Intel ends 5G modem alliance with Beijing-backed chipmaker - <AUTHOR> https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-war/Intel-ends-5G-modem-alliance-with-Beijing-backed-chipmaker <comment><USER2> I can add a bit of technical context here. High-end phones usually have a baseband chip separate from the main SoC. There is also an RF chip and some discrete components in front of the antennas. Qualcomm is quite dominant, but Apple has switched to Intel over the last few years.

In low- or mid-end phones the baseband is usually integrated in the main SoC. Taiwanese MediaTek is the biggest supplier. Unisoc clearly wants to compete with MediaTek, and Intels modem division has trouble getting into low-end phones as nobody wants complete Intel SoCs in phones. So they agreed to integrate Intels modem as an IP block in Unisoc chips.

In tablets and the few laptops that have mobile data the baseband + RF are usually on a modem module, M.2 or similar. The Librem 5 phone also takes this approach.

<comment><USER3> I thought Qualcomm integrated all that onto the SOC after LTE. LTE was a huge battery drain at first because they weren't integrated.

Am I not understanding something here?

<comment><USER4> > LTE was a huge battery drain at first because they weren't integrated

No, the modem/SoC integration is not a big factor. Having an internal communication inside a single SoC will always be a bit better than going through an external interface, but it's not a significant impact when compared to the total phone power consumption. As other have said, iPhones have an external modem and are fine. Qualcomm insisted on this because they had it, and they're good at marketing.

LTE was a drain at first for the same reason 3G was a drain at first. Cellular standards are designed to have a long life, and are over dimensioned initially. Then Moore law and other optimizations kicks in and make things more acceptable. This is intentional, otherwise the standard would not make the best use of technology over time. And this is something where we need to keep an eye for 5G: Moore law, strictly speaking (higher density _for the least cost process_. One can still get better, for a higher price) is over. Hopefully 5G will have properly taken this into account.

But then for 5G a big part of the power will be in the RF front-end, with all those antennas. Here too it'll be interesting to see how it evolves over time.

<comment><USER5> > As other have said, iPhones have an external modem and are fine. _Qualcomm > insisted on this because they had it, and they 're good at marketing._

Addressing the second sentence - I have no knowledge of what transpired but my assumption would be a combination of Apple didn't want to have their SOC's fab'd by Qualcomm for the sake of an integrated modem, and Qualcomm didn't want TSMC fab'ing their modem IP into Apple's SOC's, so the obvious solution was a discrete modem which was a product they could offer.

<comment><USER6> The wording makes it extremely unclear. Both Company don't "Fab" those SoC. What you are suggesting is Qualcomm doesn't want to give the IP to Apple for Modem SoC Integration, and Apple doesn't want to give their IP to Qualcomm's SoC designed specially for Apple.

While those point are valid they are not the reason Apple have a separate Modem Chip. The design of iPhone had the Modem literally in a completely isolated system, and act more like a USB modem directly connected to the Internal iPhone for security purposes.

And as other have mentioned the integrated of Modem within the SoC have minimal impact to overall battery life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Has anyone else been experiencing horrendous data speeds with their iPhone XS? I only ask because this was the first model shipped with an Intel modem, amd compared to my 6S this is nowhere near as fast or reliable over 4G and LTE.

<comment><USER6> >I only ask because this was the _first_ model shipped with an Intel modem

7, 8 / X All had a version with Intel Modem. XS is, however the first model to ship _only_ with Intel Modem.

I don't think it has horrendous Data Speed. But it is certainly has a different characteristics to Qualcomm Modem. XS is generally weaker with signals, and we are not quite sure if it was the 4x4 MIMO or the Intel Modem. XR doesn't seems to be as bad so a guess would be due to Apple's implementation of 4x4 Antenna. While ALL phones had problems with 4x4 Antenna in their first generation, that includes Samsung and Huawei, you generally expect Apple, being a year late to the tech would have ironed out most of it.

But generally speaking, a Qualcomm Modem would still get better signal than Intel. This is especially a problem in US where the Cell Tower Density is lower as compared to Asia / EU counterpart.

There has also been 3 to 4 Modem Firmware revision since launch, and likely more to come in iOS 12.2, let just hope ( pray ) Intel's next Modem 7660 is actually better. And Apple could actually put a rounding error budget into their Antenna Design, because as far as Flagship Smartphone is concerned, iPhone has the worst one.

Or Qualcomm will relent and work with Apple again, but judging from the Court testimony this seems highly unlikely.

<comment><USER8> I've noticed my iPhone 8 (confirmed Intel modem) has a terrible time with weaker signals compared to my wife's Samsung 6.

I am surprised there hasn't been more buzz about the degraded antenna performance by the public.

<comment><USER9> I think people don't switch between iPhones and Android phones enough to notice.

I certainly noticed when I switched from my iPhone X to a Pixel 3 XL. I went to known dead spots, and my Pixel 3 worked just fine. I had just chalked it up to T-Mobile sucking but I guess it was really the phone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I assume Intel realized this "partnership" was not worth China stealing all of its IP and designs only to come up with a competing product that 90% as good and half the price a couple of years later?

If only more companies realized the same. Not that this means they won't have to protect themselves against China's _relentless_ IP stealing.

[https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/30/tech/samsung-china- tech-t...](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/30/tech/samsung-china-tech- theft/index.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> also worth reading: [https://www.wired.com/story/ai-cold-war-china-could-doom- us-...](https://www.wired.com/story/ai-cold-war-china-could-doom-us-all/)

<comment><USER11> Holy shit, that picture at the top is the most propaganda-brainwashed-picture I have seen since looking at old cold war pictures. As if the US is in a good vs. evil fight. Well it might be, but on which side?

<comment><USER12> Well, the Chinese government is bad but the us is led by people who are chaotic evil, increasing the chance for the us do immoral things - and it's not like things such as supporting Saudi Arabia in Yemen started with our current loser leader. The citizens of most countries would probably like to be free of concern about the world ending or pointless wars. Unfortunately both places have sizable groups of nationalistic-oriented people who are hugely pumped up about saying "their country" is the world's greatest, exceptional, etc, so bellicose comments have too much support.

While we are tearing apart our democracy in the us step by step, we'll eventually get a different leader who is more interested in doing useful things and less interested in a cult of personality and less interested in doing any venal thing to get support for his base. Meanwhile, China is stuck with a dear leader for life. The country grows ever more powerful, but also is increasing in it's terrifying Orwellian oversight. I'm afraid that China will show it's possible to watch everyone all the time and crush freedom and then other western authoritarian leaders will follow suit.

<comment><USER13> Lawful evil is still evil.

<comment><USER14> I'd argue the US and China have more chaotic/lawful neutral elements, at least with the former valuing nobody above themselves and breaking the laws when convenient, and the latter's obsession with stability at the cost of freedom. It would be hard to say either's political leaders take pleasure in doing and spreading evil every waking moment. At least per the below anyway, surely there are counterarguments too: [http://easydamus.com/alignment.html#theninealignments](http://easydamus.com/alignment.html#theninealignments)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Where can I, a technical person, learn about 5G? I'm interested in what makes it better? What tradeoffs are being made? What are the implications of those tradeoffs? etc

</comment><comment><USER16> Incidently Unisoc has launched its 5G modem today:

[http://www.unisoc.com/unisoc-launches-5g-technology- platform...](http://www.unisoc.com/unisoc-launches-5g-technology-platform- makalu-and-its-first-5g-modem-ivy510)

<comment><USER6> So they manage to launch a 2G - 5G MultiMode Modem inline with other Industry leaders ( Comparatively Speaking ) Like Intel and Qualcomm.

And Intel decide to end the partnership? Something doesn't sound right. Or did they get IP from other players?

<comment> dis-sys Unisoc bought Spreadtrum a few years ago and Spreadtrum has been in the modem business since 2010 with its 3/4G modems doing ok in many medrange to low end smartphones, e.g. Samsung J1, Samsung Z series.

<comment><USER6> Thx, didn't know Spreadtrum is now UniSoc. I was wondering when did Intel sign an agreement with a company other than Spreadtrum. I should have looked it up first.

Now all this makes much more sense. But they had really crappy Modem in the past, as compared to MediaTek in the low end segment. I guess this 5G IP is part of the coming XMM 8160.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> 5G is the new space race and sooner than later we're going to have a Sputnik moment. Everything coming out of China needs to be taken with a grain of salt but it definitely seems likely that they will have a head start in 5G deployments, especially as Europeans seem resistant to US demands to boycott Huawei.

<comment><USER18> no, 5g is hype. seriously, unless you want to live in a dystopian society where everything is "connected" it's not really a big deal

<comment><USER19> Every previous "G" was a big deal in terms of opening up new applications and business opportunities by significantly improving latency, bandwidth, and power efficiency. Going from 4G to 5G will eventually have just as huge an impact as going from 3G to 4G did, although rolling out the technology worldwide will be a slow gradual process.

<comment><USER20> Will it though?

The frequencies are so easily blocked by _anything_ that you need transmitters _everywhere_ and receivers _everywhere_ \- literally 5G phones will have to have 3+ separate 5G antennaes in different locations to avoid the signal being outright blocked by your hand.

5G devices will practically need line of sight to a transmitter.

<comment><USER21> There is 5G and there is 5G mmWave. They are two separate parts of "5G". There are still advantages to sub 6GHz standard cell phone frequencies such as lower latency and higher throughput.

The disadvantages you mention only apply to 5G mmWave.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


We Need to Stop Letting Carpenters Design Skyscrapers - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@MahouShoujoD/we-need-to-stop-letting-carpenters-design-skyscrapers-d56624c8b72a?source=linkShare-a9da1860180e-1533806978 <comment><USER2> I think the article has a point – as a further comparison, lets assume that there's no malicious intent, but if a bank's API has an bug allowing a hacker to drain bank accounts, is that any different than if a vault designer accidentally forgot to secure the ventilation shafts allowing some movie-like bank robbers to break in there and steal priceless diamonds in the middle of the night?

We regulate banking heavily though, including insurance. Perhaps we demand oversight in those sectors we deem as important (banking, health, utilities, etc) the same way that we do for physical manifestations of those things. More so, perhaps, than some hacker & founder building an app to convert different cities' time zones for example.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not sure how the academic languages/tools can play a role here when all these papers talk about very simple programs which are nowhere near the complexity of a full fledge software system. On the other hand we need to understand that there is something called "management", and that is responsible for so many things like deadlines, cutting corners etc that we always end up with buggy software no matter what.

Given enough time and very strong testing and verification processes you can write good software using current tools.</comment>


The IRS offers a $625,000 bounty to anyone who can break Monero and Lightning - <AUTHOR> https://cointelegraph.com/news/the-irs-offers-a-625-000-bounty-to-anyone-who-can-break-monero-and-lightning/ <comment><USER2> If any of them would be broken, a new one would emerge with the flaw fixed. And so on.

This is a race which cannot be won, expect by applying total control over encryption. Which obviously would mean a state of total control from my point of view.

Combined with a state of total loss of control, since control over encryption wouldn't be restricted to one specific nation, as it would require a kind of backdoor.

<comment><USER3> Yup, lets let the war on fiat begin, the crypto hydra has many heads!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Lets make this more exciting: the developers of XMR offer 7,440 XMR x 2 to anyone who could break Monero and Elizabeth Stark offer 62.5 X 2 BTC for Lightning, and XMR and Lightning could path the code ...let the bidding wars begin!!</comment>


Apple TV, Apple TV, Apple TV, and Apple TV+ - <AUTHOR> https://dcurt.is/apple-tv-all-the-way-down <comment><USER2> Okay, I think I've got this figured out. Can someone check my working?

[https://imgur.com/a/GVdsG7r](https://imgur.com/a/GVdsG7r)

Color key:

        Green: Apple set-top box
        Yellow: App for Apple set-top box
        Orange: App for other Apple devices
        Red: App for third-party devices
        Yellow/Orange/Red stripe: App generally across all platforms
        Violet: Integrated external subscription content
        Blue: Apple subscription content
        Violet/Blue stripe: Content generally
        Rainbow stripe: Apple TV

<comment><USER3> See also:

Apple TV (disambiguation) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_TV_(disambiguation)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_TV_\(disambiguation\))

Original programming for Apple TV+ seems to be very good.

First three episodes for the "For All Mankind" (scifi) are good so are the three episodes for "See". The "The Morning Show" seems to be very good although I'm not in the target audience.

<comment><USER4> > First three episodes for the "For All Mankind" (scifi) are good so are the > three episodes for "See". The "The Morning Show" seems to be very good > although I'm not in the target audience.

Which is funny because many critics/reviewers have panned all the new shows. I've only watched TMS so far and found it intriguing.

<comment><USER3> It's funny, but I get a feeling that the shows are seamless match for Apple products (not in the bad way). It seems like like they are targeting premium users with their programming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Remember when .NET came out? _Everything_ was .NET. As a result, no-one really had any idea what .NET actually was. Eventually we figured out it was "Microsoft's Java".

Windows also went through a phase in which seemingly everything was Windows.

<comment><USER6> Microsoft has gone through some pretty dark times w.r.t. naming stuff. Up there with "Windows" everything and absurdities like ".net Passport" was their unslakable thirst for "Active." ActiveX, Active Server Pages, Active Data Objects.

However, none of it holds a candle to IBM's mania for making everything "Websphere."

<comment><USER7> Dark times are still happening. Right now they're renaming everything Azure regardless of whether it's part of their cloud offerings.

Also, Live was another Microsoft naming phase.

For me, the canary in the coal mine of ms naming is their messenger. Msn messenger, live messenger, Skype, Skype for business, Teams... I assume the next iteration will be named Azure Teams.

<comment><USER8> I give you msn and live messenger.

All the other ones are literally different products each. I expect different products to have different names.

Why there were so many messenger products is a different question. Anyone from Google wanna jump in and explain this one? ;)

<comment><USER9> My best guess is Skype was much more profitable than MSN. But Microsoft took the best features of Skype and removed them and the quality got diminished probably in order to monkeypatch Lync into Skype as well as MSN at the time.

After like 2013 I never used Skype again. Now everyone I know either uses Discord or Slack. Teams was at least the right direction for business focus but it seems they shoulda QAd it much more. I dont hear much positive about Teams.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "There are only two hard problems in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things." (Phil Karlton)

Amusing that along with this, there are two articles about caches on the front page of HN right now.

<comment><USER11> There's also the unspoken third one which is off by one errors.

<comment><USER12> Like they said, the two hard problems.

<comment><USER13> ISWYDT

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _This article is about the media player. For the streaming service, see Apple TV+. For the media player app from Apple, see Apple TV (software). For other uses, see Apple TV (disambiguation)._

</comment><comment><USER15> What? No mention of the Apple TV remote, the Apple TV Siri remote, the Apple TV remote app, or the iOS Apple TV remote app shortcut feature on iOS?

The physical Apple remotes are so terrible, I've stopped using Apple TV (all of them). The Apple remote app is better, but is useless for when you need to hit pause, as your phone has gone to sleep.

<comment><USER16> The awful remote is tolerable with one of these cases:

[https://www.amazon.com/Fintie-Protective-Case-Apple- Remote/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Fintie-Protective-Case-Apple- Remote/dp/B01K6LO5SK)

<comment><USER17> I'm not sure it solves the main problem which is scrolling on the remote is almost unusable.

They would have been better sticking with the remote that came with the early versions.

<comment><USER18> what do you mean by scrolling being unusable ? it's not a mouse wheel with steady scroll rate but something similar to flicking a finger.

It's not great for long lists but it's far from being terrible, also part of the problem lies on the UI design for example having too long lists

<comment><USER17> It is terrible, it regularly fails to scroll or scrolls too far.

<comment><USER18> cannot reproduce on my machine

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Also, the Apple TV Movies app has a wish list which doesn't sync with anything.

And, sometimes when you search for a movie using Siri on Apple TV it opens in Movies where you can add it to your wish list, but sometimes it opens in the TV app where you can't. To avoid this, you have to go into Movies, then use Search, then use your voice to fill in the title, then it will come up in Movies where you can add it to the wish list.

And don't even get me started on having different Apple IDs that you need to use for iCloud and iTunes because btw, you can't merge Apple IDs. And if one of your Apple IDs is from the .mac/.me era, you can't change its primary email address.

But other than that it's great.

</comment><comment><USER19> Apple needs to have the marketing people who come up with California-based macOS names sort this out. If they solved the cat naming crisis then surely they can clean up this mess.

<comment> D-Coder They solved the cat-naming crisis? I missed that memo!

<comment><USER20> The first 9 release names of OSX (v10.0 - v10.8) were based on cat names after which they switched to Mavericks for v10.10:

\- Cheetah

\- Puma

\- Jaguar

\- Panther

\- Tiger

\- Leopard

\- Snow Leopard

\- Lion

\- Mountain Lion

\- Mavericks _

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The best is that you can buy the Apple TV in _two_ sizes! 32 GB and 64 GB. Why you ask? Can the bigger one store more stuff? No, everything's in the cloud! So what's it for exactly? Who knows! But it'll cost you an extra $20 and won't even come in a different color like the "Pro" keyboards and mice. For a fun exercise go ask an Apple store employee this.

<comment><USER22> Additional app storage and the ability to store/download media in apps that support it.

<comment><USER23> How many apps will I have to install to run out of space on my 32GB Apple TV? Curious how many people this has actually happened to...

<comment><USER24> Now, with Apple Arcade, it is very easy to run out of space. It made no sense at the beginning, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm never one to jump on the new product bandwagon. I think I'll wait until the Apple TV++ comes out.

Plus, it'll probably be object-oriented.

<comment><USER26> It's also possible the next models will be Apple TVe, Apple TVc, and Apple TVgs.

<comment><USER27> Not to be confused with the also upcoming Apple iTV.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Netflix refers to a company, an app, a third-party app on some Smart TVs, and a subscription service, but people don't generally get confused. Consistent branding isn't necessarily a bad thing.

That said, Apple's support for third-party Smart TV apps is actually quite unusual IMHO; this really reduces their usual control over quality and experience.

<comment><USER29> Is it really inconsistent branding, though?

To me, every one of these Netflixes is the same: the Netflix on my phone, tablet, TV, games console, and the website are all the _same product_.

For Apple TV, however, the exact same name is used to refer to multiple different products and experiences: the device, the app on the device, the app on different devices, and many of these experiences differ significantly.

<comment><USER30> Ultimately, it seems like there are two different Apple TV products, but not more than that.

There's the device, and there's the app/service. The difference from Netflix is that Netflix doesn't sell hardware also called Netflix.

<comment><USER29> The author seems to be getting at that point: these two "Apple TV"s are more than two products.

Assuming for a moment that the hardware devices can be a single product, the apps just cannot be: each of them has wildly different behaviour on different apple devices, with different features, and different functionality depending on the presence of 3rd party apps.

As an end user I found this confusing at first, frustrating when I understood what was going on, and now I just don't use the Apple TV apps, even on my Apple TV.

<comment><USER30> I guess this is subjective, but I don't see the behaviors as "wildly" different.

In all cases, the Apple TV app is where you go to access the Apple TV+ service and as much other available content and video services as can possibly be presented to you on the given platform. The fact that this is different depending on your device and subscriptions is a little bit weird, but it doesn't change _that_ much, at least for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Next up is Apple TVX. "It's called 'tee-five-ten'. Yes, that's what it's called. Say it that way. Because we said so."

</comment><comment><USER32> Here's my take on it: I bought an Apple TV and It Just Works. Movies, subtitle, adding a few key apps like Netflix and Youtube. It's the same name because it's the same whole experience.

<comment><USER33> Exactly. Now I feel a bit bad because I'm not confused at all - it just all works.

<comment><USER34> It all works juuuuust until it doesn't and you have to upgrade to the next tier. I assume the experience will be like the one i had with netflix, where once i had a 4k tv i realized i HAD to upgrade my account and internet bandwidth coz otherwise stuff would look blurry and buffer(for kids who can't tell why stuff doesn't look as good as on the neighbors device)

Obviously not a problem for people who can just buy all the extras but if you're budgeting then it does get quite nasty and lead you to the media server route

<comment><USER30> Bad assumption. Apple TV+ has only one price, no tiers of service like Netflix.

<comment><USER34> yet

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I find naming and details as confusing with Amazon Prime, Amazon Video and FireTV.

Maybe it is not as problematic when you are in the US, but in my country Amazon Prime works in all devices (android, ios, pc, etc) except in the FireTV, other services like netflix, spotify and youtube works very well on FireTV. Note that this is clearly stated in the documentation and faqs, it is a product targeted to a few countries only.

</comment><comment><USER36> Reminds me of the time I tried to decide which Microsoft Surface I should buy.

<comment><USER37> Or when you want to buy a used one and want to check the value.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I love the occasional topic like this that makes HN let out its inner Reddit.

</comment><comment><USER39> Highly recommend MrMC ([https://mrmc.tv](https://mrmc.tv)) for the AppleTV. It is a Kodi port and allows you to mount NFS/SMB again. I switched from a PC w/Kodi to AppleTV on all the TV sets. MrMC for the local music and videos, Amazon Prime, Netflix, SiriusXM, iPlayer. Done. No moving parts, simple. I do not plug in the SmartTVs or use their apps as I do not not need my info shared with the world...

</comment><comment><USER40> What's pretty brilliant is that you could remove the word Apple and it would look exactly like what Tv is. Essentially Apple has replaced TV with AppleTV. And with that Apple is trying to become a monopoly on what was formally a relatively distributed system.

</comment><comment><USER41> The mostly same problems plague Amazon Fire TV and Amazon Prime, Prime Channels, Prime Video for purchase, Prime video included in prime account, Prime App on different platforms, SSO with TV Network Apps. Looks like Apple is trying to catch up with mess.

With Google, I don't even know where to start. Messaging is not the only product line they messed up. Play Movies offering the same thing as Youtube Movies and Google Play Music - Youtube Music (you can buy, you can subscribe). Adding podcasts to Google Play Music, then removing it for a standalone app. However if you download the podcasts from the standalone app, they show up as Albums in Google Play music (on Android)

</comment><comment><USER42> For a company with a relatively smaller product line, Apple sure is not the best at naming things. How does something like this happen?

<comment><USER43> Maybe someone at Apple got the Sony WH-1000XM3 Noise Cancelling Headphones instead of the MDR-ZX110NC Noise Cancelling Headphones for Christmas, and this is some kind of a backlash into over-simplification.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> What i find confusing... is I use the subscription service from Roku (trial). I kind of like that new Morning Show show, and then I wanted to see what else they had to offer on their streaming service but everything is mixed w/ 3rd party crap that's like $2/episode or something.

I just want free stuff/included stuff. I login to prime/netflix I know where to go to get all the included stuff. on Apple+ via Roku it's confusing as fuck. I think it's meant to be so I dish out cash to watch stuff. But that's not going to happen, instead I'll get pissed off and get rid of the service.

<comment><USER45> There's literally only four shows included, so it's barely worth having a category.

(There actually is a category, well hidden, on the Mac/Apple TV hardware version of the app, but I'm not familiar with the Roku UI.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Ahhh Apple iPhoneOS became iOS (Because of the iPad and appleTV 2) iOS for the appleTV became tvOS. OSX became macOS iOS for iPad became iPadOS I wait with glee when they rename iOS back to iPhoneOS.

<comment><USER47> iPod Touch still runs iOS.

<comment><USER46> Right. So a rename to iPodOs is due ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Missing from this article is "Channels" which is a third-party app that runs on Apple TV that lets you stream and record from a local network tuner.

</comment><comment><USER49> Maybe it's still a hobby 10 years later?

</comment><comment><USER50> One thing to note (not that it necessarily clears things up all that much):

In the March 2019 Apple TV+ announcement event, Apple renamed the non-4K Apple TV hardware from "Apple TV" to "Apple TV HD".

So the hardware options are now "Apple TV HD" and "Apple TV 4K".

</comment><comment><USER51> Funny, I don't see an "Apple TV" app on my iPhone, I just see "TV".

<comment><USER52> Same with Wallet, Watch, Maps - they seem to omit the 'Apple' in app titles used on the devices, and occasionally in marketing copy on a second mention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> At least when Apple TV first came out in 2007 the messaging and branding was very clear. It was just the hardware device. The software that looked like an Apple TV interface on a Mac was called Front Row.

</comment><comment><USER54> WWDC 2020: "We're excited to announce Apple TVs+"

<comment><USER55> Soon to be joined by Apple TVs+ Pro! *

* one or more pros not included

<comment><USER56> Jinx! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> The original Apple TV, circa 1979:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiWE-aO- cyU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiWE-aO-cyU)

</comment><comment><USER58> 2021: Apple TV+ Pro

<comment><USER59> 2022: Apple TV#

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> This made my day.

</comment><comment><USER61> Apple TV: Far Seer's Edition

</comment><comment><USER59> I thought it was just me :/

</comment><comment><USER62> Glad he cleared that one up.

</comment><comment><USER63> Apple seems to have lost their focus, and that is reflecting all over their product line.

</comment><comment><USER64> Apple TV is also a dumpster fire.

</comment><comment><USER65> Apple TV+ has its flaws. So did Netflix on day one.

<comment><USER66> But this isn't a critique of Apple TV; this is a critique of Apple TV.

<comment><USER67> Right. Let me see if I got this right- Apple TV is on first, Apple TV is on second, Apple TV is on third, and AppleTV+ is pitching.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Sounds about par for the course for post-Jobs Apple.

<comment><USER69> It's been 8 years. People can't honestly still be holding on to this, can they?

<comment><USER70> People love their idols. Elvis is only fading because his base is.

<comment><USER71> Elvis isn't really fading; he is the #2 dead artist by annual revenue. Michael Jackson is number 1 — he had about 2 billion streams last year.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Patent war goes nuclear: Microsoft, Apple-owned "Rockstar" sues Google - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/patent-war-goes-nuclear-microsoft-apple-owned-rockstar-sues-google/ <comment><USER4> It's a little early to say for sure, but I predict this will do more to hurt Apple's reputation in the tech community than anything they've done before. And that is not a good community to alienate. I would not be surprised if they look back on this move one day and feel that they ended up net worse off as a result.

Apple used to be careful not to alienate hackers. And Microsoft has been gradually digging itself out of a hole in that respect for several years. Now in my mind they are both the enemy.

<comment><USER5> This may be true, but let's not get fooled into thinking that because "they" are the enemy, Google must be our friend.

Google is playing a very dubious game here, and it has nothing to do with being on "our" side of the patent issue. They've tried to buy the same patents, refused to participate in a joint effort to safeguard those patents for all, and then knowingly violated those patents.

All through this, they've been silent about their motives, and have even tried to mislead the public by claiming they were never invited to join.

There are no "good guys" in this conflict, no sides any of us should be on.

<comment><USER6> I think separating good guys and bad guys is pretty simple, if one is against (at least software) patents:

Using patents aggressively makes you a bad guy.

Google has not done this, Microsoft and Apple have.

<comment><USER7> This is according to some moral code or what? The world doesn't abide a set of moral rules. Rules are made by people who can't win without them. You can't tell everybody to stick it and start entering several industries at once. In the real world you have to be cooperative, as well as persistent, because you are not the only 800-pound gorilla.

<comment><USER8> > Rules are made by people who can't win without them.

What's that? The official motto of all bullys and anarchists?

<comment><USER9> Anarchists? I'm sorry, but how about learning what that word actually means?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Anytime I see the latest "outrage" on HN, I laugh and remember us, citizens of my country that want to protest as long as they are not required to personally sacrifice too much.

Most of these companies depend on you hackers (I do not write code) to be successful. If you decide to pull your apps from the app store, stop buying their products and write a post telling everyone why you made the move, they will be hurt. Even if the embargo is for one year only!

But of course that will not happen. No one likes to be inconvenienced personally. It will mean loosing revenue. Other people (the EFF)should fight the battle. You donate your $10 to EFF and believe you have fought the good fight.

Nothing will come out of this. Google will band with a few chaps on the other side (Facebook Twitter etc), a few hundreds of millions will be spent on lawyers and they will settle in one way or the other. After all, they are working together on other schemes (just like the politicians).

Of course, Facebook will one day eliminate all privacy settings, or Google will put ads in our inbox and there will be outrage again.

Of course nothing will come out of it.

I try to limit my outrage these days. I suggest you should too.

<comment><USER11> > _Of course, Facebook will one day eliminate all privacy settings, or Google > will put ads in our inbox and there will be outrage again._

As I was explaining in another comment, if you or other people or other companies don't like something, they can always build something better. If that something is good and provides more value to some people than the popular alternative, then it will take off. That's how the free market works, that's how Android became popular.

Patents lawsuits on the other hand are a loophole of capitalism, preventing the emergence of competition. I haven't been worried in a long time that Windows is still king of desktop operating systems, because Windows is no longer relevant because of technological disruption. I'm not worried if Facebook eliminates all forms of privacy controls, as teenagers are already preferring other platforms precisely because of privacy issues (e.g. who wants their grandma to see their drunk-at-party photos?). But what if Facebook will acquire enough patents as to nuke all alternative social networks?

Now that's a reason to worry. And this outrage is entirely justified. I also don't like your apathy and your cynicism. All the freedoms and luxuries you enjoy today come either from technological disruption, or from people that were outraged and that decided to do something about it. I also don't understand your position on this matter - if you agree that patents are bad, then your cynicism does nothing else but to waist other people's time.

<comment><USER10> _> All the freedoms and luxuries you enjoy today come either from technological disruption, or from people that were outraged and that decided to do something about it._

"Decided to do something about it"

I am against "outrage" for outrage sake. If you are outraged but not willing to do anything about it, then it is worse than ambivalence. You are wasting energy and reducing the value of outrage as a deterrent.

Outrage would be a useful if it resulted in action. So anytime there is outrage, the offending party would retrace their steps. Because they would be aware "shit is about to go down!"

So if the first time Twitter/Facebook/Apple indiscriminately fucked over developers, out rage resulted in something that affected them, things would have been different today.

 _> I also don't understand your position on this matter. if you agree that patents are bad, then your cynicism does nothing else but to waist(sic) other people's time_

I am against the abuse of patents and this is an abuse of patents. I am hoping my "cynical post" will offend hackers (who have leverage) enough to say "how dare you say I am all talk!" and take action.

<comment><USER11> OK, I misunderstood your motives. Sorry.

Personally, as a web developer, I never liked third-party APIs, I stayed away from proprietary platforms that are hard to replace, always preferring open- source alternatives or alternatives based on standards, I use Ubuntu Linux on my workstations, I encrypt my documents that I store in Dropbox and I use Facebook & Twitter with great care.

I also prefer Android both as a user and as a developer, in spite of Google's disregard for Romanian developers (i.e. we can't sell apps on Google Play, we can only distribute free apps), but that's only because with Android you're not tied to Google Play. Plus I'm rooting for Firefox OS taking off, as even with 5% of the market, it will push things forward by developing and standardizing new web APIs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I know it's been said before, but to reiterate: outrage doesn't help anything, but buying products from these companies DOES hurt. If you're truly outraged enough to want to take action, take action

\- writing to your representatives

\- donating to the EFF or other organizations

\- by not donating another $2k to Apple for a new Mac*, implicitly endorsing these bullshit tactics

\- not developing for those platforms (App Store, etc)

Leaving comments here expressing outrage isn't really helping.

<comment><USER13> "Don't buy Macs" is not going to work well around here. Most HNers develop software on Mac and see it as the ideal development platform. I'd say they don't care about what Apple does (it's not the first time Apple does that either).

<comment><USER14> I'm honestly starting to regret choosing to learn Objective-C now. I am seriously considering learning Android development and ditching my Macbook / iPhone for a Nexus 5 and some sort of linux distro. People like me are making this whole situation significantly worse by contributing software to Apple's platform.

<comment><USER15> This comment is ridiculous. The big players have been playing a patent chess game since 2007. Don't forget Google bid for these patents as well and it's completely ignorant to think they would have not exercised their billion $+ purchase.

Google took the initiative a year ago with their Motorola patent portfolio, Samsung took the initiative with their FRAND patents, Apple took the initiative with their design portfolio, Microsoft took the initiative by funding SCO and suing android OEMs and now this conglomerate is taking the initiative with the Nortel patents.

This is a war with many players willing to stifle the industry until this gets sorted out. All players are responsible, but this terrible system requires that you get involved and are proactive in protecting your intellectual property.

Go sell your mac and get an ultra book. Go learn Java and ditch obj-c. But do it because you prefer those products, not because you think you are taking the moral high ground.

<comment><USER13> If I remember correctly, Google has always said they would only use these patents in a defensive manner if they ever get them. [http://www.androidcentral.com/google-pledges-only-use- open-s...](http://www.androidcentral.com/google-pledges-only-use-open-source- related-patents-defensively)

That's very different from Apple or Microsoft.

<comment><USER15> I disagree, microsoft tried to destroy linux by coercing companies to pay a bogus linux tax. Microsoft also footed the bill for SCO's case against Linux. MS' record is atrocious here.

Motorola Mobility sued apple in 2010. Just last month Motorola filed a motion to reopen their case against Apple.

Again, all of these companies are deeply involved in this game of patents.

<comment><USER13> > Motorola Mobility sued apple in 2010.

As far as I know Google acquired Motorola Mobility in 2011. So they had nothing to do with the original suit. As for last month's one, I don't know about the details.

> I disagree, microsoft tried to destroy linux

Where did I say Microsoft was clean ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Please, make it stop. Make it stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. STOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP. How many billions of dollars are these companies going to flush down the drain on legal fees that could be better spent doing just about anything else?

>When Wired visited Rockstar's Ontario headquarters, it found 10 reverse- engineering experts, working daily to take apart products and find patent infringement.

>With just a few dozen employees, Rockstar is hoping to convince more than 100 technology companies to pay it patent licensing fees for a huge array of products. "Pretty much anyone out there is infringing," said Rockstar's CEO, John Veschi.

Oh fuck these guys.

<comment><USER17> It's how America runs. Have you asked a doctor how much he pays for legal fees/malpractise insurance? It's the laywers who run this place

<comment><USER18> Malpractice insurance is probably way cheaper than you think: [http://truecostofhealthcare.org/malpractice](http://truecostofhealthcare.org/malpractice)

A few thousand a year. Its a common misconception that its expensive, or plays more than a tiny role in the cost of health care.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I thought it was impossible to be more of a douchebag than Intellectual Ventures, but apparently, there's a new winner in town. It was obvious when the Rockstar bid won and you looked at who made up the group, what was going to happen.

I used to get really angry and outraged when reading stories like this, but now I'm just resigned. Patent reform isn't going to happen and this kind of predatory and unethical abuse of the system by sharks and parasites will continue as the cost of doing business.

One can only hope for karmic retribution one day.

<comment><USER20> Hang on a sec, if the patents are found valid, and Google etc. are found infringing, then they have s/broken the law/failed make appropriate agreements so that they are then allowed by the owner of the monopoly defined by the claims to use the defined invention, and are now liable to a civil suite from the owner of said patents in order to exercise their exclusive right granted by the ownership of a letters patent/.

s/Breaking the law/Using patented inventnions/ is OK when you're Google, but an abomination if Apple/MS do it I guess? Obviously Google knew the value of the patents, and clearly knew the contents, and if it's found they continued to infringe them, then they're getting what's coming to them. If it were small companies without the resources to discover the patents they might be infringing it'd be a different matter, but this is absolutely not the case here.

Edit: law ain't broked, but Google et al potentially open to exclusion of the use of the inventions defined by the exclusive patent right.

<comment><USER21> You don't understand how patents work. Patents allow you to prevent someone else from selling a product that is covered by your patent. But to do so; you have to get a court order and show that the product in question is covered by the patent in question. It's not a question of whether the defendant is doing something illegal; it's a question of whether the rights the plaintiff asserts are valid. Of course, once the plaintiff has won an order; defying it is ... ill-considered.

<comment><USER20> Right you are, a small slip on my part. To clarify for anyone playing along, a granted patent doesn't make using the invention illegal, but it does mean the owner of the patent how the right to a)exclude you from using it if they so choose, and b) they may also seek reparations due to potentially lost income from someone making use of their invention. (as well as other stuff)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Somebody please show me a single patent on software or a so called business- process that is worth anything (i.e. not obvious to somebody skilled in the art).

Just one... I'll shut up then.

Patents were supposed to encourage innovation, now they are doing the opposite (at least for software and business processes) and causing billions of wasted dollars and fat bonuses for patent lawyers.

This move seems a bit desperate to me. To avoid fair competition on products, MSFT and Apple are using patents that they did not even invent. Pathetic and despicable.

<comment><USER23> Just one good non-obvious software patent?

US Pat #4,200,770 Diffie Hellman public key exchange

There are literally dozens, maybe hundreds of good software patents out of the 500,000 or so that have been issued.

We'd all be much better off without any software patents at all but it's not true that they are all fraudulent and abusive like the ones in these lawsuits. A small fraction are decent. Of course the innovations involved in those few patents would all have been discovered and published without patents as an incentive, because that's how software works.

<comment><USER24> Also, in the same sphere, RSA.

But the rationale for the patent system is to encourage innovation that wouldn't have happened without it, and it isn't clear that either of the public-key crypto patents qualifies. In each case, the inventors included academics (Hellman was on Stanford's faculty) whose job is to innovate and disclose their own innovations. (And while it's common these days for academics to patent and try to monetize at the same time, that wasn't always so. It was rarer, and sometimes controversial, in the 1970s.)

The RSA patent made R, S, and A very rich --- but it isn't clear what it did for the rest of us.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Haha, when you have to sue your competitors to stop them from totally crushing you in business, it's game over, you have already lost.

To be honest patents don't protect shit and their only value is in protecting oneself from pointless litigation by losers. The only way to protect your margins from attack by the competition is to have a naturally defensible product that derives it's value from the very nature of its use. Google search is naturally defensible. No one has their code (NDAs FTW!), and no one has the cash or the competence to build the computing infrastructure to serve that code. Microsoft Office/Windows was naturally defensible thanks to the network effects generated by third party applications on the platform, until the Internet/Linux destroyed that by being cheaper and faster. The iLine of products from Apple was naturally defensible for the same reasons as Windows, until Android ate their lunch, just like Windows ate Apple's lunch back in the 1980s. Apple also cried like a bunch of babies way back then and sued Microsoft for eating their lunch using GUI patents.

> _History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme._

\-- Mark Twain

If you're in the tech world you're mantra should be: innovate don't litigate.

Apple and Microsoft, you have just shown that you'd rather litigate than innovate.

Whenever that happens in the tech world that means that you are done.

</comment><comment><USER26> _" Pretty much anyone out there is infringing," said Rockstar's CEO, John Veschi._

Well, that's pretty damning. If it's true, then it indicates that the patents never should have issued in the first place. If the overwhelming majority of "Anyone out there" managed to independently re-invent these alleged "inventions" without reference to the patent, then that seems to point out that whatever inventive step may have been involved was obvious.

</comment><comment><USER27> Frank Shaw of Microsoft revealed that Google was invited to jointly bid Nortel's Patent Portfolio but declined.

[http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/03/microsoft-just-kicked- googl...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/03/microsoft-just-kicked-google-in- the-nuts/) [http://technologizer.com/2011/08/04/google-shows-how-not- to-...](http://technologizer.com/2011/08/04/google-shows-how-not-to-complain- about-the-patent-mess/)

Take everything with at least a boulder of salt before turning to an emotional being.

<comment><USER28> By invitation, was it "Join us in suing others, or we'll sue you?"

<comment><USER29> indeed. Sounds more like extorted than invited at first glance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The patent system has been out of hand for a while but the big corporations haven't complained too much about it because having huge patent portfolios themselves allowed them to build a virtual moat around their business units.

If things go nuclear and they start hemorrhaging even more legal fees, they may begin to exert more pressure to change the system.

Given some of the recent proposed legislation, hopefully the tide is turning against filing patent lawsuits as a business model.

<comment><USER30> I don't think any of the recent proposed legislation is intended to address a situation like this, where all the players are large companies with deep pockets.

<comment><USER29> Good point. Although this particular case highlights one of the key problems in the entire system. Shell corporations with very little assets are established as the suing entity in order to shield the much larger and wealthier owners from any counter-suit liability. If _that_ aspect of the current system were changed and you could pierce the shell corp to get at the real beneficiaries, it would alter the landscape for these cases significantly.

<comment><USER31> Will you please enlighten me on how these shell corporations are used? i thought they existed to avoid negative PR

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> What really sucks is how established multi-billion dollar companies are able to oppress smaller innovative ones from competing by simply using their cash war-chest to buy-up broad patent mine-fields around them. It especially sucks this is being done to stifle the momentum of one of the highest-growth markets the world has ever seen.

Patents were meant to protect the innovator, instead software patents are being used to legally harm competition they can't compete against technically - hurting everyone except the status-quo.

<comment><USER33> Small companies that have done something new aren't buried six feet under a lawsuit, they are bought out and become Google YouTube, or Google Maps, or Google Blogger.

Yes they may be forced to sell or sell for less to avoid patent lawsuits against them, but they sell for more than if they didn't have any patents themselves.

It isn't an idea situation, but patents still generate a ton of income for small inventors.

<comment><USER34> _It isn 't an idea situation, but patents still generate a ton of income for small inventors._

But is this income generated for a good reason or just because ..."patents"? Are these small companies getting paid because of the good work they've done or because they've managed to fake enough to get some patents useful in a war- chest of patents for a larger company down the road?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> _" Google bid for the patents, but didn't get them. Instead, they went to a group of competitors—Microsoft, Apple, RIM, Ericsson, and Sony—operating under the name "Rockstar Bidco.""_

I feel like with those initials, they could've operated as "REAMS" instead. From Wiktionary, ream: "(slang, vulgar) To sexually penetrate in a rough and painful way..."

</comment><comment><USER36> This article is very emotionally loaded. Containing a lot of phrases designed to evoke an emotional response: 'Nuclear', 'DEFCON 1', 'Attack', 'Shocking'.

It actually doesn't mention what Rockstar is suing Google for (i.e., whether it's monetary compensation, banning the sale of products, etc.) The article seems designed to get fans of these companies to react.

I think this will play out as a much more boring, lengthy, and anti-climactic fashion than this article implies.

<comment><USER20> But OH MY GOD it's APPLE and MICROSOFT, didn't you see that? It's literally the devil incorporate trying to DESTROY GOOGLE who have NEVER done anything wrong ever!!! How dare they use the law to their own advantage! and besides, APPLE have never invented anything at all and stole it all from Google even before Google released it!

<comment><USER37> You are making guilt relative. Stop that.

It's like saying. Person A murdered person B, but person B did something shady in the past (maybe murder, maybe he stole a dishwasher or maybe he was jaywalking), so it's all Ok for B to get murdered. He had it coming.

Patent racketing is always bad. I don't care who gets fucked over by patent racket, even if it was the Devil himself, the snake from Eden, he still needs a fair trial.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> As an engineer, I'm repulsed by the whole deal, to the point of feeling sick about it.

I'm going to get a lot of negative posts about hyperbole, but no, I legitimately get red in the face and get a headache whenever I think too hard about the patent wars. It is our fucking JOB to build things, to move technology forward, that is at least, my entire reason for being what I am.

so in my eyes at least; fuck the patent system; fuck the american built system for repressing innovation for "corporate protections." We all argue about whether it's a "better or worse" solution but at this point, when I spend 99% of my time hearing about the billions spent on suppressing innovation rather than supporting it, it makes me realize I want little to no part in the system that motivates this.

I will have no part of it. My code will be open. I will build things that I care about, and give them to the world, and hopefully work at a place that repays me for that (as I have found now.) Consider this my very ill-placed manifesto to in my own endeavors, support innovation, not the ill-gotten-gains of the future holder of my patents.

(I'm not sure if I put this here to get it out there; or for comments; or for thoughts; I think mostly I just feel that it needs to be said, although perhaps unnecessarily alongside an ocean of similar replies :P)

</comment><comment><USER39> Non-Americans watching this - make sure you organize however you can to stop the American disease spreading to your country. Watch your politicians carefully for any sign that they might want to implement their patent systems in your country. Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER40> 'One patent filed in 1997, for a "navigation tool for graphical user interface," describes a way of navigating through electronic documents. Another describes an "Internet protocol filter," and a third patent describes an "integrated message center."'

Well with earth-shaking innovative patents like that I hope they succeed.

I would never have thought of an integrated message center for anything.

<comment><USER29> ...a third patent describes an "integrated message center."

This is just comically ridiculous. The only benefit to Google being the target of this suit is that if it goes all the way, there is a chance that some of these might be invalidated because at least they have the cash reserves to stand and fight (if they choose to do so).

<comment><USER20> Have you read the patent?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Easy people, just don't buy Apple / M$ products! They are trying to stop innovation...

<comment><USER13> Yeah, that's the right thing to do. Punish the ones who use Patents to attack other companies.

<comment><USER27> So you'd punish Google too?

Edit: Cached version instead of the bloodsucking WSJ paywalled version. [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zoneG32...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zoneG32AVw0J:online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203806504577183433184318046+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari)

<comment><USER42> You realize that suit was from before the two companies merged.

<comment><USER27> The suit was filed after google struck the deal to buy Motorola, but not officially finalized.

Google announced Motorola Mobility acquisition in 2011. The suit was filed in 2012.

<comment><USER43> I believe they were still seeking regulatory approval of the acquisition when the lawsuit was filed. Either way, Apple sued Motorola first in 2011.

<comment><USER27> Any quotes on that?

Apple sued Motorola (2012) [http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-sues- motorola-over-...](http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-sues-motorola- over-qualcomm-license-makes-us-dream-of-a-w/)

Motorola Sued Apple (2011) [http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/12/motorola- wins-injunctio...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/12/motorola-wins- injunction-against-apple-could-spell-trouble-for-eu-sales/)

<comment><USER43> [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20090552-17/apple-sues- mot...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20090552-17/apple-sues-motorola- over-xoom-design-report-says/)

<comment><USER27> Apparently you didn't get the timeline correctly. Motorola sued Apple over some FRAND SEP back in 2010. The judgement came down in 2011 in favor of Motorola. [http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/06/motorola-suing-apple- for-...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/06/motorola-suing-apple-for-patent- infringement/)

In addition to that, you're quoting Don Reisinger?

<comment><USER43> Either way, the quarrels between Apple and Motorola started far before Google bought them.

I don't even know who Don Reisinger is. I googled it and linked the first result.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Like many have said already; how do you vote with a wallet when there is not so much choice. I need a new laptop; my macbook, after many (by apple and by myself) repairs, is falling apart. It's fast enough, but just broken. So I was going to get the 13 inch retina, but now I'm rethinking my position. But what is the alternative... I haven't seen much yet. I want long battery life, i7 4th gen, 13 inch and at least retina resolution. So Pixel, Ativ 9 pro, Yoga 2 pro, ... ? But I also don't want Windows; I don't want to pay for it. Problem... I know the thinkpad t440s has long battery life, i7 4th gen, linux can be installed(still pay for windows), but the resolution (& GPU) are simply too depressing.

The tablet + phone. Firefox phone; I'll get one of those. Tablet? Are there any which you can buy _now_?

I really would just like to see Ubuntu on everything; tablet, phone and laptop, but I guess that's not really an option. I say Ubuntu because it's the most obvious; when Ubuntu is on there I know I can replace it with another Linux and I can customize it at least.

Like someone said; we cry here, but we all buy macbooks anyway. While a lot of us have the power to actually change things. If 100.000 people ask Lenovo for a Linux laptop, it'll probably come. Besides MS pressure (which is probably 100% of the reason) I wouldn't see why they wouldn't all offer the choice. It's just not popular enough; check any video on any startup site on HN: everyone has macbooks.

</comment><comment><USER45> This is nothing less than an attack on technology, innovation and engineering. They could try to compete by building better products and matching the level of openness of their competitor but they'd rather keep their platform closed so they can gouge their customers and use lawyers against anybody that doesn't.

We live in a world where inventors can't build anything that get's them noticed by large established competitors without risking frivolous patent lawsuits on obvious concepts.

</comment><comment><USER46> In a just world Apple and Microsoft lose out on enough idealistic brilliant engineers over this that over time they decline and die.

</comment><comment><USER47> My Apple fanboy friends always try to argue how Apple's hardware and software are superior, as if that'll convince me that I should buy Apple gear.

I keep explaining the same thing: I know Apple makes the best stuff. I don't avoid Apple because of quality considerations. I avoid Apple because they're _screwing up the industry_ , an industry I use for both my career and my hobbies.

</comment><comment><USER48> Looks like Rockstar will be this generation's SCO. It's almost exactly the same tactic as last time, except now Microsoft isn't even bothering to hide its role.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_controversies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_controversies)

</comment><comment><USER49> At the risk of downvotes & personal dissonance (I love Android and Google search), I'd like to posit an alternate filter to apply to this news.

Given (a) Google's inexorable rise and domination of more and more parts of the Internet & mobile [0], and (b) the unwillingness or inability of regulators around the world to apply any kind of checks to its scary clout, could this - Rockstar - be a kind of defensive mechanism from the industry itself?

I'm not saying that Apple, Microsoft, RIM etc. are suing Google out of a greater sense of responsibility towards consumer choice, but can we not - <USER2> external observers - view their action as a countermeasure to one competitor's overwhelming clout?

[0] [http://blog.launch.co/blog/googlewinseverything- part-1.html](http://blog.launch.co/blog/googlewinseverything-part-1.html)

</comment><comment><USER50> This is a survival tactic for the consortium. If you look at the bunch - <USER3> of them have hardware businesses with margins that are getting continuously eroded by Google's "free by ads and cheap manufacturing" model. If they don't make it expensive for Google to erode mobile margins, they won't last long in that market. The 0.01 Billion in bidding difference they got the patents with is quite suspicious too.

The real pickle stems from all of the money feeding the patent trolling business. That industry needs to die a quick death, and instead it is getting fed by the buckets. Who knows where it will spill to next (killing fledgeling hardware/internet of things firms?).

</comment><comment><USER51> Wow, what a dog move. The fact they're using Google's attempt to bid for the patents originally against them is even worse. If this isn't justification for serious patent reform, I don't know what is. The fact the consortium that owns the patents is comprised of Google's main competitors in many spaces should immediately ring alarm bells for any judge. This move surely must be anti- competitive, I hope Google fights this all of the way to the top (they've got enough cash).

<comment><USER52> > The fact they're using Google's attempt to bid for the patents originally > against them is even worse

That's just lawyering 101...it's a very common thing to do to try and add "weight" to your arguments is to say the opposition was aware of the "value"

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> The patent system probably added more value 200 years ago when the dissemination of knowledge was not nearly as easy or cheap as it is today. The reason for this, of course, is technology.

Looking at this situation from a very meta- perspective, I find it fascinating that what's effectively happening is that the patent system is seeking to undermine the very technological forces that have made it less relevant. Almost like watching two different species compete against each other in nature.

</comment><comment><USER54> > "Pretty much anyone out there is infringing," said Rockstar's CEO, John > Veschi.

And that's the single best reason provided to end software patents once and for all.

When everyone is "infringing" without even knowing it, without reading the patent or without trying to copy someone else's work, you should stop, take a step back, think about things, and realize the entire system is fundamentally broken.

Or if you have no soul, file a lawsuit and hope to make lots of free monies.

</comment><comment><USER55> Are technology companies eventually going to become like cell phone companies (or oil companies) where everyone sort of agrees that they all suck, but "oh well, what are you going to do", or will some company become the de-facto "conscientious choice"?

I feel like there's at least a bunch of "companies" on the software side of the equation who I don't feel shitty about supporting, but I think the problem will be with hardware.

</comment><comment><USER56> I wonder... If Google were to pony up the cash to buy RIM, wouldn't this lawsuit go away?

<comment><USER29> I would think this will definitely increase Google's interest in RIM and its patent arsenal.

<comment><USER57> RIM is a co-owner of Rockstar.

<comment><USER29> Ha. Didn't catch that! I wonder what percentage. Google could get some percentage of any potential judgement against themselves by buying RIM. It's like the M&A version of an option spread play.

<comment><USER58> I suspect all parties to the Rockstar trove have equal rights to the patents (and unequal royalties). Buying RIM would make the lawsuit null and void, unless RIM agreed that their rights can't be assigned (eg to Google) upon purchase etc.

Anyone have more knowledge on Rockstar and know how this would all work?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Allow me to inject some perspective.

1) For all the talk of Microsoft and Apple "abusing patents", it was actually _Google_ that had to pay 14 million in damages for actually doing just that. Let's just not forget that before deciding who should be "alienating the tech community". However, Google's PR really is very good, and unfortunately, most people here accept it without critical thought because it confirms their biases.

2) This is business, and business is war. Giving away Android for free was a direct attack on Microsoft's and Apple's business model. They are simply responding in kind. Most people here root for Google simply because they give away tons of really cool stuff for free, and/or because they seem to be "more aligned" with free/open source, which appears to be the dominant religion 'round these parts. However, people elsewhere would see this as perfectly natural.

3) Google is very weak on the patent front, and they know it. So while they hustle to buy up patents from all sorts of sources, they simultaneously try to spin the patent system as "broken" and their own moves as "defensive" in an attempt to reduce their disadvantage in the long term. It may seem counter- intuitive: why simultaneously buy patents and work to weaken their value? Because buying patents is just a short term defensive move. In the long term, Google would be perfectly happy to not have a patent system at all because all their competitive advantage is locked away in their data centers. This is a luxury Apple and Microsoft do not have. They put out products that anyone anywhere can copy, so they would prefer having a patent system.

4) As mentioned below, Google had an option of joining the consortium, but decided to go it alone. Drummond's blog post says it would not have helped Android, but that is very shallow reasoning. They could have always joined in and negotiated the rights to indemnify Android vendors in exchange for contributing a lot more towards the winning bid. Maybe the consortium would not have agreed to it -- we'll never know, because Google peremptorily declined to join in. But I have no idea why they though they could outbid a consortium of multiple giants in the space.

5) As mentioned in TFA, there is some truth to the argument that Rockstar is actually independent of Microsoft and Apple. I know of patent trolls that have funding from e.g. hedge funds, but operate entirely independently. Heck, IV is a perfectly good example. They have funding from Google themselves, and yet they turned around and sued Motorola!

Now, allow me to address your theory: You posit that this may invoke the ire of the "tech community" and this would be a disadvantage to Apple and Microsoft. Some questionable assumptions:

1) The tech community in general has a similar world view as the HN (or is it SV?) bubble. Trust me on this, HN is an enormous echo chamber. If you ask software engineers outside this bubble -- which is, you know, most of the world -- about patents, you'll get three responses:

a) "What's a patent?" (No, really.)

b) "I don't mind patents."

c) "Having a patent as an achievement!"

2) The tech community, even if it does by some remote chance share your world view, _won 't care_. This is business as usual, and has historically always been so.

Now you may move the goal posts and say that by "tech community" you mean "the good ones", the "hackers". Again, I'm not so sure. Consider the NSA revelations: All the comments on HN are rife with outrage. Yet would you believe, even for a minute, that the NSA does not have the best of the best?

Edit: I really do not wish to come across as supporting one company over another, and hope to maintain a neutral tone. I think all the companies involved are perfectly good companies to work for, and perfectly justified in what they're doing. I'm just trying to present a perspective that is somewhat lacking in most comments so far.

<comment><USER60> [ Giving away Android for free was a direct attack on Microsoft's and Apple's business model. They are simply responding in kind.]

So Google Entered a new Market with good product and different business model, MSFT and AAPL responded with litigation. Thanks for making it obvious.

<comment><USER59> No. Apple created a new Market at great risk and expense, and Google entered a it with a rip-off product. On the other hand Microsoft sacrificed three years to create an original product to compete fairly. But since Google didn't incur the risk and costs of creating said market and designing an original product, Google (supported by its search monopoly profits) could undercut them by dumping on to the market Android for free. And so Apple and Microsoft responded by suing for trampling on their intellectual property rights.

But wait, there's more! It doesn't end at Apple and Microsoft! Google also ripped off _Sun_ by co-opting, without license, the Java dev environment (that cost Sun millions of dev dollars) and more importantly, the Java _work force_ (that cost Sun billions of _marketing_ dollars), just so they could get more people to make apps for their mobile OS. Guess what! Sun/Oracle sued them too!

Wow, if all these companies are suing Google for ripping them off (and considering multiple patent-related injunctions issued against Android vendors), it must mean Google _has_ been ripping them off!

See? I can spin facts to support arbitrary biases as well.

Now, let's drop the incendiary language that most posters here stoop to. Here's the (overly simplified) reality: Google took for free what they thought they could get legally away with (and their gambles have so far paid off), and their competitors responded by trying to restrict them by using other legal counter-measures. Each side is doing exactly what they can get away with legally. People just happen to side with Google because their actions agree with their personal biases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> You have to wonder what Microsoft's goal is here, given that some estimates have them earning over $3B/yr in licensing fees on Android sales.

<comment><USER61> Locking people into their mobile ecosystem is probably worth way more then that in the long term. That's what these companies are all about, after all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What I don't understand is why in the world are companies allowed to buy patents in the first place? At the very least, patents should NOT be transferable.

How is it acceptable for companies with big pockets to simply buy 6,000 patents and then sue the shit out of whomever they don't like?

I mean, to some degree, I accept that patents in the health-care industry are helping, because research labs spend years and enormous amount of money on research, with results that can be easily copied. And so they need the first mover advantage in bringing the product they researched on the market. It's not perfect, but at least it has _some_ economical and moral ground.

But how in the world is it acceptable for patents to be transferred, like they are assets? If you weren't the one doing the research, then you shouldn't be the one that benefits from a government-granted monopoly, no matter how much money you have.

<comment><USER62> Know nothing about this. But say they couldn't be transferred. Then you could have moribund companies holding a patent and doing nothing with it thus stopping other people from doing something that would benefit the world. But given that they can be transferred, there is a market, so a moribund company has an incentive to pass the patent on, and the patented thing gets realized, by someone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> I'm happy for patent war to go nuclear. It desperately needs reform and neutering; and if lawsuits like these can motivate some big-tech companies like, say, Google to start lobbying seriously for patent reform then this exactly what the world needs.

And by lobbying seriously I don't mean a couple of million that were spent on some other activities - if such companies are eager to spend amount such as 4 billion or 12 billion on purchases that include zero benefit to their products&customers, but simply as patent war ammunition&defense; then I'd expect that they can easily spend hundreds of millions in campaign contributions to extuinguish the patent war as such.

We don't need bigcorps accumulating frivolous patents to ensure mutually assured destruction - it doesn't work that well as a deterrant, and it is used against smaller corporations. We need disarmament.

</comment><comment><USER64> Newegg can help...contact our legal counsel... don't feed patent trolls...[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/how-newegg- crushe...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/how-newegg-crushed-the- shopping-cart-patent-and-saved-online-retail/)

</comment><comment><USER65> It would be naïve to think they wouldn't do this. Google would do it if they were in the same position. This is mostly a problem with the law, the fact that such a thing is possible is a problem.

Also, pretty much all these companies were invited to join Rockstar to buy the patents, including Google: [http://www.techradar.com/..](http://www.techradar.com/..). . Except Google decided that they wanted it all for themselves and went against the group, in the end they lost. The only reason to hold these patents are to basically sue other companies, the fact that Google bid against the group over and over again implies that if Google had gotten these patents they would have done exactly the same. So lets not pretend Google is a victim.

</comment><comment><USER66> > a "navigation tool for graphical user interface," describes a way of > navigating through electronic documents. Another describes an "Internet > protocol filter," and a third patent describes an "integrated message > center."

Sigh. Where are my anti-depressants.

</comment><comment><USER67> There is something mildly sickening and darkly amusing that Microsoft and Apple apparently learned enough losing over half a billion dollars in patent lawsuits filed by McKool Smith, to then hire them when they were ready to go after their competitors with patent suits.

</comment><comment><USER68> I have, perhaps, some degree of sympathy for compensating people whose significant work is subsequently, directly used.

I'm about done with, "You can't do it because I did it first."

The world wants to move forward. Your outsized self-interest, simply doesn't interest me.

</comment><comment><USER69> I would think that 4.4 billion could effectively fund congressional campaigns in a number of key districts.. which may be more effective use of said funds for Google at this point. If I were Google, I'd be funding an all out war on technology patents.

</comment><comment><USER70> Easy people, don't waste your emotional energy. Microsoft has been collecting Android licensing fee for years now. Apple has the objective to kill Androids. And you think Google don't use patent to sue? These companies are all evils.

<comment><USER71> I believe Google has only used patents defensively. At least that's what I've heard their official position is, and I haven't heard anyone call them out for violating it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> If the Obama DOJ has any guts, they'll break out the collusion section of anti-trust law and make some new anti-trust case law regarding multi-company patent offensives and the potential to cause harm to consumers.

</comment><comment><USER72> It is simple Microsoft and Apple are trying to get their paid 4.5Billion dollars from Google. It is a strategic mistake from Google side deciding not to be part of that team to buy the patents from Nortel.

<comment><USER37> Right. Right. Because Google suing their OEMs as part of "Rockstar" group is sooo much better. Really helps building the trust of Android.

MSFT/AAPL and the rest made a strategic decision to win those patents and destroy Android. They gave Google a choice:

A) Don't take patent - get opened for lawsuits

B) Take patent - lose trust because we are going to sue the shit out of Android OEMs

C) Buy all patent for an overinflated price

I just hope Google gets a team and invalidates all those patents, but I fear large patent price tag came for a reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> > "Pretty much anyone out there is infringing," said Rockstar's CEO, John > Veschi.

If "pretty much anyone out there" is breaking a law, that tells us there's something wrong with the law.

</comment><comment><USER74> As someone wrote a century ago - "Monopoly, it inevitably engenders a tendency of stagnation and decay...the motive cause of technical and, consequently, of all other progress disappears to a certain extent and, further, the economic possibility arises of deliberately retarding technical progress. For instance, in America, a certain Owens invented a machine which revolutionised the manufacture of bottles. The German bottle-manufacturing cartel purchased Owens's patent, but pigeon-holed it, refrained from utilising it."

</comment><comment><USER75> At least the US and USSR realized what Mutually Assured Destruction actually meant. It seems these big companies don't quite understand, and it's going to be pretty sad when they find out.

<comment><USER76> There is no mutually assured destruction here. Google is helpless.

<comment><USER58> $56 billion in cash. They're anything but helpless.

A $6 billion bid for RIM would solve the problem.

They also have Motorola's massive patent hoard, with thousands of patents available to assault both Microsoft and Apple. So far Google has mostly played nice on patents.

<comment><USER76> $145B for Apple

$50B for MS

Google's outgunned - but you're right, not helpless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> I'm going to hold judgement until I understand the size of licensing fees being requested (and if there is a separate FRAND rate for any Standards Essential Patents).

Google bid $4.4Bn for this portfolio so they must have see value and/or danger in these patents. I disagree with the article's statement that "Google has plenty of patents" as this doesn't seem to the case in the current battles with Apple and Microsoft. The Motorola purchase doesn't seem to have helped much in this area either.

</comment><comment><USER78> It will be interesting to see how this goes now that it is (essentially) an all-American battle. The Samsung / Apple suit was always complicated by suspicions about the jury, partly (but not only) because it seemed impossible for a US jury to take an unbiased view of a trial between such an emblematic American company and a foreign corporation. This one will be a much different contest and perhaps we have a better chance of seeing a real examination of the underlying patent issues occur.

</comment><comment><USER79> > "Pretty much anyone out there is infringing," said Rockstar's CEO, John > Veschi.

In other words, the law is totally useless and needs to be modified if not totally revoked ASAP.

</comment><comment><USER80> The problem is not if Google or Apple, Microsoft & Co. are good or evil. This patent war is evil, very evil. Because it could prevent companies like Jolla, Canonical or Mozilla to release their smart phone OS world wide.

Especially small companies won't have a chance in a patent battle against a Apple, Microsoft or Google proxy.

That is the biggest problem, and the solution has to be political, it won't be reached in the courts or on the market but in parliament.

</comment><comment><USER81> This is the disaster started by Google themselves. Also a reward for betraying friendly partner - especially who is not likely can take Google's business, and even attacking them using new partner.

Now Google's mates are only Samsung and telecoms which seems really not helpful on these kind of lawsuit or Google's image.

See now what's happening. Apple-Microsoft alliance against Google, Samsung and telecoms…? Am I alone feeling former team looks nicer?

</comment><comment><USER82> At my last job, 15 years ago, I was granted four patents. I also got a fancy engraved plaque for each one. I've since moved, and those plaques sit in unpacked boxes. My wife has occasionally pressed me to hang then up like I used to, when we both saw them as a point of pride. I have trouble explaining to her why they're an embarrassment to me now, and that I'm not showing them off.

I'll be happy when I see they've expired.

<comment><USER83> If you're aware of anyone being strong-armed with your patents you could make amends with your conscience by offering to consult with them to help them workaround or invalidate them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> Great article!

Just as a side note: Because English is not my mother tongue I have problems to understand what the title actually wants to say, though. To me it sounds like Apple owns Microsoft, and Microsoft is Apple's "rockstar" because it sues Google. So I wonder if some mother tongue speakers could verify that the title is actually understandable to them and explain what the title wants to say. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER85> \- They are just accruing debt with their actions

\- Their time will come and when it does it will be painful.

\- Any system that's inherently corrupt is bound to collapse.

<comment><USER86> > Any system that's inherently corrupt is bound to collapse.

I don't really believe this, but it'd make me very happy if you could prove me wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> I wonder how hard Canonical will get hit eventually if Ubunut Phone ever comes close to being viable.

But most importantly: lol software patents.

The twisted part in me hopes every single startup will get sued for all the amazing one-click patents and whatnot that they infringe upon as soon as they secure their first round of financing at some point. Maybe then something will change but I doubt it.

</comment><comment><USER88> I am shocked that Google's "ads in search" business was patented before Google was founded, and no one ever asserted this patent. Bill Gross' overture said they never patented it.

Imagine for a second that Google will have to turn over a portion of the ads revenue from the past 10 years? It makes up 97% of their revenue...

</comment><comment><USER89> If your patents are obvious enough that 'everybody is infringing', your patent should not have been issued.

</comment><comment><USER90> Android has really been a source of innovation over the past few years. I would hate to see things take a step back. I recall a couple years ago, when Google had to remove the integrated search feature from Android -- that searched both local and online -- due to some IP infringement.

</comment><comment><USER91> It looks to me that it is really a wrong system when you can buy patents only to sue someone in the future. And it rarely benefits people who create stuff If you could buy patents only to use them (but the ownership of a patent would not be transferable) there would be no patent trolls

</comment><comment><USER92> I think the ultimate outcome of this type of patent war is either: a) Re- examining the whole patent system to prevent this sort of attack b) Companies will have to re-locate to China or another country where US patents do not apply

It's totally ridiculous to be sued for offering free software.

</comment><comment><USER93> These patents are just "adverts, but on the internet" right? Exactly the sort of stuff that shouldn't have been granted a Patent in the first place.

I hope google has the guts to use the "invalid patent" argument in court and rule this sort of nonsense invalid in future.

</comment><comment><USER94> Maybe the problem with patents is that they are transferrable property. What if patents were seen more as a license from the government to an inventor for a period of exclusivity? That would prevent the worst of this sort of stockpiling and weaponization.

</comment><comment><USER95> I really wish they'd just nullify any patent granted that involves "doing something commonplace _ON THE INTERNET!!!_ ", as if adding a tcp/ip connection is something truly inventive or novel. Christ, this is getting out of hand.

</comment><comment><USER96> "The Rockstar consortium is an organization backed by Apple, Microsoft, BlackBerry, Ericsson and Sony."

Out of all these companies RIM (BlackBerry) is the only one up for "sale".

How long until Google tries to buy itself a backdoor into the alliance?

I give them a couple of months.

</comment><comment><USER97> If patents are granted to drive innovation, how is Rockstar encouraging that in this case?

</comment><comment><USER98> We are all building software on the shoulders of giants but like to claim major pieces of glory once we grow into corporations. Remove a certain piece and like jenga it all falls down.

Some pieces protected by patents. Others patentable but never claimed.

</comment><comment><USER99> How does one keep up with new comments in a thread like this, wheres the sort by date?

</comment><comment><USER100> Google should sue them for racket or find some other way to smash these trolls down.

<comment><USER101> > racket

That's an interesting choice of word!

</comment></comment><comment><USER102> It this not business as usual? Not saying it is "right," but not saying that it is out of the norm. It seems to be an issue now that people(consumers, nerds, etc.) have emotional connections to these companies

</comment><comment><USER103> ??? They spent 4.5 billion on patents rather than invest in their own products. For all they know the patent system can completely change in the next 5 years, outlawing the kind of crap they're pulling right now.

</comment><comment><USER104> It seems to be these declining, nonreactive old-timers that seem to stay in authority by handing out court cases over arbitrary points.

They're not protecting 'their material', they're stiffing innovation.

</comment><comment><USER105> Anybody else seeing Google suing Microsoft and Apple directly in the future or is it just me?

This is battle stations and given Google doesn't use shell companies they either make one or declare all out war.

</comment><comment><USER106> I don't know why Google doesn't just license these patents, it's pretty critical to their business. They obviously thought so when they were bidding billions of dollars for them.

</comment><comment><USER107> Just keep overpaying for "pretty" hardware and a mediocre development environment and see where it gets us folks. Apple is just as bad as M$ ever was, they just have more style.

</comment><comment><USER108> I hope that they manage to ban the import and sale of ALL Android phones, iPhones, and Windows phones simultaneously.

I'm not sure what else might actually motivate Congress to change the law.

</comment><comment><USER109> Sony, Microsoft, Ericsson, Apple and RIM. So basically, SMEAR.

</comment><comment><USER110> I think software patents sucks! Software patents is a way for big corporations to keep smaller agile competitors off their turf creating monopolies & oligopolies.

</comment><comment><USER111> The real villains aren't the companies involved in battles of fisticuffs, they are the corrupt or incompetent politicians who fail to abolish software patents.

</comment><comment><USER112> It's such a sad sight to see companies pour billions into damaging each other (and themselves) rather than innovating and creating new things.

</comment><comment><USER113> It's quite easy, in the days, it was Apple vs the rest, and Apple got popular (Mac vs PC, ...)

Now, its Google versus the rest, we'll see how this goes :)

</comment><comment><USER114> So is it finally less expensive for Google to pay a lobbyist firm (hell, pay ALL the lobbyist firms) to significantly overhaul the patent law?

</comment><comment><USER115> "Pretty much anyone out there is infringing," said Rockstar's CEO, John Veschi.

Isn't that the definition of a broken system of selection?

</comment><comment><USER116> We need to treat the cause and not the symptom. Because really, if Google won this suit, they would most likely be trying the same tactics.

</comment><comment><USER117> I am surprise. There seems to be a lot of Google haters here. Tell me, would you be happier in a world without Google and Android?

</comment><comment><USER54> OK. So does this once and for all end the debate about Apple being a proper patent-troll, or do they need to buy a bridge first?

</comment><comment><USER118> I'm extremely surprised no one's mentioned the timing of the whole thing -- right before the Innovation Act.

</comment><comment><USER119> Well, perhaps in the spirit of knowledge sharing and to set an example Google could share their full search algorithm?

</comment><comment><USER120> It would be interesting to see what would happen if Microsoft/Apple moved beyond Google to target IBM.

</comment><comment><USER121> Microsoft and Apple are assholes.

</comment><comment><USER122> This is a chance for Obama to do the right thing to boost innovation and economy.

</comment><comment><USER123> The key word in the title is nuclear - a war that no one can win

</comment><comment><USER124> This should make HP's WebOS patent sale more competitive.

</comment><comment><USER119> Well, it is lawful - just like Google's tax evasion.

<comment><USER125> minor point: evasion is not legal, avoidance is legal. So, Google does tax avoidance, not tax evasion.

And Google has lawyers and accountants telling them that what they're doing is legal, but if the UK tax authorities disagree it goes to a court. So it's possible that what Google is doing isn't legal, because it hasn't been tested in court.

<comment><USER119> Thank you for clarifying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER126> Despicable. At least this is good news for patent reform.

</comment><comment><USER127> Oh you americans and your silly patents

</comment><comment><USER76> Disgusting.

</comment><comment><USER128> For me this feels like it's the famed "Thermonuclear option" Steve Jobs alluded to: two of the biggest tech giants and their ilk conspiring to KO a competitor in one of the most cowardly ways possible. As one shouldn't make the assumption that Rockstar is looking to compete, Rockstar is looking to defeat. This all feels like instead of studying harder you pay off the schoolyard bully to go beat up that kid you don't like because he gets better grades than you do.

Rockstar is not just a patent troll, it's the Patent Troll King. It's much larger, and has vastly more financial backing, most notably from Apple and Microsoft. It's nearly invincible (as it can't be counter-sued). Plus the case is filed in Eastern Texas, known to side with patent holders. Both companies have much cash in their coffers, and both are feeling the heat from Android. For Apple, the high-end Android devices eat into their margins. While Apple still is very profitable, Android's break-neck pace forces them to come up with their own new features or risk looking dated, coupled with Android's often better-specced phones that are cheaper than the iPhone. Although brand loyalty is shielding Apple from large shifts, it can't afford to sit still. Microsoft on the other hand, is playing catch-up in Mobile after missing the boat miserably, and while the focus should be on making their own products better, they largely seem to have been industrious in harassing Android hardware manufacturers, plus employing some questionable PR-tactics to smear its competition. They'd both be relieved to see Android wither and die.

The tactic at the heart of the battle against Android seems to be the following: increasing Android Total Cost of Ownership by drowning it in patent licenses. This in an attempt to make it toxic to any OEM or potential Android partner (as they have to pay license fees, or could be sued to oblivion if they refuse), all in a bid to make Android less attractive (vis-a-vis e.g. Windows). I don't know the might of Android/Google, nor how much strength it'll need to face off against the now teamed arsenals of both Apple and Microsoft. If Rockstar can string Android up with enough patent licenses, OEMs will bail, developers will leave and Android revenues will dry up. It'll make a Windows license look cheap and safe in comparision. Then Microsoft can return to pointing and laughing at the open-source community, sit back and let their software rot once more as they just eliminated their direct competition. They'll have some air fist-fights with Apple to seemingly 'compete'.

What more is Rockstar than a hired gun they can sic on any software outfit that might prove competitive? What if Microsoft feels that Valve's SteamBox is getting a little too much traction for their comfort, why wouldn't they just send their bully after them? What if Ubuntu can cling on to some larger marketshare when it can smoothly switch between phone and desktop software? Why shouldn't Microsoft try and hobble innovative efforts by letting Rockstar make the developers' lives a living hell? It's more than sickening that some Microsoft/Apple fans are already reacting all indignant and holier-than-thou now that their patent lackey has a Nortel patent on search, as if Google stole web-search from them all along, and they only just noticed it.

What can counter Rockstar? At what point is this hulking giant too big for the market it's trying to disrupt? What stops this beast from going after any open source project that proves slightly popular? How can a developer rest easy at night, knowing that any day a Rockstar lawyer might be knocking on his/her door, and that financial ruin lies ahead? Whether by lawyer fees after a Pyrrhic victory or after being shut down because he/she was found to infringe on something so very basic a child of five years old could have figured it out? John Vesci himself said that 'Pretty much anybody out there is infringing', meaning that any company name that gets in their sights, they can take apart.

Is that furthering the sciences? Is that what passes for innovation nowadays? As a developer, this makes me sick to my stomach. But the system allows it, and there's been too much financial profitability to get this genie back in the bottle, so the odds of reform happening before this warhead hits are slim. Even if it were to happen, it'll be thoroughly undressed and defanged before being applied to any case worth its salt.

</comment><comment><USER129> #IgnoreLaughFightWin, we are now at the fight stage for Android and you know what comes next

</comment><comment><USER130> I'm busy reading "The Masters of Doom". Here is a little snippet all about patents with one of the world's best developers of all time, John Carmack. "Carmack turned red. "If you ever ask me to patent anything," he snapped, "I'll quit." Al assumed Carmack was trying to protect his own financial interests, but in reality he had struck what was an increasingly raw nerve for the young, idealistic programmer. It was one of the few things that could truly make him angry. It was ingrained in his bones since his first reading of the Hacker Ethic."

As a developer there is nothing more destructive than to be be told you can't do that... it is similar to what I did.

Could you imagine what would happen if someone put a patient on breathing?

</comment><comment><USER131> i know this will get downvoted, and i've avoided doing this until now, but it's just too appropriate here

[http://images.wikia.com/random- ness/images/3/34/Michael_Jack...](http://images.wikia.com/random- ness/images/3/34/Michael_Jackson_popcorn.gif)

<comment><USER132> If you _must_ post a gif, you could at least add to the conversation first.

And no, predicting your karma decrease doesn't count.</comment></comment>