6 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 12 previous comments
- The problem is that Apple isn't trying to protect their intellectual property rights. They are going after products that people prefer to Apples for reasons other than any similarities. It's strictly anti-competition motivated. Nobody would ever point to any of the features in question as a reason they chose the Galaxy Nexus over the iPhone. Next thing you know they'll be suing over Jelly Bean since Apple patented smoothness.Jul 4, 2012
- 1) Patents aren't the only IP Google has had a problem with. 2) Just like someone can't come to your house and take your car, patents as current (and erroneously) defined can't be violated "just because".Jul 5, 2012
- So lets take patents off the table. I've written several books. What gives Google the right to scan and store them without my permission? That's copyright violation, not a patent, and nothing to do with Apple.Jul 5, 2012
- to post the full book online to read for free? they don't have the right. But if I remember correctly (a little rusty) they were scanning the books to make a sort of massive database so you could search terms and phrases. Like searching for "And that's all she wrote" and getting a result of book listings how many times the phrase appeared. Maybe some cool stats about trends of where it appeared, etc.
Was it legal to do so? considering they settled, apparently not. But at the same time, how could they approach it. If they said "we have this awesome idea to create a catalogue of everything written ever. What licensing model should we use?" Do you think publishing companies would be willing to work with them? Considering how every other media industry (including publishing) reacted to digital content I doubt it. Heck, look at the issues Google is getting hosting content in their play store, or how everyone (including apple) is trying to get content available internationally on equal footing. The entire thing is a huge mess of legal battles.
Does this give Google the right to ride rough-shod over IP? Of course not. But like I said earlier, the answer isn't a binary yes/no for what they should've done.Jul 5, 2012
- On the book scanning thing, it is absolutely wrong for them to scan and store copyrighted material without permission. It's good that the library project was not secret, but it doesn't make it right. Copyrighted material should remain fail safe. Google appears to be highly aggressive in getting info on the web, pushing the limits of law in so doing. They don't appear to have evil intent, and it all seems open. So, I'm not going to hate on them. But, it does indicate a troublesome sense of priorities and judgment.Jul 5, 2012
- Back on patents, highly specific intellectual property rights should be protected. But, broad, general patents should not be used to eliminate competition in whole categories of devices. They shouldn't be able to say "oh, that product is more desirable than ours in ways totally different than ours, so let's sue to ban them on grounds that they swipe to unlock, or use voice to search, etc."Jul 5, 2012