Slashdot Mirror
Patents Google Bought From IBM Are "Weak"
holy_calamity writes "Slashdot noted in September that Google had bought 1023 patents from IBM. Now IP analytics firms IPVision says they're a 'mixed bag' of mostly unrelated patents that won't be much use in defending against competitors such as Microsoft or Apple. Patents are most useful when they are tightly linked into clusters by references, such that they cover every angle on an idea, something Google's new collection lacks."
IBM's patents might be useless for defending against MS & Apple (after all they bought Motorola for this reason) but they might prove useful for other plans that Google might have
I am tired of crystal ball seers, really. How about this angle: this week: "Baaah. Google's patent portfolio is weak". Next week: Google releases new service, patents cover every angle of it. Two weeks hence: "Baaah. Visionary. Baah".
The patents are weak? Fucking patents are weak. You're weak.
Er, the vast majority of patents being flung around in all the crazy control-freak corporate slap-fights we've seen recently seem to be horribly weak (of the "should never have been granted" variety). That hasn't stopped them from being flung around like monkeys do with, er, you know, and it apparently hasn't stopped other companies from being scared of them.
And in the end, fear is the goal...
We live, as we dream -- alone....
....is this listed on /. under "apple"?
TFA seems like an advert for some patent analysis software.
People aren't afraid of patents.
They're afraid of protracted, expensive lawsuits to defend against the patents, no matter how valid or invalid the patents may be.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
But since they've inheritied 16000 from Motorola, and another 1000 from IBM and I'm sure they're bidding on others, I'm sure the Google patent portfolio will do just fine.
On it's own Google's word processor isn't the greatest. Add the rest of the Google Apps portfolio, and suddenly you have something interesting.
Right, because Google don't have a whole bunch of other patents they can combine with those 1023 patents they just bought to form "[a] tightly linked...cluster".
Next up in our amazing analysis, which breakfast cereals Google prefers and why Kellogs should be worried!
So.. Who's "IPVision" and why do we care what they think? For all we know they could be an industry shill looking to perpetuate the awful mess that is "IP" law. Google's made lots of enemies and they're getting in to the IP game by proxy. Because companies are turning to that avenue of attack, rather than legitimate competition.
There's a sucker born every minute...
or
A fool and his money are soon parted...
Though I guess this is a good use for the $40B in cash they have to burn...
This is what's wrong with the patent system. The idea that you should cover every angle of an idea rather than just patenting the fundamental technology behind it. When did we go from patenting technology to patenting the application?
For example. Canon has scores of patents related to cameras and imaging technology. Rightfully so. They are useful patents. But then some of them are like this beauty. Now here's an patent which covers the use of fuel cells in electronic equipment. Think about that for a second. Covering the frigging obvious use of this technology which the entire world is hoping will replace batteries, with a patent for using the technology (which is not practical yet) in an electronic device.
We need a cleansing fire. The patent office and all their data should burn down, and all employees should be replaced. The patent system needs to be re-written by some people with zero experience in it. As Einstein said, "Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."
Google isn't stupid. More importantly, Google's lawyers aren't stupid. And if there's one thing Google's good at, it's sifting through masses of data, teasing out the relationships and putting them together. So I'm assuming Google has a plan and it's not completely half-baked. We'll have to see whether it's successful or not, but they do have a plan.
So now there are good patents and bad patents. Good patents have lots of close friends, while bad patents are anti-social and pretty much live alone.
I'll tell you what I'd like to see. I'd like to see all technology patents held by companies not currently producing products involving those patents immediately Voided.
Then I'd like to see all remaining patents compulsorily licensed so that everybody can build everything and we can chose among who does it best. This current lawsuit climate doesn't suit the average citizen at all, and that's who the patent system was supposed to protect.
The way we're going, I'm afraid that we are going to end up in a deadlock of nobody being able to build anything -- and guess who suffers in the process.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It is by now an accepted concept, that 'patent war' thing is. And, we are all little bitches caught in the fight in between 4 major companies, regardless of what the size of our small business/outfit is... What we do does not matter zit. the winner takes it all. and we got to this point despite everything that has been done, everything that has been said.
This tells me patents are unworkable.
Read radical news here
What makes a patent strong is how much money the holder is willing to try to enforce it.
Consider what IBM had to do to defend itself against SCO. The claims were non-existent, the patents were non-existent, and yet it dragged on for years.
So if Google could really cause another competitor to squirm. Look at Apple; they managed to convince a judge the shape of an iPad and iPhone are unique and worthy of protection and so they're used to cause Samsung pain. It doesn't matter if its valid or not, Samsung can't sell their devices.
Patents are legal tools to aid in delaying a competitor. Once you understand that, then the real value of patents become clear.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
...they are used to promote/incentivize a healthy development of new ideas (yes I know you don't patent ideas (poster heads the pedantics off at the pass;-) ))
When I read this article I had flashbacks to the spurious crap that people used in ye olde Internet bubble. Or maybe the CDO credit bubble. In short, making arbitrary valuations by looking at second or third order artifacts and completely ignoring the value of the underlying thing.
What makes a good patent is the exact opposite of what these guys suggest. The membership of a patent 'thicket' that they regard as indicating patent quality is really an artifact of the way in which a single potential invention now gets salimi sliced into the maximum number of applications. This allows the corporation which owns the patents to brag about the size of its patent pile, it allows the employees who wrote the patents to maximize the number of patent bonuses they get and it obviously results in the greatest number of billable hours for the patent lawyers. In short, it's a win-win-win!
In reality, the most valuable patents should be ones that are as unrelated as possible to anything that went before and which stand completely on their own merits. Patents where any expert would look at and say 'I've never seen anything quite like that before'. However, making that judgment call requires that you actually analyze every patent in the portfolio in detail. Just as I'm sure the bankers carried out a detailed analysis of every underlying debt when they were trading CDOs...
Patents are most useful when they are tightly linked into clusters by references, such that they cover every angle on an idea, something Google's new collection lacks.
Er, no. Patents are most useful when they encourage genuine inventors to reveal genuinly novel inventions to the public, in exchange for a brief period of legal protection.
Patents are harmful when they are used as legal blackmail, as they are in this case.
...
Currently out of points and he's spot-on. This is exactly right. We are in a patent bubble - it'll be the next thing to tank.
Billions of dollars of bogus estimated worth is just getting ready to evaporate. Gonna be a rough ride.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I think "most useful" here means "most profitable".
Ideas are most useful ... when people use them ..., not when they are collectively monopolized.
I find it highly unlikely that Google actually bought 1023 patents from IBM. I suspect they actually bought 1024, but are counting the first one as 0.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I'd like to suggest that all patents are inherently weak, until proved in court. Imagine though one may, about the weight of a patent outside of an actual court case, and regardless of how much the thought of a company's ownership of patents may be forwarded as part of an agenda towards stockholders, but practically speaking, a patent has no practical use except as leverage in any legal proceedings for protecting a supposed invention allegedly addressed by the patent.
The proof is in the pudding, as it were, or at least in the legal system's pudding.
I'm so confused. I thought patents were most useful when they promoted the progress of science and useful arts. ;-)
Look how far we've come. The ostensible purpose of patents isn't even given lip service anymore. Everybody knows they're not for what we say they're for. There isn't even a thin veneer of pretense left.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.