Slashdot Mirror
Google Accuses Competitors of Abusing Patents Against Android
Hugh Pickens writes "Bloomberg reports that Google has accused Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle of waging a 'hostile, organized campaign' against Android by purchasing patents to keep them out of Google's hands and to make it more expensive for handset makers to use Android. 'We thought it was important to speak out and make it clear that we're determined to preserve Android as a competitive choice for consumers, by stopping those who are trying to strangle it,' writes David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer. Android's success has resulted in a 'hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents.'"
Microsoft has responded, saying they offered to bid jointly with Google on the Nortel patents, but Google refused. Some think Google is being hypocritical with their stance on patents changing now that Android appears to infringe on a bunch.
So Microsoft, Apple and Oracle wanted Google to join them and jointly bid with them, allowing access to the patents for everyone. Google didn't join, and lost the bidding when they tried to get it all for themselves. Who is the real hostile company here?
Google+ vs. Facebook, and why Google+ will fail
"Article" not worth reading. Move along.
There's a reason why most Slashdotters don't read the article - 90% aren't worth reading.
It was an auction, and you got outbid. If Nortel wasn't a dying (dead) company, you would have still had to license / work around any of these patents, so what's the difference?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I appreciate the need to spice things up with novel plotlines, but in this kind of scenario you really want clear sides, so that spectators can rally around their favorite team. It's okay if it's subject, so some people pick the "Apple good!" side and others then "Google good!" side. But you've still got to keep the lines reasonable or it's not really conductive to building a fanbase.
Also, someone should print up some shirts that read, "No war but the patent war!"
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Reform of...a bucket of water! Shape of...a patent troll slaying sword! Sorry...lack of coffee does strange things to my mind this early in the day.
That being, stopping wasting their money on buying patents, and using their considerable amount of cash to push the elimination of software patents. Just imagine the amount of money and bullshit that would get saved long term.
Google is being hypocritcal here. If they opensource their propietary technology maybe I will believe them. Now, it looks like crocodile tears.
Some think Google is being hypocritical with their stance on patents changing now that Android appears to infringe on a bunch.
Some? Some would say it's a whole lot more than just some who think Google is being hypocritical.
Microsoft has responded, saying they offered to bid jointly with Google on the Nortel patents, but Google refused.
Hey Microsoft, could you please throw some light as to how Google's joint purchase of these patents with you would help Google fend off patent lawsuits from the likes of yourself, Apple and the rest?
Google wanted these patents for defensive purposes. Therefore Google's teaming up with folks like Apple and Microsoft, who would like to see Android fail would be plain stupid in my opinion.
I really don't think a company with as many bright people as Google would be stumbling about like this when the issue could cause Android to either be shut down or force Google into very expensive licensing. More likely, they are making this look as ridiculous as possible in order to try to garner enough support for eliminating software patents, or at least substantial patent reform.
Then again, maybe they really did just have a case of the stupids.
I know there is a huge bunch of people who are on the stance Patents are Evil and should be removed... I don't think so... However they need a major work over. A lot of these patents are obvious, and need to be flagged as such, we need to find more reasons to reject patents then let them pass. The ones that do pass should be the golden software, which are not obvious to even experience developers. But a lot of these patents developers can easily infringe on not because they are copping but because a situation came up were it seemed to be the best solution to the problem, and may not have seen it before and just coded it because it needed to be coded.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Who is this tool going around whining about how the competition is unfair?
If I were Larry Page I would fire this weakling who is making my company look bad.
I might be more believing of Google's current position if they were to also be campaigning for a major overhaul of the patent system.
Such a major overhaul needs to first recognize that any issuance of a patent "takes away the rights of others to independently invent and innovate" where "this taking is justified only where it creates an incentive to innovate where none would otherwise exist". It also needs to establish new, stronger, standards to evaluate whether an application represents genuine innovation that is not likely to have happened without the patent incentive (e.g. "if I can't get a patent, I just won't invent this" are cases that need incentive where things that would be invented no matter what are not). If an engineer, developer, or researcher in a given field (or in particular, a few of them) could have come up with the particular invention in a reasonable way, when posed with the particular problem it solves, then that represents something that is "obvious" and "non-innovative". The patent system should be (and originally was) for the purpose of encouraging innovative and non-obvious inventions in order to benefit the nation and world as a whole. It was never intended as a means for businesses to back-stab each other, to put roadblocks in front of each other, and to further gouge the markets.
FYI, this is not a "software patents" issue. While the vast majority of "software patents" really are obvious and/or non-innovative (at the level of standard that patents should be issued for), there are some cases where this is not so. It should not matter if a non-obvious and genuinely innovative idea is implemented in hardware or software (or a combination thereof). This kind of major patent system overhaul should also fix the "software patents problem" at the same time as fixing other problems.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Just read this (on DaringFireball):
Brian S. Hall, “Google Are Pussies”:
"If you have a monopoly business and generate monopoly profits and take those monopoly profits to another industry and gave away what your competitors (must) charge for, which led you to quickly capture the dominant maret share, would you
whine like a bitch?"
Nice point :)
Link is down, sadly: http://brianshall.com/content/google-are-pussies
I fail to see any hypocrisy and I re-read Gruber's blog post multiple times trying to follow his twisty logic.
It appears to me that Google, like many, many software engineers in the US but unlike many software companies in the US, doesn't see patents as particularly useful or valuable to the industry. Google seems to think that software patents inhibit innovation, not help it, and wishes that software patents didn't exist.
Does that mean that Google shouldn't buy patents or apply for patents? Of course not, because software patents do exist and it's suicide for a big software company to try to get along without them.
See, everyone who has been paying attention understands that 99.9% of software patents are utter crap. They don't represent real innovation, because they're simply obvious to anyone who happens to be working on the relevant problem. But actually going through the process of invalidating them, either by identifying the prior art or finding some way to demonstrate that they're obvious, is horribly time-consuming and expensive. And it's ultimately almost pointless because there are so many more patents out there which can be asserted once you've knocked down the first batch.
No, the way you defend yourself against bogus patent claims (or even the occasional arguably-valid claim) is by having plenty of patents so that you can countersue with a whole bunch of your own bogus patent claims. Then you and your attacker can negotiate a cross-licensing agreement. In practice, once you've got a sufficiently large pile of patents a form of detente sets in, where you and your commercial competitors don't bother to sue one another over patents because there's no point. No one would win but the lawyers anyway, and everyone knows it.
Google was perhaps a little slow to understand this patent landscape. More accurately, most of what Google did for years was harder to attack with patents so it wasn't so relevant and so Google didn't really bother. But Google is in the thick of it now, and fully understands the nature of the situation.
So, I don't see any hypocrisy. I think Google thinks software patents suck and should go away, but given that they're here Google is forced to play the game. But Google doesn't like the game, sees it as dirty pool and has decided to at least call its opponents on their dirty (if lamentably legal) tactics.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Google software engineer, but haven't been one for long and don't know anything about Google's patent strategy other than what I read in the press.)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Patents are granted to these companies. When did it become bogus? If Google thinks this is bogus. They need to fight and get the patents invalidated. It is not as if Google is a small company and cannot fight. Google may have purposefully violated patents from other companies and hence they do not protect the OEMs who are implementing Android. If Google thinks these are bogus then fight and make sure these patents are invalidated.
The computer and software industry has been about rapid development and improvement. The 80s saw amazing development and growth. There were accusations of copying and all that, but the reality is that everyone copies everyone and always have. It's how we define progress. Forgetting that software is just path for a moment and let's just think of it in terms of development of a "thing."
The industry has grown from nearly nothing (by comparison) to the single most dominating thing which has transformed the way the world does business, recreation and correspondence in less time than it takes for a patent to expire! In fact, many "technologies" have come and gone in that time.
The fact is, "software" is a ware that has no cost of raw materials to manufacture. It's just bits and copying them costs nothing aside from the memory and storage devices used to contain them. Development only has the design phases and testing phases without the costs of prototyping and materials selection that you would see in a physical product. What I am saying is that software is a very fluid and rich environment and the translation from idea to product is very rapid. This makes patents unnecessary as an incentive to develop and build new things -- the need to do so is a matter of survival in this industry. And, of course, now we are seeing that patents on software is having the effect of stifling development and innovation as ideas can be patented without any cost involved with developing the idea at all.
I know... more preaching to the choir here on slashdot so it's nearly useless. But on the off chance some senator or congressman or someone associated with them can find this on a search, then maybe it's good to write about it.
Software patents are actually slowing down the US software industry. As golliaths sit on their massive pile of patents, they are increasingly using them to squash competition rather than developing new and innovative things as they should be. And since the rest of the world doesn't care about software patents, they are more free to continue their rapid development of technologies meaning the US is slowly being left behind.
The current approach is to keep things as they are and to "defend them" politically and eventually physically. That approach is leaving the US with fewer and fewer friends...
Step 1- all patents are considered invalid until proven in court. If the USPTO can't be bothered to validate patents then let the courts handle the matter. Step 2- To get a software patent you must file (complete) source, including build environment. Having the full source for windows would level the playing field, and allow people to support old embedded applications. Step 3- All pending patents and submitted patents are on public display from the moment they are filed. Step 4- Massively reduced damages if you didn't actually -USE- the patent. Should cut down on trolls.
Simply ignore the software patents. And throw through the window the lawyer who trying to sue you. (+bonus if you're on the tenth floor or higher)
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
If there is a time when the government should step in this is it. This whole patent war crap is not only anti-competitive for the companies involved, but it also kills off any chance of new companies innovating in the market. It's becomes a monopoly by patent portfolio enforcement.
It's anti-competitive and should be squashed.
Google, Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, who is playing fair and who isn't doesn't interest me. Software patents are the real issue here, they are misused and contribute to restrain innovation in the software world. I really wonder if I'll ever see the end to this nonsense before the end of my life. Google always gave me the impression they considered software patents as a nuisance, I hope they use some of their billions to lobby the politicians into abolishing it, since apparently it's the only way to make things change in the US.
Reading comprehension fail or professional troll? MS said they invited Google to a joint bid for the Novell deal. That's not the $4.5 billion Nortel deal.
I like Gruber's information and his podcast, but he takes way too many shots at Google and not enough at other companies. But it is true that there is hypocrisy in Google's statements. If what Microsoft is saying is true, Google was offered to go in with Apple, Microsoft, et al. to buy the patents and said no. Then Google bid themselves bid on those parents. They were outbid by the group that they were offered to join! Had they done so originally, they would have ownership of these patents and there would be no argument or story.
If you believe Google wouldn't turn around and use these patents offensively as well, I have a bridge to sell you. Why would Google not jump into the patent group to defend themselves from this most likely scenario? Perhaps they were going to turn around and attack with the same patents? I believe that to be a highly likely scenario, and as such it's hypocritical and Google comes off like a "whiny bitch" because instead of playing the safe bet in the game and then working to dismantle the game, they played the game aggressively, lost, and then acts like the victim when they just screwed themselves.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
WAHH!!!! That meany Bill Gates bought them before we could! WAH!!!!!!
Software patents seems like a brilliant scheme by lawyers to produce infinite work out of nothing.
The only winning move is not to play.
If you can't win, sue, sue, sue.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
I don't recall seeing any news of the USA legalising (or legalizing, if you are American or 17th Century British) anti-competitive cartels and yet, US companies seem to be forming and operating patent-buying cartels with impunity? What makes a patent cartel special and why would it ever be legal to form one?
I see a lot of hating in this thread toward Android phones. Maybe you lamers should get off you Apples and get back to real software.. OR maybe your memory is short lived. Remember Apple used Darwin to build its own OS, Darwin as in BSD and IT should be OPEN?? So how much GPL has Apple broke? Use and lock up the Source that is OPEN. HUH??? Ask yourself... Then five years ago a phone OS is made called Android made with open source, prior art and abandon ware. Nobody said anything till Google bought then Sun reached for a hand out.. OH but wait what they talked about was already being used on nearly every cellphone out at the time - mobile java - and no one else was paying fees for it. Then today Android is the little phone OS who could. The other OS makers are feeling the heat and like little cry baby bullies they play unfair. Others stick their hand out and want a free ride. They all have lost vision and lack innovation so if you cannot beat them or make em pay - get em closed down so your own crappy monopoly sets at the top of the trash heap that remains. And folks Apple products are just that CRAP! All you get is that little bite out of the apple and Steveie owns your a$$. No I don't like Apple because of what the did to Darwin when they locked their sources after the first years. That is not what was promised and they broke it. I guess there are not any old school UNIX developers left on this site.
I'm a little ocnfused here. Nortel has bee na big company in the telecom buisiness and I'd assume that the majority of their patents are related in the field of Telecom Networks and Radio infrastructure.
Why does eveybody assume the patents sold recently are related to Android? What did Nortel do so that it was a buisiness case for them to have a strong Android portfolio?
I understand Apple wanting a piece of the cake, as they ship terminals and therefore could use radio technology for protection. But Google? They are not shipping terminals so why would they care.
Anybody who can explain this?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is not just about one company attacking another with patents.
Multiple companies colluding to attack a competitor may be a violation of antitrust legislation, whether their weapon is the patent system, or attack ads, or price fixing.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
"Microsoft has responded, saying they offered to bid jointly with Google on the Nortel patents"
No! Microsoft offered to bid jointly on the NOVELL patents and Google declined.
Maybe Microsoft can now put it's money where it's mouth is by not using these (and other patents) to attack android and phone manufactures that build android devices.
The reasonable thing to do is not to marry them and go shopping for weapons together.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Scene:
Google turn up at the acutions, bidding in joke numbers as their bids.
MS, Apple & Oracle knowing that individually they won't be able to beat google team up against them.
Google stops bidding after pi, it's work there having been done
The Axis of Evil win the patents
Google now claim that the purchase of the patents for nearly 5 times their estimated value is purely for anti-competitive purposes which triggers the DOJ to investigate the deal and potentially invalidate all the patents, or force fair licencing or lead to a reform of the patent structure.
Result:
Google convinces it's competitors to spend 4.5 billion to reform the patent system to something a bit more sane.
If Google were anti-patent, then what protection would it have for its own mechanisms and inventions that power its internal systems?
Similarly, what value would Google have if it had no intellectual property?
Google needs patents just as much as they don't need them.
Consider Android. Does Google care if a half-price clone of a phone running Android appears form China?
I can't tell if they have some ingenious strategy in the works that's about to unfold like a Hitchcock finale, or if they're simply run by a bunch of classically ignorant, arrogant Wall Street shysters who figured they could chest thump and nut grab their way through this scenario. I figured they screwed the pooch with the Android/Java OS issue, so I'm leaning towards the latter.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Software, algorithms, and business methods should never be patentable. It violates the original intent of patents for real inventions by claiming the machine-or-transformation test applies just because it runs on hardware like a computer.
And it is a real problem for the future of not only America, but for the rest of the world, as noted in this recent article in the Economist.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/intellectual-property
Patents should be rare, and only awarded for tangible objects. And even then, only for their unique implementation. Edison and Tesla both invented light bulbs. Both are valid and necessary for progress. No one should have a monopoly on light bulbs in general, or products, or markets for that matter.
Because invention itself is almost always evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. Incremental improvements of ideas, and the next idea borrows from previous ideas. We all stand on shoulders of giants.
Google is a very hostile company, but people are so used to viewing them as the benevolent Linux-using company that they don't see it. Google's hostility comes from their use of search monopoly profits to prop up their products in other markets and destroy other businesses. Once upon a time, Microsoft was regularly trashed on Slashdot for using monopoly profits to destroy other businesses--the biggest sin being giving away Internet Explorer for free to dismantle companies that had no choice but to charge for their browsers. This is exactly what Google does with Android and with any of the services it prominently displays at the top of its search results page. Remember that Google once responded to antitrust concerns by stating that its search results page was entirely algorithmically objective, but that has since been disproved--certain hard-coded search terms will display Google's services at the top of the results page, above more popular services.
Google's biggest problem is that they started out with a perception of being the good guys based on an irreverent self-awareness ("Don't be evil"), which has let to an inaccurate sense of self, just like when Microsoft started out believing they were the upstarts overthrowing IBM. Google thinks that it's not a big deal if they withhold Android source or snoop data from neighborhood wifi networks or use monopoly profits to buyout or drive away competitors in other markets. They think they're still some kind of friendly engineers' playground with a sense of humor. It's as if they're not aware that they're a for-profit megacorp whose business relies on selling people's personal data and that their poor behavior has major consequences. They seem to believe that by talking about openness all the time, it somehow negates hypocrisies like bundling of Flash in Chrome or signing non-neutral Internet deals with phone carriers just to prop up Android.
Google still has the support of many techies, and they maintain that appeal by pretending to be an open source company. But if Google is all about open source, where is the source code for their core business, the search engine and advertising platform? Where are the algorithms for users to poke at? Google's data-indexing is as closed source and proprietary as Windows. If open source is about providing freedom for users to obtain the source of the software they use daily, where is the outcry over the fact that Google has taken over most of the internet with a closed-source product?
It seems like the last couple of years have really exposed a bad upper-management element within the company. Google is trying to destroy or buy out as many competitors in as many markets as it can, just like Microsoft did when they had a monopoly, and just like practically every other company does when they have a monopoly. The monopoly profits are used to flood new markets with low-priced or free products, often bundled, that existing competitors are incapable of competing with because they must charge for their products. Again, Microsoft received so much shit for that behavior, year after year, and it seems that few have noticed that Google is doing the exact same thing. It doesn't matter if their product is based on Linux. That doesn't make it right. If you respond by saying that competitors should just come up with a better product in order to compete, that's exactly what Microsoft and its supporters said in the days of their antitrust investigation.
What happened to the Google that just had a cool search engine? Why is it taking advantage of search monopoly profits to either buy out or crush every competitor in every non-core market? Why do they talk about openness when their core business is based on a search and advertising engine that is not open source?
That would be a stellar use of new eDiscovery software that performs keyword searches. Prior Art searches, i.e., stopping the patent war before it starts by invalidating the object of aggression, is where the money's at. Enter: Article One Partners. Brilliant. They didn't even have to build software...they played off of the techno-nerd's desire to be "FIRST!" and to work until they solve a problem, and built a whole world of virtually (me so pun-ny) free consultants. Genius.
Sorry to be a pedant, but the phrase "Android appears to infringe on a patent" really annoys me. Lose the word "on". Also, Android isn't a legal entity and so is not capable of infringing anything. A person who makes, uses or sells Android might infringe a patent. Strictly, that person would infringe the patent owner's rights in the patent.
Nearly all software patents ARE bogus. This is obvious to anyone who has written software for many years and has had any contact with the patents. Software patents are issued every day that cover things that are blindingly obvious, have prior art going back to the 70's, are pure mathematical expressions, etc.
and giving away the product sounds vaguely familiar....
http://www.winsupersite.com/blog/supersite-blog-39/commentary/hypocritical-google-lashes-apple-microsoft-140075?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Didn't Microsoft get sued for doing the same thing?
No - Microsoft didn't get sued for giving away Internet Explorer. They got sued for illegally tying IE to Windows. It's sort of like gaining the leading market share with the iPhone and tying sales of iPhone apps (and books or anything sold in-application) to the Apple iStore.
If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem