Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google's Six-Front War

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the beware-the-russian-winter dept.

Android 249

wasimkadak writes "While the tech world is buzzing about the launch and implications of Google's new social network, Google+, it's worth noting that Google isn't just in a war with Facebook, it's at war with multiple companies across multiple industries. In fact, Google is fighting a multi-front war with a host of tech giants for control over some of the most valuable pieces of real estate in technology."

cancel ×

249 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Patents (4, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648862)

The tech industry is basically building up the greatest case ever to be made for why patents, software patents especially, have transitioned away from their original intention and become far more a hindrance and obstruction rather than a means of getting useful knowledge out from closed circles.

Re:Patents (4, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648910)

...their original intention...

That's the part that everybody has gotten wrong so far.. Patents and copyrights are designed from the beginning to restrict the transfer and sharing of knowledge. If people are going to continue to claim property rights, they should pay a property tax. They should not be permitted to deny a license to use the property, and the government should be allowed to determine a reasonable price. Divulged knowledge is public property, exclusive privileges over it should come with a cost.

Re:Patents (0)

GuldKalle (1065310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648956)

Patents and copyrights are designed from the beginning to restrict the transfer and sharing of knowledge.

Do you have any references or speculations as to why that was the design goal of copyright and patents? Seems to me that would be quite counter-productive to any society.

Re:Patents (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36648984)

Patents and copyrights are designed from the beginning to restrict the transfer and sharing of knowledge.

Do you have any references or speculations as to why that was the design goal of copyright and patents? Seems to me that would be quite counter-productive to any society.

Are you willing to put the slightest bit of reflective thought into a subject prior to asking stupid questions you could easily answer yourself?

You're not inspiring good discussion. You're being an intellectually lazy imbecile. If you want a reference, try the U.S. Constitution. You know, that thing that gives the federal government the authority to enact things like copyright. You have heard of this document, right?

Here's a hint for you: copyright and patents are a trade-off between the creators' desire to have a temporary monopoly and society's desire to eventually have works and inventions become public domain. Depending on how quickly you can type, it would have taken you 3-20 seconds to find this via Google. I know you can access Google because your presence here demonstrates a working 'Net connection.

Re:Patents (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649076)

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Hmm, nothing about restricting the transfer and sharing of knowledge. Maybe you should have put more thought into it.

Re:Patents (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649452)

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Hmm, nothing about restricting the transfer and sharing of knowledge. Maybe you should have put more thought into it.

So you want to talk to me about putting thought into it ... okay then.

How precisely do you intend to "secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" without restricting the transfer and share of knowledge? A video game is essentially a particular sequence of 0's and 1's. It is knowledge. But you may not freely share it nor may you transfer it to anyone you like. That would be copyright infringement. The knowledge of how to design and produce a particular invention is also information, but while the patent is valid you can't implement that information yourself without getting a license. This is a restriction.

In summary, pull your head out of your ass and you'll realize this isn't a contest, you don't need to "win" at all costs, that me being right about this doesn't make you a loser who must save face, that the big win is not having your common sense distorted by such a petty concern. Fuck the ego-trippin' bullshit. QED.

Re:Patents (2)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649496)

Patent's goal is exactly the opposite of that though, because to get a patent you are supposed to be required to divulge exactly how your $PATENTABLE_THING functions. The alternative is Inventors keeping their methods and designs secret until someone else figures is out, rather than being given legal protection for a limited period of time in exchange for divulging their methods and designs.

The amount of time that protection lasts might be too long (especially for copyright, somewhat less so for patents), and (in particular for patents) might have expanded to cover things that it logically never should have (business method and software patents -- software is essentially by definition a formal way of describing mathematical formula that can be interpreted by a machine; math is not patentable; q.e.d. software should not be patentable, let alone be protected by both patent and copyright [is this the case for any other kind of works?]).

Re:Patents (3, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649032)

It's not about society. It's about protecting specific interests, to protect industry from the effects of new technology that threatens its existence. From Gutenberg's printing press right up through the present and into the future. There is very little difference between these rules and the "Red Flag" laws that attempted to interfere with the use of the horseless carriage. Imagine having to to disassemble and hide your computer or TV set every time you wanted to read a newspaper.

countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649042)

Cheat the moderation system - here's where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others (to his fellow trolltalk.com friends) to downmod them via his registered account, logout, & ac stalk, harass, and troll them:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652 [slashdot.org]

Here's where countertrolling's "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618 [slashdot.org]

As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.

(Talk about low, and bogus!)

---

In fact, here's what countertrolling says about it, why he does it, and to all of us here:

"What the skiddies here don't understand is that I don't give a shit about dumbass 'karma' on the internet.. I'm here for the jollies with nothing to lose or fight for.. watching them destroy their world.. They can go absolutely nuts as far as I'm concerned.. It's nothing but pure entertainment (and data points) for me and mine... Tragicomedy is probably the best word I can think of to describe it" - by countertrolling (1585477) on Thursday June 30, @10:26AM (#36622502) Journal

QUOTED VERBATIM FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2281808&cid=36622502 [slashdot.org]

Sounds like a sick individual to me.

(Don't get lured into their journals either. That's their main goal along with getting these data points that way. Just ignore them and they will be powerless before you know it (no mod points)).

Re:countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649562)

The only sick individual here is you, APK (the "hosts file guy")

Re:Patents (5, Informative)

jc42 (318812) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649310)

It's not about society. It's about protecting specific interests, to protect industry from the effects of new technology that threatens its existence. From Gutenberg's printing press right up through the present and into the future.

Ah, but you're ignoring the well-documented fact that copyright was invented well before Gutenberg. The very name dates from before printing technology, when all texts had to be copied by hand, by scribes. And the first documented copyright had nothing to do with authorship; the concept was invented to control the copying of bibles and other religious texts, whose authors were centuries dead (and often unknown). The function of copyright was to legally restrict the production of religious texts to only the versions officially approved by the local rulers, and to keep the number of copies sufficiently low that only the priesthood could get copies.

The application of copyright to original documents, for economic reasons, was an innovation of the late 15th century, some decades after Gutenberg's work, and a century or so after the first print shops appeared in Europe.

But most of the history of copyright is about limiting the production of hand-copied text to only "authorized" versions, primarily for religious reasons. The extension to commercial transactions is, historically speaking, rather recent.

As is so often true now, there's a useful wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] that summarizes this, and includes some useful links (for people who want to actually understand the history rather than just repeat the current commercial propaganda on the topic ;-).

Re:Patents (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649488)

In some ways it confirms my suspicions of how it was designed to maintain social/economic stratification. I do remember reading some things on how it was for protecting the publisher/distributor where the authors were completely written out of the deal. Thanks for that. Much appreciated!

Re:Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649482)

There is very little difference between these rules and the "Red Flag" laws that attempted to interfere with the use of the horseless carriage.

Ahh, so I see you read the recent TorrentFreak article as well...

Re:Patents (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648962)

Patents were made to ensure that in exchange for making information public, the inventor would get temporary exclusivity. The purpose was to get information that would have been held as a trade secret, or in past ages by trade guilds, and potentially lost. Now, of course, patents are useless as they rarely describe HOW to make the item in question, and are instead a vague concept grab and used not to protect the inventor but as clubs to beat others down with.

Copyright is similar, though it was meant to give creators some incentive to create.

If people are going to continue to claim property rights, they should pay a property tax.

They don't claim property rights. They confuse the issue with the poor phrase "intellectual property" even though it isn't.

Divulged knowledge is public property, exclusive privileges over it should come with a cost.

They do come with a cost. Eventually they will lose the exclusive privilege to the information. The problems lie around the laws that make up copyright and patents.

Re:Patents (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649126)

Copyright is similar, though it was meant to give creators some incentive to create.

If people are going to continue to claim property rights, they should pay a property tax.

They don't claim property rights. They confuse the issue with the poor phrase "intellectual property" even though it isn't.

Patents is a type of intellectual property by definition. Maybe this isn't true in your local jurisdiction, but it's certainly the case in the US, where Google is located.

Re:Patents (1)

tolomea (1026104) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649308)

The problem is with the term "intellectual property", it's not property. It's government granted and enforced monopolies on the exploitation of ideas. Calling it intellectual property is an instance of framing aka the art of choosing the words to bias the discussion, much like calling tax cuts "tax relief".

Re:Patents (2)

vijayiyer (728590) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649388)

It is property because the law allows you to buy, sell, and transfer it.

Re:Patents (5, Funny)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649606)

The problem is with the term "intellectual property", it's not property. It's government granted and enforced monopolies on the exploitation of ideas. Calling it intellectual property is an instance of framing aka the art of choosing the words to bias the discussion, much like calling tax cuts "tax relief".

It is property because the law allows you to buy, sell, and transfer it.

Right; Just like, sex. In the US state of Nevada, and some other countries, the law allows you to buy and sell sex.

The term is "prostitution". Now, I don't know about you, but my sexual property rights are taxed heavily. Even if I choose not to exercise my ability to sell access to my amazing Johnson, I still have to list all the kinds of sex it can perform as taxable property when I file my taxes. Each time I get paid for sex I loose a little bit of my sexual property -- just like when you sell an idea!

Some clients have bought enough of my sex that they literally own most a majority say in the handling of it. ( You do have to be careful though -- Once, After I sold my sex, the client re-sold it on e-bay, and it was purchased by a 16 year old! I served 5 years for statutory rape! )

I once sold an idea that was so novel, it was in a totally invented on the spot language from a culture that existed only in my mind. A scarce resource like that -- the copyright traders, ie publishers, just had to have it, but they didn't count on the fact that no one but me knew what the strange symbols meant! Due to economics of scarcity, I'm now the richest man on InstainFrigth (that's Earth, but shhhh, don't tell anyone, it devalues my made up language).

Now, Don't tell me when you list your property you don't claim all of your ideas, passing thoughts, and your va-jay-jay!?

Why, those are 10 times more valuable than even a Big Johnson! You should talk to your accountant and maybe a sex or idea lawyer -- You could be liable for serious mental and sexual tax evasion; Even if you don't give a fuck!

I guess next you'll try to tell me that you are born with a head full of all the ideas you'll ever have, and a body full of all the fucks that you will ever give...

Re:Patents (1)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649340)

Patents is a type of intellectual property by definition.

I think the point was to argue that "intellectual property" having a definition that includes patent is absurd. This is based on the obviousness that property is, under a classical sense, some sort of inherently rival thing be it personal property, title and usage of land, etc. Meanwhile, there's nothing inherently rival about information.

Hence the point that the use of "property" seems intent to confuse the issue by extrapolating how natural patents, copyright, etc are when they're not natural at all. To have to admit they're entirely societal/government constructs would then result in having to, at some level, justify the existence of patents, copyright, etc. That's something I don't think a lot of people really want to do, given how many edge cases could likely be cut out in various industries where it'd be better if there were less or even no patent, copyright, etc protection. Of course, I can imagine where there's places it'd be better if there were even more protection, but then "why not just extend protection for everything"? Well, that's almost certainly less than optimal. Is it any wonder some people are so upset about copyright being extended so much?

PS - It's rather funny the GP brought up property taxes, as they were created precisely because even though property is such a core belief in many developed countries, it was recognized by some that property ownership can reduce to something akin to a fiefdom when a few people can retain large land ownership and force most people to be their tenants. Beyond that, property taxes tend to push people to actually usually their owned lands, through mining or farming or whatever, instead of leaving the land fallow. Whether or not the idea works or not, the GP's point at least has merit on the principle of property taxes being applied such that people don't needlessly hold onto copyrights, patents, etc and try to do more than let them go fallow and hence underutilized. It seems only fair if one really wants to talk of such things as if they're property.

Re:Patents (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648966)

As their name suggests, patents are designed to encourage otherwise secret matters to be made publicly available in exchange for a limited monopoly on their use. It would take a face much straighter than mine to claim, at least with respect to matters anywhere near software, that they are other than a mess today; but that was in fact the theory.

Re:Patents (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649044)

...but that was in fact the spin

:-) Sorry, had to do it.

Actually I could see the the point of these laws to minimize plagiarism, but beyond that they are an anathema to progress.

countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649314)

Cheat the moderation system - here's where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others (to his fellow trolltalk.com friends) to downmod them via his registered account, logout, & ac stalk, harass, and troll them:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652 [slashdot.org]

Here's where countertrolling's "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618 [slashdot.org]

As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.

(Talk about low, and bogus!)

---

In fact, here's what countertrolling says about it, why he does it, and to all of us here:

"What the skiddies here don't understand is that I don't give a shit about dumbass 'karma' on the internet.. I'm here for the jollies with nothing to lose or fight for.. watching them destroy their world.. They can go absolutely nuts as far as I'm concerned.. It's nothing but pure entertainment (and data points) for me and mine... Tragicomedy is probably the best word I can think of to describe it" - by countertrolling (1585477) on Thursday June 30, @10:26AM (#36622502) Journal

QUOTED VERBATIM FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2281808&cid=36622502 [slashdot.org]

Sounds like a sick individual to me.

(Don't get lured into their journals either. That's their main goal along with getting these data points that way. Just ignore them and they will be powerless before you know it (no mod points)).

Re:countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649680)

Just curious... does this APK fellow actually follow "countertrolling" around and paste this response every single time? Or is he some sort of bot? Inquiring minds need to know!

Re:Patents (4, Insightful)

jc42 (318812) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649176)

... patents are designed to encourage otherwise secret matters to be made publicly available in exchange for a limited monopoly on their use. It would take a face much straighter than mine to claim, at least with respect to matters anywhere near software, that they are other than a mess today; but that was in fact the theory.

Actually, if you consult various histories of the concept of patent, you'll find that restricting patents to new inventions is a rather recent (17th C?) development. Historically, it has long been common to (as the the US Patent Office now does) give a patent to anyone willing to pay the appropriate registration fee.

As usual, wikipedia has an article that describes this [wikipedia.org] , and mentions that it was James I who added the requirement to English law that a patent had to be for something new. He did this in response to some extreme abuse of the patent system to award common commodities (salt is mentioned) as a monopoly to a specific manufacturer, which effectively prevented previous manufacturers from continuing their business.

But this isn't the first documented case of such things. There are a number of descriptions of an ancient Greek cooking contest, in which the winner was awarded a patent for one year, during which nobody else could produce the same dish. There's no hint that the winning entry had to be new; it just had to be the one preferred by the panel of judges, exactly like modern cooking contests.

It's likely that the current US scheme of rewarding a patent for things well known in the industry isn't a corruption, but rather a return to the original use of patent law. It was designed to give a monopoly in exchange for paying whatever fee the local ruler(s) demanded.

(This may seem cynical to modern readers, but it doesn't take much reading of the relevant ancient histories for it to pass from cynicism to understanding that this is one way that rulers have always enriched themselves.)

Re:Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649262)

It would take a face much straighter than mine

Your face is gay? Hah-hah, you're a gayface. You just admitted it.

Re:Patents (1)

Wandering Fire (2214566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649390)

Idiot. lol

Re:Patents (2)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648970)

The cost was the R&D that went into it.

You are correct in saying that "Patents and copyrights are designed from the beginning to restrict the transfer and sharing of knowledge", in so far as to let the holder recoup R&D costs and turn a profit before the information becomes public.

Who would spend R&D resources just to have others duplicate the finished product with no investment? Patents ensure that creators will have time to recoup costs.

Now, there is a good argument that the length of Patents (and copyrights) have become too long and they need to be shortened so they do not decrease advancement.

Re:Patents (4, Insightful)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649014)

Who would spend R&D resources just to have others duplicate the finished product with no investment? Patents ensure that creators will have time to recoup costs.

OMG! How on earth did the human race survive for millenia before patents? You're so right, without patents nobody would ever invent anything and we'd all still be living in damp caves arguing about who was going to be the dumbass to pay the development costs of inventing fire...

Re:Patents (3, Informative)

ChatHuant (801522) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649386)

OMG! How on earth did the human race survive for millenia before patents? You're so right, without patents nobody would ever invent anything

This is really disingenuous. The issue of what we call now intelectual property is not new, and has existed long before patents and copyrights were introduced. Because there was no good mechanism for establishing and enforcing ownership of new inventions and discoveries, many creators refused to make them public, to the disadvantage of everybody else. Many skills and processes were passed only within a family, or a guild, or from master to apprentice, and their secret was jealously guarded. Look at the Venetian Republic, which ensured the monopoly of Murano glass for centuries, by forbidding glassmakers to leave the city; look at many scientists, like Galileo: in order to claim priority for his discoveries, he used to send encrypted descriptions to other scientists (see here [rice.edu] for details), and only make the discoveries public later. It's possible he had even discovered Neptune, back in 1613 (see here [spacedaily.com] for details) but he did not disclose it, fearing somebody else may claim it. As a result, the existence of Neptune remained unknown until 1846, that is more than two hundred years later.

Or check the thoughts of actual writers living in a period of weak or inexistent copyrights; look at Dickens here [moreintelligentlife.com] or Twain here [nytimes.com] .

Re:Patents (3, Insightful)

vijayiyer (728590) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649410)

Maybe because in the millennia before patents the costs of development were low and the reward was high? There was little cost to inventing fire, but the benefit of survival on a cold night sure would have been nice.
You can argue that possibly high cost development is a waste and that we're not better off as a society with that sort of R&D, but it seems a stretch to think that it would continue without the promise of financial compensation.

Re:Patents (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649486)

OMG! How on earth did the human race survive for millenia before patents?

Without global communication, running water, food that was safe to eat, and an epically large pile of medicine.

Re:Patents (1, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649620)

Without global communication, running water, food that was safe to eat, and an epically large pile of medicine.

Because none of those things would have happened without patents.

Re:Patents (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649662)

Because none of those things would have happened without patents.

In the same time frame?

countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649038)

Cheat the moderation system - here's where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others (to his fellow trolltalk.com friends) to downmod them via his registered account, logout, & ac stalk, harass, and troll them:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652 [slashdot.org]

Here's where countertrolling's "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618 [slashdot.org]

As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.

(Talk about low, and bogus!)

---

In fact, here's what countertrolling says about it, why he does it, and to all of us here:

"What the skiddies here don't understand is that I don't give a shit about dumbass 'karma' on the internet.. I'm here for the jollies with nothing to lose or fight for.. watching them destroy their world.. They can go absolutely nuts as far as I'm concerned.. It's nothing but pure entertainment (and data points) for me and mine... Tragicomedy is probably the best word I can think of to describe it" - by countertrolling (1585477) on Thursday June 30, @10:26AM (#36622502) Journal

QUOTED VERBATIM FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2281808&cid=36622502 [slashdot.org]

Sounds like a sick individual to me.

(Don't get lured into their journals either. That's their main goal along with getting these data points that way. Just ignore them and they will be powerless before you know it (no mod points)).

Re:countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew (1)

Wandering Fire (2214566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649442)

You're anonymous so we don't know who you are. I've seen this exact post THREE TIMES and I'm sick of it.

Re:Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649074)

La do di do da

Re:Patents (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649172)

Patents were specifically designed from the beginning to not restrict the transfer and sharing of knowledge; there's a reason why patents granted are public and accessible to you. The person(s) applying for the patent share the details in order to claim exclusive right to exploiting their invention or innovation for a specific period of time, with the laws protecting them from someone copying their process. After the period of protection runs out, anyone can use the details posted to create & sell products.

For example, if Company A had an innovative product for which they did not apply for a patent, and Company B came along and copied their product (through reverse engineering, or stealing plans, or hiring away the inventor), Company A would have no recourse to stop them selling the same product. If Company A had a patent, they could stop Company B until such time as the patent expires - they have that time to come up with a new, more compelling product.

(and copyrights are about protecting authorship attribution and right to income from selling copies. Again, nothing about keeping the knowledge locked up.)

If there's anything wrong with the concept these days, it's that the terms are longer than is strictly necessary to encourage competition & innovation, and patents are granted too freely on spurious innovations. For copyright, terms are extending almost in inverse proportion to the ease of copying, a perverse incentive that allows the producers of the original material to rest on their laurels in a way that was never intended by the progenitors of the copyright and patent provisions (i.e. the Founding Fathers)

Re:Patents (2)

ATMAvatar (648864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649238)

That's the part that everybody has gotten wrong so far.. Patents and copyrights are designed from the beginning to restrict the transfer and sharing of knowledge.

False.

Patents and copyrights were designed to encourage the transfer and sharing of knowledge. In return, the inventor/writer is granted a limited monopoly to distribute the work in the case of copyright or license the use of the work in the case of patents. The underlying goal in the case of patents is to increase innovation both by providing greater access to the ideas of others (on which new inventions can build) and by providing an incentive to create via the monopoly grant.

Re:Patents (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649466)

Patents and copyrights are designed from the beginning to restrict the transfer and sharing of knowledge.

Yeah, that's why they're very specific, detailed, and published for all to see.

Chess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36648868)

They will inevitably conquer all fronts. Google plays chess whilst everyone else plays tic-tac-toe.

Re:Chess (2)

JMJimmy (2036122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649160)

Except the Chinese are playing Go.

The sad thing is that people see these as 6 different fronts. It's 2 fronts. Internet services and access. Google is smart in that they toss darts in the services area to see what sticks and run with it. If it doesn't stick, abandon, and try again.

Re:Chess (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649258)

People said the same thing about Microsoft. Google is a lot like Microsoft used to be, actually. The similarities are eerie.

Buzzing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36648872)

They were buzzing about buzz and wave too...

Re:Buzzing (4, Interesting)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648944)

Yeah, I'm not too excited about anything "Google" that's personalized anymore. I mean I still like Google and they have some great ideas and products and Google is still my home page and my pretty much the only place I search from.

That said I don't trust them to keep anything going long term. Every time I find something useful, it gets taken away, Google Health the most recent on the chopping block. And I'm sure we can make a list of other that have fallen to the wayside. Wave of course. I even dialed 800-Goog-411 the other day to get a phone # and it was gone.

It's hard to want to invest in personalizing anything Google these days. I use to feel secure thinking my "Gmail" account would be around a while. These days I'm not so sure.

Re:Buzzing (1)

Guppy (12314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649328)

I even dialed 800-Goog-411 the other day to get a phone # and it was gone.

Yup, they shut that down after getting enough voice search data. 1-800-Bing-411 should still be up, though.
     

Re:Buzzing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649528)

I'm sorry, but your post looks a lot like FUD. Canceling a few niche products that nobody heard about doesn't mean Google is going to suddenly boot their core products. Gmail and Docs (and Maps, Earth, etc) are going nowhere. If you're using Google Books, Desktop or Calendar then you might be legitimately worried (of overhaul in the 3rd case).

I'm more inclined to pan Google for other reasons: like how it seems many of their products are stagnating and becoming inferior to smaller companies' alternatives. Two years ago Google had a huge lead in web presence, now it's not so much.

Re:Buzzing (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649086)

don't forget orkut.

Great (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648878)

Google has a tendancy to create awesome stuff and has the money to back it up.

Hopefully it'll wake up a few competitors who might just want to try something better.

Or they could end up squabbling over patents. Whatever works.

Re:Great (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648902)

Viva la guerre!

Re:Great (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36648928)

Google has a tendancy to buy awesome stuff that other people have created and has the money to back it up.

FTFY. And before someone tries to say protest. Look at this [wikipedia.org] link.

Re:Great (2)

symbolset (646467) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649024)

Yeah, in addition to building great stuff in-house, they also buy stuff. After seeing what they've done with a lot of the stuff on that list, I'm impressed. Can't wait to see what they do with SageTV - which they just picked up a couple weeks ago. Android tablet with OTA DVR? That would be interesting.

Incontheivable. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36648918)

As long as they don't get involved in a land war in Asia.

Re:Incontheivable. (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649150)

Apparently General Montgomery never heard of Genghis Khan and Nurhaci.

More Fronts (2)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648948)

Not only is Google taking on more than just the listed fronts (author neglected libraries, cloud computing, email, etc), but every major tech company is fighting the same fights on its fronts as well. In total, it is a thousand-front war, with only a handful of select winners at the end of the day.

Google has an advantage (2)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648952)

Google has a slight advantage in that none of their services other than advertising are really making money, and not many have to be as long as adverting can keep them afloat as well as it has.

Re:Google has an advantage (3, Insightful)

ijakings (982830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649080)

Many of their services are built around advertising, which is a point that many seem to miss. At the end of the day google want eyeballs on their ads, and if offering x service at break even or a loss gets enough eyeballs to those ads to make a profit, they are doing well.

Obviously they can offer paid side services on top of this, like gmail for enterprise and google earth pro. Even android is about getting users on their platform, having their eyeballs where they want them.

Re:Google has an advantage (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649306)

Does anyone else notice that Google has a lot of failed products and services?

I'm not applying a value judgement to that just yet, as it may be a byproduct of a high innovation rate and willingness to take risks. However Google has this great reputation as a winning company and yet I'm struck by how many of their products have cratered.

Recent examples would have to include Google Wave and Google Buzz. Google Books seems to have become bogged down in endless bickering.

Yawn (1)

slasho81 (455509) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648978)

How is Google's situation any different than any other giant tech company? It isn't. If you're big, you're everywhere.

In other news... (1)

Dremth (1440207) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649000)

In other news, scientists in Kansas have completed an experiment and determined that water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, is a liquid at room temperature, and that water is, in fact, wet. We can only ponder the implications this has for the human race and life on Earth.

Business not a zero sum game (4, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649036)

Business is not war. War by definition is a zero sum game. That is, war is used to distribute a resource that for all intents and purposes is fixed in quantity. For instance, war is often used to redistribute land. Now it is used to redistribute petroleum. The war on drugs redistributes drugs to the rich and powerful, leaving the poor with nothing.

Business is different. Business is about creating value where none exists. It is about taking a junk mushroom and turning it into a premium product. It is about taking a piece of land no one wants and turning it into a resort. In the process inefficient companies die, but they are not causalities of war. They are simply relics of a bad past that we are happy to see left behind.

So why is this important? If it is war then we fight to maintain market share, a perceived limited resource, which is what the American automakers diid, which is why MS is doing, which is what all those insurance companies and banks are doing. However if it is not a war then we are in a situation of an expanding and fruitful economy that will grow as we innovate. This si the world in which we have jobs and new toys. This is IBM. This is Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Corporation.

If we are at war, we do not innovate, we copy. It is the difference between Google using graph theory to create a index method different from Yahoo and Alta Vista and Google creating an phone not unlike the iPhone. It is the difference between Alta Vista that stood on market share and did not innovate, and Yahoo who understood there was room in search for more than one way to serve the customer.

Re:Business not a zero sum game (2)

jemmyw (624065) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649140)

But your examples of copying are not zero sum. Android is valuable despite copying the iPhone, it's different enough, and more importantly it grows the market in a way that Apple wasn't going to. And if companies fight for market share by making their products more valuable then this is not zero sum either, it's zero sum for the competing companies, but extra value is created for their customers.

War doesn't have to be zero sum either. If it's a war over land and resources then yes, but if it's a war over political ideals then no.

Re:Business not a zero sum game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649234)

If we are at war, we do not innovate, we copy.

You weren't doing too badly until this point. Can you honestly suggest that we don't innovate in war? Quite the contrary - the larger the war, the more innovation that goes on.

Consider World War II - the sheer number of innovations there (rocketry and jets, atomic weaponry, advancements in quite literally every form of weaponry from tanks to artillery, aircraft, etc)... it would take hours to list them all, and those are only physical innovations.

Re:Business not a zero sum game (0)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649270)

If it is war then we fight to maintain market share, a perceived limited resource, which is what the American automakers diid, which is why MS is doing

Google is just as guilty of trying to maintain market share as Microsoft.

Re:Business not a zero sum game (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649476)

The difference is how it is fought as far as if it will be good for the customers. There are 2 ways to win marketshare, Method 1. Continue to add features capabilities and functionality and/or lower the cost to the point where the product is a significant step above the competition that people want to use it, ensure that if the competition wants to compete, they have to match your pace. Method 2. Stranglehold the competition, find ways to prevent the competition from developing, use legal forces/patents, create as many barriers to getting into the market or rising in the market that the opposition just can't get in the door. Regardless of if they have 10x better of a product, raise the barriers required to switch to ensure you keep marketshare.
 

Google while they may not be a saint have a tendency to lean far stronger to method 1 then method 2, which IMO even if google has been/turned dark, what they have forced all competition to do just to keep up, is good for the consumers in all fields they compete in.

Re:Business not a zero sum game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649502)

I'm not a history buff, but even I know during WW II there was a ton of innovation by the U.S. and Germany -- and not just new weapons and vehicles, but innovations in communications and cryptography.
 
What's more, social networking is -- or will be at some point -- a zero-sum game, because there is a finite number of people and a finite amount of time they can spend on software-based socialization. In short, your entire +5 post is completely wrong.

Re:Business not a zero sum game (2)

epine (68316) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649556)

War by definition is a zero sum game.

In the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo, "Lucy, you've got some defining to do!" This never occurred to me, but now that you mention it, I can see how it equates to zero. One guy gets shot in the trenches, lies groaning in the mud and feces holding his intestines inside his belly with a tin dinner plate. The guy who shot him survives the firefight, goes off to the nearest Asian brothel so shoot up with a grade of heroine you can only obtain in the Asian jungle. Misery on one side, bliss on the other, the perfect zero sum outcome. Now I know why the heroine habit is so difficult to kick: it's the zero-sum compliment to lying in feces and mud holding your guts inside your belly with a tin dinner plate. Potent stuff. Man, I gotta get me some of that.

It's certainly true that conflict flares up around primary constraints. In some cases the constraints are created by war itself. I'm sure Lawrence Waterhouse could jot down and solve the differential equations as a short digression from a tedious moment. Somehow I don't think his solution, valid as it might be, would have won him the Nobel prize in economics.

I've always figured from the perspective of a shiny new officer's uniform, that the principle spoils of war were babalicious war widows back in his home town. From her perspective, after the waterworks ends, it's zero sum, isn't it? The new man in her life had the wits to come out on top. That's almost an upgrade, even.

Re:Business not a zero sum game (4, Insightful)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649584)

War by definition is a zero sum game.

By what definition? I would consider war to be a negative-sum game.

In case you don't want to read the article (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649100)

Here are the six fronts listed in the article:

The Browser Front - chrome/IE/Firefox etc
The Mobile Front - Android vs iPhone vs all others
The Search Front - Duh
The Local Front - Groupon, Daily Deals, Foursquare, etc. The Social Front - trying to kill Facebook
The Enterprise Front - Google apps vs Office, Google mail vs Exchange, etc.

Add some filler text and you have the article.

Re:In case you don't want to read the article (2, Interesting)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649210)

The interesting thing is that is almost all cases, Google are invading, not defending. They are one the few companies to have the skills, the vision and the money to try and shake up markets. I wish them well, and with others would be as active/aggressive. Also, because they are active on so many fronts, they can fail at one without catastrophic consequences - except Search !

Looking at the list of the biggest tech companies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_global_technology_companies):
There's a lot of heavily hardware-oriented companies. Some of them are kinda trying, but that's rather outside of their purview.
MS: I'm assuming they lack vision more than skills or money.
Sony: lack all of the above
SAP and Oracle are purely "entreprise"
Apple are trying, and rather successful

Re:In case you don't want to read the article (4, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649302)

Slashdot in 2001: "Microsoft is evil. They're trying to leverage their success with Windows to take everybody down. They want to conquer everything and have you using Microsoft-branded operating systems, browsers, phones, webjournals, email, and more."

Slashdot in 2011: "Google is awesome. They're leveraging the success of their search engine to enter these markets with their fantastic vision. I can't wait to use Google-branded operating systems, browsers, phones, blogs, email, and more."

Re:In case you don't want to read the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649360)

The difference: MS was trying to force people to use their new products. Google is creating good products and inviting people to use them.

Re:In case you don't want to read the article (3, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649514)

The difference: MS was trying to force people to use their new products. Google is creating good products and inviting people to use the

Looks like Google's marketing was successful.

Re:In case you don't want to read the article (1)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649418)

Google and Microsoft are quite similar. No matter what I do, there are one or two products that I end up using or needing anyway. It just takes one event for people to change their mind about tech companies. For most people, Google hasn't done anything wrong yet. That's the difference between Microsoft and Google. I think in most people's eyes, Microsoft's pricing and activation as well as failures with vista have been more of a reputation fail than the antitrust trial or IE ever were. Young people don't think of Microsoft as fun or cool either. No one wants a windows phone.

The problem will be for google to stay "young". There's a whole group of graduating seniors that have grown up with social networking for almost half their life now. (counting blogging) Google + is a huge improvement to facebook, but it's old hat to them. Smart phones are still somewhat trendy, but I mostly hear older people buying tablets/pads.

Re:In case you don't want to read the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649422)

Microsoft tried to force products onto people, they used Windows as a tool to force so many products onto people who never wanted them in the first place.
Google is just putting products out there and people are voluntarily picking them up, and in some or most cases, liking them.
There's a difference as you see bonch!

Re:In case you don't want to read the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649448)

You forgot the war on censorship, particularly Chinese censorship.

it's not war!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649134)

Google is not fighting any war here. All they are trying to do, give a better and functional piece of software free of cost to consumers. So, stop painting that google is on a war or something. We all know that most of the crappy software out there can be done in a better way.

Business *is* war (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649156)

And treating it as anything else gets you a fast track one-way trip to bankruptcy.

Just doeskin have all the killing and maiming you get in a "traditional" war ( normally.. )

Re:it's not war!!! (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649284)

Google is not fighting any war here. All they are trying to do, give a more ad-infested piece of software free of recognisable cost to consumers. So, stop painting that google is on a war or something. We all know that most of the crappy software out there can be done with more ads.

FTFY. Don't delude yourself that Google gives a crap about you, or making functional software for free. They care about slamming their ads in front of you, and hiding the actual cost of their services behind that "free" moniker.

Re:it's not war!!! (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649344)

Indeed. If you aren't paying for the product, you are the product...

Re:it's not war!!! (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649628)

They care about slamming their ads in front of you, and hiding the actual cost of their services behind that "free" moniker.

And butt-raping any privacy you think you might still have.

Don't worry (4, Funny)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649162)

As long as Google doesn't invade Russia in the winter everything will be allright.

Re:Don't worry (3, Informative)

grouchomarxist (127479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649342)

No one invades Russia in the winter. They invade hoping Russia will surrender before winter. It doesn't work.

War number 7 (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649168)

Let's hand over the "War on Terrorism" No doubt they could deal with it more competently than the government. Their spy powers are unmatched. They can redirect all communications to some honeypot. I believe there's even a Google jail...

countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649278)

Cheat the moderation system - here's where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others (to his fellow trolltalk.com friends) to downmod them via his registered account, logout, & ac stalk, harass, and troll them:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652 [slashdot.org]

Here's where countertrolling's "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618 [slashdot.org]

As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.

(Talk about low, and bogus!)

---

In fact, here's what countertrolling says about it, why he does it, and to all of us here:

"What the skiddies here don't understand is that I don't give a shit about dumbass 'karma' on the internet.. I'm here for the jollies with nothing to lose or fight for.. watching them destroy their world.. They can go absolutely nuts as far as I'm concerned.. It's nothing but pure entertainment (and data points) for me and mine... Tragicomedy is probably the best word I can think of to describe it" - by countertrolling (1585477) on Thursday June 30, @10:26AM (#36622502) Journal

QUOTED VERBATIM FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2281808&cid=36622502 [slashdot.org]

Sounds like a sick individual to me.

(Don't get lured into their journals either. That's their main goal along with getting these data points that way. Just ignore them and they will be powerless before you know it (no mod points)).

Re:countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew (1)

Wandering Fire (2214566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649542)

Are you kidding me! Stop posting this crap. I've seen it FOUR TIMES!!!!!

What about Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649180)

Off hand I can think of a few fronts they're competing in:

The Music Player Front: Zune vs. iPod
The Mobile Phone Front: Kin vs. iPhone vs. Android etc.
The Personal Finance Front: Money vs. Quicken
The Tablet Front: Courier vs. iPad
The Encyclopedia Front: Encarta vs. Wikipedia vs. Brittanica
The Browser Rich Media Front: Silverlight vs. Flash

I wouldn't bet against Steve Ballmer in these fights, he's been around for a long time and he has... uh, been taken lightly in the past.

The problem with Google ... they aren't innovators (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649220)

The biggest problem with Google is that they are not innovators ... just copycats.

Before I get modded as a troll, just look at the facts. There isn't a single Google product that is/was original in anything. Then out of the few successful products they own, most are PURCHASED (even the Android OS and Google Earth) and after which they change it to be as similar as possible to the leading product in he market.

Google owns virtually no patents in anything because all they do is copy from others. On top of that, they have the tendency to believe that they do no wrong and refuse to license the technology they copy. For this reason they are constantly in litigation ... and it is not because they are the leaders ... because outside of web marketing, they aren't.

Re:The problem with Google ... they aren't innovat (0)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649322)

Before I get modded as a troll, just look at the facts.

That you even had to add that precautionary response is indicative of how sheepish a lot of the Slashdot community has become when it comes to defending pretty much everything Google does, even as it openly dismiss privacy concerns and acts hypocritical about the principles it espouses (e.g., removing H.264 support from Chrome in the name of "openness" yet shipping Flash, MP3, and M4A playback support).

Re:The problem with Google ... they aren't innovat (1)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649420)

The biggest problem with Google is that they are not innovators ... just copycats.

To that, I and millions of others say... who cares? Why is copying or buying a concept such a bad thing? As long as they offer a service that is superior, why does it matter who came up with the original concept? Where would the GUI desktop be now if Apple hadn't "innovated" it from Xerox?

That's just the nature of competition and the free market. If the original idea isn't sufficient, why should I have to suffer it if there's a better executed "copy" from somewhere else? And if the copy isn't good, wouldn't the market decide its fate?

Re:The problem with Google ... they aren't innovat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649548)

FACT: Not a single Google product is better than the competition. Only good enough to give away for free with tons of spyware built into it.

Re:The problem with Google ... they aren't innovat (1)

sgbett (739519) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649596)

Uh, search...

WAR? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649230)

I bet google does not think they are at war...

Thats why they got where they are. By NOT worrying about what everyone else is doing and trying to 'metoo' like microsoft does on everything.

Most companys in the world need a swift kick in the ass and a shouted "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS" in their face. And some common sense. Not very common in corporate america.

Re:WAR? (1, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649330)

Thats why they got where they are. By NOT worrying about what everyone else is doing and trying to 'metoo' like microsoft does on everything.

The last few years have seen Google do almost nothing else but worry about what everyone else is doing, from the iPhone to Bing to Facebook. That little company from ten years ago with the minimalist search engine is gone, and in its place is an advertising behemoth with an interest in releasing as many products as possible to harvest as much personal information as possible.

Just like Microsoft was always trying to preserve the relevance of Windows and its API, Google is constantly trying to preserve the relevance of its advertising network. Facebook and Twitter threaten that because they have become the web for a lot of people (especially Facebook), which is why you get stuff like Google+ to try to keep people on their data network.

Poor Liddle Dimwitted Cocksucker (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649540)

Furiously typing away at your keyboard and no one gives a shit about your rambling anti-Google tirades.

What a fucking loser.

Odd sort of war (1)

Alimony Pakhdan (1855364) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649240)

Looks to me like in most of the things Google has done in the non search/advertising area are really nothing more than throwing some monkey wrenches into various market segments just to screw up others rather than trying to "win" any particular market segment.

Re:Odd sort of war (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649348)

It's the old Microsoft strategy of releasing a lukewarm 1.0 (in Google's case, it's a "beta") and iterating over it while leveraging the dominance of an existing product. Microsoft was always trying to keep Windows relevant, and Google is always trying to keep their advertising network relevant. For example, Facebook has practically become the web for a lot of people, so Google's response is Google+, just like how Netscape was threatening to become the operating system, so Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows.

War? Pics, please ... (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649354)

Am I the one one here who thinks it's time to start reigning in this use of "war" for situations in which nobody is dying?

We should be demanding that the authors of such propaganda be required to document instances of rape, pillage and/or murder by the participants in such purported "wars". If they can't document google's bombing raids, etc., then they should be required to edit their reports to use more accurate terms for what google is actually doing to their victims.

(Actually, a lot of us would like to see the videos of google's acts of war against their opponents. Can we get them posted to youtube? That would certainly end a log of the fanboyism we see here with respect to google. ;-)

Gibber (4, Interesting)

ConfusedVorlon (657247) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649396)

The first two fronts are misunderstood by the author. I didn't bother reading further.

Front 1) Chrome
He implies that Google is in the browser battle to control the browser and get everybody over to chrome. In fact - google is in the browser battle to raise the game. They're totally happy if ie maintains market share as long as ie does a better job at javascript and html5 so that users can use gmail, google docs, etc.

Google are clearly winning here - all the browsers have significantly improved their javascript performance and standards compliance since Chrome made them start competing again.

Front 2) Android
He implies the reason Android doesn't have the developer support is due to fragmentation of devices. Completely wrong - the reason Android doesn't have developer support is that Google haven't trained everyone to buy apps, and so the financial rewards for developers are way lower.

Apple gets your payment method on day 1, and makes it easy for you to buy stuff with successful instant fulfilment. Google has a crappy dysfunctional checkout system and make no attempts to collect your payment details until you decide to bite the bullet and buy an app. At that point, they make the process painful and unsatisfying so that you are put off from ever trying again.

Surprise, surprise... (3, Interesting)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649444)

A large, global company has competition. What a surprise. Oh, what will Google do? Whatever will they do?

.
It looks like far too many people are accustomed to the days when Microsoft's monopoly ruled and crippled the tech industry. Fortunately, those days seem as distant as a Windows mobile device with a 50% marketshare.....

I, for one, welcome competition for google, and any other company that becomes a global powerhouse.

Google is the new Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36649460)

Though no one wants to admit it.

Challenge every major tech company. Misappropriate others' IP now, settle later (Android/Books/WebM). Acquire technology (Docs/Android) when lacking a competitive product, then give products away for free or below market value to destroy competitors' value.

Innovation? Thats for the birds.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?