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.
Oh how I wish PJ was around for this... she'd be all over it.
C|N>K
They didn't have anti-patent troll legislation that was passed recently. Let's see how that law works in Google's favor.
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.
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.
I care less about how it works in Google's favor, than I care about how it works in OUR FAVOR! In this case, I believe that Google's interest coincides with the "consumer's" interest. Anything to kill patent trolls sounds good to me. I'm aware, however, that the best of laws have those pesky unintended consequences.
We, the end users, are already paying for illegitimate licensing over a broad spectrum of goods. It's unlikely that killing off patent trolls will do very much to end existing licenses. But, if we can see the beginning of the end of those bastard patent trolls, eventually the market price of consumer goods will start to go down.
I actually do still favor Google, in general, but some of their practices aren't all that non-evil. I can't cheer the anti-troll legislation just because it seems to favor Google. I support that legislation for the sake of all of us, who aren't even players in the patent game. Ultimately, WE PAY for that nonsense.
"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
That's the same reason I find myself being a fan of Google in other areas as well. They still seem to believe in open protocols and formats (although waning a bit recently), where others are trying to tie customers to their proprietary services.
The company that bought the patents was formed just to buy the patents. The theory was that Google bought the patents because they knew they'd be used against them. Check Google's record on patent use, To my knowledge, they haven't used them aggressively, although Motorola had suits in progress before they bought them. The really nasty part about Rockstar is that they promised they wouldn't use the patents for this purpose, and then did.
But the companies themselves are not suing Google themselves, and are not claiming that Google infringes any of their products. In fact, these patents could apply to things for which no product exists, or could be so general, that nearly all products in that category use them. Unless you are claiming that another company is hurting your sales, you are a patent troll. Rockstar has no product sales and will not bring up the sales of its shareholders in court.
Either way, they are trying to dodge accountabilty by using a shell company to sue. Besides hiding, they limit their own liability should Google prevail. Rockstar is clearly setup with one purpose -- to sue with impunity.
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.
Google open-source the technologies they develop to build their products on, not the products themselves.