Google's product is Andriod users. Google's customers are it's advertisers. Andriod is gaining traction because it's given away free. There should be no surprise there. The big question really is how on earth do Apple get to charge more money for similar hardware and functionality and still not be able to manufacture enough devices to meet demand. I used to run FreeBSD with a KDE desktop for years and are was a big advocate of open source because I hated the virus and trogans the where fcuking up windoze computers. The problem now is the unfriendly scammers who are spreading malware on free software on Andriod app stores. Getting crap on my computer was my I dropped windoze and all the unfriendly malware getting into Andriod is a reason I can't consider something like the new Samsung Galaxy Andriod devices. Andriod is the new windoze when it comes to security and malware issues. Sorry to say by that walled garden without the malware is looking very good.

Apple has $80B+ cash and short term marketable securities in the bank. That is enough to purchase the mobile divisions of every Andriod hardware maker in the world. Apple have problems making enough iPhone and iPad devices to meet demand globally. Apple is currently the largest market capitalization company in the world with $355B.

Can you please tell me again how Apple is terrified???? These lawsuits relating to Andriod cost them such a small amount in legal bills relative to the companies size that it doesn't even make it onto the companies SEC registered public accounts.

Apple is just pissed off because Eric Schmidt lied to Steve Jobs about what Google was up to with Andriod while he was sitting on the board of directors of Apple. Schmidt took a couple years of Apple's strategic plans in the mobile space and told key people at Google so they could reorganize what their own plans where. Jobs felt betrayed and got Apple all worked up about how evil Google was. It's kinda like some dude at high school befriending you to get to know your girlfriend better, and just when you think you've got a new best mate he steals your girlfriend and kicks sand in your face. That and the fact that Google is the only multi-billion dollar company in the world that thinks because it makes money form advertising instead of selling widgets it doesn't have to pay anybody for technology other people have patents on.

This theory doesn't hold true. Apple makes more money from the iPhone than all of the rest of the mobile industry combined. They set their price based on perceived customer value and struggle to make enough devices to meet demand.

Google on the other hand gives away "free" software that it knows infringes other peoples patents, but has argued in court (the Oracle, Java case) that it shouldn't have to pay anything because it gives the software away free. Fact is their business model is to raise revenue from advertising once Andriod users are into their eco-system. They don't get paid up front but they do get paid down the road.

Everybody else pays to use other peoples patents, but Google thinks it's advertising and giving away free model makes it immune from having to pay. Why on earth should a $200B market cap company like Google not have to pay to use other peoples technology and fly in the face of 200 years of establish business process regarding other peoples inventions?

Heck even Apple pays Nokia for the use of Nokias GSM and related industry standard patents. Apple have offered to pay Motorola and Samsung for their GSM and other industry related patents under FRAND terms like they pay Nokia. Apple even offered to license one of the key iOS scrolling patents to Samsung when it licensed it to Nokia and IBM.

But no, the Andriod way is to use other peoples patents and inventions for free because the money comes from advertising???.... Samsung, HTC have already agreed to pay Microsoft for their technology but refuse to recognize Apple's patents and get a license before using technology that is known to be patented.

So Apple is the bad guy for saying that Andriod needs to recognize the existing laws and patents granted. I don't like the open road speed limits but if I get caught speeding I pay my fine. Andrioid doesn't like the current patent laws because it means they need to pay people money for technology other people have got patents on, but instead just ignores the law. Come on guys, its not like Google can't afford to pay to clear up this whole mess, they made $2.5B from mobile advertising revenue in the last 12 months. They just don't like 200 years of convention and are too cheap to pay. What a bunch of dicks.

What a log of nonsense. IBM is the grandaddy of Mob style stand over tactics for licensing their huge patent portfolio.

IBM: here is a list of 20 patents we believe you infringe, pay us $20 million.
Company X: But we don't' even use any of those 20 patents you listed!
IBM: Ok, here is a list of another 20 patents we believe you infringed, pay us $20 million.
Company X: But we didn't use those either!
IBM: We got all day to play this game if you want. Just pay us the $20 million, we have 10,000s of patents and there is bound to be 20 you have infringed so pay up.

Google on the other hand doesn't really have any patents which is why they went on a multi-billion dollar buying spree recently to try and catch up. Heck Stanford University even owns the main Search Algorithm patent that Google, Inc. licenses.

Nokia and Apple both with a shit load of patents ended up agreeing for Apple to cross-license Nokia's GSM and other industry standards patents, paid them a few $100 million in back payments and ongoing royalties for FRAND based patents.

HTC, Samsung, Motorola have all used denied Apple licensing for their GSM and related standards based patents they are obligated to under FRAND terms. Instead they have said Apple should cross license the iOS specific patents in exchange for FRAND standards based patents. Additionally Motorola have changed the cross license agreements with Qualcomm to specifically exclude the Qualcomm cross-license to apply when Apple is a purchaser of Qualcomm chips in iPhones. This is why the EU is currently investigating the lot of them for Anti-trust violations.

The reason for all of this is Google decided very early in Andriod's development that they wouldn't bother with any patent licensing with Andriod. Because they would not "sell" the software only give it away and make money down the road from advertising on Andriod devices they figured they where immune. Andriod uses a Java based language but decided not to pay anybody for it, so Oracle is suing them as they are the current owners of Java. Google developed open source implementations of key technology that Apple developed for iPhone and told the world quite clearly they had patents on. Google decided that patents suck and they wouldn't bother even talking to Apple about getting licenses.

Lets face it Google is the guy who goes to a party empty handed and gets drunk on the "free beer" everybody else paid for any brought to the party. Whats more Google gave away other peoples "free beer" to get some girls drunk at the party (HTC,Moto, Samsung) so it could get into bed with them. For some reason Slashdot seems to think that taking other peoples beer at a party to try and get chicks drunk so you can fcuk them is cool. I personally think it's just pathetically cheap and Google deserves a punch in the face for being a dick.

You are mistaking "Design Patents" vs good old regular patents. Design Patents are more like copyright but for industrial design so one company can not simply go out and exactly copy their competitors product and create customer confusion in the market. Should it be ok for a Korean or Chinese company to make an 99% copy of a Corvette car and then flood the USA market with it confusing customers if it's a real Corvette or a imported "copy". A Design Patent protects things like the styling of a particular make of car and it's distinctive qualities, like a Corvette looks very distinctive. It doesn't have anything to do with the internal suspension, ABS, traction control or other technical elements of the car that may be covered by other unrelated patents.

During the Australian Apple vs Samsung lawsuit the Judge held up an Samsung Galaxy Tab and an iPad in each hand and asked Samsung's head lawyer which one was made by his client. For a few yards away the Samsung lawyer was unable to correctly identify the Galaxy Tab. That is because Samsung intentionally designed their product to look as close as possible to Apples and create confusion in the market place. Motorola, HTC, Dell, HP, and Research in Motion can make tablets that don't create the same level of confusion amongst customers. Samsung can too make unique and distinctive products if they wanted. But instead they are trying to copy Apples to give them a competitive advantage over the other Andriod manufactures.

Go have read about what Design Patents are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent .

The design patents are not "technology" patents and "logical progressive steps" are completely irrelevant. Design Patents stop some Korean or Chinese company producing a car that looks exactly the same as a Corvette and selling under their own brand in the USA. The purpose is to stop customer confusion and "knock off" products. For christ sake in the Australian Samsung V Apple Lawsuit the Judge held up an iPad and a Samsung Galaxy Tab in each hand and asked Samsung's head lawyer which was his clients product. Guess what he couldn't tell them apart from 10 feet away.

This is NOT a Andriod/Open Source Vs iOS/Walled Garden issue. It's about Samsung intentially making their products as close as possible as Apples to trick customers (the dumb ones who are idiots, not the Slashdot hacker) into buying it thinking it's an Apple or exactly the same as an Apple product. Out of all the Andriod phone and Tablet makers how come Samsung's look almost identical to Apple products right down to the 30 pin USB connector and white shipping box identical to Apples. http://gizmodo.com/5845036/samsung-has-like-totally-never-copied-apples-designs/gallery/1 . HTC, Motorola, Blackberry and everybody else can come up with unique designs, but Samsung can't??? Time to get real here please.

Nice literature, but a load of crap when it comes to modern business licensing and patent laws.

If you steal peoples IP (like google likes to do) people will come asking for their money. Oracle is NOT a "Dane". Java is Open Sourced (GPL) and Andriod would be legal if Google released the 3.x code under GPL. But Google uses the code and WILL NOT release the code under a GPL so it DOES NOT have a license. If Google DOES NOT have a license then they must pay or release Andriod under GPL.

The latest Oracle court case the Judge has decided that Java's API header files are covered by copyright when identically copied has they are supposedly are in Andriod. So Google or anybody else need to release under the terms if the GPL all derived code OR they need a private license which will cost $$$.

When it comes to Patents, like it or not the law is the law. So long as the Patent Office keeps issuing patents related to software and the courts continue to uphold them, then you need a license to use other people patented technology. Once you have a license you have it. Just because you pay to use one persons patent does not give you the right to use ALL patents. So if you use another patent you have to pay for that too. But for each patent you only need to license once.

If people don't like it they need to stop trying to make analogies between current practice and viking raids on Scotland and England 1000 years ago. Go visit your congressman and senator and change the system if you don't like it.

A thief is a thief and Google is clearly a thief. They get what they deserve for trying to screw over the GPL.

I think the facts speak for themselves and in doing so point out you are just plain wrong.



Apple will have close to $100B in cash in the next few months they can cash a bigger check than any other company in the world, and currently have the largest market capitalization of any company in the world.

It's not "worried" about either, 1) what's next, or 2) dominating the mobile phone market.

Apple has for the last few years carved out the high end mobile computing space. They sell top spec'ed devices such as macbook's and macbook air's at higher average prices than their competitors products. They are happy to have the top 10% of the market and let everybody else fight over the remaining 90%. It's been the company way for the last 20 years in the mac world.

Apple are more than happy for Andriod to operate in the low cost pre-paid end of the market. Though it wants to maintain a 30+% of the high end smart phone market. The fact of the matter is that at the moment they can not find enough production resources to produce any more iPhones or iPads. If they are already making as many iDevices as possible and selling them all then that is all they can hope for.

The problem for Apple is when companies like Samsung "slavishly copy" the look and feel of Apple products instead of developing their own. Most of the other patent law suits from other OEM have been attacking Apple, to which Apple has had to file counter claims to defend itself.

Andriod is built on a house of cards. Google, have given OEMs around the world a competitive mobile OS for free but have failed to resolve the patent and copyright issues associated with the OS. They have left their OEM partners out to dry as they have their own substantial problems such as the ongoing dispute with Oracle.

Most of the Apple lawsuit by Samsung and Nokia (before they settled) where for patents that have been accepted into International Standards, under which the companies have agreed to license to 3rd parties under FRAND terms. Apple has simply said they are happy to pay under FRAND terms but will be be black mailed into cross-licensing technologies Apple independently invented and hold patents on.

To use a car analogy, Samsung supplied some of the structural supports used in creating a toll bridge used by the larger motoring community. They agreed to supply these structural supports in exchange for $x each time somebody cross the communities bridge. Along comes Apple in there new sports car with a smoking hot babe with big boobs in the passenger seat and try to drive over the now public bridge for $x per trip. Samsung likes the look of the sexy babe Apple has in its car and is demanding that Apple should let Samsung have sex with the sexy babe in exchange for letting it use the bridge.

The Bridge is patents which 100's of companies all placed into International Standards such as 3G and Wifi. The hot babe in Apple cars are it's iOS innovations and patents.

If all you where obligated to do was pay a small fee on the toll bridge would you just stand by and let the toll collector have sex with your girl, because he found her sexy and wanted her?

Google hasn't used it's patent portfolio to prevent competition, simply because apart from the PageRank Algorithm which it owns the patents on it hasn't invented anything.

Google is currently the verb meaning "to search thing internet for a subject", but outside search Google is a synonym for another company name that became a verb, Xerox.

Go back and look at the history. Nokia and Motorola started the patent wars attacking Apple. The only people currently directly suing Google is Oracle and judging by the Lindholm email they have very good reason to.

Microsoft and Apple both are sitting on many $10Billion's of cash. Paying a couple dollars to them to license technology which has obviously been copied isn't going to give with company and more of an advantage in the market place than they already have.

In fact Microsoft has already offered Google to join syndicates to purchase patents so they don't end up in the hands on non practicing patent trolls. The fact that Google refuses to join in and play nice says a lot about their evil litigious intentions.

Hey Google seeing as you don't agree with software patents can I please have a free license to use your PageRank search algorithm patents. More competition is good for everybody right so how about it.....Whats that? You want to use everybody else's patents for free but you are not prepared to share your own patents?? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

Paying money as part of a cross license agreement is kinda standard practice in the technology industry. Google purchased Andriod and controls it's "free" distribution to hardware OEMs when they had virtually no patents apart from the origin PageRank patent (that they will not license to anybody else by the way). What's different from Google and Apple and Microsoft is they have been active in the research and development of software operating systems and hardware manufacture for ever. They already had a large number of patents and are also more than happy to pay FRAND fees for patents that are part of international standards.

As far as worrying about having to continue to pay more later thats a simple matter of contract negotiation. Google pays to license all current patents as at the date of the contract.

While you might not agree with software patents, they are in currently part of the legal system. There is an obligation on all corporations to follow the law until such time as the law gets changed.

Wouldn't it just be cheaper for Google to arrange a direct patent license with Microsoft and Apple rather than trying to build their own patent portfolio to try and go to war? It's pretty clear from the Lindholm email in the Oracle lawsuit that senior member of the Andriod team knew there was patent issues, which they ignored and decided to risk the legal problems later. So now instead of fairly paying their own way they are paying stupid money for Motorola and billions more buying patents from IBM and others. "Do no evil" what a joke, they are a dirty bunch of thieving bastards!

The recent court documents in Oracle vs Google show that Sun offered google a Java license and they decided just to use the code without a license. So Google deciding to start paying for other peoples software would be a 100% change in previous strategy of just borrow without paying.