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

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.

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.

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.

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.