...and "could have" is not "could of". That's actually where I gave up reading. I find a comprehension of basic verbs, particularly the very common use of 'to have' with a corresponding past participle, is something that second year English As A Second Language students have mastered (of mastered?). So when native speakers can't conjugate basic verbs correctly, I put them in the lower quadrant pretty quickly. "Could of" isn't just a typo...it's a failed education.
...and neither Masnick nor I have ever said that "patents are worthless". What idiot would interpret Techdirt as saying that? Under the current laws, patents are obviously VERY valuable. What we do is: question the policy behind those laws.
The point commonly made here is: we do not believe that software patents have a net positive impact on the progress of science and the useful arts. We see too many examples of negative implications, and too few examples of positive ones. The validated research backs up our position, but policy, powerful lobbies, and "common sense" back up the current regime.
- organization
- grammar,
- spelling
- brevity / value per word
- logic
- awareness of which author you are criticizing
- awareness
- avoidance of tautology
I can only say, as politely as possible, that your work needs improvement.
Re: Re: Re: Re: IF you can't get clear of patents in court, then how
What?
"without buying Motorola, Google wouldn't really care if anyone pushed the big red button"
So, Google didn't care that Apple pushed their Big Red Button and launched their patent weapons against the Samsung 10.1 Tab, winning injunctions against it's sale in Europe and Australia?
So, Google doesn't care that MSFT pushed their button, and gets a tax of $5 on every ANDROID device sold? Doesn't care that MSFT makes more money from Android than Windows Phone 7 and that Ballmer uses that as a selling feature of Windows Phone?
Where do you get your information? Android is offered free of charge by Google's Open Handset Alliance. Simple.
Qualcomm is not in the driver's seat when it comes to Android, although they are a leading chip vendor for Android phones.
Just about any processor based on the ARM (yet another company) chip architecture can run an Android smartphone. I'm not sure if you are just using Qualcomm as an example, or if you think they are somehow the ones really in control. But you do know that several other chip vendors compete for the Android market, right? Most notably Nvidia with their Tegra line.
So you're saying that since an OS + chipset bundle isn't free, the OS isn't free? That's about as useful as my saying the Android OS and a Starbucks will cost you $4. Really, the cost is mostly in the coffee. Well, all of it, since Android is free.
Now, as I said, Google doesn't indemnify it's OS customers for any licensing lawsuits they get. This make sense, given the price...you know...of free. MSFT, in contrast, indemnifies Windows Phone OS customers against claims as part of their $15 license fee. So therein lies the point of my whole article. That leaves a big element of risk for Android OEMs, and that specter is coming home to roost. The Motorola patents will help Google defend Android OEMs from attack, and hopefully bring the price back down, you know...to free.
The reality for Android OEMs was that the OS was becoming "free + external costs" not because Google charges anything, but because of the MSFT license of $5, and the risk of future similar fees from other patent holders.
I think the source (and more correct version) of the argument you are making is this:
If you are going to talk about "Google penny for every press of a search hardkey on Android phones." please, drop a reference link or two. I've never heard of this.
It was totally "buy one get one free". The company is not worthless, of course, but it was not the part that Google sought out, it was just part of the package deal.
You say that Google wants Motorola so that it can do vertical integration, like Apple does.
No way.
Google already has a wide range of great Android handsets from a number of OEMs. They can produce greater quantity than a single OEM, they can innovate faster in competition with one another.
Google also can produce a Google-designed, vertically integrated handset WITHOUT purchasing Motorola. Are you unaware that Moto, HTC, Samsung and others BID on the opportunity to build the Nexus phones for google. The OEMs are lining up to build a Google designed, vertically integrated phone. And Google has already released two of these flagships to market. They will release another this fall. Read much?
Oh, and one last lethal indictment on your reasoning. Google does not need to buy Motorola to be "in the same situation as Apple, maker of both the OS and the phones they run on." Maybe you are unaware, but Apple does not make their own phones. They outsource that to a contract manufacturer called Foxconn.
You, sir, do NOT read much. Or if you do, you don't understand.
The company cost some $12B. It has cash of some $3B. It has patents worth some $12B (based on simple number count and the Nortel IP valuation), and it has operational value based on sales of phones of some $7B (based on certain Wall St. rules of thumb and current/projected sales. If you don't believe my numbers, just take them as hypothetical.
Total value = $22B
Yep, it was just a good deal, and the patents are so significant to Google at this juncture.
So, to answer your silly if/then, "they would announce they were shutting down phone production." Well, they still could. But that would be pretty stupid, since it is a $7B valuation. You don't throw away $7B. But, they could divest that part of Motorola in the future, and return to their core of offering software and advertising.
Google placed bids over $4B. I don't think they were fake bidding. Their bids might have won the Nortel auction if the others had not banded together to bid more.
If we slip into a double dip recession, there will be an increase in the number of people living below the poverty line and greater unemployment. This is likely to be accompanied by a higher murder rate, theft, and more violent crime.
There. Using Swarstel's Laws of Reason, I just endorsed unemployment and violent crime. Apparently, I find murder socially acceptable.
Re: Re: Is This Where All The Bad Lawyers Come From?
"simply because you disagree with their stance on God doesnt change their performance as a law school"
No, it just is an affront to the concept separation of church and state when they are so highly represented in government, yet don't seem to have the credentials to merit that level of influence. The credentials appear to be the JC more than the JD.
You know all the lawyer jokes? How we all know some pretty lousy lawyers? How some lawyers truly are ambulance chasers?
Is this the kind of school that cranks out these hacks?
Maybe so. Maybe we just have an oversupply of lawyers problem, with a large balloon shaped distribution of crappy attorneys. If so, all those hacks would need to find work, and that goes some way towards explaining the excessively litigious society we have become.
It also might explain some of the logic we've seen from the lawyers in these comments arguing in favor of IP legislation, while not seemingly capable of understanding the true impact of some laws, the economic incentives behind the laws, or even logical debate.
Remember how the Bush admin had a boatload of graduates from Pat Robertson's Regent University. This way our Justice Department was strongly influenced by god. http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_chri stian_law_school/
I wonder if the pro-IP camp is strongly represented by Cooley Law grads. This way our IP law can be strongly influenced by low-LSAT advocates with a propensity to adjust the yardstick in their favor.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm
Stand up, sit down!
Fight, fight, fight!
Let's go play with all our might!
Kick that team into the sky so blue!
Come on now, let's go team BLUE!
...or red. Or whatever. We're not saying.
Yay!!
But if our societal goal is to end up with more art in the public domain, now we have a force for copyright (offers incentive) and AGAINST copyright (prevents derivatives).
This makes the arguments for copyright something worthy of debate.
PS, Regarding "Nobody is denying that remixes and remakes are artistic on some level." Well, you haven't been around the TechDirt comments much, then. We often get industry hacks on here telling us that remixes are not creative. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/1611474282.shtml#c376
On the post: What Google Gets With Motorola Mobility
Re: Re: Hail the value and worth of Patents !!!!
...and neither Masnick nor I have ever said that "patents are worthless". What idiot would interpret Techdirt as saying that? Under the current laws, patents are obviously VERY valuable. What we do is: question the policy behind those laws.
The point commonly made here is: we do not believe that software patents have a net positive impact on the progress of science and the useful arts. We see too many examples of negative implications, and too few examples of positive ones. The validated research backs up our position, but policy, powerful lobbies, and "common sense" back up the current regime.
On the post: What Google Gets With Motorola Mobility
Re: Hail the value and worth of Patents !!!!
When considering your comment on the merits of:
- organization
- grammar,
- spelling
- brevity / value per word
- logic
- awareness of which author you are criticizing
- awareness
- avoidance of tautology
I can only say, as politely as possible, that your work needs improvement.
On the post: What Google Gets With Motorola Mobility
Re: Re: Re: Re: IF you can't get clear of patents in court, then how
"without buying Motorola, Google wouldn't really care if anyone pushed the big red button"
So, Google didn't care that Apple pushed their Big Red Button and launched their patent weapons against the Samsung 10.1 Tab, winning injunctions against it's sale in Europe and Australia?
So, Google doesn't care that MSFT pushed their button, and gets a tax of $5 on every ANDROID device sold? Doesn't care that MSFT makes more money from Android than Windows Phone 7 and that Ballmer uses that as a selling feature of Windows Phone?
You are very wrong.
On the post: What Google Gets With Motorola Mobility
Re: Re: Re: Is this anything but an IP play?
Apple does it while still outsourcing all production.
On the post: What Google Gets With Motorola Mobility
Re: Android is not Free
Qualcomm is not in the driver's seat when it comes to Android, although they are a leading chip vendor for Android phones.
Just about any processor based on the ARM (yet another company) chip architecture can run an Android smartphone. I'm not sure if you are just using Qualcomm as an example, or if you think they are somehow the ones really in control. But you do know that several other chip vendors compete for the Android market, right? Most notably Nvidia with their Tegra line.
So you're saying that since an OS + chipset bundle isn't free, the OS isn't free? That's about as useful as my saying the Android OS and a Starbucks will cost you $4. Really, the cost is mostly in the coffee. Well, all of it, since Android is free.
Now, as I said, Google doesn't indemnify it's OS customers for any licensing lawsuits they get. This make sense, given the price...you know...of free. MSFT, in contrast, indemnifies Windows Phone OS customers against claims as part of their $15 license fee. So therein lies the point of my whole article. That leaves a big element of risk for Android OEMs, and that specter is coming home to roost. The Motorola patents will help Google defend Android OEMs from attack, and hopefully bring the price back down, you know...to free.
The reality for Android OEMs was that the OS was becoming "free + external costs" not because Google charges anything, but because of the MSFT license of $5, and the risk of future similar fees from other patent holders.
I think the source (and more correct version) of the argument you are making is this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/android-costs
Those are MSFT talking points about how "Android isn't really so free, so you may as well use our OS." Ballmer also said as much here:
http://www.gottabemobile.com/2010/10/04/ballmer-androids-not-free-because-of-license-fees-t o-microsoft/
If you are going to talk about "Google penny for every press of a search hardkey on Android phones." please, drop a reference link or two. I've never heard of this.
On the post: What Google Gets With Motorola Mobility
Re: Is this anything but an IP play?
On the post: Google Spends $12.5 Billion To Buy Motorola Mobility... And Its Patents
Re:
No way.
Google already has a wide range of great Android handsets from a number of OEMs. They can produce greater quantity than a single OEM, they can innovate faster in competition with one another.
Google also can produce a Google-designed, vertically integrated handset WITHOUT purchasing Motorola. Are you unaware that Moto, HTC, Samsung and others BID on the opportunity to build the Nexus phones for google. The OEMs are lining up to build a Google designed, vertically integrated phone. And Google has already released two of these flagships to market. They will release another this fall. Read much?
Oh, and one last lethal indictment on your reasoning. Google does not need to buy Motorola to be "in the same situation as Apple, maker of both the OS and the phones they run on." Maybe you are unaware, but Apple does not make their own phones. They outsource that to a contract manufacturer called Foxconn.
You, sir, do NOT read much. Or if you do, you don't understand.
On the post: Google Spends $12.5 Billion To Buy Motorola Mobility... And Its Patents
Re: Re: Re:
Lemme help.
The company cost some $12B. It has cash of some $3B. It has patents worth some $12B (based on simple number count and the Nortel IP valuation), and it has operational value based on sales of phones of some $7B (based on certain Wall St. rules of thumb and current/projected sales. If you don't believe my numbers, just take them as hypothetical.
Total value = $22B
Yep, it was just a good deal, and the patents are so significant to Google at this juncture.
So, to answer your silly if/then, "they would announce they were shutting down phone production." Well, they still could. But that would be pretty stupid, since it is a $7B valuation. You don't throw away $7B. But, they could divest that part of Motorola in the future, and return to their core of offering software and advertising.
On the post: Google Spends $12.5 Billion To Buy Motorola Mobility... And Its Patents
Re: I Suppose The Patent Rationale Makes Some Sense
In the "Buy one, get one free" deal that is the Google purchase of Motorola, the "going concern" was the "get one free" part.
The "Buy one" part was articulated clearly in between the coughs of DannyB, above.
On the post: Google Spends $12.5 Billion To Buy Motorola Mobility... And Its Patents
Re:
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Re: I am tired of paying for dates, so now I woman-share (gang rape)
You truly are a john.
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: The Impact of Increased Poverty
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
The Impact of Increased Poverty
There. Using Swarstel's Laws of Reason, I just endorsed unemployment and violent crime. Apparently, I find murder socially acceptable.
On the post: How To Make A Mockery Of Your Own Law School: Sue Your Critics
Re: Re: Is This Where All The Bad Lawyers Come From?
No, it just is an affront to the concept separation of church and state when they are so highly represented in government, yet don't seem to have the credentials to merit that level of influence. The credentials appear to be the JC more than the JD.
On the post: How To Make A Mockery Of Your Own Law School: Sue Your Critics
Is This Where All The Bad Lawyers Come From?
Is this the kind of school that cranks out these hacks?
Maybe so. Maybe we just have an oversupply of lawyers problem, with a large balloon shaped distribution of crappy attorneys. If so, all those hacks would need to find work, and that goes some way towards explaining the excessively litigious society we have become.
It also might explain some of the logic we've seen from the lawyers in these comments arguing in favor of IP legislation, while not seemingly capable of understanding the true impact of some laws, the economic incentives behind the laws, or even logical debate.
Remember how the Bush admin had a boatload of graduates from Pat Robertson's Regent University. This way our Justice Department was strongly influenced by god.
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_chri stian_law_school/
I wonder if the pro-IP camp is strongly represented by Cooley Law grads. This way our IP law can be strongly influenced by low-LSAT advocates with a propensity to adjust the yardstick in their favor.
On the post: Patent Loving Court Strikes Again: CAFC Orders USPTO To Reconsider NTP Patents It Had Rejected
Re:
until proven guilty at work"
Um...no. The one we should presume to be innocent, in this case, is RIM.
NTP is the accuser, RIM the defendant. Presumption of Validity, therefore, is equivalent to assumption of guilt.
On the post: Our Response To Arthur Alan Wolk's Threat To Sue Us
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm
Fight, fight, fight!
Let's go play with all our might!
Kick that team into the sky so blue!
Come on now, let's go team BLUE!
...or red. Or whatever. We're not saying.
Yay!!
On the post: Our Response To Arthur Alan Wolk's Threat To Sue Us
Re: Re: Re: File That Email
On the post: Our Response To Arthur Alan Wolk's Threat To Sue Us
File That Email
Did you file that email in your Outlook...
"Messages we fully expected to receive, written pretty much how we expected them to be"
...folder? Or did you just drop it in "Junk Email"?
On the post: Without Copyright, Hollywood Would Never Be Incented To... Make A Bunch Of Remakes?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But if our societal goal is to end up with more art in the public domain, now we have a force for copyright (offers incentive) and AGAINST copyright (prevents derivatives).
This makes the arguments for copyright something worthy of debate.
PS, Regarding "Nobody is denying that remixes and remakes are artistic on some level." Well, you haven't been around the TechDirt comments much, then. We often get industry hacks on here telling us that remixes are not creative. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/1611474282.shtml#c376
Next >>