Slashdot Mirror
Motorola's Most Important 18 Patents
quarterbuck writes "Bloomberg has a story on Google's acquisition of Motorola and quotes IP lawyers who claim that 18 patents dating to 1994 are probably what Google is after. These patents cover technology essential to the mobile-device industry, including location services, antenna designs, e-mail transmission, touchscreen motions, software-application management and third-generation wireless."
Which 18 patents are they? You'd think in a 23-paragraph article they would have found space to list them.
How the hell can a 1994 patent cover email transmission?
Palm trees and 8
need those ads impressions to rack up!
If you only have a license for a patent you can't use it as leverage against trolls like Apple - by owning core patents they can fire back...
It is clear: Google wants to get into the hardware business.
Or the patent troll business..... ?
Google would hamstring Android if that was their intent. HTC, ZTE, and Samsung would go running, either to another OS, or to Microsoft.
MS may not have much market share now, but if Moto/Google drives them off by competing with them, WMP can easily become a dominant standard, similar to how WM was the top dog before the iPhone came out.
Android is still very young when it comes to being a reliable cellphone OS. It has no encryption of contents, nor does it have solid Exchange support. Those two things make it a useless toy when it comes to the corporate world.
It is clear: Google wants to get into the hardware business.
Or the patent troll business..... ?
From what I've seen over the past few years, the two are synonymous. You can't be in the hardware business if you can't counter-sue.
That's weird, I'm reading e-mail off our Exchange server on my Evo 4G as we speak. Never had a problem with it. I'm not sure about disk encryption but it certainly has remote wipe and all the other nonsense our IS department needs.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
This is so sad.
It is clear: Google wants to get into the hardware business.
Correction. Google is already in the hardware business. They are the world's 4th largest server manufacturer.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Some of those patents are encumbered by FRAND : Fair, Reasonnable and Non Discrimatory.
Such patents are essentiel to a global normalisation in which participant have to disclose their related patents and licence them in a fair, reasonnable and non discriminatory way. You can use them to get royalties but you'll have a hard time using them to block someone.
Remember, in Nokia vs Apple, Apple settlement rather quickly. In Apple vs Motorola, the litigation is still pending. So it seems that Apple considers those patents are rather weak.
At last, remember, Google bought Motorola also because it threatened OTHER ANDROID licensees !!!
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
"Those two things make it a useless toy when it comes to the corporate world."
Thank fuck you blew your cred with "WM was the top dog before the iPhone came out", completely ignoring Symbian and Nokia. Why, if you hadn't done that you might well have got me there buddy.
ever acted on these 18 patents to a significant degree? Because isn't there a chance they ignored these patents in the name of progress? Could Google end up using these to an abusive level? I'm wondering if we're going to see some evil applications by Google. Hopefully not.
You might wanna pull your head out of your arse and look up the term yourself there matey.
Now, obvisouly, if you where so sure of yourself you wouldn't be hiding behind AC, but for others as confused as AC wiki, can as always send you in the proper direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
Now a patent troll is *often* someone without an actual product, but Apple is indeed a troll since they are using their patents to try to force other players out of the market *while ignoring* said players portfolio (and counter demands).
Apple is NOT a patent troll.
Oh, please, don't cry! No, darling, Apple is not a patent troll! Bad, bad Splab!!!
In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
because none was needed. until a pair of low life bottom-feeding douche bag lawyers spammed usenet with their green card lottery spew (repeatedly,) and "inspired" millions of other bottom-feeders to copy their exploits (effectively destroyed usenet and e-mail as an useful communication medium,) spam was unheard of. (no, don't get me started on AoL'ers)
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
As Apple and Microsoft is using patents as a way of stopping or seriously hampering competition they are patent trolls. Apple just took a bunch of stuff invented elsewhere, slapped it all together and started the old Reality Distortion Field up on full power.
Apple is a patent troll. They suck donkeys ass for that and we all are beginning to hate them except the people in the Reality Distortion Field where Apple invents everything they copy and incorporate into their products.
Im waiting with amusement for the release of the Iphone 5 as all the stuff Apple copied from Android will suddenly be invented at Apple, and the best stuff in the world all of a sudden.
HTTP/1.1 400
It can't possibly because Motorola is a huge manufacturer of mobile phones and Google, as they have shown many times in the past, is interested in further diversifying their product line beyond software (well, really just ads) and expanding into the more difficult to get into but also much more stable field of hardware in order to deploy their Android platform in a more consistent manner, can it? No, surely it must just be for this patent portfolio. After all, patents are the only thing of value these days. Right?
Of course the patents aren't incidental to the purchase (protecting Android makers is clearly important), but somehow I doubt Google did this just for that.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
"those patents are considered essential patents and thus Motorola is forced to license them at reasonable terms"
What is this concept of essential patents? The information i can find only applies to those made available to standards bodies, not sure how deactivating the touch sensor when next to a person's ear or data compression or any of the others mentioned in the article apply.
Please can you provide more information.
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
so who will buy the HP Mobile business (formerly Palm AFAIU)?
Or maybe they just want to stay in business?
It's a pretty sad state of affairs, but without an arsenal of patents, the likes of Apple or Oracle could do serious harm to Google.
I've been getting my work Exchange mail for months on my CM7 HTC Legend and it works just fine thank you very much.
"Apple also filed a civil suit in March accusing Motorola Mobility of 'a pattern of unfair, deceptive and anticompetitive conduct' ". Does anyone else see this as a hypocritical statement considering what Apple has been doing suing the pants off anyone who makes a smart phone or tablet?
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
...anonymous...
Connection with Apple, maybe? I'm just saying.
Even if you want to say something that's controversial, don't play the anonymous card. Own up and back your position.
When I say that, I mean "own up and back your position, just like Splab". Posted too fast. D'oh!
What do you mean by "manufacturer"?
Manufacturing of actual hardware components (parts) or assembly of already-manufactured parts (components) on the whole-unit scale; hard drives, memory, power supp., etc?
Cite your statement and you may have a good pointer to something that's going big.
Too bad they don't have a search function.
No, I'm not biased; this is posted to make a statement about the direction of Google, which is also not biased. Just observation.
http://facesoflawsuitabuse.org/
I thought patents lasted for 7 years and could be extended to 14 if you could come up with a functional improvement. Has that changed?
I don't know where you heard that... All I've heard is 20 years or 17 years, which is what's pretty well summarized here:
Quick quote from it:
For applications filed before June 8, 1995, the term is 17 years from the issue date or 20 years from the earliest claimed domestic priority date, the longer term applying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_patent_law
RTFATitle : "Most important 18 patents" and the potential FRAND encumberance relates to those.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
From what I've seen over the past few years, [hardware and patent trolling] are synonymous.
I thought the accepted definition of "patent trolling" on Slashdot was the practice of a nonpracticing entity, or one that holds and enforces patents but doesn't produce its own implementation of the invention. This definition would disqualify hardware makers (e.g. Motorola) and blueprint makers (e.g. ARM and Fraunhofer) from "troll" classification.
Thank fuck you blew your cred with "WM was the top dog before the iPhone came out", completely ignoring Symbian and Nokia.
Then please allow me to rephrase: "WM was the top dog in the United States market before the iPhone came out." Nokia doesn't have much presence in the country where Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Slashdot are headquartered.
believe it's 14 years for a design and 20 years for functionality
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Read painful to is English title the the in.
Perhaps quasius was confusing maintenance fees, reissues, and a lot of other obscure aspects of U.S. patent law that aren't discussed very often even on Slashdot. A U.S. patent lasts 3.5 years after issue, with three renewals available at extra cost. The first two renewals are 4 years each, and the third is to 20 years after filing or 17 years after issue.
If they only wanted the patents, wouldn't it have been cheaper just to license them?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
If MMI thought it had stronger patents in its portfolio, it would have brought them to court agains Apple and Microsoft. But only those 18 were put forward.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
I'm posting AC because I'm at work and I don't log into website from work. Want to know who I am? whisper_jeff Feel free to do a search for me and add me to your ignore list if you'd like. I'm fine with it.
As for your definition, the first paragraph of your link: "Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered (by the party using the term) unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention."
And, further down in the article: "The metaphor was popularized in 2001 by Peter Detkin, former assistant general counsel of Intel, who first used it to describe TechSearch, its CEO, Anthony O. Brown, and their lawyer, Raymond Niro, while Intel was defending a patent suit against them. Detkin had previously used the term "patent extortionist" to refer to a number of companies who were suing Intel for patent infringement and who were trying to "make a lot of money off a patent that they are not practicing and have no intention of practicing and in most cases never practiced." After Intel was sued for libel, he came up with the term "patent troll" instead."
Just because people like you have decided to use the phrase when discussing actual companies who produce products but also sue to defend their innovations (*) is meaningless. The term applies to companies who buy patents and sue for patent infringement while making nothing. A patent troll's business model is "make money from patent lawsuits."
*Again, whether or not you agree that the item is innovative or patent worthy or whatever is a separate discussion - they were granted the patent for the innovation and they're defending it.
Apple is not a patent troll. Nor Microsoft, Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Nokia, or any of the other companies who are embroiled in patent lawsuits (and there are LOTS of them - I find it amusing that you singled out Apple but I suppose that's en vogue on Slashdot lately, right?) because they actually make something. Patent trolls do not make anything.
Sorry that you've decided to muddy the term's definition to include "companies who defend their patents that I don't like" but your personal preference matters for squat. Try using the right terms when discussing the subject.
But I thought that I was whisper_jeff!
"To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
$510,204.08
Has the list of patents being discussed been released. It was my understanding that the article doesn't even reference what patents they're talking about.
As for the concept, it's called FRAND patents. I'll let you google it to get a better definition than I can provide but the basics are "essential patents that must be licensed at fair and reasonable rates." Feel free to search for a more complete definition.
Given the importance that the article puts on these patents and how old they are, I suspect they (or at least most of them) are FRAND patents.
It looks like Google is heading towards creating ubiquitous computing experiences. They're not limiting to PCs but rather coming out with new products that people can take anywhere (mobile devices) to get any kind of information (personal, social, web, images, etc). I don't think it's just about Google wanting to dominate hardware manufacturing. Motorola has some important patents for data transfer, and for Google to continue their information retrieval in a new space, they need to be able to transfer information to users smoothly. Imagine you're out at lunch with friends and mention something you recently saw (i.e. on tv or youtube). You'd probably want to show it on your phone with your friends right then and there, right? Google is probably trying to position themselves in the market to offer the information you need at your fingertips
This is a research account for studying online commenting so we can create tools to improve moderation.
Apple is NOT a patent troll.
So says the AC.
well, until they started making cell phones... now they're in danger of becoming another generic, boring, shiny-goods firm .. .. mobile phones are hardly interesting devices. .. please dont .. let the boring, and/or toy companies make the consumerist cellphones.
i mean
the Android OS aint too bad, but Motorola
become indistinguishable from xxx other far eastern
manafacturers
I'm actually on the board of a technical standards committee (The South African Bureau of Standards) that does all official standards for our country. FRAND (where I am anyway) *only* applies in cases of standardisation - where implementing a patent is the only way to meet a National Standard *and* the patent holder was part of the standardisation process.
Not sure where you get the idea that FRAND applies to anything that is widely used, or is a defacto/ad hoc standard. It applies only in a very narrow use-case.
I sincerely doubt that email is a National Standard.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Interesting, except that Motorola sued Apple first.
Who was the troll again?
I was thinking about buying one.
But there's no good reason to do so. Lets break it down by use:
1) Use as normal tablet. The iPad has better hardware for the most part, and vastly better software. Even an Android tablet would serve you better software wise.
2) Use for a mix of hacking/normal tablet use. Essentially the same argument, only now you start to consider the hacking communities are greatly more robust for either Android / iOS.
So basically if you are about to buy one, stop and think - might you not be better off just getting a normal tablet?
The only people I could see this tablet making sense for are people on a seriously tight budget that they truly only have $100 for... otherwise in the long run it makes way more sense to spring more for another tablet with a lifetime of support ahead - and Apple is selling refurbished iPad 1 units of r$299 now (Ok, that went out of stock since the last I looked at it but they ave 32GB units as well for $100 more). That gets full iOS5 support...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
5 for design, actually - so yes, in 2006 you could make an MP3 player that looked like the original iPod (but only in looks - functionality is covered by a different set of patents). Heck, it was speculated back then if the iPod competitors would look like the original iPod.
And patent law's really strange enough - it's 20 years after filing, or 17 years after approval, depending on when the patent was actually filed. We're coming to the end of that odd period (it happened around 1993 or so...).
Not Even Close to Being a Lawyer
Sure, but they have acquired 17,000 granted patents and 7,000 pending ones.
The whole reason they mention these 18 is because it's not about volume, it's about content and quality of the patents. How many are for things like special case screws, or things related only to interacting with cable systems?
The list of 18 is an attempt to suss out which patents actually MATTER. Note that in any of the large lawsuits we are talking about, it's not Apple or Microsoft using 4000 patents in the complaint - it's a tiny handful. So which tiny handful are useful enough for Google to counter with, that is the question.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
6 patents from Illinois 1 lawsuit:
5,311,516 Paging System Using Message Fragmentation to Redistribute Traffic
5,319,712 Method and Apparatus for Providing Cryptographic Protection of Data Stream in a Communication System
5,490,230 Digital Speech Coder Having Optimized Signal Energy Parameters
5,572,193 Method for Authentication and Protection of Subscribers in Telecommunications Systems
6,175,559 Method for Generating Preamble Sequences in a Code Division Multiple Access System
6,359,898 Method for Performing a Countdown Function During a Mobile-Originated Transfer for a Packet Radio System
6 patents from Illinois 2 lawsuit:
5,359,317 Method and apparatus for selectively storing a portion of a received message in a selective call receiver
5,636,223 Methods of adaptive channel access attempts
6,246,697 Method and system for generating a complex pseudonoise sequence for processing a code division multiple access signal
6,246,862 Sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device
6,272,333 Method and apparatus in a wireless communication system for controlling a delivery of data
7,751,826 System and method for E911 location privacy protection
6 patents from Florida:
5,710,987 Receiver having concealed external antenna
5,754,119 Multiple pager status synchronization system and method
5,958,006 Method and apparatus for communicating summarized data
6,008,737 Apparatus for controlling utilization of software added to a portable communication device
6,101,531 System for communicating user-selected criteria filter prepared at wireless client to communication server for filtering data transferred from host to said wireless client
6,377,161 Method and apparatus in a wireless messaging system for facilitating an exchange of address information
US Government will have to declare war against this spy eventually.
(FTFA)
"In a patent-infringement case that started today at the International Trade Commission, Microsoft
accused Motorola Mobility of infringing seven of its patents and requested a halt to imports of certain
Motorola phones. The trial is the first smartphone dispute to be heard since Google announced it would
buy Motorola Mobility."
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I'm on my comfy chair.
none
The point remains. Why exactly does it make sense to buy a 1994 patent in 2011? I think this confirms that the article is just a fluff piece.
Don't patents from 1994 expire this year anyway?
Google is a manufacturer in the same sense that Dell is a manufacturer. Dell is one of the 3 companies that manufacture more servers than Google. I don't think Google is manufacturing their own processors, memory, or hard disks either. They all find vendors for that stuff. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/03/technology/03google.html?ei=5088&en=11ad7f241098c6e2&ex=1309579200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1151888719-NxrsEO+IzRvSa28feeFzfw&pagewanted=all&pagewanted=all
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Don't patents expire after 17 years? It might be 20 years; I can't make sense of the legalese. If it's 17 years though, any 1994 patents would be expiring this year.
Your kidding me... you twitter that?