Vote Up
4
Votes
Vote Down

It wasn’t long ago that freetards got paranoid about H.264 video when they realized it was to be the default format supported by the HTML5 video tag. They claimed it wasn’t free and open enough and that could be abused.

Then along comes Google, the champion of freetards everywhere, who bought Motorola and in doing so, gained access to several H.264 patents. Did Google decide to “do no evil” with said patents? Of course not, they demanded royalties on an astronomical scale.

“Microsoft said Motorola wants that $22.50 royalty payment for just 50 standards-essential patents, yet a group of 29 companies that holds the other 2,300 patents related to H.264 is charging Microsoft just 2¢.”

“That’s right. Just 2¢ for use of more than 2,300 patents,” Heiner wrote. “(Windows qualifies for a nice volume discount, but no firm has to pay more than 20 cents per unit.) Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay more than 1,000 times that for use of just 50 patents.”

#1 Posted by DrLoser on Mar 2, 2012 5:53 PM

Didn't I just do this one?

Still needs pointing up, though.  I grew up with hypocrites who started off as Maoists and ended up as Merchant Bankers.  If anything, this strikes me as an accelerated version of the same, morally despicable, tendency.

(I will of course apologise for my errors once Google sends me to their re-education camp in Mountain View.  Please, Brer Fox, not the tar patch!)

#2 Posted by DrLoser on Mar 2, 2012 6:03 PM

Can't wait until Kurkos chips in, though.

IPredict(TM): Bullies get what they deserve.

Or, I am morally convinced that huge profit-grubbing corporations have no right to charge anybody else for bogus patents with prior art.

Or even both.

I'll get the popcorn; you provide the comfy chairs.

#3 Posted by DrLoser on Mar 2, 2012 6:11 PM

Also, before this thread degenerates:

*FRAND*

Loons are _against_ FRAND, because Microsoft and Apple came out in favour of it.

Google and Motorola are _against_ FRAND because ... well, because ... they can make $22.50 a pop if it isn't considered to be an "industry standard."

Shame about the little guys who are only making 2¢s a pop, innit?

It's a heavy price we have to pay for somebody else's notion of freedom, but at least it's quantifiable:

$22.48.

To a company that actually doesn't really need it, because it isn't even part of their business plan.

#4 Posted by DrLoser on Mar 2, 2012 6:12 PM

I'm not using the cute formatting buttons, am I? Old habits die hard.

#5 Posted by Linsuxoid on Mar 2, 2012 7:29 PM

Oh, Google. Will they ever stop being hypocritic whiny wimpy kids?

It's particularly ironic, given their track record in this area and collaboration with patent trolls

Do they by any chance mean Intellectual Ventures? Oh the irony.

#6 Posted by Linsuxoid on Mar 2, 2012 7:43 PM

Oh, and it's not 22.50 - it's 2.25% of the full device price.

Now imagine a plane with embedded monitors to play videos (or with on-board WiFi for the second case of Motorola's patent abuse). Price for those 2300 patents remain flat, while Motorola demands millions USD for their 50.

#7 Posted by DrLoser on Mar 3, 2012 3:03 PM

Of course, the really interesting thing here is what the Loons will say when the EU court makes a judgement.

Joy unconstrained if Google and Motorola are given a free pass, of course.  IPredict(TM) the word "competition" will come up a lot, combined with "fighting the IllegalMonopoly(TM)."

But ... but ... if for some reason the EU comes to their senses and recognises that FRAND is actually quite close to the core values of the EU (yes, Kurkos, I know it doesn't make it right, I'm just saying there's an obvious congruence)?

In short, if the EU bitch-slaps Google on a suit brought by Microsoft and Apple, there's gonna be Hell to pay.

#8 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 17, 2012 5:15 PM

AKA. Butthurt patent troll Mafia$oft whining that they might actually have to pay people to use their patented technology.

Funny how the shoe fits on the other foot! What a stupid pissant excuse for a company.

#9 Posted by administrator on Mar 17, 2012 5:39 PM

So it's okay when Google does it?  Why aren't you railing against them like you did Microsoft?

#10 Posted by Wolfie on Mar 17, 2012 5:41 PM

Funny how the shoe fits on the other foot!

Adam, it's "not so fun when the shoe's on the other foot", just to let you know.

#11 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 17, 2012 7:13 PM

If you can't tell the difference between Google and Mafia$oft, I can't help you.

Google is a company that is the leader of technological innovation and the steward of the information age. Mafia$oft is a company that makes most of its money by making things defective by design and artificially scarce. 

#12 Posted by administrator on Mar 17, 2012 8:47 PM

They're both big companies that can throw their weight around.  That's it.  They're using their clout to screw over users.  Not to mention that if they make things too expensive for other vendors, those other vendors will choose another format, further fragmenting the market.

A leader in innovation? They polish old ideas; Gmail wasn't the first web mail, Google Maps wasn't the first mapping service, Google+ was their response to Facebook, Google Video doesn't even exist since they gave up and bought YouTube, etc.

#13 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 17, 2012 11:33 PM

Innovation != invention

Google has done more to advance the quality and usefulness of the Internet than any other company in existence. And they understand the implications of the information age better than anyone else.

 

Stop trying to conflate Mafia$oft with Google, Mafia$oft is a company that hates FOSS, hates Internet freedom, hates writing products that don't contain anti-user features (DRM, "CALs") and limiting usefulness of what they work on, all in order to save their backwards business model.

So yes, I will hold Google to a different standard than Mafia$oft. Just like Mother Teresa to a different standard than Hitler.

#14 Posted by administrator on Mar 18, 2012 12:24 AM

If Microsoft hates FOSS why are they backing JQuery and Google isn't?  Why has Microsoft released two JQuery plugins that are so signficant that they're being built into the core?  Why are both sources fully available on GitHub?  And why hasn't Google released any of the new Android source or pushed their changes upstream?

Furthermore, where's the source to GMail, Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Docs, YouTube, Google+, etc?   Hell, Google+ doesn't even have an API yet.

Can you actually answer those questions or are you just going to spin your rhetoric some more?

#15 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 18, 2012 12:50 AM

It seems Mafia$oft has a few freetards working for them. Woopie doo.

The fact of the matter is Mafia$oft's business model is so diametrically opposed to FOSS that any contributions ring as hollow gestures of "see, we aren't so bad", not of any fundamental change in their manner of business.

#16 Posted by administrator on Mar 18, 2012 1:16 AM

When did I defend Microsoft? I'm asking you to hold Google to the same standards of criticism that you hold Microsoft since they're both worthy of being criticized; All large organizations are.

And you didn't answer my question about the missing source code for Google search, GMail, Google Map, Google Earth, Google Docs, YouTube, Google+, Google Translate, Google Calendar, etc.

Even Google Code's source isn't available on their own code hosting service.

Where are their search algorhythms so that I might take them and apply them to my own projects? Where is the code that demonstrates their multi-user editing in Google Docs?  Where are their translation libraries so that I might translate content on my sites?  Oh wait, GOOGLE ISN'T OPEN SOURCE!

#17 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 18, 2012 1:28 AM

You don't get it Administrator. Sure Google has proprietary stuff, but they have a business that isn't threatened by FOSS. Google don't make their money selling software like it has some kind of limited ability to be used and copied. Mafia$oft is the MAFIAA of software, the company that sticks out like a sore thumb in any industry that is increasingly becoming discontent with mass media. 

#18 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 18, 2012 1:32 AM

And yes they supported SOPA and PIPA (until it became stupid to do so), because it's in their business interests to have insane levels of copyright enforcement.  This company hates Internet freedom and hates FOSS and quite frankly hates you. Django developer.

#19 Posted by DrLoser on Mar 18, 2012 10:52 AM

@Administrator:

Actually, you don't want to have access to Google's search algorithms.  It's a dirty little secret of the search engine world that the algorithms involved are not God-like, but distinctly mortal.  In fact, mostly what a search engine does is to collect and index a massive amount of data (obviously) and then effectively rely on the users to rank it for them, via machine learning.

Think this stuff is done in real time? Think again.  99% of it is done off-line and relies on nothing much more than a very large captive audience and a brute-force approach.

I'm of the opinion that the reason that Google doesn't Free Teh Codez is not because those codez contain Secret Sauce.  It's actually because they don't contain Secret Sauce.  Making this fact public would rather destroy the illusion.

On a purely hypothetical basis, I would extend this to all the other things that Google doesn't make publicly available.  It's a slippery slope.  If you make the source to GMail, Google+, etc etc free and open, people are bound to ask about the search engine stuff.  What would the defence be?

#20 Posted by administrator on Mar 18, 2012 5:03 PM

Actually Microsoft was against SOPA from the beginning, but go ahead and continue to lie.

#21 Posted by Wolfie on Mar 18, 2012 5:09 PM

Actually Microsoft was against SOPA from the beginning, but go ahead and continue to lie.

I thought that they were for SOPA at first but then decided that it was too extreme and droped support for it. Either way, they eventually droped support for SOPA which is more than can be said for Apple (which Adam doesn't seem to hate as much as MS for some reason).

#22 Posted by DrLoser on Mar 18, 2012 6:55 PM

@Wolfie:

Well, Apple isn't Microsoft.  Duh.

It's a nominalist thing.  Sticking labels on a primitive religious experience is an important thing if you live in the Stone Age.

Actually thinking about what lies behind the labels ... Well, that's something we in the Western world try to inculcate into impressionable young minds by the age of, say, fourteen.

Occasionally it does not catch.

#23 Posted by administrator on Mar 18, 2012 7:07 PM

Probably why they were being called the Linux Youth for quite a while.

#24 Posted by Wolfie on Mar 18, 2012 7:20 PM

Probably why they were being called the Linux Youth for quite a while.

Only now, they're adults (except maybe for Adam). And yet they're as childish as ever.

#25 Posted by administrator on Mar 18, 2012 8:41 PM

Adam probably doesn't even get where the term comes from.  He probably just thinks we mean "kids who use Linux".

You must be signed in to leave comments.