Are Google's Patents Too Weak To Protect Android?

An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian published an opinion piece written by former-NoSoftwarePatents-activist-turned-controversial-patent-blogger Florian Mueller. He lists 12 patent lawsuits instigated against Android last year, says there are many more to come, and believes that Google's portfolio of only 576 US patents is dwarved by those of Apple, Microsoft, Oracle and others. So Google can't retaliate against aggressors such as Oracle. Consequently — he argues — Android makers will have to remove functionality or pay high license fees, and the operating system will become unprofitable for handset makers. Even the app ecosystem could suffer, he says. Since Google received only 282 new US patents in 2010, the gap between Google's portfolio and those of its competitors is widening further: Apple produces about twice as many, and Microsoft gets more than 3,000 new ones a year. Let's discuss this: is Android really in for so much trouble? Can't Google find other ways (than owning many patents) to defend it than countersuing? How about its vast financial resources?"

Comments

Hmmm....

[Desler]

How much does anyone want to bet that this supposed "anonymous reader" is Florian himself?

Re:Hmmm....

[smallfries]

There are better indications that the story is bollocks.

Argument: Google is being sued a lot because it doesn't have a big enough patent collection to counter-sue.
Evidence: 12 suits.

Let's see... 8/12 are suits by patent trolls or companies in completely different industries. No size of patent pool would dissuade them as they do not produce *anything* in the same industry. 4/12 are relevant.

Conclusion: The size of Google's patent warchest is irrelevant in 66% of cases and the author is an idiot.

Re:Hmmm....

[Daniel Phillips]

Well, but it's a fair question to ask. Personally I regard Google's legal team as very sharp, and unlike many other companies they are quite happy going for the throat with patent invalidation rather than seeking detent. And the trolls know it.

Or...

[khallow]

What makes almost 600 patents too small a number? It sounds to me like a few effective, relevant patents are better than a hoard of patents most which are completely unrelated and exist only because nobody yet has the incentive to contest the patents. The author claims that Google needs more raw patents, but I don't see the case for it.

Re:Or...

[khallow]

I also can't help but notice that only 3 lawsuits involve Google. A lot of these other affected businesses have their own patent portfolios. So why only count Google's patents in a lawsuit that involves Motorola, but not Google? Shouldn't we instead consider Motorola's patents not Google's?

Let me think....

[Anonymous Coward]

Android runs on... oh... ...Samsung phones and ...Sony-Ericson phones and ...creative device and ...sharp devices and ...benq devices and ...motorola devices ...NEC devices ...LG devices.

If these conpanies put together a paten pool to protect android, then its enough to sue Apple and Microsoft together to Hell and back (not to mention Oracle is not goiung to make these customers angry). All of the companies sold mobile devices long before Apple thought about it. Even Nokia should fear such a consortium when it comes to patents regarding mobile devices.

Re:Let me think....

[fermion]

To me the devices are separate from the software stack. As of now, the only company that has 'bet the farm' on android is HTC and Google. Consider also that though Android is gaining rapid market share, and Apple is seen as a carrier friendly firm, Verizon still wanted the iPhone. Also consider that Google and OHC does require significant compliance with OHC rules, and consumers expect closed Google apps, which has allowed Google to attack those who tried to build a phone without it's consent.

Which is simply to say that it is unclear whether anyone other than HTC is 100% committed to Android as the primary stack. I think it is also instructive to note that HTC at one time was a developer of MS phones. It may be that the best way for MS to gain market share is to scare phone makes into not using Android.

It is a complicated relationship. Apple is being sued because it is not part of the club, and entered successfully into a market it is not wanted. The lack of phone experience meant it likely did step on some patents. Google is being sued because in it's arrogance it tried to do OSS independently, not using existing tech and experience. In the search market, which was immature, that was fine. But in the mature phone market, with an old incumbency, MS included, Google and Apple as upstarts are trouble.

Well..

[iserlohn]

It's not the number of patents, but the likelihood of a patent being actionable, and/or enforcible.

In any case, if there is a court judgement that sufficiently harms innovation because of the escalating war in software patents, you will be sure that there will be a change in the direction in jurisprudence with regards to these "soft" patents. You have to remember that most of hte world don't have software patents, and many places (like Europe) would like to keep it that way.

Google resources

[CodeShark]

Actually I would like to suggest that Google's main approach and threat would be to counter the whole software is patentable paradigm in ways that the big three (Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle) will not want to defend against. Plus the likely scenario that IBM would rather see Google succeed than the other three, and their patent portfolio in the form of prior art assistance to Google would change the game entirely, or the fact that Google is likely to code around any patents more quickly than any trial can move forward. So I think that trying to take Google and Android down via patents is a losing proposition.

Plus the Google ecosystem can effectively fight off alot of threats simply by the fact that they are have no obligation to play nice when it comes to search engine trafficking/optimization and/or investments.

For example, picture what happens if Google puts resources into Postgres, MariaDB, or any of the other major database platforms that would cut into the profitability of Oracle or Microsoft. Or takes up the banner of Open Office to free it from the clutches of Sun, further weakening Microsoft profit margins. What people are learning is that Google at least so far tends to be a very worthy adversary. So far we also like Google more than the billionaires clubs as run by Gates and Ellison.

SuperPatent

[TaoPhoenix]

These articles bother me. Google called a couple of colleagues and asked "Hey, how many patents you got?" They got the answers back, and still decided "No problem. Let's go make a mobile OS."

One month's work by a Chief Strategist has already dealt with this ages ago. These articles are like stones chewing up open spots on the bloGOsphere. Just put an article down, and now it's there. Some combination of them "decides" the "mood of the consumers".

Articles speculating about someone sinking Android are trying to block the key points in a Life-Or-Death problem for Google. They're trying to create negative self fulfilling prophecies.

Patent Lag Times - Especially Software

[Sonny Yatsen]

The reason that Google has comparatively fewer software patents issuing every year is because there's often a massive lag behind filing a patent and having it issued. I've seen software patents that have taken as long as 6 or 7 years before it gets issued due to the amount of prosecution done on it. 6 or 7 years ago, Google was a much smaller (and newer) company with much less resources to file software patents. In comparison, the reason Apple gets 3000 patents a year is because they've been in business for over 20 years.

Re:We are in the midst of software patent armagedd

[cpt kangarooski]

Why not? How is software unlike any other industry? If you're going to go on that old exception about algorithms and "all software is math," then that argument has lost many times and is unlikely to ever succeed. You're going to need a really good policy argument to explain why we should strip IP protection from a multi-trillion dollar industry, particularly in this economy.

Software isn't inherently undeserving of patent protection, but it is presently inappropriate to grant patents in that field.

The purpose of patents is to encourage the invention, disclosure, and bringing to market, of patentable inventions (i.e. novel, nonobvious, useful, etc.) which otherwise would not have been invented, disclosed, and brought to market. It's an artificial subsidy, and should only be applied where it is necessary, and never where it is redundant, because there are costs involved. In most cases it's not really possible to tell, particularly on the level of a specific patent for a specific invention. However, the software industry is fabulously inventive, is very good at bringing things to market, and almost inevitably seems to involve disclosure, at least to a person having ordinary skill in the art.

Frankly, the software industry doesn't need patents. It isn't being spurred on to greater heights of inventiveness, etc. by the availability of patents. In fact, the costs of patents (read broadly; not just the cost of getting one, but the minefield) are probably dragging it down. We'd better achieve the desired goals of the patent system if we didn't grant patents in that field. At least not for the time being. Eventually, the industry may settle down, and it would become appropriate to grant patents in the field, but that time isn't now. Business methods are the same sort of thing; patents aren't acting as a necessary incentive, and aren't doing more good than harm.

So one of the reasons we should strip those protections is to turn a multi-trillion dollar industry into something even bigger. We don't need to chain ourselves to anchors in this economy.