No, Google cannot stop this. The only thing that can stop this is if Google, Apple, and Samsung all agree to stop doing it at the same time. Even then, the trolls will continue to decimate independent developers and occasionally catch a big fish for hundreds of millions of dollars until the patent system is reformed to exclude obvious and previously invented items.
So far, Google and Samsung seem to be willing to talk about ending the mutual destruction and Apple is recalcitrant. When Apple is ready to talk, maybe things can improve.
> Google and Samsung seem to be willing to talk about ending the mutual destruction
In the past they seemed eager to talk rather than dispute because they had no weapons to defend themselves. Now that Google has acquired Motorola, they have the patents to go after anybody they want and that's exactly what they are doing.
> Now that Google has acquired Motorola, they have the patents to go after anybody they want and that's exactly what they are doing.
Let's be clear: They've sued Apple, the one person who's been unwilling to cross-license their patents. They aren't suing Microsoft. They aren't suing Oracle. They aren't suing anyone else at this point.
Apple, on the other hand, has been suing every Android manufacturer under the sun with the full intention of destroying Android.
Is there any evidence to suggest that Google is unwilling to end this silliness, or are you just conjecturing based on their willingness to strike back while Apple remains unwilling?
Let's be even more clear: there isn't a genuine equivalence between Apple suing Samsung and Samsung suing Apple. Even Google's lawyers told Samsung to change their designs.
The false equivalence that you and many other people continually try to draw in this thread and every other one like it has poisoned the well.
Nokia sues Apple over something? No big deal.
Apple sues Samsung over obvious copycat products? End of world.
Apple writes $10 bln check to Nokia without much fuss? Serves em right!
Samsung might owe Apple a couple billion? End of world.
There's a reason Apple sued Android first. and the consistent meme here that it's because Apple is the big bad is, frankly, total bullshit. Google et al. made conscious decisions to copy Apple's products.
Now maybe Apple also made a conscious decision to steal Motorola's tech. Maybe Apple's innovations are bullshit, obvious, non-new. OTOH maybe it isn't and maybe Motorola's is. In that case why should Apple cross license it's actual innovations to someone who wants to knock off their products? In that case, Fuck Samsung and Googlerola -- they can write checks just like Apple did to Nokia. Hardly the end of the world.
> Let's be even more clear: there isn't a genuine equivalence between Apple suing Samsung and Samsung suing Apple.
Point me to where I said anything about this case other than "Apple, on the other hand, has been suing every Android manufacturer under the sun with the full intention of destroying Android.", which I think is nearly inarguable at this point.
> Even Google's lawyers told Samsung to change their designs.
While Google did tell Samsung to change their design, I have no reason to believe that it was their lawyers (and thus had any legal weight, which is what "Google's lawyers" implies).
> The false equivalence that you and many other people continually try to draw in this thread and every other one like it has poisoned the well.
While I'm glad you've studied your rhetorical devices, can you explain what false equivalence I'm drawing? If it's Samsung v. Apple and Apple v. Samsung, see above. I didn't say anything about these cases, particularly about Samsung suing Apple.
I'll also note your response didn't contain any evidence of Google being unwilling to end this (or of Apple being willing to, but I didn't ask for that).
> Nokia sues Apple over something? No big deal.
Didn't mention this, please don't put others opinions in my mouth.
> Apple sues Samsung over obvious copycat products? End of world.
Didn't specifically mention this case anywhere.
> Apple writes $10 bln check to Nokia without much fuss? Serves em right!
Didn't mention this, at all. Anywhere.
> Samsung might owe Apple a couple billion? End of world.
Didn't mention this.
Please don't paint me with the brush of others. I make the comments in the context of my opinions, not others.
> Google et al. made conscious decisions to copy Apple's products.
Then why hasn't Apple sued Google directly? It's their software, yet Apple only goes after manufacturers.
> In that case, Fuck Samsung and Googlerola -- they can write checks just like Apple did to Nokia. Hardly the end of the world.
Again, show me that Apple has approached Google about licensing it's patents, or is even open to it. They aren't looking for a check, they're looking for the eradication of the platform. I'm going to ignore Samsung -- I'm not talking about them here, only you are.
"Don't be evil" does mean that you should't abuse FRAND obligations.
Hence why Google is being investigated for anti-competitive behaviour by ITC/EU. Given the important of FRAND in the standards process this is very much being evil.
I can no longer respond to the people replying to me, so I'm putting this here.
Motorola, not Google, sued Apple and Microsoft over FRAND patents in April of 2011. It wasn't until August 2011 that Google even announced their intent to acquire Motorola Mobility, and it took until May 22nd, 2012 for the deal to actually close.
If you were referring to a different FRAND case, I apologize, this is the only one I'm aware of.
You are contradicting yourself. Whatever you say makes no sense - First you claim Google abused FRAND patents, and when your claim was proved invalid, you make a fool of yourself? Nice strategy. Lulz.
Don't be evil means use your patents as a defense not to sue others. It means amass a big enough trove that others feel that suing you is going to be futile.
Evil is attacking the opponent with the new patents you just "bought" not even developed in-house
> Don't be evil means use your patents as a defense not to sue others. It means amass a big enough trove that others feel that suing you is going to be futile.
Well, when a company is suing all of the companies that use your software over your software, but don't come after you, what are you supposed to do to protect them? Because obviously the "trove" wasn't "big enough".
> Evil is attacking the opponent with the new patents you just "bought" not even developed in-house
So now companies aren't allowed to use the patents of the companies they've purchased? Should patents be invalidated once the original company is acquired? I'm against software patents in general, but to argue, under the existing system, that one of your subsidiary's shouldn't be allowed to use the patents they developed because you acquired them seems absurd.
The reason having a large trove of patents makes it futile for others to sue you is precisely because you can respond to their suits with countersuits of your own.
