Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft, Apple and Others Launch Huge Patent Strike at Android

New submitter GODISNOWHERE writes "Nortel went bankrupt in 2009. In 2011, it held an auction for its massive patent portfolio. The winners of the auction were Apple, Microsoft, Sony, RIM, and others, who bought the patents for $4.5 billion as a consortium named Rockstar Bidco. At the time, many people speculated those patents would be used against Google, who bid separately but lost. It turns out they were right. Rockstar has filed eight lawsuits in federal court targeting Google and Android device manufacturers. 'The complaint (PDF) against Google involves six patents, all from the same patent "family." They're all titled "associative search engine," and list Richard Skillen and Prescott Livermore as inventors. The patents describe "an advertisement machine which provides advertisements to a user searching for desired information within a data network. The oldest patent in the case is US Patent No. 6,098,065, with a filing date of 1997, one year before Google was founded. The newest patent in the suit was filed in 2007 and granted in 2011. The complaint tries to use the fact that Google bid for the patents as an extra point against the search giant.'"

303 of 476 comments (clear)

  1. so tell me again... by new+death+barbie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... how is this a strike against Android?

    --

    It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.

    1. Re:so tell me again... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      I striked against Apple yesterday when I bought a Galaxy Note 10.1 from Samsung. Now it seems that I got a bonus good feeling for free with the box.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:so tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wouldn't it be cooler if the summary was a wiki?

    3. Re:so tell me again... by Shag · · Score: 5, Informative

      “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.” - Steve Jobs

      This isn't a surgical strike. This is an attack on Google's primary business model and revenue stream. Nobody makes much profit off Android - most players make no profit at all. Google's deep pockets are basically the only thing keeping Android a going concern. But this is, definitely, the "nuclear option," going after so much more than just Android.

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    4. Re:so tell me again... by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      Oh, so very much yes.

      Run it like mod points, with a stronger emphasis on metamod (metaediting?).

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    5. Re:so tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google's own patent bank, while not as large as it's competitors, is not insubstantial. We're about to see a legal mess of historic proportions. Law firms are going to make insane amounts of money.

      Oh and consumers will be paying the bottom line, can't forget that.

    6. Re:so tell me again... by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      Thats what I was thinking. This isn't about android, this is about Google en masse.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:so tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I would say that, if admissible, this "invention" (PDF) completely prevents any company from displaying ads alongside search results, killing Adsense:

      This invention relates to an advertisment machine which provides advertisements to a user searching for desired information within a data network. The machine receives, from the user, a search request including a search argument corresponding to the desired information and searches, based upon the received search argument, a first database having data network related information to generate search results. It also correlates the received search argument to a particular advertisement in a second database having advertisement related information. The search results together with the particular advertisement are provided by the machine to the user.

      We claim:
      1. A method of searching for desired information Within a data network, comprising the steps of:
        -> receiving, from a user, a search request including a search argument corresponding to the desired information;
        -> searching, based upon the received search argument and user profile data, a database of information to generate a search result; and
        -> providing the search results to the user
        -> Wherein searching the database includes correlating, as a function of a fuzzy logic algorithm, the received search argument and user profile data to particular information in the database, and providing the particular information as the search results.

    8. Re: so tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The Motorola patents are worthless. Either SEPs that can't be used in litigation or outdated pager patents.

    9. Re:so tell me again... by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which is so painfully obvious the phonebook is prior art.

      You go look under plumber and with the listing you see advertising.

    10. Re:so tell me again... by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      The article (the one with the longest link, on Ars) sucks as well. It has several mentions of "nuclear", "defcon" and "wars", but says very little about the actual patents involved.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    11. Re:so tell me again... by pegr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, I'd prefer an intelligent discourse of experts, perhaps moderated by a competent paralegal with years of experience researching such things.

      PJ, this post is for you. We NEED you. Please reconsider.

    12. Re:so tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google's own patent bank, while not as large as it's competitors, is not insubstantial. We're about to see a legal mess of historic proportions. Law firms are going to make insane amounts of money.

      Oh and consumers will be paying the bottom line, can't forget that.

      Government by the lawyers for the lawyers.

      That's what the US really has...

    13. Re:so tell me again... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You'd need a blame engine. That would allow you to select a piece to text and grade it and the blame would get assigned to the proper originator. Asking for such advanced functionality from people who haven't implemented UTF-8 yet is a low blow, though. ;-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    14. Re:so tell me again... by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      The article (the one with the longest link, on Ars) sucks as well. It has several mentions of "nuclear", "defcon" and "wars", but says very little about the actual patents involved.

      clearly WOPR is the basis of their patents.

      shall we play a game?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    15. Re:so tell me again... by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      I read a few of the patents. It's quite amazing that any of the ones I read were even considered non-obvious, or without prior art. These also don't seem related to just android. Any of Google's servers also infringe when supplying targeted ads as far as I can tell, even the one granted in 2011. The US patent office is obviously maintaining their quality level.

      I think this would be a fantastic time to negate these patents, as well as the ones Microsoft has been using under NDA for their previous racketeering campaign.

    16. Re:so tell me again... by fatphil · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, but *on a computer* !!!!1!!yksi!!yksitoista!!

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    17. Re:so tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Also the companies being sued have their own war chests of patents. MS, and Apple are about to end up with a large gang on them. Many of the ones they are suing are the same ones who sell them parts for their computers. They are the same ones who made their phones/computers in the past. MS is in a bad position as those same companies could say 'you know what your computer business is doing rather poorly anyway we will just go make other stuff oh by the way the patents we cross licensed? Yeah that ends with the exit clause in the contract'. Apple could find itself in a hard spot for a few key bits of its infrastructure parts.

      What will this end up with? Everyone paying 2-5 dollars more per phone.

      Also if they are going to go after search (which it looks like they are). Google may have 1 or 2 patents on that too. MS is in a bad position here. Apple has nothing really to lose.

      It may end up with google swallowing up some other company's. Just to get more patents to fight with. Such as a broacomm or qualcomm. Coming up with 130 billion is not unheard of anymore (see verizion).

    18. Re:so tell me again... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product."

      Jesus. Young Steve Jobs was pretty cool. Old, dying Steve Jobs was just an asshole whom young Steve Jobs would have mocked.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    19. Re:so tell me again... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      To prove prior art you are going to need to prove Lycos and WebCrawler had these technologies since the patents predate Google.

      As for negating I agree. Google is in a wonderful position to negate since they don't depend on patents.

    20. Re: so tell me again... by ebno-10db · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How do you come to that conclusion? Seriously - no snark. I'm not familiar w/ MMI's patent portfolio in detail, but they did a lot of important tech work on cell phones. Their business downfall was, like Nokia's, about choosing the wrong cell/smart phone fashion trends, rather than any technical shortcomings.

      Meanwhile, what kind of important patents has Apple, for example, come up with? Rounded corners on rectangles? Small wonder they lose patent suits, and an obvious reason for them to buy into this patent extortion racket.

    21. Re:so tell me again... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      ... how is this a strike against Android?

      Actually, I first read it as Asteroid. Was expecting Bruce Willis and maybe an Onion article.

      Oh well.

    22. Re: so tell me again... by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      all the important work was given to the standards bodies
      once you assign your patent to a standards body for inclusion in a standard you lose a lot of power over that patent
      all the technical work for wifi/LTE and other tech are now SEP patents which they have to license at the same rates to everyone

    23. Re:so tell me again... by tobiasly · · Score: 1

      I would say that, if admissible, this "invention" (PDF) completely prevents any company from displaying ads alongside search results, killing Adsense:

      But that's a big "if". If the wording is too broad, it will be easy to find prior art. Hell, the old Archie-based internet could be seen as doing this.

      However I think that Google will go the other way. What is a "search argument"? I would think it's words such as "and", "or", "like" that are used to narrow the results. At least as a computer scientist, that's what the term usually means. Even though Google has these arguments available, the vast majority of searches don't use them.

      There are plenty of other terms in the patent that can be beaten to death and shown to not apply. The thing about patents is that each claim is taken in its entirety. If Google can show that any of those bullet points don't apply to them due to their specific wording, they don't infringe.

    24. Re:so tell me again... by Minupla · · Score: 1

      How about this:

      http://web.archive.org/web/19961025120541/http://www.lycos.com/

      Want a nice copy of MIcrosoft Money anyone (ironic eh?)

      Min

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    25. Re:so tell me again... by tobiasly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, I'd prefer an intelligent discourse of experts, perhaps moderated by a competent paralegal with years of experience researching such things.

      PJ, this post is for you. We NEED you. Please reconsider.

      A thousand times this :( It's so sad that we don't have Groklaw to help sort this all out for us. Mr. Florian woke up with a massive hard-on this morning, spewing his usual hypocritical diatribe about how Google brought this all on themselves by not caving in the past. I can't stand the thought that he's the only "tech patent expert" who will be quoted in the news on all of this.

    26. Re:so tell me again... by lxs · · Score: 1

      Every summary wishing me happy Halloween from the Golden Girls with the odd link to goatse every second post would make me positively yearn for the current crop of misspelled dupes.

    27. Re:so tell me again... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      Apple and Samsung have already been involved in legal action against each other for years, yet Apple still ships products with Samsung parts. Why does Samsung still have Apple as a customer? Because the people running Samsung are not morons - you don't throw away billions in revenue to spite someone. Or, maybe they do, and the shareholders throw them out on their asses.

      The whole "OMG you're suing me so I don't want your business" idea is ridiculous in anything larger than a mom-and-pa operation.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    28. Re:so tell me again... by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      The likeliness of succeeding against google regarding search is zero or as close as it can get. Google's success in courts has been almost nonstop every time they get sued. They are not a company to try to shake down/mess with in that sense, far more so than Microsoft. In addition to that, do these companies even understand what would happen if they *were* to succeed against Google here? It would essentially strip any protections from their own search engines and cause a lot of unintended side affects.

      Essentially such things as finding out that hey, Bing is no longer safe and/or violates patents, etc.

      Law is based on facts. If the facts are against you and you sue hoping to win you may be forced to reveal a whole lot more shit than you wanted. It's never a good idea to try to use patents and shakedown your biggest competitor.

    29. Re:so tell me again... by zieroh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have long observed a trend among my fellow geeks -- being smart in one (or even several) areas -- to eventually come to the conclusion that they are experts in all areas, especially where they perceive logic to be involved.

      But please accept my polite suggestion that you don't know jack shit about prior art.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    30. Re:so tell me again... by spectro · · Score: 1

      Didn't AOL, compuserve, etc had such capabilities? I know my BBS, online until around 1997, did all this.

      --
      HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
    31. Re:so tell me again... by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      It's an indication that yet again, none of the companies in question intend to improve their products or compete in any way except litigation. Let's hope someday people pay attention to who these companies are that sue and stop doing business with them.

    32. Re:so tell me again... by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Except not at all. The claims require that the page be displayed as the result of a query, sent over a network.

      The phone book may have been a contributing predecessor, but not prior art in any legal sense.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    33. Re:so tell me again... by poetmatt · · Score: 2

      I've discussed this with her too. It's her decision and as much as it pains a ton of us, we need to respect her decision.

      Someone needs to start a new blog and get paralegals involved, to carry the torch.

    34. Re:so tell me again... by Entropius · · Score: 2

      So, in other words, it's one of the myriad patents where you take something people have been doing since Barney Rubble and add "... but on a COMPUTER!" at the end.

    35. Re: so tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. Jobs was referring to the fact that Android was planned as BlackBerry Clone and only after Eric Moleman Schmidt was on Apples board, with access to secret prototypes did Android evolve into a iOS clone. That's what nagged Jobs. Not the sheer existence of Android.

      It was Windows reloaded when Gates received 3 Macintosh prototypes to develop Mac software only to reverse engineer the OS into Windows.

    36. Re:so tell me again... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Those are painfully simple concepts.

      You have basically just added "on a computer" and claimed this is some huge change.

    37. Re:so tell me again... by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      Nobody makes much profit off Android

      No, not off the OS, but the devices which run it are chewing up 80% of the global market. That's a big deal. That's a big deal to Apple because the bulk of their revenue stream is limited to North America. Much of Europe is not foolish enough to pay Apple tax so they go the "cheap" route. The cheap route is the niche Microsoft was supposed to fill with their abysma-phone and one they WOULD fill if Android, Samsung, HTC and others were slapped with trade embargoes due to "Patent infringement". Limits we've already seen put in practice by Lucy Koh and Apple.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    38. Re:so tell me again... by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      The only thing in this that seems remotely patentable is the bit about "includes correlating, as a function of a fuzzy logic algorithm", in that the actual algorithm discussed might be truly inventive. But the patent doesn't seem to apply to the specific algorithm involved. Instead it seeks to patent the idea to use of an algorithm to enhance search. That is inane - as, apparently, is the US Patent Office.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    39. Re: so tell me again... by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      And somehow if Android had come out as a BlackBerry clone, that wouldn't have been a problem? Apparently, cloning is only a problem when the thing cloned is yours (and yours doesn't happen to be a clone of something else). Android and iOS have nothing in common other than the fact that both combine similar bits of existing technology into a package with similar functionality. Apple did it first. Congratulations. Their first mover advantage meant that they owned the market. If they lost a big chunk of it, it's due to their own missteps. If they were being undercut on price, they could've addressed the low-price market segment. They didn't want to. Too bad. The only lesson they seem to have learned from being trounced by Microsoft's inferior, but cheaper, desktop OS is that they should've patented the Mac. Sad.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    40. Re:so tell me again... by zidium · · Score: 2

      If at first you can't compete?

      Sue, sue again! (Perferably via patent lawsuits!)

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    41. Re:so tell me again... by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      Actions are usually never all good or all bad. Sure, consumers will pay more for their phones, but they're already paying more than I'd consider sane, both for the data and the phones themselves. I mean, changing smartphones every year is absurd. And it's worth noting that we're not talking about a necessity.

      If this results in end of software patents at the price of smartphones being, say, $50 more expensive for a while, that could be a fair trade.

      I make no comment on how likely I think this is, since I really don't know, just that it's not all doom and gloom.

    42. Re:so tell me again... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Just store all the dialogue in SVN!

    43. Re: so tell me again... by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Hi Florian!

    44. Re:so tell me again... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's what the US really has...

      Does anything anti-american get modded up? We are talking about Google, Apple, Motorola and Microsoft, and you somehow manage to say that the only thing the US has is lawyers? Really?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    45. Re:so tell me again... by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Ironically, there's prior art on that observation from over two thousand years ago:

      At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom [...]

      --Socrates in Plato's Apology

    46. Re: so tell me again... by dfghjk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And in neither of these cases where the ideas being stolen original to Apple. What "nagged" Jobs was not the stealing, it was that it was not him doing the stealing. After all, iOS itself was mostly unoriginal theft from other smartphone makers.

      All this is is another example of Jobs' unbounded ego.

    47. Re: so tell me again... by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      So its wrong for google to clone iphone, but not wrong for iphone to be a clone of palm?

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    48. Re:so tell me again... by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      In other words, a phone book isn't prior art. Whether the patent itself is valid or not is a separate question.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    49. Re:so tell me again... by chefmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google's own patent bank doesn't matter, because Rockstar Consortium doesn't do anything other than undermine the very fabric of the tech industry for their own gain. They exist only to collect rent on innovation itself. FTFA: "'Pretty much anybody out there is infringing,' says John Veschi, Rockstar’s CEO. 'It would be hard for me to envision that there are high-tech companies out there that don’t use some of the patents in our portfolio.'"

      To spell it out more clearly, Google can't sue Rockstar over patent infringement, because Rockstar doesn't actually do anything that Google would have a patent on (unless Google owns some "Method and Process for Utterly Crippling the Tech Industry Using Patent Lawsuits" business process patent we don't know about).

      The timing couldn't be better. We finally have the first credible effort in U.S. Congress to re-evaluate how patents are handled (http://eshoo.house.gov/press-releases/eshoo-introduces-patent-litigation-reform-bill/), and couldn't have crafted a better supervillian than Rockstar if we tried. They even have a comically bombastic name to put a cherry on top of their already odious persona.

    50. Re:so tell me again... by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      It's enough of a change to invalidate the phone book as prior art. Whether it's enough to satisfy the non-obvious requirement is up to the examiner, who apparently thought it was. Personally, I think it's ripe for reexamination, since the patent itself is vague enough in its claims that I think AltaVista would qualify as prior art making the advertisement focus obvious.

      What's interesting is that what's described is effectively a search engine explicitly for advertisements, where the user queries by keyword, and the engine responds with common results and suggested refinements, used to further narrow the search. The engine would then learn from its mistakes, offering different options for that user in the future. As described, it's a very user-centric learning system, based on the user's past results.

      What's claimed is any search engine that incorporates user's stored preferences.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    51. Re:so tell me again... by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 2

      But the companies behind Rockstar are known. From TFA:
      "Apple, Microsoft, Sony, RIM, and others".
      So any patent retaliation from Google would be against those.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    52. Re:so tell me again... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      A strike. As in, an attack. Android being the target of the attack. Except that actually it is a strike at Google.

      Apple/MS may be have rockstar bidding. This is a dubious line of attack, though... Google has rockstar lawyers.

    53. Re:so tell me again... by chefmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also FTFA:

      And because it’s independent, it can antagonize its owners’ partners and customers in ways that its owner companies could not. “The principals have plausible deniability,” says Thomas Ewing, an attorney and intellectual property consultant. “They can say with a straight face: ‘They’re an independent company. We don’t control them.’ And there’s some truth to that.”

    54. Re:so tell me again... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Government by the lawyers for the lawyers.

      That's what the US really has...

      Not really... some of the lawyers are more equal than others. I think you left out the word Corporate.

    55. Re: so tell me again... by Aighearach · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, you're buying into some propaganda lies. Sorry to say.

      When it comes to patents, all they agreed to was a willingness to license, and not to freeze anybody out. It in no way changes their ability to enforce their patents, as the appeals courts keep reminding everybody.

      Certainly having contributed to the standards is drawing out the legal battles and making them more expensive.

      Just because companies should have to give up their IP claims to have their tech be part of a standard, doesn't mean that that is what hardware vendors agreed to. Because they didn't.

    56. Re: so tell me again... by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      For those that don't follow these patent disputes, Apple wanted the same discount end rate that others cross-licensed to get, instead of the base rate before trades.

      The funny part about that is that in addition to not having patents anybody wants to license, the patents Apple does have, they refuse to license. So of course they can't get cross-licensing discounts, they don't cross-license!

    57. Re:so tell me again... by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Let us know how you feel in a year when you can't upgrade your Note to the latest version of android.

    58. Re:so tell me again... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Right, in other words, it IS prior art according to the SCOTUS, but a bunch of lower courts will first claim it isn't. ;)

    59. Re:so tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Clearly Apple, Microsoft, and Sony are at fault. They supplied Rockstar with the patents for the sole reason of sueing other companies. that's the only reason rockstar exists. as the article says, it doesn't do anything else. it doesn't make anything. it sues people.

      Let's say I breed two dogs, then take the resulting pup and train it from birth to attack people. I give it practice and direction and training. I give it a thirst for blood.

      Then I throw it out the front door with no food, close the door, and go watch through the window as it... attacks people. What the hell else did I expect it to do?

      but I'm not responsible because the killer dog is a living creature with its own brain? because I don't "control" it?

    60. Re:so tell me again... by chefmonkey · · Score: 2

      No, but shooting you in the head won't stop the dog. Apple, Microsoft, et al. did bad things. But there's nothing you can do to them to stop the rampage.

    61. Re: so tell me again... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      The iPhone is a clone of the Sony Ericsson P800 (which came out in 2002). Full touch, full web, app store.

      But the P800 was clearly inferior because it didn't have a picture of a partially eaten piece of fruit on it.

    62. Re:so tell me again... by chr1st1anSoldier · · Score: 1

      Please allow me to tell you how shitty I feel that I cannot update my brand new, still sold and under contract WP8 phone to 8.1. I feel like a camels turd on a hot summers day in the Sahara desert. That's how I feel.

    63. Re:so tell me again... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Wow, modded down 2 points for saying something sarcastic about St. Jobs. Must be lots of fanbois on mod duty today.

    64. Re:so tell me again... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      But git is what the cool kids use.

    65. Re: so tell me again... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      MS-Motorola will be decided on appeal, even the trial judge admitted that... he brought it up! If you've been following it, Motorola has the strong hand based on SCOTUS rulings. The judge went way off-road, and it will get tossed. You have to wait until the full process grinds through before you declare winners.

      Even vs Oracle, you could get the wrong idea about who won by calling the winner too early.

    66. Re:so tell me again... by dschnur · · Score: 1

      How is that much different than this:

      SELECT column_name(s)
      FROM table_name
      WHERE column_name LIKE pattern;

      Not sure how long I've been using LIKE in SQL, but it's been a while. Anyone know when it was introduced?

        -Dan

    67. Re: so tell me again... by dr.dynamics · · Score: 1

      I bought the same device a year ago and the upgrade from ice cream sandwich to jelly bean went just fine; thanks for asking.

    68. Re:so tell me again... by Sun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      After the trial, in which Apple won $1bn, Samsung announced a price hike on chips it was selling Apple, estimated to cost Apple $8bn. In addition, Samsung announced it would not continue selling Apple chips altogether past a certain date.

      Thing is, Samsung has Fab technology that's hard to replace. There is a reason Apple chose Samsung to begin with. It's not a simple case of "oh, we'll just buy from someone else".

      Shachar

    69. Re:so tell me again... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Why would I do that? I'm really not the upgrading kind of person. And I didn't even need the WV/W8/W8.1 lessons for that, I've been always like that.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    70. Re: so tell me again... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      The Motorola patents are worthless. Either SEPs that can't be used in litigation or outdated pager patents.

      wow. if google only had you on their legal team before they spent $12.4b.

      also, it's a good idea to apply some common sense before voicing your delusions.

    71. Re:so tell me again... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      To spell it out more clearly, Google can't sue Rockstar over patent infringement, because Rockstar doesn't actually do anything that Google would have a patent on (unless Google owns some "Method and Process for Utterly Crippling the Tech Industry Using Patent Lawsuits" business process patent we don't know about).

      when did we pass the law that state you can only sue someone if they sue you first? google can sue apple, or whoever they want.

    72. Re:so tell me again... by chefmonkey · · Score: 1

      Sure. Apple, Microsoft, me, you -- it's all the same: it makes no difference to Rockstar.

    73. Re:so tell me again... by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Looks like an attack against google itself; not Android.

    74. Re:so tell me again... by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      That's quite right. So this patent is quite useless against Android, because Android is covered by the patent that say "... on a mobile device".

    75. Re: so tell me again... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The funny part about that is that in addition to not having patents anybody wants to license, the patents Apple does have, they refuse to license.

      If no one wants to license them, then how do you know Apple has refused to license them. Huh?

      Of course Apple has patents that other companies want to license. Some Apple will license. Some they won't. Same as everyone else.

    76. Re:so tell me again... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      and you somehow manage to say that the only thing the US has is lawyers? Really?

      No. That's not the point he made. Right or wrong, his point was that lawyers were governing the US and for their own ends. Not that there was nothing other than lawyers.

    77. Re:so tell me again... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      They supplied Rockstar with the patents for the sole reason of sueing other companies. that's the only reason rockstar exists.

      No. They set up a joint venture to bid for the Nortel patents. And they won. The individual companies in the joint venture never owned the patents.

      that's the only reason rockstar exists.

      No. It also means that the companies in the joint venture can legally use the technology in those patents, without fear of being sued.

      Decide yourself which is the primary purpose. But they are both significant purposes.

    78. Re:so tell me again... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      It's an indication that yet again, none of the companies in question intend to improve their products or compete in any way except litigation.

      And yet every year we have phones that are a substantial improvement over last years. Samsung and Apple leapfrogging each other with every release. Hell this years phones are as powerful as laptops of just 3 years ago. The rate of improvement is staggering.

      You might miss it though if you are reading tech sites every day and expect a groundbreaking innovation every week.

    79. Re:so tell me again... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      When will this stupid form of argument die?

      Prior art does not invalidate a patent. Indeed virtually all patents include a list of prior art within the patent.

      So long as the patent adds something new, it's allowed to build on the shoulders of previous patents.

    80. Re: so tell me again... by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      And somehow if Android had come out as a BlackBerry clone, that wouldn't have been a problem? Apparently, cloning is only a problem when the thing cloned is yours (and yours doesn't happen to be a clone of something else).

      Naturally. Why should Apple care if Google rips off Blackberry? Blackberry doesn't care that Google ripped off Apple.

      Android and iOS have nothing in common other than the fact that both combine similar bits of existing technology into a package with similar functionality.

      Android as it ended up being released was very obviously a clone of iOS. There's no point denying it.

    81. Re:so tell me again... by zieroh · · Score: 1

      Guilty as charged.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    82. Re: so tell me again... by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      And in neither of these cases where the ideas being stolen original to Apple.

      A system is the sum of it's parts. Nothing like the iPhone existed previously, even if many of it's individual parts did.

      Android certainly did copy that system.

      Youdr post is another example of fandroid derangement syndrome.

    83. Re:so tell me again... by zieroh · · Score: 1

      But please accept my polite suggestion that you don't know jack shit about prior art.

      As defined by self-serving lawyers, no. As defined by real-world people in their area of expertise quite a lot actually.

      There's a salient difference between those self-serving lawyers and all the real-world people on the topic of "prior art". The self-serving lawyers, for the most part, understand the difference between a legal principle that is accepted by a court of law vs everyday "common-sense". Real world people, for the most part, do not.

      And therein lies the only point that matters.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    84. Re: so tell me again... by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      PalmOS was a menu driven UI with scrolling navigation via scroll bars. Effectively a cut down desktop UI. And it had a simplified character recognition system for input.

      iOS was different on all these key interactions. It's certainly not a clone of PalmOS.

      If however you want to say there was still enough in common, then you'd have to admit that Apple got there before Palm with the Newton MessagePad.

    85. Re:so tell me again... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeap, you're right, I misunderstood him.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    86. Re:so tell me again... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      You can't imagine, being a developer in a country where software patents do not exist, how happy I am to see US firms shoot themselves in the foot and spend billions over an imaginary property issue.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    87. Re:so tell me again... by Shag · · Score: 1

      Nobody makes much profit off Android

      No, not off the OS, but the devices which run it are chewing up 80% of the global market. That's a big deal.

      If that 80% of shipments correlated to more than 10% of profits, perhaps. And unless your name is Samsung, your share of those profits is right about 0%.

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    88. Re: so tell me again... by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      I'm not denying Android was a clone of iOS. Only denying that that's somehow illegal - except for violations of vague patents that should never have been issued in the first place. What Android is not is a fake Louis Vuitton bag trying to either fool the customer that they're buying the real thing or conspiring with the customer to fool their friends that they're carrying the real thing. Android is a touch-screen smartphone, like the iPhone, but different. Just like Levis skinny jeans are skinny jeans - like whatever designer 'invented' the concept of skinny jeans, but different enough as to not be deceptive.

      And in every other realm besides technology these days, that definition of 'deceptively similar' illegal cloning holds. There's nothing deceptive about Android's similarity to iOS. Google did not steal any Apple code to build Android. You could possibly argue that Samsung dressed up their early Android phones to look deceptively like iPhones, though even that's a stretch. I don't think anybody buying a Samsung phone ever thought they were buying an iPhone - or that it could run apps written for the iPhone. I suppose somebody's friend might on casual glance have thought their friend's Samsung phone was a 'genuine' iPhone, but it's not as though they slapped an Apple logo on the thing.

      Anyway, the issue at hand is one of bogus patents. You can defend the patent office if you like, but don't expect much support here on Slashdot for your position.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    89. Re:so tell me again... by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      Calling those versions of Windows "upgrades" is a bit of a stretch but I have yet to want to pass up an Android upgrade. Of course, I like performance. You might be different.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    90. Re:so tell me again... by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      "Does anything anti-american get modded up?"

      Welcome to /.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    91. Re:so tell me again... by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      Actually there is no official statement saying they increased the price. It was reported by an unknown source and never verified. It's possible it's true but don't state it as fact, since we really don't know.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    92. Re:so tell me again... by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Is it really?

      Wherein searching the database includes correlating, as a function of a fuzzy logic algorithm, the received search argument and user profile data to particular information in the database, and providing the particular information as the search results.

      I sure hope my phone book doesn't have user profile data on me. That's some scary paper.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    93. Re:so tell me again... by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      I don't get that part. Plausible towards who? Not towards Google, it is pretty clear who pulls the strings. It could be towards law enforcement, to avoid collusion charges, but I can't believe that the law would be that stupid. It is called anti-trust for a reason, after all. It could give a public prosecutor a fig leaf to explain why they didn't raise charges, I suppose, but that is about it.

    94. Re:so tell me again... by Gorbag · · Score: 1

      Which is so painfully obvious the phonebook is prior art.

      You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/06/09/patentability-overview-obviousness-and-adequate-description/id=25191/

      --
      -- I speak only for myself
    95. Re:so tell me again... by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      I don't think they gave Rockstar the money without setting rules for how the patents are used. So we can assume that the founders at least did not mind Rockstar turning loose the lawyers on the competition.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
  2. If you can't be the best by Revek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sue the best.

    1. Re: If you can't be the best by techprophet · · Score: 1

      Sad but effective

    2. Re: If you can't be the best by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course Google can go wrong, but they certainly didn't screw up Android. Certainly not to the level of being forced to delete inconvenient posts from their discussion forums

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re: If you can't be the best by somersault · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your claim is childish and wrong.

      So's your face.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re: If you can't be the best by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Expensive for Apple in that it would publicize the true situation? They weren't dealing with the problems in a manner acceptable to most users.

    5. Re: If you can't be the best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whoosh, donut-head!

    6. Re:If you can't be the best by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Sue the best.

      All the more reason to end software patents.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    7. Re:If you can't be the best by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 2

      If you can't convince, punch.

      If you can't share, hoard.

      and so on, and so on.

      Everything humans do is based on finding something else harder.

    8. Re: If you can't be the best by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Your mother is a sign of infantility and/or lack of discussion skills.

    9. Re: If you can't be the best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's very subjective who the best is.
      For fandroids Google can do no wrong.
      For Apple cultists Apple is superior.

      Your claim is childish and wrong.

      81.5% of consumers would disagree with you, since they have chosen Google Android based products over the competition. If this isn't a clear cut case of "lets get all the 50lb bonobos together and sue the 800lb gorilla so it doesnt eat all our tasty bananas" then I dont know what is.

    10. Re: If you can't be the best by smash · · Score: 1

      And more people buy kia than mercedes or BMW blahblahblah...

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    11. Re: If you can't be the best by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      rather than work with Apple to resolve a problem in line with the terms of warranty.

      Actually, that's what Lessig did: repost a solution to the problem in line with the terms of warranty. The problem was, these were not the particular terms that Apple liked, even if they do promise to obey them when you buy the device in the EU.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re: If you can't be the best by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Apple forums openly talk about problems in their products and fixes.

      Apple is well-known to bury data. The piece of data I personally noticed regarded data corruption in Rev.1 B&W G3 macs. They had an article in the TIL which told you to buy an ATA card or FWB toolkit and slow down your drives. When they folded the TIL into the KB they pulled in articles before and after it, but they dropped this one. They lie, cheat, and deceive; that's what they do.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re: If you can't be the best by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The Kia has about the same reliability these days as BMW or Mercedes. And it loses its value dramatically slower. A BMW which is just ten years old has typically lost 70-90% of its value. Only five series hold their value at all, and that's been slipping hard as well. Mercedes are pretty much the same, plus the dealers are worse about parts prices than anyone but Ford.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re: If you can't be the best by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Apple did say that. And the fix already existed at the time. They did precisely what you were advising.

    15. Re: If you can't be the best by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Yes I've been astroturfing here for Apple for 15 years as a paid poster.

      Then I'd think you'd be better at it by now.

      Farsighted company that Apple.

      Lots of companies have image marketing campaigns that lasted longer than that.

    16. Re: If you can't be the best by Revek · · Score: 1

      Ill tell you. Its the guys with more than 80% market share.

    17. Re: If you can't be the best by Troed · · Score: 1

      I live in the EU. If the product does not work as advertised it's completely irrelevant whether it's due to software or hardware. The seller is responsible for making sure that it starts working as intended.

      The definition of "as intended" is judged by price level and what's considered the norm in the relevant market place. I.e, you cannot just claim your product is "special" and get away with it.

    18. Re: If you can't be the best by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The seller was willing to do that. In this case it was a 3rd party advising buyers to mislead the seller as to the nature of the problem and not let the seller fix the problem.

    19. Re: If you can't be the best by Troed · · Score: 1

      No.

      1) Apple isn't the seller. The post Lessig referred to applied to those having bought their phone from the carrier. The correct action in the EU is to make your claim towards the seller - not the manufacturer.

      2) Lessig himself did try the reinstall.

      Why is it apparently this important for you to misrepresent the issue?

    20. Re: If you can't be the best by murkwood7 · · Score: 1

      Et tu ACutus?

      --
      - X/Y -
    21. Re: If you can't be the best by jbolden · · Score: 1

      1) That's not the correct action. The correct action with a failed installation is to reinstall not to return.

      2) If Lessig had tried the reinstall the way Apple instructed him to (i.e. force the update of flash) it would have worked. He may have tried it himself prior to having received instruction from Apple and been successful.

    22. Re: If you can't be the best by Troed · · Score: 1

      Thank you, non EU-citizen, for trying to explain to an EU-citizen what the correct action is ;) As would be quite obvious to anyone reading this - but you - you're of course wrong.

    23. Re: If you can't be the best by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Who cares about the EU-citiizenship? This is about standard ways of fixing computer problems. You live in Europe not on Mars you follow normal customs. Finally, Lessig is American.

  3. wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple, Microsoft, and Sony (nobody cares about RIM), three of the biggest names in technology. Three of the most influential and powerful companies in the world. Three companies that have historically been in fierce competition with one another.

    And they had to gang up on Google.

    What does that say about how much they fear Google?

    1. Re:wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Google were offered to be a part of the consortium but chose to bid on their own instead.

    2. Re:wow. by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Google will win as most of these patents are quite obvious. Of course, it will probably end up being handed to Lucy Koh, at which point, good luck with anything approaching fairness.

    3. Re:wow. by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In other words, it's their fault that they chose not to be part of an anti-competitive extortion scheme.

    4. Re:wow. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Humans naturally cooperate. Competition isn't a religious edict - it's just that we have a fucked up society where everyone at the bottom is told to compete while everyone at the top plays golf together.

    5. Re:wow. by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      They tried to buy a large group of patents, not just these. Seriously, read these patents.

    6. Re:wow. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      In other words, it's their fault that they chose not to be part of an anti-competitive extortion scheme.

      So, you're saying they didn't want to be part of an anticompetitive cartel, they wanted to be king of the anticompetitive kingdom?

      That said, their rep isn't bad in this area.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:wow. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      I'm not defending Google. "Do no evil" has been parodied enough. I'm faulting the law for allowing a patent troll consortium.

    8. Re:wow. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Since Google tried to buy all of these patents themselves I doubt they can now claim that these aren't valid.

      Are you familiar with how law is practiced?

    9. Re:wow. by ArhcAngel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Humans naturally cooperate. Competition isn't a religious edict - it's just that we have a fucked up society where everyone at the bottom is told to compete while everyone at the top plays golf together.

      Um...Humans naturally club each other to death in attempt to be dominant. Cooperation is a concept developed BY society to achieve a greater goal than an individual could on their own. Because Americans have lived in relative peace the last century many citizens believe peace is the norm but it is not. We have been very fortunate to live in such an age but now take it for granted.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    10. Re:wow. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      In general, sure, but I think this is a pretty clear example of the contrary. This is the guys at the top actually clashing. Well, some of them.

      Unfortunately, the competition is not the healthy kind that drives innovation, it's the kind that makes some lawyers and lobbyists richer.

    11. Re:wow. by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      What, you think that consortium would've cooperated with the smaller players that weren't invited? Ha!

      Cooperation only happens in the old boys' club. The smaller players get shafted.

    12. Re:wow. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      You do realize that the patents would have effectively been removed from the playing field if they had joined the consortium when they were offered the opportunity to do so, since almost all of the major players would have then had the rights to use the patents. Rather than do that, however, Google instead opted to try and outbid the "anti-competitive extortion scheme" so that they could have the patents all to themselves. They lost.

      I was actually rather disappointed in them when they chose to pursue that route, since it was a dick move on their part to turn their noses up at the offer to join the consortium after all of these other bitter rivals had managed to set aside their differences. And now, they're suffering the well-deserved consequences of trying to play against everyone else instead of with everyone else. Moreover, because they're not in the consortium, there's no voice for Android present in it, which means that Android companies are the primary targets.

    13. Re:wow. by jkflying · · Score: 1

      If they'd joined they wouldn't have had any way to prevent the Android handset makers from being sued, it only would have covered them. The offer to join was a trojan horse and they knew it.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    14. Re:wow. by jkflying · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they tried to buy them. Or perhaps they just took a calculated risk bidding up on them so that the others would have to pay more.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    15. Re:wow. by excelsior_gr · · Score: 2

      Because Americans have lived in relative peace the last century

      Say what? You seem to neglect two world wars, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Gulf war, the Kosovo war, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and several other smaller conflicts, but other than that, then yes, Americans have lived in peace in the last century.

      We have been very fortunate to live in such an age but now take it for granted.

      You have been very fortunate to live in a country that had no war within its borders in the past century, and you take it for granted. Fixed that for you.

    16. Re:wow. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Um...Humans naturally club each other to death in attempt to be dominant. Cooperation is a concept developed BY society to achieve a greater goal than an individual could on their own.

      Cooperation is a concept developed by human evolution that made society as we know it possible in the first place. Altruism is actually hardwired in our brains (though within limits: we draw semi-arbitrary boundaries between "our" group and everyone else, and then help our group and hate everyone else). Sociopaths are a deviation from the norm even without any special upbringing.

    17. Re:wow. by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Cooperation is a concept developed BY society to achieve a greater goal than an individual could on their own.

      Categorically not true. Apes cooperate.

      Now you may say: well apes have societies themselves. But then you are just saying that cooperation implies society. Which is tautologous.

      And it certainly doesn't say that competition is somehow more natural to the higher orders than cooperation.

    18. Re:wow. by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      I guess that's why we cooperated to form agrarian societies to bring the food where we live, formed cities and cultures, and enough infrastructure to support the industrial followed by the information revolution?

      Because a few asshats here and there, who will always spoil the party, are the only things you know about history and human nature.

      I guess we all signed oaths on grass or leaves, and communicated abstract ideas in a nonexistent language in order to achieve the goal of not starving to death.

      You're not insightful - you're obvious, and obvious is immediately suspect as wrong. And in this case, you're wrong. If I had a club, I would club you in an attempt to be dominant, and the rest of the people would resume their discussion and forget you existed. You would remember me, because I stuck out in your mind, and it would dominate your opinion of how people work together, or fail to, but it wouldn't be truth.

    19. Re:wow. by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Somebody mod this guy up. He's a riot!

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    20. Re:wow. by rizole · · Score: 1

      Humans naturally want to hit each other over the head for dominance and cooperate at the same time. there's plenty of evidence for these behaviours across the whole spectrum of the living world, all the way back to microbes. Google horizontal gene transfer and draw your own conclusions. I suspect that whether you emphasise cooperation or competition is down to your political leanings, personality type or social background.

  4. Anti-Trust by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple, Microsoft, Sony, RIM, and others, who bought the patents for $4.5 billion as a consortium named Rockstar Bidco

    I presume it's not, but that should be illegal collusion and an anti-trust violation.

    1. Re:Anti-Trust by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ironically, the result of buying patents is now they have a legal monopoly.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    2. Re:Anti-Trust by egarland · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can't believe there wouldn't be a law somewhere on the books that would make it illegal for all your competitors to gang up together and buy patents to try and lock you out of the market. I'm assuming the laws exist, but they figure they've got enough legal mojo to fend off weak government anti-trust regulators.

      --
      set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
    3. Re:Anti-Trust by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True. That's the problem with the term "intellectual property" - it's male bovine manure. It's a government granted monopoly, not property in any meaningful sense like a car or a shirt.

    4. Re:Anti-Trust by jbolden · · Score: 1

      What business are Apple, Microsoft, RIM in for which they can form a trust? Especially one related to search. Apple bundles other people's search they lose money on it and are a customer of both Google and Microsoft for search. RIM doesn't do search at all.

    5. Re:Anti-Trust by jbolden · · Score: 2

      It is perfectly legal for companies to work together to cooperate providing that the group of companies working together don't represent effectively all of the market. In the case of search the only possible monopoly is Google.

    6. Re:Anti-Trust by somersault · · Score: 1

      They all make phone OSes. Google make an arguably better (or at the very least, more popular) phone OS. So they're trying to destroy Google's core market of search, to stop them making such a nice phone OS.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:Anti-Trust by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Prosecutors will charge old ladies playing bridge under RICO, but then again those old ladies don't pay protection^Wbribes^W^Wdonate to campaigns the way the big boys do.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:Anti-Trust by leehwtsohg · · Score: 1

      Maybe they tried to buy them to prevent exactly this from happening?

    9. Re:Anti-Trust by jbolden · · Score: 1

      1) The patents aren't about phone-OSes they are about search more broadly
      2) The combined marketshare of Apple + Microsoft+RIM falls well short of a complete market JavaVM is still larger then all 3 plus Android.
      3) Even if you were to restrict to particular price points and thus exclude JavaVM, Google is the one who approaches a monopoly. It is legal to act in concert to prevent the formation of a monopoly.

      So you would really have to argue that RIM+Microsoft+Apple are in collusion to drive Google out so as to form a trust... But how does winning this directly create a phone-OS trust? Even if Google were to stop being involved in search there is no reason they couldn't continue to produce Android and use other search engines. I don't think this is a makeable case.

    10. Re:Anti-Trust by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      OP here. I didn't say it was illegal (IANAL), I said it should be illegal. A consortium to develop new tech or something is reasonable. A consortium to play patent troll is not. As it is, patents are just government granted monopolies. Collusion (oops, I meant a consortium) to leverage those little monopolies into a big monopoly is grossly anti-competitive. Business laws should be about fostering competition, not hindering it.

    11. Re:Anti-Trust by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      I presume it's not, but that should be illegal collusion and an anti-trust violation.

      Explain why it would be illegal? The primary goal of each of these companies would be to avoid being sued if someone else buys these patents. The secondary goal would be to make a bit of money. The primary goal of not being sued can be achieved just fine if you are in a consortium, and it is a lot cheaper. The four alternatives would have been: 1. Apple pays the whole $4.5bn, Microsoft, Sony, RIM must fear to be sued. 2. Microsoft pays the whole $4.5bn, Apple, Sony, RIM must fear to be sued and so on.

      And you need to consider that they actually paid $4.5 bn. Let's assume you can make $2.25 bn by suing others. At that point, buying the patents costs $2.25bn, not buying them also costs $2.25bn. Everyone knew that the auction winners would sue the others. Google obviously believed that at $4.5bn, buying the patents and winning some patent suits is more expensive than not buying and losing some patent suits.

      I think it might have been illegal collusion if Google had joined as well, and they all together had told Nortel "looks like there are no other bidders, so we'll pay you $500 million".

    12. Re:Anti-Trust by egarland · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe that anti-competitive collusion between competitors is ever "perfectly legal". There's a lot of laws out there dealing with this type of thing, there must be at least one that makes this illegal. Of course, laws that aren't enforced effectively don't exist.

      --
      set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
    13. Re:Anti-Trust by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      MS and Apple were already suing Google. The value of these patents to Google was to prevent further lawsuits and have MAD defuse a number of the existing ones.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    14. Re:Anti-Trust by KeithJM · · Score: 1

      It isn't ironic. The reason they took those actions and the reasons we are discussing it is because it gives them a legal monopoly. It's not like they banded together to buy these patents and then were later surprised when it occurred them that this allowed them to sue their competitors for competing with them.

    15. Re:Anti-Trust by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      They each equally invested in a joint venture, which put up the capital to purchase the patent portfolio. It then subsequently licensed those patents to each of the investing companies.

      This joint venture is the one suing, not the parent companies. There is no collusion in the eyes of the law.

      Is it bullshit? Very likely. But it's not that far removed from the SCO Group being a proxy warrior against Linux. And it just happens to be legal bullshit, as it isn't subject to anti-trust - if there was a monopoly player in search, it's Google; not MicrosoftAppleSonyBlackberry.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    16. Re:Anti-Trust by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Its ads in search. Remember how Steve Jobs went ballistic that Google earned one cent without going through his beloved Apple store/whatever so he created iAds to compete with AdMob? Ads are Google's major source of revenue so by attacking that they are attacking Google's finances directly. Not that I think this patent is worth anything. I was certainly getting ads served to me when I used Altavista and that was before 1997.

    17. Re:Anti-Trust by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      I doubt Google was primarily interested in search patents from Nortel. A telecommunications company. They were most likely more interested in their cellular patents.

    18. Re:Anti-Trust by cheesybagel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google "Wright Brothers patent war".

    19. Re:Anti-Trust by jbolden · · Score: 1

      There are two issues:

      a) Consortiums to compete
      b) Patent trolling.

      You seem to agree (a) isn't the problem. In the case of (b) the issue is more broad, and applies equally all patent trolls. I think just about everyone agrees the USA desperately needs patent reform.

    20. Re:Anti-Trust by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Where is the evidence for anti-competitive collusion here. Google has a virtual monopoly in search. Weakening Google's position in search would enhance not diminish competition. Moreover some of the players here aren't in the search business.

      If you want to make the case about phone OSes. Android again is becoming a virtual monopoly at many price points.

    21. Re:Anti-Trust by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Viewing this as a trust for phone-OSes is complex since it is so indirect. But let's assume that's makable. You still have my point (2) and (3) above. Android is much closer to being a monopoly than Apple + RIM + Microsoft.

    22. Re:Anti-Trust by somersault · · Score: 1

      so, your preference for either says a lot about how you think of your self.

      I'd think it says more about how much money you have spare to spend on gadgets.

      myself, i am not pos, i am premium.

      Uh-huh. Not even a hint of irony?

      That kind of attitude is sure to make you a lot of friends!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    23. Re:Anti-Trust by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      Intellectual Property should be subject to a Property tax. If you can buy it, it should be taxed.

    24. Re:Anti-Trust by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google has a virtual monopoly in search. Weakening Google's position in search would enhance not diminish competition.

      Weakening Google's position in search by providing something better would enhance competition. Weakening their position through bogus patent infringement claims is not competition; that's just dragging a more successful competitor down out of spite, to everyone's detriment. The whole point of competition, and the reason we generally try to encourage it, is that the best product wins. The goal is not simply to divide the market up as evenly as possible.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    25. Re:Anti-Trust by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      I have a lot of friends. they all have iphones. that's in US though

      You're right in many markets the I products are way expensive compared to others, but here in US, I can pay $300 for an iphone or $0 for an el crappo? Note that both of these are on top of a $2000 contract for two years of cell phone service ($80/mo), so I don't understand why people place so much emphasis on the subsidized prices.

      I choose to wear nice clothes and drive a nice car because it makes me feel good about myself. also, i'm union, so all the people at my work have them, and I have to keep up. not bad for sanitation workers!

    26. Re:Anti-Trust by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Would you rather have an OS monopoly or a hardware vendor monopoly? Besides its not like people can't fork Android. In fact Amazon do precisely that.

    27. Re:Anti-Trust by somersault · · Score: 2

      I didn't say they're too expensive, I just think that thinking of everything as "premium" vs "piece of shit" is a bit harsh. For reference, my phone is an S4 and I drive a Toyota GT86, though outside of work I wear clothes that most people probably don't think of as all that nice (usually extremely baggy trousers with some kind of geeky t-shirt).

      --
      which is totally what she said
    28. Re:Anti-Trust by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Nothing remotely ironic about that. It's the express purpose.

    29. Re:Anti-Trust by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      All of the competitors ganged up...and then invited Google to join them too. Google was offered an opportunity to join the consortium in the auction for the Nortel patents, rather than bid against the consortium, yet they chose not to accept the offer to join the consortium, and instead tried to outbid the consortium so that they could have the patents for their personal use.

      It'd be pretty hard to make an argument for anti-competitive behavior when Google was given every opportunity to be a part of it with everyone else and chose of their own volition not to do so.

    30. Re:Anti-Trust by hughk · · Score: 1

      Except that to join such a consortium would have directly conflicted Google's stated policy of using patents only in self-defence. At least according to their stated policy, if they had won, the patents would have gone into their war-chest and would not have seen the light of day unless someone tried to sue them for violation.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    31. Re:Anti-Trust by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying "rather". I'm saying it isn't anti-competitive. Little guys can gang up on a potential monopolist, that's considered preserving competition.

      As for someone forking Android that's been done in China. There is also the Amazon and Nook versions. Cyanogen... If those start to sell enough then there is no longer any potential monopolist and the whole thing becomes moot from a competition standpoint.

    32. Re:Anti-Trust by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      OP here. I didn't say it was illegal (IANAL), I said it should be illegal. A consortium to develop new tech or something is reasonable. A consortium to play patent troll is not. As it is, patents are just government granted monopolies. Collusion (oops, I meant a consortium) to leverage those little monopolies into a big monopoly is grossly anti-competitive. Business laws should be about fostering competition, not hindering it.

      Actually, it's the exact opposite - the DoJ's position is that patent pooling frequently has positive economic effects in avoiding litigation and enabling cross-licensing, and accordingly is usually not anti-competitive per se. It can be, but that mainly relies on other things - FRAND pools that include non-standard essential patents; different license pricing for competitors of pool participants; etc.

    33. Re:Anti-Trust by dissy · · Score: 1

      I don't see this monopoly (virtual or otherwise) in search that you are talking about. Care to provide examples?

      In that case, allow me.
      This is just a small sample of how wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong and hella wrong you are.

      That list is far from complete, and is mostly USA-centric. In other countries, not only are there more search providers, but Google does not even rank in the top lists. Or just look at China, where Google is made fun of similar to AOL is in the US today.

      If that is what you label a monopoly, I really want to know what you call companies like Microsoft regarding desktop operating systems - or the phone company - or patents/copyrights for that matter.

    34. Re:Anti-Trust by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You're a cast iron cock is what you are. Right in Apple's target market.

      I pity your lack of self-worth.

      Btw, Android is available on premium devices too. It's kind of flexible like that. You can buy low-cost devices and gold plated ones. Choice, it's a wonderful thing.

      Even the choice to be hip and fashionable instead of making your own decisions. Enjoy your fashionable life, well dressed little union boy.

    35. Re:Anti-Trust by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Is that the same DoJ that refuses to prosecute anybody on Wall St.?

    36. Re: Anti-Trust by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      It seems every time the word "irony" is used, somebody has to try to pick it apart. And many times they are wrong.

      I used the term in reference to the original post about antitrust laws. The expectation is that antitrust laws would exist and be executed in order to prevent the consortium from gaining anti-competitive power. The irony is that the opposite has actually resulted, in that laws exist to now allow the consortium to gain anti-competitive power.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    37. Re:Anti-Trust by jbolden · · Score: 1

      If you look at a lot of the anti-trust people they wanted smaller companies that were more easily manageable by the government and more importantly had diverse and conflicting interests. Their primary interest was not the underlying products. Which if you think about where they applied this first: sugar, oil, steel; these were products who are literally commodities and thus commoditized.

      One of the harms often cited for monopolies was excessive prices. And certainly the OPEC cartel has a similar reputation today. (I'm freely intermixing monopoly, trust and cartel for this post). But I can't think of many if any of the anti-trust laws that were passed so as to encourage "better" products. Quite often better products (i.e. expensive niche items) were dismissed as irrelevant as they didn't give consumers effective choice even if they created theoretical choice.

    38. Re:Anti-Trust by jbolden · · Score: 1

      A monopoly is based on share of the market not based on theoretical choice. You are making precisely the argument the sugar companies lost with: theoretical choice for consumers was fine their actual choice didn't matter. A monopoly is defined in terms of the actual choices consumers make, competitors are viable only if they actual sell.

      In terms of global search worse numbers are Google 90% with Bing, yahoo and other at 3% each. That would be a monopoly. If you count differently (customers and not search volume) then the market looks more diverse or count certain Asian providers that aren't tied to the advertising industry then the market does look more diverse. But clearly Google is still dominant enough, even with those counts that undermining Google is enhancing not diminishing competition.

      , I really want to know what you call companies like Microsoft regarding desktop operating systems - or the phone company - or patents/copyrights for that matter.

      Microsoft was a monopoly as well, even though there were dozens of other desktop operating systems available. They made the same argument you did citing Amiga OS, MacOS, the BSD, AIX, IRIX Didn't work. They were found to be a monopoly that had abused their position.

      As for the phone company, I assume you mean in the 1950s-1970s. And they were a regulated utility who agreed they were a monopoly and subject to strong constraints on price to act in the public interests.

      Grounds for voiding a patent would be that it establishes a monopoly. As for copyright I don't see the connection.

  5. If you can't beat them in the market... by Tangent_M · · Score: 2

    beat them in the courts.

  6. Patent hell by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Broken system. Too much politics, too much backstabbing, too much use of patents to tear down competitors instead of just arranging a reasonable fee.

    Abolish software and "business method" patents. They're not *things*, just ideas. They're not what patents were *created* to protect.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Patent hell by Chemisor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google has an excellent opportunity here to abolish software patents altogether. All they have to do is nothing. Let the courts rule against them. Pay the fine and close the business. Completely. Larry and Sergei walk away with a cool $50 billion. The main losers will be search users and those dependent on search to be found. In other words, everybody. You want to kill Google? Fine. Let's do it. Let's see how long the world can survive without it.

    2. Re:Patent hell by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Abolish software and "business method" patents. They're not *things*, just ideas. They're not what patents were *created* to protect.

      35 USC 101 defines patent eligible subject matter, and states that whoever invents or discovers "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor..." A process is not a *thing*, just an idea... but clearly, that is what patents were created to protect.

    3. Re:Patent hell by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Abolish software and "business method" patents. They're not *things*, just ideas. They're not what patents were *created* to protect.

      35 USC 101 ... states that whoever invents or discovers "any new and useful process [...] may obtain a patent therefor..." A process is not a *thing*, just an idea... but clearly, that is what patents were created to protect.

      While I agree with you that patents ultimately monopolize the use of ideas rather than things, Cochrane v. Deener (94 US 780 - Supreme Court 1877) explained the term "process" as follows:

      A process is a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing.

      Software and business methods obviously do not meet this standard. There are no "certain materials" to be transformed, and the goal is not to reduce them to a different state or thing. Only physical processes count as patentable subject matter.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    4. Re:Patent hell by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Abolish software and "business method" patents. They're not *things*, just ideas. They're not what patents were *created* to protect.

      35 USC 101 ... states that whoever invents or discovers "any new and useful process [...] may obtain a patent therefor..." A process is not a *thing*, just an idea... but clearly, that is what patents were created to protect.

      While I agree with you that patents ultimately monopolize the use of ideas rather than things, Cochrane v. Deener (94 US 780 - Supreme Court 1877) explained the term "process" as follows:

      A process is a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing.

      Software and business methods obviously do not meet this standard. There are no "certain materials" to be transformed, and the goal is not to reduce them to a different state or thing. Only physical processes count as patentable subject matter.

      Although you're correct about the 1877 case, it has since been expanded by both Congressional amendments to the statute in the 1952 act, and Supreme Court opinions - see Gottschalk v. Benson in 1972, noting in dicta: "It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold."; and of course, Bilski v. Kappos, which noted that Congress explicitly allowed patentability of business processes.

      In particular, as the Supreme Court noted, the patent act includes no definition limiting "process" to "physical processes":

      Section 100(b) provides that “[t]he term ‘process’ means process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.” The Court is unaware of any “‘ordinary, contemporary, common meaning,’” Diehr, supra, at 182, of the definitional terms “process, art or method” that would require these terms to be tied to a machine or to transform an article... A categorical rule denying patent protection for “inventions in areas not contemplated by Congress... would frustrate the purposes of the patent law." Chakrabarty, 447 U.S., at 315.

      Regarding business processes, they stated:

      Section 101 similarly precludes the broad contention that the term “process” categorically excludes business methods. Section 101 similarly precludes the broad contention that the term “process” categorically excludes business methods... The argument that business methods are categorically outside of 101’s scope is further undermined by the fact that federal law explicitly contemplates the existence of at least some business method patents... A conclusion that business methods are not patentable in any circumstances would render 273 meaningless. This would violate the canon against interpreting any statutory provision in a manner that would render another provision superfluous.

      And of course, the AIA passed, post-Bilski, without modifying 100, 101, or 273 to correct any misinterpretation of the Supreme Court in Bilski. It's another canon of statutory construction that where Congress has amended an act following judicial interpretation, but have not modified or countermanded that interpretation, they have approved it. Hence, no matter how you look at it, software and business methods are patent eligible (providing they are also new and nonobvious, and the claims do not merely recite an abstract idea, of course).

    5. Re:Patent hell by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Although you're correct about the 1877 case, it has since been expanded by both Congressional amendments to the statute in the 1952 act, and Supreme Court opinions - see Gottschalk v. Benson in 1972, noting in dicta: "It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold."

      Having recently reviewed the three major USSC cases relating to patentable subject matter ( Gottschalk v. Benson (1972), Parker v. Flook (1978), and Diamond v. Diehr (1981)), I can only conclude that in each case software patents as such were rejected outright. The language generally cited to the contrary seems only to exist to make it clear that an otherwise patentable discovery which happens to include software as a component is not rendered unpatentable merely by the presence of software. (You can patent a novel mousetrap which happens to use software as part of the trigger, but similar software wouldn't violate the patent if used in a context other than a similar mousetrap.)

      The common arguments that "software on a computer" (Benson) or "software with an insignificant post-solution step" (Flook) are somehow different from pure software were explicitly rejected.

      Regarding Bilski, the USSC still ended up rejecting that particular business method patent using logic similar to that in Benson and Flook. The majority opinion cast some doubt on the exclusive authority of the "machine or transformation" test (as did Benson and Flook), but only because they considered the prohibition on patents on abstract ideas sufficient. The two concurring opinions both rejected the idea that business methods could be patentable subject matter under other circumstances.

      In short, I don't see how Bilski could be said to change anything. It upheld the Benson and Flook ruling to the letter, and while they carefully didn't rule that business methods are excluded subject matter, the ruling did strongly imply that such patents would be invalid on the basis that they cover abstract ideas, which amounts to the same thing.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    6. Re:Patent hell by akozakie · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bing. Microsoft is part of this consortium, remember?

      You underestimate human ability to adapt. If we lose what we use, we'll use what's available. Sure, there'd be a period of outrage and a bit of chaos, but then everything would stabilise. Business as usual while someone else reaps the profit.

      There's a Polish proverb: "If you don't have what you like, you like what you have".

  7. Remember the old adage... by mishehu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those who can, innovate.

    Those who can't, litigate.

    Sorry, Apple, but the Woz was right when he explained concern over your company. And I've not really seen Microsoft innovate itself out of a paper bag in years... But that's ok, they'll make sure they're on the gravy train by attempting to collect royalties every Android device out there...

    1. Re:Remember the old adage... by jbolden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And I've not really seen Microsoft innovate itself out of a paper bag in years

      http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/

    2. Re:Remember the old adage... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Motorola (actually Motorola Mobility - it was only half of the original company) also has well established expertise in the design and manufacture of wireless products. What a strange company - they can actually produce something other than government writs of monopoly (a/k/a patents).

    3. Re:Remember the old adage... by ausekilis · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I was going to leave it at "Don't innovate, litigate!" but then realized there's more to this.

      We all know Steve Job's hated android with a passion. It is still the iPhones biggest competition. They noticed that an open source platform, with it's hundreds/thousands of contributers is going to move and adapt much more quickly than whatever team they can afford to pay. Apple has a great think tank (though not as good with the passing of St. Jobs), but even they can't come up with something so fresh and new that the legion of android wouldn't be able to build a competitor rapidly... much more rapidly than their annual "yes, but this iDevice is 5% shinier!".

      At first MS had the iPhone hate due it it whipping the pants off their Windows Mobile nonsense. They too see that a competitor has a massive market share, and their own offerings (with sub-par app choices) just can't compete. They still don't get that people use their phones in different ways than computers and their vendor lock-in with "yes, but we have office!" (on the surface/RT at least) just isn't going to get all those young adults/teens/preteens hot and bothered about Windows phone.

      Then we can take a step back and look at what the competition is really like. Apple with their $600 "but it's shiny" iPhone and walled garden with plenty of apps. MS, with their handful of Windows Phone devices and (by comparison) tiny app market for reasonable prices, or Android that has plenty of apps, is more customizable (for those that do), and is cheaper to produce due to no licensing fees.

      The market has spoken for itself, the "little guys" have run out of ideas to attract the populous, so now they are lashing out at their competitor. Little do they realize that the whole Apple/Samsung campaign tarnished that once golden sheen of Apple's doors. We can only hope that something like the Streisand effect kicks in and a negative public image for companies behaving like children starts becoming a deterrent for these kinds of tactics. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Google and their constant data mining on everything, but given the choices, I'd rather go with Android than the Reality Distortion Market or Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

    4. Re:Remember the old adage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      from that website:

      Headlines

              You Can Live Forever! Digitally
              How Researchers Map The Future Of Innovation
              Keeping Teens ‘Private’ on Facebook Won’t Protect Them
              Audio: Microsoft's Baym Discusses Social Media Fundraising

      WOW, that's some innovation right there. I can't wait for those innovations to become available to us.
      Looking at the rest of the website, it's all about other people doing research with microsoft products.
      Not microsoft doing research.

    5. Re:Remember the old adage... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Look more carefully. That's the research arm of Microsoft. Those people doing the research are mostly Microsoft employees or academics with research grants from Microsoft.

    6. Re: Remember the old adage... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Yes it is. But that's a different question. The claim was that Microsoft doesn't innovate.

      If one wanted to make a much weaker claim like, "Microsoft is incredibly innovative. However they are very conservative about moving those innovations into their core revenue producing products" that's defendable. I still think it is wrong. For example the inclusion of Visual F# in Visual Studio 2013 is a great example of a product originating in Research, being developed there and then migrating to their mainstream product. LINQ for all their languages and SQLSever is another great example of the same process.

    7. Re:Remember the old adage... by smash · · Score: 1

      They noticed that an open source platform, with it's hundreds/thousands of contributers is going to move and adapt much more quickly than whatever team they can afford to pay.

      What, you mean like Linux does?

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    8. Re: Remember the old adage... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      I don't know anyone using F#. SQLServer?! SQL was invented by IBM and SQLServer was based on Sybase source code.

    9. Re:Remember the old adage... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      It's an innovative legal strategy!

    10. Re:Remember the old adage... by noh8rz10 · · Score: 3

      the weirdest part is? /. is such a YRO crowd that you think they would be outraged at all the privacy invasion stuff that google does, but instead there is this love and forgiveness. I think mostly because it sounds like a cool place to work and gives free stuff like gmail (hint: it's not free). oh and they support "open source" (but not really).

      say what you will about apple, but at least your relationship with them is clear. you buy a product from them, and you own a product. no selling of your info. no things that can be taken away (igoogle, reader). it's regular old business. I prefer that.

    11. Re:Remember the old adage... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Well it sells well on supercomputers, servers, routers, smartphones, tablets, wristwatches. About the only place it doesn't sell well is the desktop. Which Linus actually claimed was a goal of his. But then again if that was a goal of his why doesn't he do any code for graphics infrastructure? Hah.

    12. Re: Remember the old adage... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I do know people using F#. But if one wants innovations innovations take time to catch on. It is unreasonable to expect new invention -> product -> popular product, to happen quickly. Rather we can show Microsoft at all stages in the process. I was just showing new products that came out of their inventions.

      As for SQL you are misreading my comment. I said LINQ for SQLServer: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/bb397926.aspx

    13. Re:Remember the old adage... by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      Microsoft the corporation sadly seems to have forgotten about their research arm ages ago. All the cool stuff Microsoft Research makes tends to go die in a corner.

    14. Re: Remember the old adage... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      LINQ sure. But there were 4GL languages with similar capabilities way back before then. The difference is MS added it to a general purpose programming language.

    15. Re:Remember the old adage... by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Sorry but the open source is not what sold Android. It's the more affordable hardware / software. When Android first came out it was garbage and it still sold. You may have purchased it for the reasons you listed but for most people it was pricing or to get away from the Apple walled garden (iTunes). In the end it's not the open source community that invested into making Android, it's Google that did. They built on top of an open source OS but so did other companies.

    16. Re: Remember the old adage... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The innovation was making database objects act like primitives in a general purpose high performance programming language. That was the big idea behind C which is what became LINQ. I'm not saying that Microsoft invented an entire field or anything but that's a rather important recent innovation.

    17. Re: Remember the old adage... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Sorry the "C" above should have read C-Omega. I used the greek and /. dropped it.

    18. Re:Remember the old adage... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Modded down again. I found the secret to getting modded down - just say something negative about Apple or St. Jobs.

    19. Re:Remember the old adage... by GoCrazy · · Score: 1

      And those who can't litigate, teach gym.

      --
      No beer and no TV make Homer something something
    20. Re:Remember the old adage... by Solandri · · Score: 2

      the weirdest part is? /. is such a YRO crowd that you think they would be outraged at all the privacy invasion stuff that google does, but instead there is this love and forgiveness. I think mostly because it sounds like a cool place to work and gives free stuff like gmail (hint: it's not free). oh and they support "open source" (but not really).

      It makes perfect sense. Google is completely up-front about it. They tell you they'll give you a service for free, but in exchange they'll mine your content for data and show you ads based on that data. If you take them up on their offer but later change your mind, you're free to leave at any time, and they even make it easy for you to extract your data (unlike other services like Quickbooks or Facebook).

      The YRO crowd isn't against both sides of a party mutually agreeing to enter an agreement. They're against one side doing something not disclosed in the agreement, or changing it without the consent of the other party. They're not against you willingly giving up your personal info, they're against the other party giving it away without your consent or knowledge.

      say what you will about apple, but at least your relationship with them is clear. you buy a product from them, and you own a product. no selling of your info. no things that can be taken away (igoogle, reader). it's regular old business. I prefer that.

      You seriously believe that? How do you think Apple built up its own wifi map database so quickly? By lifting GPS and wifi data from people's iPhones.

      Google had the opportunity to do the same thing Apple did - simply lift the GPS and wifi data from Android phone users. But instead they chose the extra expense of doing it themselves to avoid violating their users' privacy. They paid to send out their own cars to every corner of the Earth to (along with taking StreetView photos) record wifi SSIDs (and got themselves into trouble when they recorded more than just the SSIDs - which btw they self-reported to the EU after the EU asked them to investigate).

      I like Google because they're up-front about what they do. I'm not crazy about some of their data collection, but because they're up-front about it I can take steps to avoid/thwart it when I think they take it too far. I am in control. Totally different from Apple and Microsoft which have a history of doing things I don't like nor approve of with my data (I include Microsoft because I make a unique email alias for every company where I sign up for something, and so far the only one to get lots of spam is microsoft@mydomain.com).

    21. Re:Remember the old adage... by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      The YRO crowd isn't against both sides of a party mutually agreeing to enter an agreement. They're against one side doing something not disclosed in the agreement, or changing it without the consent of the other party. They're not against you willingly giving up your personal info, they're against the other party giving it away without your consent or knowledge.

      you mean when google used html tricks to circumvent my safari privacy settings? illegal and yet another settlement with FTC. For a company that is "do no evil", how many violations have they been cited for from FTC? I personally hate them for abusing my privacy without my consent.

    22. Re:Remember the old adage... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The tired trope that the only thing the company has going for it is marketing is trolling. Which is also a waste of time when there's a legitimate elephant here in the room: Apple's participation in a patent troll consortium.

    23. Re: Remember the old adage... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The claim was that Microsoft doesn't innovate.

      Research that never makes it out of the lab isn't innovation. The only innovative things Microsoft has produced any time recently were the Kinect and Windows 8, but the latter is a shit sandwich that makes ME look good in comparison.

    24. Re: Remember the old adage... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I gave to examples above that came out of research and in their current products: F# and LINQ.

  8. Definition of patent by Carnivore24 · · Score: 1

    I thought patents were given out to people who invent things, not repackage or rename existing technology with one little thing changed?

    1. Re:Definition of patent by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Google was founded September 4, 1998
      Some of these patents were filed as early as November 21, 1996.

      I doubt Nortel invented anything of note and so these patents are likely BS but you can't argue who got there first.

    2. Re:Definition of patent by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      I thought patents were given out to people who invent things, not repackage or rename existing technology with one little thing changed?

      And I thought we had a system of government where the number of votes you wielded counted for more than the amount of money you "donated".

    3. Re:Definition of patent by intermodal · · Score: 1

      It was also back when patents actually meant putting something into practice rather than simply writing down your idea for how something could be used and filing it with the USPO to later sue people who had the same idea.

      The core problem is that patents used to be about taking people's implementations of an inventive idea and copying them, not suing anyone who independently thinks of something that merely does the same thing (even if the implementation may be different, if you had one at all). The patent laws were not written to handle what we are seeing happen today.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    4. Re:Definition of patent by intermodal · · Score: 1

      The thing is, they're not dealing with existing technology. Most software patents try to patent trivial and obvious processes, not actual invention. Many lack even a working example when granted.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    5. Re:Definition of patent by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Actually you can. I doubt Nortel came up with the concepts of ads in search engines before anyone especially considering 1996 is awfully late in Internet terms.

    6. Re:Definition of patent by jbolden · · Score: 1

      True. But GP was making a claim about Google directly. As for ads... I have to tell you as someone who was on the internet from 1988. Advertising was not late in 1996. Business on the internet was really a 1995 idea.

    7. Re:Definition of patent by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Still its before 1996. Besides it is not like there weren't private networks such as CompuServe, GEnie, and AOL predating that. I could argue the patent as described could be used for parts search catalogs and there are systems like that which are pretty much ancient.

  9. Go nuclear by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Google must have more than a few basic patents too, just all of block them in most of their products on internet/mobile and bring the whole industry to an halt until the legal system regarding patents stop being so badly screwed.

  10. Justia link by jbolden · · Score: 4, Informative

    To save people the trouble of finding these:
    http://patents.justia.com/inventor/richard-prescott-skillen

    1. Re:Justia link by amoeba1911 · · Score: 5, Funny

      This invention relates to an advertisement machine which provides advertisements to a user searching for desired information within a data network. The machine receives from a user, a search request including a search argument corresponding to the desired information and searches, based upon the received search argument a first database having data network related information to generate search results. It also correlating the received search argument to a particular advertisement in a second database having advertisement related information. The search results together with the particular advertisement are provided by the machine to the user.

      Yep... that's the "patent". Let's narrow this down a bit:

      This invention relates to an advertisement machine which provides advertisements to a user searching for desired information within a data network.

      Let's refactor this:
      "within a data network" - where else is he going to search? What if he's in a car? and who cares where he's searching?
      "user searching for desired information" - what other kind of information would he ever search for, undesired information? That's the whole point of "searching" is to find desired for information, so let's shorten that to "user searching" to get rid of redundancy.
      "to a user searching" - Who cares what the user happens to be doing at the time? What if they're scratching their ass, and the machine serves ads to the user scratching his ass? What the user happens to be doing is irrelevant.
      "machine which provides advertisements to a user" - what if the user is a web-crawler? Your invention will still work if it's a web crawler randomly pretending to be a user, so the invention is providing advertisements to not just a user, but to any client that connects. So we don't need to specify the "to a user" part either.
      "This invention relates to" - this is the abstract for your invention, we know what you're talking about already, don't repeat.
      "an advertisement machine which provides advertisements" - What else would an advertisement machine do? make coffee? By definition an advertisement machine is a machine that provides advertisements. Let's simplify this to "an advertisement machine"

      After removing all the fluff, we're left with just:

      An advertisement machine.

      Good job! This patent would be awesome if you also invented a time machine, because ads have been around for a very long time.

    2. Re:Justia link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These are from the late 1990's, when only us nerds were using the internet. Remember the old days when there were no ads, just blinking tags and animated construction gifs?

      It may seen obvious now, but it wasn't then. You obviously don't know how patents work; you have to be specific in how your idea is novel and how it is used. Yes it's an ad machine, but, specific to a data network. That is the key.

    3. Re:Justia link by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      What I ponder is if these patents were filed back in 1997 (did was have first to file back then or was it still based on issued), why did the owners not enforce the patent when Google unveiled their model for search/ad placement? I generally understand that with Trademark, if you do not actively enforce trademark protection you can lose it, but is that not relative to patents as well? From 1997 till 2013, over 14 years no one has sought to challenge Google's use of Search ad placement. The argument could be that since it was not defended, then the owners did not feel it important and thus is is removed and the idea placed into the public domain.

      I take a bunch of sticks, plasterboard, and nails, all common items, and build a house. Amazing, I better patent house building as the process whereby sticks, sheathing, and combining materials are used to make a structure suitable to protecting objects, living, dead, inanimate, or ethereal from natural or non-natural elements.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    4. Re:Justia link by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I'd love to read the filing. Normally with this sort of late filing you have to argue you were unaware of the infringing invention. So are they going to argue that Nortel was unaware of Google using their idea?

      We have to see how this plays out.

    5. Re:Justia link by Warbothong · · Score: 1

      "to a user searching" - Who cares what the user happens to be doing at the time? What if they're scratching their ass, and the machine serves ads to the user scratching his ass? What the user happens to be doing is irrelevant.

      Not really. If a user's scratching their ass, an "advertisment machine" has no idea which ads may or may not be relevant to that person. There's no mention of video cameras, gesture recognition or advanced AI algorithms in the patent.

      However, when a user enters some search terms, we can get a pretty good idea what they care about. Hence, a more accurate summary would be:

      Using search queries to look up ads from one database as well as results from another database

      It's key to leave in the separate databases too, since this makes it different from existing search engines which could be paid to boost a result's ranking (ie. turning that result into an ad).

      It's still bullshit, but the key idea is that offering search puts one in an enviable advertising position, since people are telling you what they want.

    6. Re:Justia link by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

      That's not how patents work.

      The only thing that matters with patents, in the end, are the claims. That's it, end of story. So, let's look at the claims. Actually, there's only one claim, which makes this easy.

      We claim:
      1. A method of searching for desired information within a data network, comprising the steps of:
      receiving, from a user, a search request including a search argument corresponding to the desired information;
      searching, based upon the received search argument and user profile data, a database of information to generate a search result; and
      providing the search results to the user
      wherein searching the database includes correlating, as a function of a fuzzy logic algorithm, the received search argument and user profile data to particular information in the database, and providing the particular information as the search results.

      Simplifying a bit...

      We claim a method for searching for information.
      Step 1) Get request from user
      Step 2) Search a database using a fuzzy algorithm and user profile
      Step 3) Give information to the user

      Notice there's not a word about advertisements anywhere in that. The patent talks about ads in the various descriptions, but there's not even a dependent claim relating to ads. Displaying ads is just a use case, not the invention itself.

      Step 1 and 3 are quite obvious. So the real "invention" here is applying fuzzy algorithms to search.

      For prior art, I hereby present the BackRub search engine, March 1996 (about a year before the patent filing date). That's right ... Google is the prior art for this patent. And I'm sure there's others.

    7. Re:Justia link by akozakie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, every word of the claim counts.

      This patent is a lot narrower than it seems. Notice the "fuzzy". Fuzzy logic is well defined and does have alternatives. Use any alternative solution in this step and you're not infringing.

    8. Re:Justia link by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      It may seen obvious now, but it wasn't then.

      Bullshit. It was as obvious then as it is now.

  11. In other news... by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

    In a surprise announcement, Google said they were relocating the entire company to Antigua....

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  12. not how patents should work by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    I really have to wonder what the people who started the patent system would have thought of this kind of thing. Something tells me this is not what they had in mind. I thought the whole idea was to protect the inventors. If a company goes bankrupt, they really don't need protection, so the patent should go into the public domain. If an individual is granted a patent, they should either have to do something with it in the allotted time, or lose it. Patents were not meant to be used as a way to sue companies as a means of making profit. Nor should massive corporations be able to use them as an Armageddon device against their competitors. I know my post sounds naive and that it's not that simple. But this is just not how the system was intended to work.

    1. Re:not how patents should work by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      but it's unfair to creditors if the assets are not sold.
      what do you think bankruptcy is for? for moving assets to your best buddy?

      the only thing is to make it stricter to get patents, in the way that it has to be something OMFG smart thing to invent one.

      I mean, fuck, say you're running a search engine. say you have a database of ads. how much of an invention is it to fetch data from the two databases instead of just one with the word?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:not how patents should work by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      but it's unfair to creditors if the assets are not sold

      Unfair? The entire idea of the limited liability of a corporation and its shareholders is unfair. Why are you so concerned about this minor aspect?

    3. Re:not how patents should work by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      but it's unfair to creditors if the assets are not sold. what do you think bankruptcy is for? for moving assets to your best buddy?

      Like I said, I really oversimplified what I stated. Any time investors put money into a company, there is a risk. So simply holding a bunch of patents wouldn't mitigate the risk as much it does now. Or have patents that are transferable, but have a much shorter term. When someone comes up with something great, they have to choose if they want to be able to sell the patent or not and factor that into the cost of receiving it. I'm not sure if you were being factious regarding using bankruptcy to "your best buddy", but it has been used that way. In large corporations, it's also used to ensure the officers can run the company into the ground with no consequences for them.

      the only thing is to make it stricter to get patents, in the way that it has to be something OMFG smart thing to invent one.

      I mean, fuck, say you're running a search engine. say you have a database of ads. how much of an invention is it to fetch data from the two databases instead of just one with the word?

      Agreed. Patents should not be granted because someone tacks on some new device at the end of and already existing patent, of obvious idea.

    4. Re:not how patents should work by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I know my post sounds naive

      Only to the extent that you believe the US government exists for the benefit of its citizens.

      Oh, well that makes me feel better. I think I'll go assume the fetal position in the corner of a closet now. ;-)

  13. Altavista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And Altavista was doing everything this patent describes starting in 1995...

  14. Google saw this coming by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think it is safe to assume Google saw this coming. Which means they believe it will cost less than 4.4 billion to win (I assume their ability to serve ads, and android, both are not something they will willingly give up on).

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Google saw this coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One solution would be to buy out Blackberry (RIM) which is part of the consortium. That should get them rights to the patents. Blackberry's market cap (cost of all shares at current market price) is only 4.2 billion.

    2. Re:Google saw this coming by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Allegedly Lenovo is trying to buy RIM. Lenovo makes Android phones ATM.

    3. Re:Google saw this coming by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      One solution would be to buy out Blackberry (RIM) which is part of the consortium. That should get them rights to the patents. Blackberry's market cap (cost of all shares at current market price) is only 4.2 billion.

      Depends on the contract terms. For example, if I bought some software with a contract that says I can use it on every computer in my company (for a company with three employees), then Google couldn't expect to have the right to use that software on all their gazillions of computers if they buy my company.

  15. Um, Sony? by challman1 · · Score: 1

    Maybe Google should have licensed the use of Android with an agreement that parties will not sue each other or Google over (questionable?) infringements. I'd guess that they're all sueing because if you add up all their market share together, you'd probably have 10% of the market. Sore losers. Just another reason why I'll never own a Microsoft, Apple, Sony or RIM phone.

    1. Re:Um, Sony? by aiadot · · Score: 1

      That is something that is bugging me. I'm thinking two situations here:

      1) Sony is actually going full retarded and helping MS/Apple suing google even though it's thanks to Android that their mobile business is becoming successful.

      2) Sony, alongside RIM and the other smaller players have their part in Rockstar just for the right to use the patents and not get sued by the big boys

    2. Re:Um, Sony? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't have made a difference. It's "Rockstar Bidco" that is the plaintiff, not Sony.

      In the legal world, details matter.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re:Um, Sony? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Remember Novel? If they think they can sell Android phones at a lower price than the other players in the consortium, or become the sole vendor, they stand a lot to gain from this. Of course I expect this to be shot down rather quickly... This is not like the Samsung lawsuit. Google is an US company.

  16. I wonder... by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

    Just how many billable hours is it going to take for all Google's lawyers to burn 4.4 billion?

    --
    Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    1. Re:I wonder... by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More money is spent on litigating patents than on creating the inventions. Wish I could find the link now, but the crossover was reached a number of years ago. So much for the idea that the purpose of patents is to foster innovation.

    2. Re:I wonder... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

      Like many things in America, patents were set up with a good purpose that has been twisted beyond all recognition by large corporations.

      Who knew Forbes was a mouthpiece of the ComIntern?

  17. Laugh by koan · · Score: 1
    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Laugh by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Because we all know that having a large market share means that everyone else's products are inferior, and those companies that make them are teetering on the edge of oblivion. See: cars, beer, and just about every other market in existence.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  18. Anybody else wish Google would grow a mean side! by madhi19 · · Score: 1

    And just block Apple and Microsoft sites index from search for a day and see how they like non existence.

  19. The solution to ALL Intellectual Property problems by erroneus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I always believed that the purpose of intellectual property to was to better ensure that the creator(s) of the thing had exclusive rights to their creations, ensuring their investments of blood, sweat and tears has a better chance of a return. But that's not what happens is it? No. What we have is an industry. And with any industry, we experience dehumanizing effects.

    What's the solution? We can write an increasingly complex set of laws to address specific predatory behaviors such as patent trolling. That won't solve the problems of giant industry players from fighting each other like giant Japanese monsters on the streets of Tokyo. The real solution?

    Disallow all intellectual property transfers. If you didn't create it, you can't own it. Then it reverts to its original purpose and intent and virtually removes all industrial activity. But what happens when the creators, authors and companies die? Does all that valuable intellectual property just vanish in a puff of smoke? Well? Yes. I would hope so.

  20. Competition vs Litigation by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

    Can't compete? Litigate.

  21. Re:The solution to ALL Intellectual Property probl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If someone is an inventor and not interested in business then you screw them over. Some people are good with coming up with new things, but suck at running a corporation. Instead they want to go to making the next new thing and sell off their previous idea and have someone who want to run a business deal with that.

  22. Re:Those Who Cannot Compete... by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

    Animals never drown quietly. They will grab at anything nearby to prolong their futile final struggle. Companies are the same way.
    Microsoft is gasping for air.
    Sony has swallowed some water.
    RIM is already face down in the water.
    Apple is only neck deep but its life jacket died a year ago.

    Their demise is inevitable, all they can do is delay it.

  23. Google bought Motorola by naasking · · Score: 1

    Google bought Motorola Mobility that has patents on plenty of communication related "innovations". Sony, Apple and RIM should watch out.

    1. Re:Google bought Motorola by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1
      --
      This space for rent.
    2. Re:Google bought Motorola by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      The larger issue is that Motorola's patents were largely relegated to FRAND/standards licensing. There is no litigation that they can do once it has become accepted as a standard.

  24. hindsight doesn't make something obvious. by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which is so painfully obvious the phonebook is prior art.

    You go look under plumber and with the listing you see advertising.

    Painfully obvious in hindsight. Why was it patented before google came into existence?

    While I tend to agree with you in this case, if you want google to win the lawsuit you have to answer the above question satisfactorily.

    Imagine the Hammer was invented after patent laws. obvious in hindsight. simple. But eminently patentable as a method for driving with more force than banging it with a rock.

    here one prior art would be the yellow pages. But it lacked the force of a data base search. the search terms in the yellowpages were pre-formed. so less forceful.

    the fact that was not an obvious improvement is that at the time Google was formed, Yahoo was not a search engine per se. It was a curated set of pre-formed categories like a yellow pages.

    another prior art would be Alta Vista and Overture. They were packing the top of the search results list with advertiser's listings. so here we do have advertising using a data base.

    But at that time they were not using a user profile to make the listing adaptive. SO less force.

    Early google was simmilar but the ads were shifted to the right column not intermixed. Later on Google became adaptive.

    So in 1997 it's not yet obvious since others with the means to do so before google did not do so.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:hindsight doesn't make something obvious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Painfully obvious in hindsight. Why was it patented before google came into existence?

      Because it was painfully obvious and not patented yet.

      Just because something is obvious in hindsight doesn't imply that it wasn't already obvious.

    2. Re:hindsight doesn't make something obvious. by h4rr4r · · Score: 3

      Because the patent office will allow any damn thing.

    3. Re:hindsight doesn't make something obvious. by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      Considering that the most valuable innovations are ways of doing something complex in a simple way, I think you draw the lines to coarsely. Your definition would eliminate the simplifiers.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    4. Re:hindsight doesn't make something obvious. by JDG1980 · · Score: 2

      Painfully obvious in hindsight. Why was it patented before google came into existence?

      Because at that time the patent office let anyone patent anything they wanted, no matter how trivial, as long as they stuck "on a computer" or "on the Internet" in front of it.

    5. Re:hindsight doesn't make something obvious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please, explain to me how a phone book differs from a database?

      When stripped down to its basic parts, a database is:
      1) A tabular data storage medium
      2) One or more indexes

      How is a phone book not a database? I want to look up a phone number by alphabetically sorted names. I use the white pages. Index seek... and a result is found. Now, I want to look up a phone number by categorized alphabetically sorted names. I use the yellow pages. Index seek, found category, subindex seek, and a result is found... in amongst some advertisements. The only difference is that the computer uses an algorithm to search a database index, while a person (with a brain, presumably) uses a somewhat intuitive process to search a phone book index. The user is the computer. Nothing else changed.

      "With a computer" does not make an invention unique unless it adds something that can't be done without a computer. The yellow pages absolutely should be considered prior art on this one.

    6. Re:hindsight doesn't make something obvious. by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      Either way, I don't see why laches doesn't apply. The patent is 15 years old, and damages would obviously have been ridiculously less in any previous year. I'm not certain that change in ownership matters, but IANAL.

      Or if they didn't even attempt FRAND licensing with Google.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    7. Re:hindsight doesn't make something obvious. by Alef · · Score: 1

      Painfully obvious in hindsight. Why was it patented before google came into existence?

      The relevant question for any sane person is: Would it have happened anyway?

      What's interesting from a societal standpoint isn't whether an average engineer, at that particular time in history, would have thought of the same idea. What's interesting is whether the same "invention" will arise and gain society without the help of a state-granted monopoly. If Google's business model was crafted only a short while later, without them knowing about that particular patent (I don't know if that's the case), then that would strongly suggest that the patent doesn't benefit society, and should in principle be invalid, in my opinion.

      The law may not agree, of course.

  25. I anticipate patent invalidation. by intermodal · · Score: 2

    Any decent defence attorney will find little trouble pointing out that all pre-1997 search engines are prior art, since a search engine has always been an advertising machine. If I typed into Alta Vista, in 1996, a search for "books" and came up with any site related to books, Alta Vista has acted in the role of an advertising machine in directing me to that site.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:I anticipate patent invalidation. by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      Any decent defence attorney will find little trouble pointing out that all pre-1997 search engines are prior art, since a search engine has always been an advertising machine. If I typed into Alta Vista, in 1996, a search for "books" and came up with any site related to books, Alta Vista has acted in the role of an advertising machine in directing me to that site.

      You have to actually read the patent claims, not just the title. In particular, the claims require correlation of user profile data and search terms for determining the delivered data. In Alta Vista, searches were just based on your search terms, not your user profile - Bob didn't get different results from Alice. Accordingly, while Alta Vista is certainly relevant prior art that could be used in combination with other art to potentially invalidate the claims, alone, it doesn't do the job.

      And this brings up an important distinction which can't be repeated often enough on Slashdot: "prior art" is defined as anything in the art which was known prior to the filing of the patent application. That's it. The Model T is prior art for the Tesla Roadster. The Wright Brothers plane is prior art for the Space Shuttle. The Antikythera mechanism is prior art for the Samsung Galaxy Gear watch.
      What Slashdot users typically mean when they misuse the term is "anticipatory prior art", which is prior art that discloses everything in the claimed patent. If a patent claims A+B+C and a prior art document describes A+B+C, that's anticipatory prior art, and invalidates the patent by itself. On the other hand, if the prior art document describes only A+B, that's not anticipatory, even though it is prior art. The patent is still valid, at least over that one reference. If you then find another piece of prior art that describes B+C, and you could easily combine the two, then you've shown that the patent is obvious over the two references.

      So, in short, saying "all pre-1997 search engines are prior art" is absolutely true, and absolutely meaningless. Of course they are. But do one or more of them, alone or in combination, teach or suggest each and every element of the claims? That's the real question.

    2. Re:I anticipate patent invalidation. by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but I've been having a hell of a time updating my Geocities site.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  26. Re:Anybody else wish Google would grow a mean side by KeithJM · · Score: 1

    If they did it for a day, that might annoy Apple and Microsoft. If they did it for longer, people would just move away from Google and go somewhere else. If people wanting to buy iPads or Surfaces or look up Windows APIs or whatever can't find their answers on Google, they'll stop going to google to find Thai restaurants and art supply stores too. It's kind of like shutting the government down to force negotiation over a particular law. You better be REALLY sure that the people affected by the shutdown feel as strongly as you do about the particular law before you do it.

  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. If I were Google by Fettnabb · · Score: 1

    I would move my business to a country that does not have a broken Patent system like the US. Heck, not a single court in the EU would allow this to even be take to court.

    1. Re:If I were Google by Razalhague · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't be able to sell anything on the US market, which is considerable.

  29. Yay fanboi mods by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Every time I tell this story, I get downmods from people who are too cowardly to reply, because they know they have no valid argument in favor of this kind of behavior from Apple.

    That's a big part of why I tell this story over, and over again. I know it hits the mark squarely.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Yay fanboi mods by zieroh · · Score: 1

      Technically speaking, people who mod you can't reply in that topic.

      But I'll reply in their stead: you're being a troll.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    2. Re:Yay fanboi mods by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Every time I tell this story, I get downmods from people who are too cowardly to reply, because they know they have no valid argument in favor of this kind of behavior from Apple.

      Technically speaking, people who mod you can't reply in that topic.

      Right. If they weren't cowards, they'd reply instead of trollvoting.

      But I'll reply in their stead: you're being a troll.

      Wrong, and also wrong. You don't even know what a troll is. You might argue I'm flamebaiting, but what I'm actually doing is constructing a valid argument that fanbois can't handle.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  30. Re:Anybody else wish Google would grow a mean side by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1

    Apple and Microsoft will retaliate by adding a entry to the hosts file that redirects Google.com to Bing on all PCs, Macs and iDevices.
    -- apk
    Care to imagine what that will do to Google's ad revenue?

    --
    This space for rent.
  31. Sony?!? Really? by feranick · · Score: 1

    Am I wrong or Sony is an actual (and official) Android OEM?

  32. Novell != Nortel. Also doesn't protect Android OEM by raymorris · · Score: 1

    You're thinking of a different sale, confusing Nortel and Novell.

    Also, even if Google could have signed on (they couldn't ), that wouldn't have protected them because Microsoft, Apple et al are suing anyone who makes Android devices (Samsung etc.). It's little use for Google to not be sued directly if nobody can build Android devices.

  33. Where is PJ when we need her by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really miss Groklaw days like this

  34. be sure to thank Rockstar too by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    You will like your Galaxy Note even more when it no longer is able to host any advertising.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  35. Instinctive reaction - Just kill 'em by John.Banister · · Score: 1

    Rockstar is 32 patent trolls? You'd probably only need to kill 10 of 'em and the rest would run away. 15% of the members of the world's population would probably be willing to do that for less than 10% of the money involved.

  36. Missed Wild Kingdom as a kid I guess by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    You've clearly never observed most aggressive species in action. There is never more than one male, or one alpha, in any pack. Those who do not subordinate must leave or are killed. It is possible for alphas to cooperate on a temporary basis, but only in the pursuit of destroying a bigger threat, and always the end result is that one alpha will emerge, or each semi-alpha will take a portion of the pack and leave.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Missed Wild Kingdom as a kid I guess by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Strawman? Fighting to hold the position of breeding alpha is not the same as "naturally clubbing each other to death".

      My cat has been in lots of fights. I'm sure he hasn't won them all, but he's certainly not died in any of them either. Disputes in the animal kingdom tend to be very ritualistic, but if it comes to blows, the blows are limited to what's needed to complete the job - of protecting young, or asserting dominance, or whatever. Fights among humans involve an insane level of organisation for the task of killing huge amounts of people, and are an extremely inefficient way of solving disputes.

    2. Re:Missed Wild Kingdom as a kid I guess by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Limited to what's needed to complete the job... like eating the children of the guy you kicked out so you can bang his wives sooner.

    3. Re:Missed Wild Kingdom as a kid I guess by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Sometimes. Got nothing on us humans, though!

    4. Re:Missed Wild Kingdom as a kid I guess by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You've clearly never observed most aggressive species in action. There is never more than one male, or one alpha, in any pack. Those who do not subordinate must leave or are killed.

      And we tend to have one president, king, CEO etc. The fact that most organisations have a singular ultimate leader doesn't mean they don't cooperate.

  37. hookers of horseshit by epine · · Score: 1

    The complaint tries to use the fact that Google bid for the patents as an extra point against the search giant.

    This mainly implies that the law firm had not yet run into the filing document word limit. Most lawyers would cite vaginal birth as evidence of precocious sexuality.

    Logically, one might presume that the winning bid is most likely to come from the side at greatest risk of being sunk were the patents were to be wielded against them. In this vein one would argue that Apple & Co. made the most lucrative bid to absolve themselves of their own infringements of the Nortel portfolio.

    This great opera of stupidities proposed and disposed takes place while the aggrieved parties on both sides shower hundred dollar bills upon the jousting hookers of horseshit.

  38. Had to get the lawsuit in before... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

    They had to suit started before congress passes the non-practicing entity patent reform. This is a patent troll created by 4 of Googles largest competitors to target them without fear of countersuit.

    I think congress needs to add a retroactive clause to the law and pass it ASAP, either that or add language allowing Google to penetrate the sham corporation running the shakedown and sue them directly.

  39. Re:The solution to ALL Intellectual Property probl by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Those people need what are called "partnerships" where you team with someone who can do the business side.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  40. Samsung profits - Google advertises by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Nobody makes much profit off Android - most players make no profit at all.

    I'm pretty sure Samsung would disagree with you strongly. You are correct that most Android device makers don't make much of a profit but Samsung definitely does well with Android devices. Google doesn't really need to make money off Android directly. Android is a play by Google to protect their actual core business which is advertising. By controlling the platform they can't be crowded out in mobile ads by Apple or Microsoft.

  41. Make this lawsuit stop fast by Khyber · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Everybody better let Rockstar Games know that you think they're assholes for this crap.

    Cause that trademark and brand damage, watch the real Rockstar file a huge suit in return regarding trademarks.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  42. Good thing software patents are no good! by kawabago · · Score: 2

    Google just has to say 'ineligible subject matter'. Google will also lose it's own patents, but the competition can't outdo them so Google's own patents don't matter.

  43. Re:The solution to ALL Intellectual Property probl by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! · · Score: 1

    Since corporations are "people," I'm sure we can find a way around such a policy!

  44. Rockstar by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

    I will NEVER buy another Grand Theft Auto game, ever.

  45. FFS by Maudib · · Score: 1

    Everyone involved disgusts me.

  46. Looks like a bollocks patent by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    US6098065 appears to be a patent that describes nothing more than "All these existing patents other companies file last year, combined!"
    No wonder Nortel didn't try and use them.

  47. Some people need to grow a skin by WebCowboy · · Score: 1

    Its not like Apple is a very good corporate citizen either...they've done their own affair share of stealing ideas too.

  48. Seriously? by timkofu · · Score: 1

    When will this nonsense stop???

  49. Buy RIM! by AnthonyBall · · Score: 1

    Google should just buy RIM asap... ;)

  50. Wonder how Doug Adams would have reacted by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    I suspect that Doug Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would have been worded slightly differently had this occurred before he finished his book; i.e., when the reason for the destruction of the Earth (the construction of a hyperspatial express bypass) was given, I suspect the sentence "Doesn't matter, anyway; they chose to self-obsolete with something called 'patents'." would have appeared shortly thereafter.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  51. Re:The solution to ALL Intellectual Property probl by erroneus · · Score: 1

    People are killed for their freakin' sneakers. So don't act like changing the law would inspire a bloodbath against inventors and creative types. If that were the case, we would already see a bloodbath against lawyers everywhere as they are the primary beneficiary of these ridiculous patent and copyright actions.