Slashdot Mirror


Google Reaffirms Stance Against Software Patents

An anonymous reader writes "Google has again publicly affirmed its stance against software patents during an announcement over a potential defensive acquisition. These days, when Microsoft, Apple, and others are abusing software patents, it's nice to see one large company calling them junk."

10 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    See Microsoft suing Android users...

    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/microsoft-sues-barnes-noble-foxconn-inventec-over-android-e-readers/46314?tag=nl.e589

    Microsoft has already said that Linux infringes on "multiple" patents. They are only not suing because Linux is "small" threat, but if it ever becomes significant threat for Microsoft, lawsuits will start flying!

  2. Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not by killmenow · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know. Like when they never sued Motorola or Barnes & Noble.

  3. Google wants patent reform by BurfCurse · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nowhere in the article does it say that Google is against software patents. I only see them pushing for patent reform.

  4. Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not by GIL_Dude · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, we know that isn't true. Try this: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/03/google-android-microsoft/. According to that, an MS rep said, "Microsoft has taken these actions against Barnes & Noble, Foxconn and Inventec because they are commercializing products that infringe our patented innovations.” That pretty much shows your "only defending against patent trolls" to be patently (pardon the pun) false. Microsoft historically has not been quick to sue for patent infringement, but in recent years has been much more likely to go to court. How about this one: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3807801/Bruce-Perens-Analyzing-Microsofts-TomTom-Lawsuit.htm where they went after Tom-Tom for the patent on FAT32 of all things. You can no longer just claim that Microsoft doesn't go after patent infringement and doesn't attack other companies.

    Now, your statement that MS isn't a patent troll is, of course, true. MS hasn't sued people over patents that MS isn't using in devices of their own. They aren't just an "IP holding company" like your normal patent troll. But they have clearly gone beyond the days of holding patents merely for defense.

  5. The statement isn't strong enough (by far) by FlorianMueller · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are some things to like about Google's statement, but let's be realistic: this isn't a clear statement against all software patents including their own PageRank and Google Doodle patents. They complain about "low-quality software patents". That's absolutely not the same as being against all software patents. It means that they just believe many of those patents aren't good enough. However, the answer that politicians give then is to provide more funding to the patent offices of the world, not to abolish software patents.

    I've done a lot of work on patent policy (with my NoSoftwarePatents campaign in 2004/05 and otherwise) and I know that the difference between saying "some [or even 'many'] software patents are bad" and saying that "all software patents must be abolished" is like a difference between night and day. Actually, lobbying entities working for Microsoft also call for more patent quality all the time. That's definitely not a sufficient statement to be interpreted as a call for the abolition of all software patents no matter how "good" they may be relative to other software patents.

    It's like saying "we are against unjust wars" as opposed to saying "we should never go to war."

    I also analyzed Google's amicus curiae brief in the Bilski case and found that it advocated higher patent quality and raised issues but didn't go far enough to really demand the abolition of software patents.

  6. Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not by pieterh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Microsoft never has attacked other companies"

    Microsoft files rare patent lawsuit against Salesforce.com
    Microsoft Slaps Motorola with Patent Lawsuit over Android
    Microsoft wins big on PND patent lawsuit
    Microsoft Files Patent Lawsuit Vs TiVo Again
    Patent Lawsuits Filed by Former Microsoft CTO’s Firm

    Further, Microsoft has lobbied extensively in Europe for a software patent regime, funding numerous attempts to modify the current situation where a patent has to be litigated in each country separately. If they were being defensive, they would not do this, the current European patent system favors defense.

    And further, Microsoft has pushed very hard, for many years now, to find a way to extract a toll on Linux, via patents.

    They are not a patent troll, mainly because they delegated that job to Intellectual Ventures, a pure patent troll firm. They are repeatedly attacked by firms who hold patents, though often it seems Microsoft stole the technology, and the small firms are justified in seeking compensation. But they do abuse their patents, and they do abuse the patent system in an attempt to fight competitors like Linux and Android that they can't beat on technical merit.

  7. They can afford it by CruelKnave · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's easy for Google to call software patents junk when their primary source of income is advertising. They can afford to give all their software away (or provide access to it online, whatever) for free. Microsoft, on the other hand, relies on its software to make money.

    1. Re:They can afford it by JustinOpinion · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, Google can comfortably decry software patents because their business model is not dependent on them. But that's the point, isn't it?

      Google's point of view deserves to be heard because it informs the debate. They are an example of a big software company innovating and making money without relying on software patents. This weakens the argument for software patents being absolutely necessary for economic progress in this sector. Moreover Google can make a compelling case for how they could innovate/produce more if software patents were not standing in their way.

      Of course just because Google has a business model that doesn't rely on software patents doesn't mean that all software companies will be in the same position. (Certainly not all software companies can become advertising companies!) But that's fine, too: we hear the opinions of those companies who "rely" on software patents to remain viable. But Google's opinion is not invalidated just because they don't need patents; that is the very crux of why their opinion is relevant!

      Besides, let us not forget that the primary question in this debate shouldn't be "what makes companies the most money?" We should be asking about what kind of wealth we want to generate in our society (money? innovation? health? happiness?), and then optimizing laws to achieve said goals. No matter what laws we enact, there will be some losers and some winners. The idea is to find the balance where the overall social gains are maximized. If we got rid of software patents, there would be losers (e.g. Microsoft), but possibly more winners (Google, all the small-time businesses, open source, etc.). Even within a "loser" things might not be so bad: some parts of Microsoft's business would suffer, but others might flourish (e.g. there is certainly a cost for Microsoft to have to defend itself against other's patents).

  8. Not so fast... by bogaboga · · Score: 4, Informative

    These days, when Microsoft, Apple, and others are abusing software patents, it's nice to see one large company calling them junk.

    Before you call them 'junk' in the courts of law, where it matters, things might not be in agreement with your line of view.

    I will quote Gosling...

    "In Sun's early history, we didn't think much of patents. While there's a kernel of good sense in the reasoning for patents, the system itself has gotten goofy. Sun didn't file many patents initially. But then we got sued by IBM for violating the "RISC patent" - a patent that essentially said "if you make something simpler, it'll go faster". Seemed like a blindingly obvious notion that shouldn't have been patentable, but we got sued, and lost. The penalty was huge. Nearly put us out of business. We survived, but to help protect us from future suits we went on a patenting binge."

    So it's not over yet...not even close.

  9. Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am not sure what you are smoking but not only is Microsoft suing android users, but they were financing SCOs fight against everyone using linux.
    Microsoft is very much in the software patent offensive game.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?