Google Chairman: Apple Suing Out of Jealousy

| News

Google: Not the jealous type.Apple has been filing patent infringement lawsuits against companies like HTC and Motorola not because it wants to protect its intellectual property, but because it is jealous and angry over the Android’s growing market share compared to the iPhone. So said Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt during a presentation at the Google Mobile Revolution conference in Tokyo.

“The big news in the past year has been the explosion of Google Android handsets and this means our competitors are responding, because they are not responding with innovation, they’re responding with lawsuits,” Mr. Schmidt said, according to Perth Now. “We have not done anything wrong and these lawsuits are just inspired by our success.”

Waaah! Apple!Google’s Schmidt: Apple’s jealous!

Mr. Schmidt’s comments come in response to Apple’s ongoing lawsuit against HTC. According to Apple, HTC’s Android-based smartphones infringe on patents designed to protect the technology used in the iPhone. Android is the mobile device operating system Google developed and released after Apple began shipping the iPhone.

HTC was dealt a harsh blow recently when the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled that the company was infringing on two Apple patents. The ruling, if upheld, could lead to an import ban on the company’s Android-based smartphones.

Mr. Schmidt said that Google is supporting HTC’s plans to continue fighting Apple and the ITC ruling against it. He didn’t, however, say if Google is willing to help Apple overcome its apparent jealousy issues.

[Some image elements courtesy of iStockphoto]

Popular TMO Stories



Apple has been filing patent infringement lawsuits against companies like HTC and Motorola not because it wants to protect its intellectual property, but because it is jealous and angry over the Android?s growing market share compared to the iPhone. So said Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt

Sounds like someone else has been drinking their own Kool-aid.


Apple now has something like 70,000,000,000 reasons not to care about what Eric Schmidt thinks.


It’s amazing that Schmidt was ever on Apple’s board of directors?did Steve just have a brain freeze on that?

I hope Apple was able to gain as much learning about the ad business, etc. as Schmidt was about the iPhone.


because they are not responding with innovation

Xeroxer says “what?”

Bryan Chaffin

The cojones on this man…


Yes, today it seems hard to fathom that this guy was ever a boardmember at Apple, but hindsight is always a perfect 20/20. Back in the day when Steve invited Eric Schmidt to join Apples board Google actually seemed like a good and strong ally in the fight against the big bully Microsoft. Back then Chrome was merely a sketchy project and Android was nowhere to be seen.

What is really hard to fathom is the degree of blatant disloyality and dishonesty pulled of by Eric Schmidt in his handling of confidential insider knowledge from Apple Inc. And now, to top it off, sheer hypocracy in spades.



What utter BS. The first thing I learned when studying organizational communication is that entities such as companies, countries, etc., neither make decisions nor have feelings. People do. Apple can’t be jealous. What does that mean? That Steve Jobs is jealous? That all bazillion Apple employees are jealous? That Apple’s legal team is jealous? Apple’s shareholders are jealous?

Likewise, Apple doesn’t respond to anything by filing lawsuits. People within Apple do. So does Eric Schmidt think that Apple’s legal council got so jealous of Android as to waste company resources by filing a lawsuit, because Apple’s engineers couldn’t respond to Android with sufficient innovation?

Complete, utter nonsense.


Back then Chrome was merely a sketchy project and Android was nowhere to be seen.

Oh how people remember things so very wrong.

Google bought Android in August, 2005. Eric Schmidt was elected to Apple’s board in August, 2006. Eric Schmidt disclosed to the board that Google was working on Android and as a result he was not able to participate in any meetings on iPhone due to the conflict of interest.


It is merely Apple’s jealousy over Android’s success in the market, is it?  So I suppose that Microsoft and Oracle are also just suing Google out of jealousy, though Oracle doesn’t compete in the market for smart devices.  And that jealous Microsoft is such a sorry case that several of Google’s major Android OEMs have agreed to humor Microsoft by paying Microsoft royalties on their respective Android devices without even trying to challenge Microsoft’s presumably meritless infringement claims in court.  (Microsoft now makes more money on licensing from Android OEMs than it does from Windows Phone 7.  That’s not bad for mere jealousy). 

Well, I doubt that the federal courts or the ITC will humor Apple’s jealousy, so we will see how the merit of Apple’s infringement claims, shorn of the overwhelming force of Apple’s jealousy, do in those tribunals. 

Or it may not be Apple’s jealousy at all but Apple’s real desire to stop its competitors from using its own IP to compete against it.  It may be that in the rush to get to market before Apple iPoded the smartphone industry, Google’s senior managers desperately decided to infringe on then Sun’s, now Oracle’s, Java technology because it desperately needed a development framework that developer already knew and had tools for; that Google’s senior managers, in desperation to get to market before Apple iPoded the smartphone industry, decided to infringe on critical Apple IP in Android that Google couldn’t innovate around and passed Apple’s infringed IP on to its Android OEMs for them to do the actual infringement by practicing Apple’s unlicensed IP in their Android devices; and that Google’s senior managers and/or the senior managers of its OEMs so desperately and so patently incorporated Microsoft’s IP into Android and/or Android devices in a desperate effort to compete against Apple’s iPhone and iPad that it isn’t even worth it trying to fight a court case.

But I guess that we will just have to see how this all shakes out to see whether Apple is just jealous of Android’s competitive success or whether Google and/or its Android OEMs are thieves who desperately needed to shorten Android’s time to market by stealing the IP of not only Apple but of Microsoft and Oracle too.


International Trade Commission

Apple has been filing patent infringement lawsuits against companies like HTC and Motorola not because it wants to protect its intellectual property, but because it is jealous and angry over the Android?s growing market share compared to the iPhone. So said Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt

Sounds like someone else has been drinking their own Kool-aid.

Perhaps Mr. Schmidt also thinks that the International Trade Commission is also “jealous and angry over the Android?s growing market share” when they ruled that HTC (and the Android OS) was infringing on two Apple patents.


Lee Dronick

Great graphic! Looks like he is wearing a saggy diaper that leaks.

Really Eric, it isn’t jealousy, it is business.

Off topic: Has anyone else noticed the internet is slow today. Sometimes I get the spinning gear wheel of connecting and loading and sometimes the page loads rapidly as usual. I have reset the modem and such, so I am assuming that there is DNS problem or something.


Dear Daemon:  Oh how people, people being you, revise history to falsely fit their false truth.  What Google’s Schmidt showed to Steve Jobs and Apple’s Board was a pre-iPhone, Blacberry-style feature phone, which had no multi-touch UI.  And the technology that Google purchased also had no trace of the multi-touch UI technologies that Apple introduced to the market in the iPhone.  After Apple’s introduction of the iPhone, Google in slightly less than 18 months—Apple took four years to perfect the iPhone’s multi-touch UI—had not only a prototype smartphone with a working multi-touch UI; it had—and this is where Java comes in—a complete app-development framework based, you guessed it, on Java, even though Google’s attempt to license Java from Sun, when Sun was still an independent company, had failed with the parties not getting to a licensing deal.

So in less than 18 months Boogle not only innovated around Apple’s superbly patented multi-touch UI and other IP, but developed a sophisticated development framework with mature developer’s tools.  Well, we need to take our hats off to Google, though I am not sure who we are.  Are we the International Association of IP Thieves?  Or are we the Incredible Inventors’ Society.  I think that the courts will help us decide who we are and what Google is.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Schmiddy knows how to clown you guys.


An also interesting note that TMO reported on yesterday is that without any IP judgment in its favor that has taken effect, Apple is rapidly gaining share—taking ad request as a proxy for share, which is a pretty good proxy for Android, which is all about ads—on Android in both Europe and in the U.S.  And that trend looks like it will continue in the U.S., because it appears that 46% of those intending to purchase a smartphone in the next three months intend to purchase an iPhone, as opposed to Android’s second place showing of 32% intending to purchase an Android phone.  So, if Apple is jealous, it certainly isn’t jealous because of the trends in the smartphone market, which in the two most lucrative markets, the U.S. and Europe, are in its favor and will remain so until Google and/or its Android OEMs have the opportunity to copy the technology of Apple’s next iPhone.


I’ve got to admit that Google has point with this:  “GOOGLE has launched a stinging attack on major mobile phone rival Apple, saying its smartphone lawsuits are inspired by jealousy and a lack of innovation in its own iPhone.”  Apple has had trouble innovating, as Google has done with Android.  But part of the blame for Apple’s lack of Android-like innovation must fall on Google, because it hasn’t invented anything that Apple can copy in its iOS devices.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Actually Nemo, if you look carefully at the chart, RIM shows the fastest growth of all manufacturers. This should be a yellow flag, because RIM is on the decline everywhere. Not that the data is erroneous. The trend could very easily be explained by advertisers expanding ad buys more in other services which better target newer devices than in InMobi, which seems to have a disproportionate viewer base on RIM and Apple.

If you look carefully at the fine print, this is on the InMobi network, one of several prominent mobile ad networks. Here’s a guide to prominent “blind” ad networks.


Makes sense. Just look at how Apple have imitated Android devices. Why, the iPhone 3GS even copies the initials of that Samsung Galaxy S (‘GS’). And just look at those icons. And that touch interface. Shameless. [Thanks J Martellaro for the Twitter link].

Concur with mrmgraphics on notions of ‘jealousy’, although human emotions do affect corporate leadership, which in turn influences actions.

Frankly, Eric Schmidt and Google have bigger fish to fry, and these ‘jealousy’ and ‘innovation’ statements are timely diversion.


Has anyone else noticed the internet is slow today. Sometimes I get the spinning gear wheel of connecting and loading and sometimes the page loads rapidly as usual. I have reset the modem and such, so I am assuming that there is DNS problem or something

Very likely the Parliamentary committee hearings on Murdoch et al (father, son and wholly scapegoat).

Lee Dronick

Very likely the Parliamentary committee hearings on Murdoch et al (father, son and wholly scapegoat).

Yes! Someone threw a custard pie at the Murdocks, but missed and gummed up the internets.

Whatever was slowing it down seems to have cleared up and I am back up to speed. I was getting suspicious that there was a DNS attack or something.


Dear Bosco:  RIM, like Android, is showing great growth in certain less developed countries, principally in Asia, where Apple doesn’t compete, or is only beginning to compete, such as China, where it is rumored that Apple is on the verge of a deal with China Mobile for the next generation iPhone.  (Though even without China Mobile, Apple is earning great profits in China, which is probably why China Mobile has finally come to the table ready to agree to fair terms, after years of refusing to do so.)  InMobi looked at Europe and, I believe, the U.S.  InMobi’s use of ads in those markets as a proxy is probably a pretty good one, because, though independent ad networks are getting squeezed by both Google and Apple, Google and Apple’s respective ad networks, along with independent ad networks, are on the iPhone and all major Android phones in the U.S. and in major European markets that are covered by Apple’s carrier partners.  The regulators have seen to that. 

You should also note that Apple’s success in Europe occurs even though Apple does not compete in several secondary European markets, which Android has all to itself, where competition can’t produce good profits on fair terms.  (For example, in Europe, Apple has cut its deals with the major European carriers, such as Orange, so in small markets that are dominated by local carriers, Apple does not compete.  These markets are not economically significant, except on the margin.)  As is true for much of Latin America, Apple will not compete where it can’t get a fair deal that reflects the immediate and long-term value of its iOS devices, nor will it make any concession where it must licenses its IP.  Russian is an example of a potentially lucrative major market, where Android may succeed, if the Russian, as did the Chinese, don’t branch the hell out of it, but where Apple can’t do much business for a variety of reasons.  Nor will Apple compete where the market conditions, e.g., a population with insufficient discretionary income, won’t permit the success of its premier iOS products.  Cheap Android phones for less developed markets, though pretty miserable Android phones that won’t sell except among the poorest citizens of a developed market, are likely to be the next toaster to open a financial account in developed countries.  Charles Schwab is already doing it, giving away a free, personal-privacy breaching Android phone that is locked to Google’s services to those opening an account.  However, don’t expect that Charles Schwab’s free Android phone to be the equivalent of of an iPhone, for even Android’s OEMs won’t give away advanced technology, which quite possibly is Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle’s technology, for free. 

Another trick that one must watch for is for Google or others to include China Android’s numbers, even though Chinese carriers and OEMs have branched Android, achieving complete independence from Google so that Google doesn’t get a nickle of revenue from Android phones sold in China.


Dear Wab95:  Thanks for the CNNMoney story at  It nicely summarizes what I think is happening, as Android OEMs prepare for the possibility that Google and/or its OEMs will lose one or more the major infringement lawsuits against Google or its Android OEMs’ for making infringing Android or infringing Android devices.  Having an mobile OS monoculture only makes sense only if you invented and own the mobile OS and have the resources and culture, as does Apple, to relentlessly innovate to create a great users’ experience, or are certain that the licensed third-party mobile OS that you are exclusively using doesn’t have any significant infringement problems.

And yes, Google licenses Android to its OEMs, though it does not charge a royalty.  Instead, Google requires other valuable consideration (e.g., must use Google’s services to lock in Google’s ad revenue, must require that customers get a Google account to have a useful Android phone so that Google has access to customer data, requires that Google be allowed the exclusive right to capture customers data through its services, etc.) for an Android license, which provides, inter alia, the right to timely access to Android updates, the right to use Google and Android trademarks, and the right to use the Android Market for apps.


Unbelievable. I’m starting to think this guy is Satan, except I don’t think even Satan would stoop to these levels of blatant dishonesty or chicanery.

On a related note, I made a profile on the ‘innovative’ mash-up of Facebook and Twitter known as Google+ last week. I posted links to my other presences around the web, and Google were kind enough to delete the link to my Facebook page for me (though the others, mysteriously and inexplicably, are still there). Thanks guys. You are clearly the champions of innovation and free-market competition.




jamie, obviously Google is “open” only when it is convenient for Google.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Quite an allegation Jamie. Do you have any proof? Screenshots, etc. would be nice. Perhaps you have contacted Google about the issue. What did they reply? There have been a couple of notable episodes with Google+. They thought The Shat was a fake account (he wan’t). They removed him and then restored him when verified. They also though Scoble was a spammer, considering he was trying to add 50,000 friends. Somehow, I doubt they had time to delete your Facebook link.

Ross Edwards

Apple is rapidly gaining share

I think we know why, for the U.S. market at least.  Six months’ worth of Verizon subscribers have been, on a rolling basis, reaching the end of their contracts and re-upping with an iPhone 4 this time.  The Verizon iPhone 4 sold well out of the gate but not line-up-for-Zeppelin-tickets well, and we all remember the grousing and hem-hawing about that.  But the sharper pens in the drawer have said all along that it’s a matter of contracts… a person who is not eligible to re-up is unlikely to drop $650 to get a new handset, while a person who IS eligible will happily pony up $199 to do so, and that means it can take up to two years for Apple to capture that Verizon conversion market (while, one surmises, bringing in new users in the meantime).

And now it is happening.  Every month.  It’s a sea change, and it’s happening with a gradual and ultimately unstoppable momentum.



Yes. I’ve said it before in these comments: anyone that believes Google Inc. (or Apple, or Facebook, or any corporation) is ever thinking of anyone but Google Inc. is more of a sucker than the rest of us could ever hope to be in our wildest dreams. But nevertheless, stealing is illegal, and for good reason, (hopefully) we are grown-ups, here. 

I think this Friday I’m going to go to Bosco’s employer and take his paycheck, ‘cause, y’know, I’m entitled to that. Thanks for putting in the hours, dude. I’ll raise my glass to you when I’m in Vegas spending it. And I stole your Flash designs, I wouldn’t want to have to go through the hassle of actually learning about any of that sh*t, developing my own skills or ideas. I’m an innovator, after all, that’s what they tell me.


And Dear Mrmgraphics:  You make an excellent point.  Under the ethical rules that govern the practice of law, a lawyer may only file a lawsuit or oppose a defense to one where there is sufficient basis in law and fact for the claim or claims or defense or defenses to have prima facie merit, that is, until and unless rebutted by later developments in the proceeding what the lawyer sees before him proves the elements of his client’s claim or defense, or at the very least, the lawyer must allege facts, so called “notice pleading,” that he believes, based on the facts that he knows, give rise to a claim or defense and that may be proved by the evidence adduced in the process of discovery.  And in infringement cases, the court require more than notice pleading.  The plaintiff must state what IP duly belonging to him/it is being infringed by specifically what practice of the defendant.  The foregoing requirements pretty much excludes an ethical lawyer or even a lawyer who doesn’t want to be sanctioned by the court from going along with Steve Jobs wanting to file an infringement lawsuit out of jealously alone.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Wow Jamie. You are the new king of stupid analogies. HTC did not steal Apple’s designs. They have been found by an ALJ at the ITC to have infringed on two Apple patents from the early and mid 1990s, software patents that would never be granted in the EU, for example. None of the iPhone-specific patents were found to have been violated. And violating a patent doesn’t involve “stealing” the patent owner’s designs. They’re published for all to read, ferchrissakes! That’s how patents work. Violating a patent involves using them without a license. For software, you can’t write anything much more complex than Hello World without technically violating some patent. That holds true for Apple, Google, Adobe, Microsoft, or any little developer. It’s because business process patents are completely out of control. When someone like Lodsys sues Apple, your crowd gets all bent out of shape. When Apple gets is ass handed to it by Nokia, again, you get all bent out of shape. But when HTC is found by an ALJ to have violated two rather obscure patents from 15+ years ago, well, HTC and Google are copiers and thieves and let’s just unload outrage.

So Jamie, where’s the proof that Google deleted your link? You know how I knew your allegation was bullshit? Because lots of prominent social media stars have linked to their Facebook pages in their profiles that without problem, and they’d be the first to bitch if it were a problem. For example, Guy Kawasaki has 2 facebook links in his profile.


RIM, like Android, is showing great growth in certain less developed countries, principally in Asia, where Apple doesn?t compete, or is only beginning to compete

Very true, although this is beginning to change, not only in India, but as you cite, China.

Provided that Google can survive the threats to its Android OS, which are not insubstantial, I maintain that it is best poised to bring smart phones to the low and middle income country markets, ported on cheap Chinese or other OEM handsets, in addition to the more standard Samsung and HTCs. I have already seen a number of these cheap handsets in South and Southeast Asia. This will help bring ultra-portable computing with internet access to millions, affordably and quickly. Google can potentially play this role, and if not, we have a model of how it might be done.

Your comments about Google’s original phone OS being a Blackberry-like device with no multi-touch interface, by the way, are correct, insofar as I recall, and in fact, Google originally promised Apple that it would not use a multi-touch interface. This pretence of self-righteous indignation at their ‘innovation’ being ‘envied’ is not merely hypocritical but repugnant and unbecoming. Besides, as my post above demonstrated, the mainstream media are not buying it.

I for one, do not want Android to go away, but to stand on its own feet, develop along its own track, and give Apple real competition that technologically challenges Apple. In fact, I want the same from MS and HP. I want Apple and the industry pushed to those limits that breed those next generation breakthroughs, which a competitive market can bring at pace.

[Note to TMO: It would be nice if you could restore pre-post comment screening. I tend to write directly onscreen, and frequently have to edit typos - if I catch them. I realise I could do this in Pages, etc. Many thanks.]


I’ve got to get back to work, but Bosco always draws me out.  It is not true that the EU bans software patents.  The EU has reached no consensus or rule of law on software patents for its member countries.  Thus, some of the largest and most important countries comprising the EU, e.g., Germany, permits software patents, while other countries, also some of the larger ones, don’t.

What is a software patent?  Well, it is not simply code, as Bosco and too many others seem to think.  You can only get a copyright on software that is only purely an expression, that is, software independent of a machine.  A patent granted on software is a patent on the code that runs on a processor to perform some function.  That code running on a processor comprises the invention that falls into the category of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, which is patentable subject matter.  35 U.S.C. ? 101.  Usually, code running on a processor is characterized as a patentable machine; however, there is some overlap with the categories of process or, perhaps, even a item of manufacture.  In holding that “software” could be patented, the U.S. Supreme court found that the invention produced by code running on a processor was no different than, for example, patenting a machine that, like a player piano, used coded instructions to perform a useful task, something which has been done repeatedly in history of patents well before there were computers.

As for a person or company being surprised by a patent that they didn’t know of, that happens frequently for utility patents other than software patents.  If it happens more for software patents, it is probably because, except for large companies, people don’t wish to hire a patent lawyer, who most likely holds an advanced degree in computer science, to do a competent search of the prior art for existing relevant software patents, though I admit even a competent prior art search, while a good step, can’t guarantee that what you contemplate doing won’t infringe.

Finally, there is no evidence that Nokia kicked Apple’s ass.  In fact, if Nokia only came away with cross-licenses for a minor patents and some money, it is Apple that kicked Nokia’s ass.  But not being privy to the parties’ confidential settlement agreement and since there has not been time to see what licenses Nokia exploits in its future devices, I can’t tell who, as between Nokia and Apple, kicked whose ass.  Certainly, there was nothing in either the ITC or court cases to indicate that Nokia had the upper hand.  Nokia and Apple had either fought to a draw in the ITC, or the court proceeding hadn’t reached the stage where either party received a dispositive ruling in its favor.  The speculation in some of the legally unsophisticated press and blogs that Nokia kicked Apple’s ass is nothing more than that, ignorant speculation. 

However, perhaps Bosco is privy to some inside information that the press hasn’t reported.  If so Bosco, I am sure that we would love to know what that information is and how you came to know it.


What Google?s Schmidt showed to Steve Jobs and Apple?s Board was a pre-iPhone, Blacberry-style feature phone, which had no multi-touch UI.

Nemo, I didn’t know you were on the Board of Directs for Apple from August 2006 to August 2009! Why didn’t you ever say so before!

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@daemon: I haven’t figured out where they all got their talking points on the “BlackBerry clone”, but they all got them yesterday or today. There is a choir of new revelations all over the blogosphere today.

@Nemo: You know damned well (a) that neither of the patents the ALJ said HTC violated would hold 2 ounces of water in the EU, and (b) that Apple paid Nokia north of $600M to settle their dispute and will continue to pay a quarterly royalty. That’s an ass-kicking in anyone’s book.


Dear Daemon:  I will try to dig up the citation to the press report for you; though it was reported several years ago, I may know where I read it.  But when this firestorm of an Android phone with a multi-touch UI broke upon the scene, it was reported that Steve Jobs was furious, because what he had seem from Google was a phone that didn’t have a multi-touch UI.


Dear Bosco:  Since I don’t practice IP law in the EU, I only know what colleagues who do have told me.  That there is no EU-wide prohibition of software patents and that several large countries in the EU permit software patents.  I am confident that my colleagues know their business.  In fact, Apple is now suing Samsung in Germany over certain of its software patents that it practices in its iPhone and that it alleges Samsung has infringed.  I think that Apple is also suing HTC in Europe.  You can check at for the details of where Apple and certain Android OEMs are suing each other and over what patents. 

As for whether, the patents that the ALJ found to be violated would or will also be found to be violated in any EU-member country is a matter on which I have no opinion, for I am not qualified to offer such an opinion, but then again, Bosco, neither are you, and that isn’t stopping you.

Nor do I have any idea, nor do you, of what Apple paid to Nokia for the settlement.  But let’s say arguendo that it was $600 million dollars, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable figure for past use of Nokia’s FRAND patents.  The Nokia v. Apple suit was never about Apple not paying Nokia for its FRAND patents but was always about how much Apple would pay.  Apple alleged that Nokia wanted too much, seeking a prohibitive amount that exceeded FRAND terms as a means of forcing Apple to license its crucial iOS-device IP to Nokia in lieu of paying Nokia a prohibitively expensive licensing fee, while Nokia maintained that Apple had refused its offer of FRAND terms.  The parties settling that dispute at about $600 million is just a number, whether that number, if that is what Apple paid, is less, greater, or more than Nokia receives from others for similar use of its FRAND IP is something that I don’t know and neither do you.



The Google+ intrigue continues:the link to my personal site (which contains a direct link to my Facebook page), also kaput. What’s next? Rigged Google search results?

I suppose there is a slim chance this is beta-buggery. I’m going to add the links back and see what happens. . . .

Log in to comment (TMO, Twitter or Facebook) or Register for a TMO account