When did Google sue Apple? Please stop lying.

In fact, when did Google initiate patent litigation against anybody?

The implication here is someone said Google sued Apple over patents. Nobody said so, thus you are pushing a false claim.

FUD:

Apple is a successful patent parasite. Apple has no ideas to defend. For example: JooJoo/Crunchpad had rounded corners before Apple.

The implication here is that someone has said the JooJoo/Crunchpad did not have rounded corners before Apple. Nobody said so, thus you are pushing a false claim.

FUD:

Apple has done an amazing job abusing the patent system, and legal system, I will give Apple credit for that.

The implication here is that someone has shown where Apple abused the patent system. Nobody has shown so, thus you are pushing a false claim.

Question:

How is Apple “defending itself?”

As shown, Samsung has been very heavily copying Apple’s ideas – crossing the line from being inspired to just being absurd.

http://goo.gl/4mQI9
http://goo.gl/S2AJR
http://goo.gl/bWDs6
http://goo.gl/NjrfV

Apple has responded to this attack by trying to stop it. The fact Samsung has done as shown has not been refuted in any way.

FUD:

Samsung clearly sued Apple in retaliation to Apple’s bogus lawsuits against Samsung. Not to mention Apple’s bogus lawsuits against HTC, and others.

You left out the start of the battle, shown above. This is openly dishonest of you. You also claimed Apple’s suits have been “bogus” but in at least some cases the courts have decided otherwise. Samsung did just win a reversal in one case.

I agree patents are heavily messed up – but eliminating them without having such a solution does not make things better.

In fact, when did Google initiate patent litigation against anybody?

Apple is a successful patent parasite. Apple has no ideas to defend. For example: JooJoo/Crunchpad had rounded corners before Apple.

Apple has done an amazing job abusing the patent system, and legal system, I will give Apple credit for that.

How is Apple “defending itself?” Samsung clearly sued Apple in retaliation to Apple’s bogus lawsuits against Samsung. Not to mention Apple’s bogus lawsuits against HTC, and others.

How can you criticize Google for defending itself in the only way that is possible for Google to do so?

Who is doing that?

I am noting Roy’s hypocrisy. Heck, he is the one who attacks Apple and calls them an aggressor but does not offer any other way for them to defend themselves.

Do you have any better ideas on how Apple should defend themselves against the attacks by Android, Google, Samsung and the like?

FUD:

Patent thugs like Oracle, Microsoft, and Apple, would not have ganged up on Google, if Google had not been so defenseless at the time.

You do not like how Apple defended themselves against attacks by Android, Google, Samsung and the like… so how do you think they should have reacted to the attacks? Seems to me giving the attackers a chance to make things right and then taking them to court if that fails (as it did) makes sense.

FUD:

Sadly, Google has been left with the unpleasant choice of acquiring patents, or being sued out of business by a conspiring gang of abusive scam artists.

What? Conspiracies of scam artists? You made that up.

FUD:

It may be worth noting, Google has not used it patent arsenal offensively. How many major technology companies can say that?

Google has sued people over IP infringements. But even if they had not, so? Does this give then the right to be an aggressor against Apple and others? I do not see the connection.

Patent thugs like Oracle, Microsoft, and Apple, would not have ganged up on Google, if Google had not been so defenseless at the time.

Sadly, Google has been left with the unpleasant choice of acquiring patents, or being sued out of business by a conspiring gang of abusive scam artists.

It may be worth noting, Google has not used it patent arsenal offensively. How many major technology companies can say that?

“When these programs are inventions,” he claims (whatever “invention” actually means), “patent protection is important to help protect these companies’ investments.”

Utter nonsense.

If you really think this, Roy, then say why. But you do not. Instead you post a straw man.

Those companies rely a great deal on using code and knowledge provided by others.

Nobody has suggested that current inventions do not benefit from past inventions. Could the incandescent lightbulb have been invented without the prior invention of many forms of metal working? No. Same with cars. No metal working – no cars as we know them.

FUD:

That article just fails on so many levels and it often demonstrates the author’s arrogance because he thinks that his own ‘invention’ (a sorting algorithm) is so much more sophisticated than the machine and coded framework he ran his program on.

He never said that. You made that up.

A lot of work from 20+ years ago prelates the Web, so proving prior art is not always simple.

And this is true. It is not always simply and is certainly not black and white. All too often amazingly dumb decisions have been made in the US patent system (and elsewhere I assume).