SI
SI
discoversearch

 Technology Stocks | Google


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: Sr K9/8/2011 8:45:55 PM
   of 14007
 
Is the Google Android business model as simple as give away the OS and get the searches+ads, maps, YouTube onto each device?

Now

online.wsj.com

"It does not allow fair competition among search engines if Android-based smartphone users come across Google Search whenever they touch the search-engine icon, whether they want it or not," said a spokesman for NHN.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: sylvester809/13/2011 5:42:33 PM
   of 14007
 
Google, Intel team up on future Android phones, tablets
September 13, 2011 | 2:16 pm
latimesblogs.latimes.com


Naming a powerful ally in its quest to become the king of smartphones, Google Inc. said it was teaming up with Intel Corp. to develop software aimed at running on the chipmaker's next generation mobile microchips.

At Intel’s annual developer conference in San Francisco, the two companies said Tuesday that Google's Android software would be optimized for Intel's Atom processors. Atom chips are designed to require half as much power as earlier Intel models, so are better suited for portable, battery-powered devices.

Atom chips now run in laptops and tablets from Sony, Dell, Acer and Lenovo -- but have only been used in a handful of smartphones.

Intel's decision to team up with Google comes as the search giant's Android operating system has become the world's bestselling smartphone software, accounting for 43% of the phones sold worldwide last quarter. By giving its Android software away freely to any manufacturer that wants it, Google has found that dozens of phone makers have built Android devices, including popular models from Samsung, HTC and LG.

Last month Google agreed to buy Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. for $12.5 billion, the company's largest acquisition effort to date. Motorola is one of the primary makers of Android phones, and if cleared by regulators, the purchase would allow Google to design and build its own phones. That could include the use of Intel chips.

Meanwhile in Anaheim, longtime Intel partner (and Google rival) Microsoft touted its own mobile strategy. The Redmond, Calif., software giant said the next version of its Windows operating system -– Windows 8 -- would run on tablets and smartphones that used a different low-power microchip. ARM chips, based on designs from UK-based ARM Holdings, are built by a number of companies including Qualcomm Inc. and Texas Instruments Inc.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: sylvester80 who wrote (13196)9/13/2011 6:14:45 PM
From: Sr K
   of 14007
 
Google to Offer More Privacy for Owners of Wi-Fi Routers
By KEVIN J. O'BRIEN

Published: September 13, 2011

BERLIN — Google on Tuesday defused a confrontation with European privacy regulators by announcing that it would give the owners of residential Wi-Fi routers around the world the option of removing their devices from a registry Google uses to locate cellphone users.

The change comes less than four months after European regulators warned that the unauthorized use of data sent by Wi-Fi routers, which can broadcast the location of cellphones and give the identity of their owners within their range, violated European law.

Google’s concession, while motivated by strict European privacy laws, will have an impact beyond the Continent’s borders because Google plans to offer the option around the world, including in the United States.

In a blog post, Peter Fleischer, the Google global privacy counsel, said the company only used Wi-Fi access points that did not identify people.

“At the request of several European data protection authorities, we are building an opt-out service that will allow an access point owner to opt out from Google’s location services,” Mr. Fleischer wrote. “Once opted out, our services will not use that access point to determine users’ locations.” He said Google intended to introduce the opt-out system this autumn.


nytimes.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: Glenn Petersen9/14/2011 4:08:46 AM
   of 14007
 
How the Google-Motorola Deal Went Down

By EVELYN M. RUSLI
New York Times
DealBook
September 13, 2011, 7:56 pm

It took less than seven weeks, but it became more expensive quickly.

From the first discussions in early July to a formal announcement on Aug. 15, Google moved swiftly this summer to secure a $12.5 billion takeover of Motorola Mobility, according to a filing submitted on Tuesday. The search giant, which was eager to own Motorola’s extensive patent portfolio, was also willing to pay up.

After floating an initial bid of $30 per share on Aug. 1, Google raised its offer price to $37, before settling at $40 per share. In just weeks, the offer increased by more than $3 billion.

For that, Motorola can thank Frank P. Quattrone, whose investment bank was hired on Aug. 1.

The filing, which maps out the background of the merger, discloses how the deal came together in the wake of Google’s failed bid for Nortel’s patent portfolio. In early July — mere days after Google lost out to a consortium led by rivals Apple and Microsoft — Andrew Rubin, the company’s senior vice president of mobile, reached out to Sanjay Jha, the chief executive of Motorola Mobility, to discuss “the possible impact of and potential responses” to the Nortel purchase. Over the next several days, discussions intensified, roping in more executives, including Google’s chief Larry Page and Nikesh Aurora, the company’s chief business officer. And by mid-July, the parties had agreed to a confidentiality agreement, as Google began due diligence on Motorola’s patent portfolio.

Although talks initially centered on Motorola’s patents, the focus quickly shifted to takeover talks. On July 28, Google said it would entertain a bid in the range of high $20s to low $30s. On Aug. 1, it came back with a formal letter and a $30 offer.

Enter Mr. Quattrone. On that day, Motorola hired Mr. Quattrone’s Qatalyst Partners and Centerview Partners to serve as financial advisers.

According to the filing it was Qatalyst, which has recently advised some of the largest takeover transactions in the technology sector, that prodded Google to go higher. On Aug. 5, after a telephone meeting with Motorola’s directors, an unnamed Qatalyst representative contacted Google’s chief legal officer “to reject the $30 per share offer and suggested that Google increase its proposed price to $43.50 per share.”

On Aug. 9, Google came back with $40 a share.

At the tail end of the process, Motorola’s board considered seeking other buyers, but ultimately concluded that it was “preferable to negotiate on a confidential basis with a single potential acquirer, rather than to conduct a private or public auction. Six days later, the deal was done.

dealbook.nytimes.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: sylvester809/22/2011 5:39:38 AM
   of 14007
 
Google Wins in Australian Court
Australia Court Says Google's Search Results Didn't Breach The Law
Last update: 9/22/2011 12:23:31 AM

MELBOURNE (Dow Jones)--Australia's consumer watchdog said Thursday the Federal Court had dismissed its claim that internet search engine giant Google Inc. (GOOG) had misled consumers by failing to adequately distinguish advertisements from search results.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, or ACCC, said in a statement that a Federal Court judge held that most Google users would have appreciated that "sponsored links" were in fact advertisements.

Google has changed the description of its advertisements on its search results pages from "Sponsored Links" to "Ads" since the court action was launched, the ACCC said. A Google spokesperson said in a statement that the company was "pleased with the Federal Court's ruling and that the matter has been resolved."

-By Gavin Lower, Dow Jones Newswires; 61-3-9292-2095; gavin.lower@dowjones.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
September 22, 2011 00:23 ET (04:23 GMT)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Lahcim Leinad who wrote (13180)9/22/2011 8:24:13 PM
From: sylvester80
   of 14007
 
From $6.1 billion now down to $1.16 billion.... LMFAO... I'll bet they'll even go for $500mil and even say thank you.... LMFAO... oh the dreams of iSheep slowly getting crashed.... LMFAO.. and the stupid idiot at FOSSpatents thinking of the moon and the stars....LMFAO... too funny... is that idiot ever right???

Oracle seeks $1.16 billion from Google in Android case
Jonathan Stempel
Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:36pm EDT
reuters.com

(Reuters) - Oracle Corp on Thursday estimated it suffered roughly $1.16 billion of damages from Google Inc's alleged copyright and patent infringement of Java technology used in the Android operating system.

In a court filing, Oracle said Google's claim that the damages sought exceeded $2.2 billion "mischaracterizes" a report by Oracle damages expert Iain Cockburn, a Boston University business professor.

The lowered damages estimate is one-fifth the maximum $6.1 billion that Oracle had earlier sought in the case.

Oracle had sued Google in August 2010, claiming that the Internet search company's Android system infringed Java patents that Oracle had acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems Inc seven months earlier. It also alleged copyright infringement.

The lawsuit is one of several among phone and software companies seeking a greater share of profits in the growing market for smartphones and tablets.

A trial is set to begin on October 31 before U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco. The judge had on July 22 rejected Oracle's request for up to $6.1 billion, but gave the company a chance to revise its claim.

In a letter to Alsup, Oracle lawyer Steven Holtzman said the revised damages estimate includes as much as $202 million for patent infringement, and as much as $960 million for copyright infringement.

He urged the judge to deny Google's request to exclude parts of Cockburn's report from the case.

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Google is based in Mountain View, California, and Oracle in nearby Redwood City.

The case in Oracle America Inc v. Google Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 10-03561.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by Carol Bishopric)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Lahcim Leinad who wrote (13180)9/23/2011 3:34:36 PM
From: sylvester80
   of 14007
 
Google Could Defeat Oracle's Android Licensing Hopes by Dropping Jave2ME
Google Could Defeat Oracle's Android Licensing Hopes by Dropping Jave2ME
Jason Mick (Blog) - September 23, 2011 8:46 AM

Bloomberg reports that another round of talks between software giants Google Inc. ( GOOG) and Oracle Corp. ( ORCL) ended at an impasse. Oracle Corp. is currently suing Google for using pieces of its patented Java2ME (J2ME) code in Android via the Apache Project's Java Standard Edition "Harmony" (J2SE).
<!--[endif]-->

Google CEO Larry Page sat with Oracle CEO Larry Ellison for 10 hours trying to work out an acceptable licensing agreement. The talks ended with no deal reached, with both parties agreeing to talk to court officials about "when further discussions will take place and whether the further attendance of Mr. Ellison and Mr. Page will be required."

I. Oracle's Plan For Double-Dip License Fees

The case represents a substantial risk for both firms.

Working in Oracle's favor is the fact that the judge has suggested that Google's infringement of the Java technology was "brazen". But Google has some advantages of its own. It dug up documents from the former CEO of Sun Microsystems -- the company Oracle acquired the Java intellectual property from in 2010 -- praising Google's use of Java in Android, and casting doubt on whether Sun was opposed to the unpaid use.

Furthermore, Google succeeded in convincing the judge to toss out the $6.1B USD that Oracle wanted -- a figure which included speculative future damages. Oracle has since revised its estimate downwards to $2.3B USD, a figure that still includes a $1.2B USD speculative damages total for 2012, which Google contends is unfair.

If the pair can't settle up, the case will likely go to trial. If that happens Oracle will be seeking one thing -- a permanent injunction banning U.S. Android sales. Unlike Apple, Inc. ( AAPL) who is seeking a similar injunction in hopes of permanently preventing U.S. Android sales, Oracle's "permanent" injunction bid would be in hopes of forcing Google into a lucrative licensing deal. Oracle could ask for a royalty as high as $15-20 per device license, on top of the identical fee it already charges Android handset makers like Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd.'s ( SEO 005930).

This is an important aspect to understand of why Oracle's campaign is more harmful to Android, than Microsoft's licensing efforts -- Oracle is double-dipping, seeking fees both at the OS and handset levels, where as Microsoft is content to stick with handset licensing.

Google offers Android licenses to handset manufacturers for free, though it does earn a certain amount of revenue via its cut of app sales and Android-targeted licensing. The question becomes how much of that revenue can Oracle take before Android starts to become a losing proposition for Google.

If Google is unable to beat Oracle in court, it will surely regret rejecting Sun's 2006 offer to license Java2ME to Android for $100M USD.

II. Google Could Remove Java from Android

One possible way Google could shirk the licensing fees, though, is to remove all the J2SE/J2ME code, leaving a naked interface for partners to implement their own build of J2ME. As most Android partners -- such as Samsung and Google subsidiary Motorola Mobility – are J2ME licensees, Oracle likely couldn't do anything about this scheme. The one major player who would be hurt by such an arrangement would be HTC Corp. ( SEO:066570). The Taiwanese manufacturer, believed to be the second largest Android handset maker, does not license J2ME. Thus it would likely be summarily sued by Oracle, should it try to plug in the technology.

If Google adopts such a strategy (and there's no clear reason why it wouldn't other than to protect HTC), it would still have to pay the damages for past infringement, but it would be spared from the ongoing double-dip licensing scheme. That would mean a big loss for Oracle, as the license fees comprise the majority of the money Oracle hopes to pocket in future years as a result of the case.

One thing to recall is that Google is sitting on a $39B USD cash surplus [ source], so it can afford to stomach some damages. But licensing fees? Those it should be far more concerned about, as they affect its ongoing bottom line.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: Sr K9/24/2011 10:37:26 PM
   of 14007
 
bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: JakeStraw9/26/2011 9:05:13 AM
   of 14007
 
A closer look at Google Wallet

Google Wallet has officially launched, turning smartphones into digital wallets. CNET reporter Maggie Reardon tries out the Google Wallet in her neighborhood.

ct.cnet.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: Glenn Petersen9/26/2011 9:51:31 AM
2 Recommendations   of 14007
 
The Facebook Chart That Freaks Google Out

Peter Kafka
All Things D
Wall Street Journal
September 26, 2011 at 4:08 am PT

The overhaul Facebook rolled out last week is meant, first and foremost, to keep users sticking around. But hyperbole aside, Facebook is already crushing the rest of the Web when it comes to stickiness.

Check out this engagement chart, courtesy of Citigroup’s Mark Mahaney. It’s a neat illustration of the Web 2.0 era, and does a nice job of explaining why Google is so freaked out about Facebook, and why AOL and Yahoo seem to be in eternal turnaround mode. (Note that just a couple years ago, someone might have thought to include MySpace in here. Remember?)



allthingsd.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.