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.'"

52 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 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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...

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

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

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    10. 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)
    11. 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

    12. 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.

    13. 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.
    14. 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

    15. 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.

    16. 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.

    17. 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.”

    18. 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

  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 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
    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.'"
  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 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.

    2. 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.

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

      Google "Wright Brothers patent war".

    6. 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
  5. 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 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".

  6. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. 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 h4rr4r · · Score: 3

      Because the patent office will allow any damn thing.

  12. 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.

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

    I really miss Groklaw days like this

  14. 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.