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.

Comments

Google should take the only sane stance on this

[vadim_t]

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.

Re:Google should take the only sane stance on this

[ArsonSmith]

Almost seems, with Google's search tech, they'd be able to have an automated process scan patent applications, compare to all others and, almost completely automatically, submit counter claims to every patent requested with piles of similar patents and prior art.

Ulterior Motives?

[Grave]

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.

Re:Seriously

[TheRaven64]

Why would they team up like this?

Because then they guarantee that they get them and because they can get them for less individually if they only pay 1/3. Oh, and as for 'pocket change', the winning bid was $5.4 billion. That's not pocket change for any of the companies concerned. Google wants their competitors to pay a couple of billion dollars each to prevent the patents going to patent trolls and then allow Google to use them for free.

Mind you, last I read a US senator costs about $200,000, and a representative about $50,000. It would have been cheaper for Google to just throw $30m at bribing, sorry, lobbying, congress to ban software patents. Even at $1m/congressman it would have been cheaper...

Re:Seriously

[Baloroth]

Others have pointed out that there may be something more involved, but I haven't seen anyone point out what I think is the real issue. And that is, AFAIK, most companies aren't suing Google directly. They are suing the third-party makers of Android phones. If Google had joined in the bid, they wouldn't have sole rights to the patents, and, depending on the terms, might well not have been able to license them to the actual phone makers, whom the other three would still have been able to sue. So Google would have been able to make Android smartphones, but no one else would have been able to. Google doesn't really care to make phones themselves, the whole point of Android is that third-parties make all the actual phones. That may well not have been able to happen had they joined the cartel.

Re:Seriously

[pesc]

The same is true for Microsoft. So why did they join the cartel?

Do you think MS is able to re-license the patents to Nokia? If they can, why couldn't Google?

Re:Not hypocritical

[Yamioni]

I'll explain to you why I think that yes, it is better to be able to sue than it is to be able to defend yourself when sued. Remember, it is not possible to be "not able to be sued"; anyone can sue you for any reason they wish, the variable is how far that suit against you makes it.

Consider the situation where you own lots of patents in the hope of not being sued. You own patents on nearly everything your product contains, and anything else you did due diligence and couldn't find any existing patents you could see yourself infringing upon. Now some other company sees your product and cries foul, suing you for patent infringement. Since you only hold what you considered the minimum number of required patents to be "safe" you have no patents that your accuser could be infringing upon. Thus your accuser has no fear of counter-suit, and you have to spend money on lawyers defending your stance.

Consider now situation two, where you own a rather diverse patent portfolio covering a great many things related to and unrelated to whatever products you may be producing. Now you have a much greater chance that if someone else sues you for infringing on their patent, that you have something in your portfolio that they may be guilty of infringing. If you stand a reasonable chance of filing a counter-suit against them, your accuser may not bother in the first place.

No MBA required to understand which one wins out, it's simply psychology. Bullying 101. If you've ever known a bully, you'll know that they always pick on the person that doesn't (or can't) fight back. Sock that bully in the nose just one time (and even though you may get your ass beat at the time) the bully leaves you alone from then on. The risk isn't worth the reward, and the bully moves on to someone else who won't fight back.

So that is why it is better to be able to sue, than it is to be "safe" from being sued. Just another instance of the best defense being a good offense.