Google Baffled by Apple Suing Android Partners
Former CEO discusses "on and off" relationship between the two technology titans.
Former Google CEO and current executive chairman Eric Schmidt has questioned why Apple focuses on suing the search engine giant's partners instead of directly suing its competitor instead.
Referring to the "on and off" relationship between Apple and Google during the last year, Schmidt said the former's decision to remove Google's map app in iOS 6 was surprising, which wasn't one of the firm's best move.
Obviously, we would have preferred them to use our maps. They threw YouTube off the home screen [of iPhones and iPads]. I'm not quite sure why they did that. The press would like to write the sort of teenage model of competition, which is, 'I have a gun, you have a gun, who shoots first?'
The adult way to run a business is to run it more like a country. They have disputes, yet they've actually been able to have huge trade with each other. They're not sending bombs at each other. I think both Tim [Cook, Apple's CEO] and Larry [Page, Google's CEO], the sort of successors to Steve [Jobs] and me if you will, have an understanding of this state model. When they and their teams meet, they have just a long list of things to talk about.
When asked whether Apple and Google are currently discussing a patent-related settlement, Schmidt avoided a direct response, but did hint at the fact that the rivals could be in talks.
"Apple and Google are well aware of the legal strategies of each other," he stated. "Part of the conversations that are going on all the time is to talk about them. It's extremely curious that Apple has chosen to sue Google's partners and not Google itself."
Apple has spent hundreds of millions in court fees and losses in suing Google partners such as Samsung and Motorola. Further alluding to Apple's patent habits, Google stressed that companies in general are the main victims.
"Google is doing fine. Apple is doing fine. Let me tell you the loser here. There's a young Andy Rubin trying to form a new version of Danger [the smartphone company Mr. Rubin co-founded before Android]. How is he or she going to be able to get the patent coverage necessary to offer version one of their product? That's the real consequence of this."
Last year, for the first time in the two firm's history, spending by both Apple and Google on patents exceeded their spending on research and development of new products.

We need a hunting season for lawyers :-)
and that's exactly why apple is doing this, it's easier to prevent competition from sprouting up in the first place than it is to legitimately beat it on a level playing field. it's a dirty tactic, but it's the only way to stay on top if you're not willing to innovate.
We need a hunting season for lawyers :-)
You guys are right...that's why I just stay home and do the robot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-_iUHY8RBs
Thanks Dancin Kim lolz!
Leave it to Zak to spin the purchase of Motorola as spending on patents.
and that's exactly why apple is doing this, it's easier to prevent competition from sprouting up in the first place than it is to legitimately beat it on a level playing field. it's a dirty tactic, but it's the only way to stay on top if you're not willing to innovate.
How is that spin? It has always been widely believed by many that Google's main purpose in purchasing Motorola's mobility division was to get ownership of their patents.
From Forbes...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/quentinhardy/2011/08/15/google-buys-motorola-for-patent-parts/
What a down to earth sentiment.
Newsfeeds, Youtube, Google Books scans, Android, everything about you.
You have the timeline confused. When a standard's body decides on a standard such as h264, or XHCI, they first appeal to all of the parties involved in the process that hold patents which may be relevant to the standard in question. If the parties are willing to licence their patents then the parties become bound by the licencing rules set out by the standard's organization which typically include the phrase "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms". If the parties are not willing to licence their patents, then the standards body must work around the patents in question. Once patents have become part of a standard the rights of the patent holder are severely restricted, but there's a much broader audience to be reached.
I highly recommend all technologists to watch how it all started.
Anyway, long story short, turns out while Steve Jobs was announcing that Apple was proud to work with Google to develop Maps for iPhone, in the background, Eric Schmidt (and Google) was busy stealing ideas and solutions from Apple (Schmidt was also on the Board of Apple) ... you'll see Eric walk on stage with Jobs saying how great it was working with Apple...
This is how Android basically came to be (and so quickly after iPhone), and that's why Jobs called it a stolen product.
It's sad and unbelievable how Google and Schmidt basically stabbed Apple in the back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uW-E496FXg
You said it like it is a little known fact. This is well known and a lot of people disagree whether Google did steal the idea. Also, didn't Apple steal the rounded rectangle square idea from Palm Treo? Or steal the page turning look and feel from thousands of years of human history? Only a thief will always think other people steal from them.