Google acquires Motorola Mobility

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

It's a shame google didn't snatch up Palm back before HP did (<$2b vs >$12B). Looks like Motorola has a larger portfolio, but size isn't everything. I suspect Palm's portfolio might have even been a better defense for dramatically less money.

I am kind of glad they didn't, Google would have killed off WebOS. Besides, perhaps Motorola's patents may just be a lot more valuable in this particular situation? We don't really know. And they can easily sell off the hardware business. It just doesn't fit in with Google as a company.

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I am kind of glad they didn't, Google would have killed off WebOS.

Or integrated the best elements of the webOS UI into android and moved the smartest Palm folks into making the next versions of android better and improving the nexus line.

I'm all for more competitors, but so far, HP hasn't managed to get much traction. I do wish them luck, but I'm not sure a google takeover of the company would have been worse than what has happened.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

Or integrated the best elements of the webOS UI into android and moved the smartest Palm folks into making the next versions of android better and improving the nexus line.

I'm all for more competitors, but so far, HP hasn't managed to get much traction. I do wish them luck, but I'm not sure a google takeover of the company would have been worse than what has happened.

Google will try to integrate the best features into Android anyway But for some of the greatest Android would have to be redesigned from the ground up. Anyway, it is great to have one more choice. Why would we want a two horse race?

Don't underestimate HP. Since their price reduction on August 5th they have been at number 2 (16GB) and number 3 (32 GB) on the Amazon tablet sales charge every single day. HP is committed and they will get this thing rolling whatever the initial cost. A big software update took only 1 month, really smoothed things out. And smaller changes are happening almost every day.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Again, if a company feels that its IP and designs are being given away without any recompense to itself, it has a right to seek redress. And then the judge decides...I don't understand the complaints about going to a neutral third party to settle grievances.

What people are complaining about is Apple's stance that it owns its most basic hardware/UI choices, which makes everyone else have to use a workaround or go to court to implement whatever choices prove obvious and intuitive.

Apple is far from being the only company that beats everyone else to death with patents; Samsung does it as well as do countless other companies. But from a consumer's POV, wouldn't it be best if we could choose individual devices (including those made by Apple) based on personal needs and features alone? Imagine going back to the 60s and not being able to buy an old-fashioned phone with buttons instead of a rotary dial unless you got it from a single unchallenged company -- one which, without competition for that feature, could charge whatever it liked. Imagine being limited to answering machines with one-jack I/O because they were the only ones that worked with touch-button phones and no one else was allowed to combine the same button interface with multiple I/O configurations. From the POV of features, the customer would lose.

The problem with Apple is that they'll take out patents on what amount to design choices in attempt to limit the options of their competitors. The musical equivalent would be patenting note patterns using the C Major scale. If the patents were honored, virtually every musician who ever lived would be guilty of infringement.

I don't blame Apple so much as I do the concept of intellectual property.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Point 1: I knew you would come up with another excuse for Apple when they inevitably will lose one "market leader status" after another

Thats not what the NY Times told its audience this morning:

"the dominant smartphone maker" vs "a clunky experience"

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...ET_graphic.htm

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

The problem with Apple is that they'll take out patents on what amount to design choices in attempt to limit the options of their competitors.

Apple was not the first to bring a MP3 player to market. Apple was not the first to bring a market to tablet to market.

But through hard work they hit the sweet spot that consumers wanted.

Two questions Android fans:


1. Why couldn't Acer, Samsung, HTC, Google, Motorola, etc have done that first? Apple hits the mark and suddenly we have Xooms, and Playbooks and Touchpads. Why were they not in the market before Apple? Because they are thieving leeches who wouldn't know an original big picture if it whacked 'em in the head, most likely. But I'll listen to your opinions...I may be wrong.

2. And once Apple finds that sweet spot, why should others be able to profit off of the fruits of their labor?

[kjk]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Samsung smartphones will soon outsell the iphone. 2012 is the year.

Well, we can speculate about that, but won't know for sure, since Samsung decided not to report actual sales numbers of smartphones or tablets from here on out.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Apple was not the first to bring a MP3 player to market. Apple was not the first to bring a market to tablet to market.

You're addressing my post as if it were about technological innovation and not design. Those who are attempting to converse with you might appreciate responses to their actual posts rather than contextually different posts conjured from whichever single sentences of theirs you choose to reinterpret.

I'm not casting aspersions or presuming to know your unstated reasons for doing this. I'm speaking entirely about how the practice affects forum members you happen to be quoting.

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

But through hard work they hit the sweet spot that consumers wanted. Two questions Android fans: 1. Why couldn't Acer, Samsung, HTC, Google, Motorola, etc have done that first?

1. Apple has Jonathan Ive and a killer marketing concept. Neither should be underestimated, but that doesn't mean Apple should be given sole rights to obvious design choices based on their ratio of industrial design/marketing wins. Samsung has lots of killer ideas, too, and Apple steals theirs as well.

And as you might remember, there's also Xerox/Parc.

The problem is that you're defending Apple as if everyone else here hated that company and were maligning it. That's a big mistake. Most of us are simply advocating freedom of choice. I in fact am a studio musician who has used Apple desktops and laptops professionally for a lifetime (in addition to PCs with Windows for editing and Linux for fun). I currently own a Mac Pro, a MacBook Pro, several iPods and a Touch. I respect the iPhone 4 and the new Touch but prefer my Samsung Epic for its plethora of options. I've tried out but wouldn't think of buying an iPad until Apple addressed the resolution issues, or a MacBook UL until they offered one with a matte screen. Samsung offers a UL with the options I prefer, and their design team has not simply copied the MacBook Air, they've offered different options and used different concepts, which is why I prefer the Series 9 to the MBA at this particular moment. Do me a favor and quote this paragraph in its entirety if you respond.

2. And once Apple finds that sweet spot, why should others be able to profit off of the fruits of their labor?

2. Apparently, you missed this part of my last post, which answered your question before you asked it:

Originally Posted by Scrypt

The problem with Apple is that they'll take out patents on what amount to design choices in an attempt to limit the options of their competitors. The musical equivalent would be patenting note patterns using the C Major scale. If the patents were honored, virtually every musician who ever lived would be guilty of infringement.

I don't blame Apple so much as I do the concept of intellectual property.

Imagine what would happen to the fashion industry if designers patented their design choices every season. After a short time, every viable choice would be used up and newer designers wouldn't have rights to any.

[Graham]

And also, if you look at the aspect ratio of the line drawings the Apple document, coupled with the distorted photo of the Galaxy Tab, they appear to be trying to patent Samsung's design choices, not their own...


EDIT: Apologies. Just had another look at the original document. The linedrawings are 4:3. I think I was remembering the ones that were drafted at an angle.

(Incidentally, am I able to use a strikeout format in MR? I've resorted to recolouring above.)

Graham

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Apple was not the first to bring a MP3 player to market. Apple was not the first to bring a market to tablet to market.

But through hard work they hit the sweet spot that consumers wanted.

Two questions Android fans:


1. Why couldn't Acer, Samsung, HTC, Google, Motorola, etc have done that first? Apple hits the mark and suddenly we have Xooms, and Playbooks and Touchpads. Why were they not in the market before Apple? Because they are thieving leeches who wouldn't know an original big picture if it whacked 'em in the head, most likely. But I'll listen to your opinions...I may be wrong.

2. And once Apple finds that sweet spot, why should others be able to profit off of the fruits of their labor?

So you will agree that Apple cannot introduce an iphone with a screen that is bigger than 3.5", since that would be just copying what others have done?

You would also agree that Apple's recent introductions of copy&paste and the new notification system were shameless copies and that Apple should be taken to court?

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So you will agree that Apple cannot introduce an iphone with a screen that is bigger than 3.5", since that would be just copying what others have done?

Touche.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

1. Apple has Jonathan Ive and a killer marketing concept.

Way to kick sand on everyone else that works at Apple.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Imagine what would happen to the fashion industry if designers patented their design choices every season.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2010/03/...-a-guest-post/

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Besides, perhaps Motorola's patents may just be a lot more valuable in this particular situation?

I suspected that wasn't true before, but the Times has confirmed it since

Originally Posted by NYTs

But all patents aren’t created equal. For a time, Palm’s products dominated the market for personal digital assistants, precursors to today’s smartphones. The company also later developed an innovative operating system for handsets.

So its patents sit in the mobile device sweet spot, whether related to displays, interfaces or other features. On average, those should be worth more than the wider range of Nortel’s or Motorola’s patents.

Also instructive is that Palm in its heyday appeared to enjoy needling Apple, though Apple was hesitant to take Palm to court. That suggests some important intellectual property leverage compared with, say, Motorola, a company Apple has sued. It’s difficult to value patent portfolios but it seems likely the one H.P. apparently paid a full price for is now worth a good bit more.

Now I gather that at least one of the 2 motorolas (who knows which) has patents that are also related to multimedia and could be beneficial to Google's other products, but as to the current trolls, Palm's patents would trump. They're tailor-made to defend against both MS and Apple.

I've mentioned elsewhere that Google should use Motorola's patents to leverage a larger patent trove: that of all the major Android manufacturers. It would work by Google offering licensing of Motorola patents to each in exchange for them offering common licensing of their own patents that would help fill in the gaps of the overall portfolio and make each of them bulletproof. Getting those manufacturers to offer licenses to their competition would be a tough sell, but I'm not convinced motorola's patents alone are going to end this. After all, Apple already sued motorola. At the very least, they weren't intimidated by that portfolio.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Way to kick sand on everyone else that works at Apple.

You're quoting people out of context yet again, substituting your trolling agenda for polite discussion. You've been asked not to do this several times already in the past few weeks.

And your use of a privately received note as an unattributed sig is either dishonest (if unattributable because untrue) or disrespectful (if the sender didn't give you permission to use the quote, which the lack of attribution suggests).