backtop


Print 35 comment(s) - last by zerobug.. on Sep 28 at 1:07 PM


Mr. Mueller implies that he'd be happy to see Samsung's products banned, stating, "From a short-term perspective, it would certainly be great if every device maker could steal every original innovator's intellectual property. I'd rather live in a world in which some wireless devices get banned from time time than in a dictatorship with a weak rule of law."  (Source: PDF Devices)
Mr. Mueller says Google giving early Android builds to Verizon may prove wrong-doing

One person certainly wasn't happy about Verizon Communications Inc.'s (VZamicus curiae brief ("friend of the court petition") on behalf of Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd.'s (SEO 005930) in its case against Apple, Inc. (AAPL) -- Florian Mueller.  The FOSS Patents writer fired off a long critical blog/editorial he implies that Verizon may be illegally conspiring with Google, Inc. (GOOG) to support Android at the expense of Apple.

He writes, "I'm sure that Apple will view this move as a self-serving attempt to game the system in Android's and Samsung's favor, as another sign of Verizon being staunchly Android-aligned in exchange for market-distorting favors from Google, and as an attack on the intellectual property-centric business model of Apple and other innovators."

He links to a document he believes supports this bold suggestion of Google and Verizon's conspiring to exchange "market-distorting favors".  He writes that court filings contain "... a document that shows Verizon and Google promised each other unspecified favors, potentially anti-competitive ones since they did not document them in writing."

The document in question comes from Oracle Corp.'s (ORCL) court case against Google and states:
Lead device concept: Give early access to the software to partners who build and distribute devices to our specification (ie, Motorola and Verizon). They get a non-contractual time to market advantage and in return they align to our standard.
In other words Google says that it rewards partners that honor its device specification with early releases of its source code.  This appears no different than Apple's early releases of iOS/OS X to trusted developers, Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) early releases of Windows code to businesses, or countless other examples.  But Mr. Mueller appears convinced that it's actually evidence of a possibly illegal conspiracy.

He goes on to accuse Verizon of intellectual property incompetence for its decision to support Google.  He writes, "I seriously wonder whether Verizon's top-level management is completely incompetent with respect to intellectual property issues and perhaps being a bit irrational, or whether it's just doing all of this in exchange for whatever Google may have promised them."

It's unclear whether Mr. Mueller supports Apple's claims to own exclusive rights to produce minimalist tablet designs.  He does qualify, "I've been highly critical of the German injunctions based on an excessively broad design-related right."

But he goes one to write, "I'd rather live in a world in which some wireless devices get banned from time time than in a dictatorship with a weak rule of law," and, "From a short-term perspective, it would certainly be great if every device maker could steal every original innovator's intellectual property."

Both comments seem to suggest he believes that Samsung stole Apple's iPad design, as Apple claims.  His commentary clearly seems to imply Apple is an "innovator" in his eyes, and Samsung a thief.

Mr. Mueller has drawn a great deal of attention for his strong opinions on the case, even getting quoted in The Wall Street Journal.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I'm a little confused
By zmatt on 9/26/2011 8:30:45 AM , Rating: 4
FOSS stands for free and open source software but the blog says it deals with wireless industry stuff. Furthermore, how can someone be an Apple supporter and be pro FOSS. I know Google isn't exactly FOSS either, but at least they use Linux for android.




RE: I'm a little confused
By bupkus on 9/26/2011 8:35:48 AM , Rating: 4
Personally I wouldn't bother reading Mueller's stumblings through the English language.


RE: I'm a little confused
By bupkus on 9/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: I'm a little confused
By magreen on 9/26/2011 8:54:06 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, upon reading your update, my tirade wasn't really directed at you, bupkus.


RE: I'm a little confused
By TakinYourPoints on 9/26/2011 9:42:12 AM , Rating: 2
Oh man, funniest correction I've seen in ages.


RE: I'm a little confused
By magreen on 9/26/2011 8:52:16 AM , Rating: 2
But you're willing to read Mick's stumblings through the English language?

Let's look at a few selections from his latest frenzied rant, shall we?

"The FOSS Patents writer fired off an long critical blog/editorial he implies that Verizon may be illegally conspiring with Google..."

"He links to a document he believes supports this bold of Google and Verizon's conspiring to exchange 'market-distorting favors'."

"But he goes one to write, "I'd rather live in a world...'"

Mick, your writing is a joke. How many articles have you written without even a basic working knowledge of patent law? Congratulations that you used the word "implies" correctly in the article's title, however. That may be a first for you. Let's see if you can use "infer" correctly as well in your next one.

Go ahead and rate me down to -1, readers. This is not what you came here to hear. The truth, however, is that I own nothing Apple and don't even like their products. But I detest Mick's anti-Apple ranting on here.


RE: I'm a little confused
By W00dmann on 9/26/2011 3:41:41 PM , Rating: 3
Post of the day!

A thousand internets to you, sir...


RE: I'm a little confused
By TakinYourPoints on 9/26/2011 6:24:07 PM , Rating: 1
If there is something I respect Mick for, it is consistency. Not only does he have the writing ability of a six year old, he has the artistic ability of one as well. Have you seen his custom watermarks?

http://www.dailytech.com/IDF+2011+Ivy+Bridge+Haswe...

Pro journalism and aesthetics here people, DT must pay exceptionally well for their talent.


RE: I'm a little confused
By zerobug on 9/28/2011 1:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
"How many articles have you written without even a basic working knowledge of patent law?"

There's nothing wrong on Mick's article. He's just stating facts.

Its Florian who need to know about patents and about law due to his statements that "Verizon's top-level management is incompetent and irrational with respect to intellectual property, or about "just doing all of this in exchange for whatever Google may have promised them."

... otherwise he'll keep repeating the same errors on that matter.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1939165/m...


RE: I'm a little confused
By TakinYourPoints on 9/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: I'm a little confused
By Stratagem on 9/26/2011 10:38:09 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Webkit was internally developed at Apple and then open sourced...

No, it wasn't. It was created by the KDE project and forked by Apple. They kept the license because they had no choice.

quote:
Same thing with OpenCL, developed by Apple and then open sourced.

OpenCL is an API. It was created to compete with DirectX (DirectCompute) and CUDA, mainly. The "open source" files you refer to are actually just an implementation of FFTs in OpenCL. This is known as example code.

quote:
Apple is a hardware company,

Apple is a marketing company with a focus on electronics and patents :-).


RE: I'm a little confused
By MrAwax on 9/26/2011 11:03:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
OpenCL is an API. It was created to compete with DirectX (DirectCompute) and CUDA, mainly.
OpenCL IS CUDA standardized to be independant from NVidia.
It was co-defined in strong relationship with NVidia who was at that time a important provider of GPU to Apple computers.


RE: I'm a little confused
By TakinYourPoints on 9/26/2011 6:16:56 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. OpenCL isn't a closed API made to compete with other closed APIs, it is made to run on a variety of hardware (NVIDIA and ATI) and operating systems (Windows, OS X, Linux, etc etc). CUDA and DirectX are closed and proprietary by definition.

This again points back to the core argument that open software standards are a net benefit to Apple as it gives them relevance and compatibility that they otherwise wouldn't have since they have a small marketshare relative to Windows.


RE: I'm a little confused
By TakinYourPoints on 9/26/11, Rating: 0
RE: I'm a little confused
By TakinYourPoints on 9/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: I'm a little confused
By cpeter38 on 9/26/2011 11:35:41 AM , Rating: 5
FOSS is for free and open source software in the vein of:

quote:
blackwhite ...this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.


Orwell - 1984


RE: I'm a little confused
By Tony Swash on 9/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: I'm a little confused
By Horizon79 on 9/26/2011 8:53:44 PM , Rating: 1
Oh yeah, I saw stallman said the other day - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/20/stallman_o...
"Stallman: Android evil, Apple and Microsoft worse" :)


RE: I'm a little confused
By ipay on 9/26/2011 7:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
This dudes a pretty well known Google troll for those who are confused. He's just sticking up for Apple right now because they happen to be the ones currently most anti-google.


tight fit of OS to hardware
By mattclary on 9/26/2011 8:54:34 AM , Rating: 5
One of Apple's advantages is it owns hardware and software so it is a tight fit. God forbid Google and Verizon work together to make their stuff work better together.

Ass clowns.




RE: tight fit of OS to hardware
By drycrust3 on 9/26/2011 11:14:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
God forbid Google and Verizon work together to make their stuff work better together.

I can't understand what this guy at FOSS is on about. If Google was going to develop some sort of new computer system for cars, it is logical they would talk to a company in that line of business, e.g. Ford, of if they were going to make a new type of camera, then they would talk to a company in that area of business, e.g. Canon; so what is wrong with Google wanting to talk to a mobile network provider? Without knowing the intricacies of a mobile network, I can't imagine Google, on their own, could get their tablet and mobile phone software working even close to being good enough for a commercial product if they didn't have the input from a mobile network provider, so who would this guy from FOSS like them to talk to?
Since Google is the number 1 search engine company in the world, then it is natural that they would seek the input of a mobile network company that holds some sort of similar status. According to Wikipedia Verizon (45% owned by Vodafone) has the most mobile subscribers in the USA, so it is natural that Google would talk them first. Since they are partly owned by Vodafone then it is logical they would have had some input as well, so that the software will work all around the world with a minimum of problems.
Obviously that isn't good enough for FOSS, so who is next? AT&T? They have a contract with Apple, and since Apple is a competitor of Google, then it is understandable that Google wouldn't be happy dealing with them unless they had to.
Ok, so who is next? Who?
I'm sorry FOSS, but I think your comments are unrealistic.


So let's get this straight
By sprockkets on 9/26/2011 12:11:05 PM , Rating: 4
Apple

- Won't let the Verizon logo exist on the iphone or ipad

- Won't let any Verizon app on the iphone or ipad

- Won't let them put on their crapware on their stuff (good for end users, bad for the carrier)

Since the rest of the world isn't as privileged as apple to be the pitcher in the relationship, Google will gladly be-- ---- work with Verizon to exploit this advantage.
Verizon and the Droid campaign put Android on the map and made apple look like tools - why wouldn't you keep this good relationship going? And how would this hurt apple anyhow? Wouldn't this be anti-competative against another carrier?

Oh, that's right, for the 50th time I mentioned it: Florian Mueller is an anti-google shill. Use him for information about court cases, NOT analysis.




RE: So let's get this straight
By Horizon79 on 9/26/2011 8:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely perfect. He's probably doing what his job is ...


interesting...
By Darksurf on 9/26/2011 11:07:58 AM , Rating: 1
Well, FOSS has had some radicals in the past why not now. I'm totally against apple and their methodology, and I'm rooting for Google every step of the way. I'm tired of apple thinking they have exclusive rights to everything and thinking that they are allowed to do whatever they want without retaliation.




RE: interesting...
By Murst on 9/26/2011 11:32:10 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure why you'd trust one company over the other.

Apple may be very protective of their designs. Google, on the other hand, seems to be very open when it comes to intellectual property and privacy.

Personally, I think both approaches are wrong and the ideal is somewhere in between.

Keep in mind that both of these companies don't care about you. They just care about the money that they can make from you.


Not so pro-Apple
By MrAwax on 9/26/2011 11:00:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd rather live in a world in which some wireless devices get banned from time time than in a dictatorship with a weak rule of law

This remark wasn't pro -Apple. It was against the fact that Verizon called for the POTUS to use his veto against ITC.

He would personally consider such a veto a dictatorship with a weak rule of law and he prefers a system where the law is stronger, even if it can be abused from time to time, leading to some wireless devices get banned.




Blogger?
By jefmes on 9/26/2011 10:07:31 PM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one amused that this guy's blog is hosted on Blogger? :) You'd think someone who dislikes Google so much would go elsewhere.




please
By mfed3 on 9/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: please
By retrospooty on 9/26/2011 8:53:06 AM , Rating: 2
For what exactly?


RE: please
By smilingcrow on 9/26/2011 2:39:12 PM , Rating: 1
For the usual reason that people are in bed together, to FCUK. In this case they are hoping to FCUK Apple, in the ass.


RE: please
By kennyb on 9/26/11, Rating: -1
At least spell check your article
By kennyb on 9/26/11, Rating: -1
Told you so
By Lord 666 on 9/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Told you so
By SilverHair on 9/26/2011 3:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't Apple and AT&T in bed together as well?



RE: Told you so
By Dradien on 9/27/2011 9:24:43 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't matter. Verizon and Android in bed together is anti-competitive.

However, AT&T and Apple in bed together is totally natural, and when they do it, it isn't anywhere near anti-competitive for reasons I have yet to comprehend...


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki