Slashdot Mirror
Google Sues Consortium Backed By Apple and Microsoft to Protect Android
A couple months ago, Rockstar, a patent-holding consortium backed by Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Blackberry, and others launched a barrage of infringement suits against Google and the makers of Android devices. Google has now launched a counteroffensive, seeking protection from Rockstar's patent trolling. The complaint (PDF) says, "Rockstar produces no products and practices no patents. Instead, Rockstar employs a staff of engineers in Ontario, Canada, who examine other companies’ successful products to find anything that Rockstar might use to demand and extract licenses to its patents under threat of litigation." Google's filing also accuses Rockstar of interfering with their business practices by contacting other companies and trying to convince them not to use Android. It asks for a declarative judgment of non-infringement.
They should have started sooner.
Oh how I wish PJ was around for this... she'd be all over it.
C|N>K
They should have started sooner, AND
They need to put the full-press on congress to improve the patent process. Patents mean almost nothing today. The office is overwhelmed, and it's up to patent courts to try and sort through the mess.
Can someone enlightened explain why is Sony in bed with Microsoft and Apple against Google - Sony's only hope for their mobile and tablets division?
Is it the media and games departments that are fighting a war against their own company?
As soon as I think that Sony might be doing something right, they shove their heads up their arse again.
In 2011, Google lost an expensive bidding war for a group of Nortel Networks patents to a handful of technology giants including Apple and Microsoft that paid $4.5 billion. Two years later, a consortium jointly owned by those companies is suing Google for patent infringement.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/01/google-sued-by-patent-firm-owned-by-apple-microsoft/
So they tried to buy a company that "produces no products and practices no patents."
They must be glad they dodged that.
For a quick history lesson, "Rockstar" was a consortium created specifically to purchase the Nortel patent portfolio. Google was invited to join this group, but declined. Furthermore, Rockstar wasn't the first company to make a bid for these patents. That honor goes to Google, themselves, who ultimately bid as much as $4.4 billion.
So, instead of having a single company (Google) having control of a huge list of patents themselves we got Rockstar -- a company created specifically to share the patents among other big players so no one entity has control over it all.
How this is construed as Google trying to protect Android is simply beyond me. If Google didn't see value in the patents they wouldn't have bid $4 billion dollars to get them. If Google was worried about protecting Android they would have joined Rockstar in the first place. Google made a serious strategic mistake and is now pursuing a legal course of action to try and rectify it.
The shell company that holds the patents itself produces no products, but Apple and Microsoft certainly doâ"it's just that they hold the patents jointly through this 'Rockstar' entity.
If this weird patent system is still what we have in place, this sort of joint ownership should be allowed. Leaving aside the relevance and desirability of the patent system today, I can't really see a problem with this. It's not really the same as a company that's never been associated with any endeavour related to the patents they own and who exist only to bilk money out of other people.
So they tried to buy a company that "produces no products and practices no patents."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nortel_products
...through litigation. These so called "consortiums" are clearly anti-competitive, while I have no love of any of these companies (Google is just as bad as the rest of them), they should be illegal, as described.
"The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
I believe that Google's interest coincides with the "consumer's" interest.
As long as you hand over all of your personal data to them sure of course they will side with the the *consumer*.
Apparently, Rockstar is now selling most of the patents they bought from Nortel for these lawsuits.
It was a scummy business all along. It went like:
Apple and MS: *buying up Nortel's patents*
US DoJ: *stares at them intently*
Apple and MS: "We promise to fairly license these patents to anyone!"
US DoJ: *nods, turns away*
Apple and MS: *passing patents to Rockstar quietly*
Rockstar: "Ha! We're neither MS nor Apple and didn't promise shit, suckers!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
Manipulating the market is unethical, especially when that manipulation includes dishonesty.
IMHO, it's perfectly alright to tout the strengths and benefits of your own products. It's not alright to spread rumors that the competition's product is inferior, substandard, or whatever. In the case of Microsoft, they have historically stooped to some pretty low levels in their attempts to destroy competitor's good names. Some of that crap SHOULD be illegal.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Or, if they are actually, truthfully, entitled to any of it, they should have presented their case in court somewhere to demonstrate exactly what they should be entitled to.
Microsoft was prepared to do just that to Barnes and Noble before Barnes and Noble decided to settle.
"Rockstar produces no products and practices no patents. Instead, Rockstar employs a staff of engineers in Ontario, Canada, who examine other companies’ successful products to find anything that Rockstar might use to demand and extract licenses to its patents under threat of litigation." this statement sums up nicely how patent trolls are a stain on our modern patent laws and actually hinder innovations rather than promote innovation as patents are supposed to do.
If you don't make a product using your patent, you really shouldn't have the right to tell others not to. To have an idea is one thing, but to actually bring it to market is something else entirely. To have an idea that could enhance the lives of everyone but do nothing but sit on it is counterproductive to the advancement of society as a whole. One good idea pompts many more good ideas, if all these patent trolls had actually been producing products instead we'd be much further ahead in terms of product innovations. Just in user interface design alone, there's stupid patents like "pinch zoom" for touch screens, How many other concepts never hit the market because of royalty fees or patent lawsuits?
It boils down to the basic idea that information wants to be free, anything else is an un-natural restriction on the life force of the universe!
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
I dislike patent trolls. But I cringe everytime someone says someone is a troll just because they don't make the product associated with their patent. I've patented invention (in laser physics). I don't make lasers or detectors for commerical purposes. I make inventions and then sell the inventions. I don't think that makes me a patent troll. Furthermore if sell my invention I might well sell it to someone who plans to make their money by selling licenses to the invention rather than making it. I'm glad they exist. Because it makes it easier to sell the patent, it means there's less risk to the inventor and thus more reason to invent. Conversely that company is making their money by arbitraging. While I might have sold it for more had I the resources to connect with buyers, there's risk to me, because it might flop. To them, by buying lots of inventors patents, some flop, some are worth far more than they paid. On average, by holding lots of patents, they make money by arbitraging the risk I want to avoid.
SO it's better for everyone. more inventions, more of those inventions finding practical use because they are commericially available.
SO what's a patent troll versus a legitimate arbitrager? Perhaps its deliberately collecting dubious patents and then suing people who probably developed the technology on their own as an extension of their legitimate manufacturing? It's a fine line. Some things are truly obvious in hindsight but these are not always obvious is foresight. What makes this hard is that Many times patents are not collected on till a long time after their invention. This makes them seem more obvious in later times than they were at the time of their invention.
The things I invented were really almost impossible to do at the time, but 7 years later with newer technology they were easy to do. When they became easy to do, lots of people did it and sold products. When I informed them of my invention, they said, oh come on thats so obvious. And indeed it was, now, but defintitely not at the time. I know this because for example one of them allowed a laster to tune 1000 times faster than any other laser at the time was able to. It's quite apparent everyone would have invented that if they could have since it's so desirable. But 7 years later it seemed so easy to do.
Thus it would not have been unreasonable for me to have sold that patent to an arbitrager and get my money up front. they can wake 7 years for the industry to start using the idea, then assert their rights and make cash. this is a good thing.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.