0
I'm glad Google is one of the major companies stepping up for patent reform because we really need it. Ever wonder why prescription drugs are so expensive for people who have cancer or M.S. or even heart conditions? It's because of patents. A person files a patent and then one drug company pays millions of dollars to buy that patent and use it to be the only company making that certain drug at which it could market it for whatever price it deems fit. It then takes years upon years until the patent expires and then generic drugs are then created. The same goes for this. All of these tech companies file patents that they say "protects their intellectual property" but in reality it also makes them a lot of money and drives away competition. Competition is what allowed the tablet market to go from the $500 and up range to now having companies create tablets in the $200 range (not to say there weren't $200 tablets before, but not any you would consider "premium" or having good hardware). Competition is what has allowed Qualcomm, Samsung, and nVidia to strive to create the best chipsets. The truth of the matter is we have to have real patent reform. I understand people want to protect their intellectual property, but at some point by protecting that intellectual property we are also driving away competition. I think the author put it best when he said: "If a company is too scared of being sued, what will occur is a fear of pushing the envelope."
37. denied911 (banned) posted on 21 Aug 2012, 06:19 1 0
drugs patent expires in 25 years or 20
and not the drug is patented but way it is synthesized
you can make the same drug but in another way chemically speaking
there is need for reform but if drug company will not have patent and possibility to earn maney for next very expensive research, then in couple of years there will be no new drugs
we need little common sense in patents, looking at apple vs sammy or others
52. Dr.Phil posted on 21 Aug 2012, 21:25 0 0
The drug compound is indeed patented. Usually drug companies will also patent the enantiomers as well to prevent the competiton from using those as well. Also, to say that drug companies need patents for research is misleading. The only reason they need that patented money for research is because we have set up the system to be based on that. So, the question then becomes: how would drug companies get the money they need to do drug research without using exclusive drugs? The answer is by selling better quality drugs and trying to stay above the competition. The truth of the matter is if we were to set the drug market up as a free market, we would have more research being done and better quality drugs because each pharmaceutical company would invest in R&D and trying different ways to steal competition away from other companies.
53. denied911 (banned) posted on 21 Aug 2012, 23:47 0 0
my mother is pharmacist in europe and believe me there is many companies that after drug patent expires, start making their version, some drugs have like 50 or more producers and it is impossible to have the best quality, sometimes they give rabats or presents just to sell theirs and no competition
9. kingpet13 posted on 20 Aug 2012, 22:28 3 0
I will stand by my statement from a few posts ago. Moto offered a way to follow the normal way most patents work, and have apple pay a liscensing fee, apple refused to pay this fee. Now google will have to ban them. Offering a liscensing fee allows innovation to continue, as most of these companies can afford it, and justifies the patent. When offered an easier way to justify patents, apple has refused to pay. (its not like they can't afford it). What other option does google have but to ask for a ban, if not just to get apple to accept liscensing fees instead of requesting for devices to be banned. It happens with apples requests to, when samsung offered them money, apple refused to take the money and continued to try to ban samsung's products. I think the goverment should just ban everyone from banning phones, and simply offer reasonable fees instead. If a company has violated enough patents that they cannot afford a reasonable fee, then that product can be reasonably removed to avoid paying any more fees. This way all patents can be justified and all consumers satisfied. (i said reasonable fees not .000000000000000001 cents per samsung patent infringed, and 1,000,000,000 for apples patents) and of couse the patents must make sense to.
10. OSFantasma posted on 20 Aug 2012, 22:32 1 0
its more likely that google is letting moto run it self in that department just to give apple a taste of its own medicine. I hope I'm not wrong, though almost sure that they are going to let moto try to ban apple products because they know itc will either ban untill agreement is made. The more likely path will be to stop apple from harassing the rest the world manufactures google works with. Mr. Chavez says patent wars hurt the consumer they should be well aware of what they are doing with Motorola. also i doubt that even if Moto Wins they will ban apple products. I do however feel this needs to be do to also show Apple that there are true patents held by big companies...
MotoNexus that would be awesome....
12. Jphones posted on 20 Aug 2012, 23:02 1 0
they rather put the fire out but at the same time are not gonna get burned.googles right stop suing and start doing real simple logic
13. JunkCreek posted on 21 Aug 2012, 00:31 0 0
why dun u say it to Apple at the very first time?
14. Sniggly posted on 21 Aug 2012, 00:48 3 0
Alan, come on. You know as well as I do that the main idea here with the Motorola suit is to gain leverage to get Apple to back the hell off of Android and leave them alone. I'm sure that if they gain the right to an injunction they will only resort to it if Apple keeps being the anti competitive bitches they are.
I mean, it's a simple concept. How could you miss it so badly?
15. mercorp posted on 21 Aug 2012, 00:51 0 0
they Actually DO help,but` only if they are used correctly,and not to patent troll.
18. wendygarett (limited) 3 days ago posted on 21 Aug 2012, 01:37 3 0
I have to agree Google this time
Tech is for sharing not sue-ing
Apple should know that..
22. lubba posted on 21 Aug 2012, 01:51 0 1
I'd share my apple but what if I don't want to? Well, I'll get mugged, beat up, or my Apple will just simply be stolen.
24. frydaexiii posted on 21 Aug 2012, 02:29 1 0
Yeah, if they did, iPhoto & all the other bloatware that Apple promotes as "useful apps" would have found it's way to Windows years ago. Then again, not like any of that crap is any comparison to their Windows counterparts, but still, it's the thought that counts. Apple has continued time and time again by taking from the community with out giving anything back.
"Oh, it's definitely ok for people to run Windows on Mac, but no way is OSX running on any PC legally." (Not like anyone would want a OSX Pc but again, the thought that counts. And Mac sales wouldn't have been so good if it couldn't run Windows.)
"Yes Adobe, you make sure you make your premium suite available for OSX and make it work well. What? iPhoto and FinalCut Pro for Windows? No No, you'll have to buy a Mac in order to use it."
39. pankajgupta posted on 21 Aug 2012, 06:28 0 0
But Apple still wanted MS Office for Mac.
One of the reasons Mac sales are good. (I said one of the reasons and not the only reason. :) )
One could argue that MS made office of Mac for their sales of Office.. but the same could be said about iPhoto and other Apple SW.
19. rudlie posted on 21 Aug 2012, 01:38 0 3
a desperate statement from a big company. Only a thief said that. I still don't believe a top IT company doesn't concern on software patent.
Wozniak ever said, the software patents are not for restricted competitors or something but it can push a better competition by increasing innovation and invented something new. it is truly not hurt user in my opinion, but as a user I've got a lot of something new, fresh and innovatives tech/idea on the recent years because patents war. do you agree?
25. frydaexiii posted on 21 Aug 2012, 02:32 2 0
Like we've said a billion times before. Sure patents push innovations and individuality, but not when they're about generic crap like friggin rounded icons, or bounce back effect, or the stupid sound the clock makes when you're setting the timer.
Patenting the unique design of the wheel is ok, patenting the wheel as a whole is not ok.
29. TylerGrunter posted on 21 Aug 2012, 03:34 1 0
Agree, patents should only cover there were there was a big investement in the innovation. Not for lousy generic ideas.
In general software patents should not be allowed.
38. pankajgupta posted on 21 Aug 2012, 06:25 0 0
Motorola is suing Apple so that Apple gets a taste of its own s**t.
Millions of Dollars are burnt in defending such cases and end result is NILL.
It would be good if some sort of Ban is applicable due to this suit on Apple which shows how it is hurting consumers.
49. Windsponge posted on 21 Aug 2012, 13:53 0 0
Why do you all hate Apple so much. This sight has become so bad it is sickening to come to any more. All of these company's are no better. Google stole software so sure it thinks it's ok. They all have to some degree done it. I wait a while and see if this site gets any better. This used to be a good site for info. Not anymore