Slashdot Mirror
Google Faces Off Against Intellectual Ventures In Landmark Patent Trial
enharmonix writes "Although Google initially invested in Intellectual Ventures, a patent holding firm, the two have since parted ways and are about to face off in court over some technologies used in Motorola (and other) phones. This is an important battle and the timing is significant given Congress's recent interest in patent reform. 'Two of the patents in the upcoming Motorola trial cover inventions by Richard Reisman, U.S. government records show. Through his company, Teleshuttle, Reisman has developed several patent portfolios for various technologies, including an online update service, according to the Teleshuttle website. IV claims that the two Reisman patents cover several of Motorola's older-generation cellphones that have Google Play, a platform for Android smartphone apps. Motorola argues that IV's patents should never have been issued because the inventions were known in the field already."
1. Buy ink by the barrel
-or-
2. Maintain the search engine
*settles back with popcorn*
Which company holds the patent for being a patent troll?
Requiem for the American Dream
never a better time... to recall our new clear options as we go about our tasks
Google created a monster in their patent troll office, and now that monster is chewing on their door.
Irony? maybe....
Hmm, that's a bad idea, even if you hate Google. A win for IV in this case means that the horrible status quo of patent trolls can continue with a vengeance. As stated in TFA, a win could convince law makers to support IV in the latest round of IP revisals, and lead to even worse patent trolling.
And don't forget IV is owned by the even more anti-competitive Apple & Microsoft.
As opposed to the anti-competitive patent troll that is Intellectual Ventures? IV is known for overly broad patents, targeting people who can't afford to fight, and stifling innovation. I mean sure IV isn't Prenda Law in that at least they *try* to pretend to make things, but that's no reason to root against Google who are terrible in their own right.
Oh Nathan Myhrvold is that you spreading FUD again? We get it, you know how to turn on a computer and you used to be cool once. You're not cool anymore since you turned into a predatory dick.
The people behind it have never done anything intellectual in their lives.
I read TFA, and nowhere does it mention the subjects of the patents in question. What are they claiming? What's the prior art? Without that info this is just a “The trolls are coming! The trolls are coming!” piece of hysteria. Anyone know what it's about? I'm certainly not going to try to figure it out from the patents themselves. My sanity's worth more than that.
I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. -- desert rain on http://www.dailykos.com/user/
Congress' changes are-a coming.
What do you think Google has a monopoly on? Mobile operating systems? Apple will be surprised to find out that iPhone doesn't exist. About a dozen other companies will also be surprised to learn their phones don't exist.
Perhaps you're saying Google has a monopoly on search? Microsoft's Bing division will be sad to hear that they don't exist.
Oh, I know. You mean Google+, that's a monopoly on social networking, right? There's no such thing as Facebook, right? Does Google make the only smart TV? The only VoIP service? The only webmail service? In most of the markets Google competes in, there are several credible competitors and Google has less than 50% market share. That makes them the exact OPPOSITE of a monopoly.
Perhaps you just had no idea what the word "monopoly" means.
Sir, it is Intellectual Vultures. Not Intellectual Ventures. :-)
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Who are you?
I'll never understand the appeal of completely making stuff up, just pulling something out of your butt, then believing it.
Google a patent troll? You realize Google's basic policy is that they never sue over patents. They eventually filed one case last year. Google has been strongly fighting against patent overreach since AT LEAST 2006. Before that also, but 2006 was the first thing that came up in five second search.
Why do you think they made Google Patents? Their whole goal has been to make the patent system more transparent and fair.
Perhaps you're saying Google has a monopoly on search? Microsoft's Bing division will be sad to hear that they don't exist.
You mean Bing does exist? I'll have to google it to verify.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
I'm trying to make up my mind about IV. A good friend of mine and many people I have recently met work for an IV spinoff that's doing some really neat stuff. On one hand I respect my friend's opinion. On the other I have literally never heard anything positive about them. Thoughts?
No, IV is not owned by Apple and/or Microsoft, although there are plenty of Apple and MS alumni working there. Microsoft gazillionaire Nathan Myrvold is the primary founder, his original goal was to make sure that IP that was not being used could be shopped around and licensed to ensure that whatever technology it promoted would be used. Company has morphed a bit since then, of course.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
The IV labs are incredibly cool. Imagine walking into a 5+star restaurant kitchen that is also equipped with a metal lathe, a vacuum chamber, a 400 liter tank of liquid nitrogen, an electron microscope, and a terawatt laser that can automatically target female mosquitoes. So yeah, they do some really neat stuff.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
If google lose, they'll go after every other manufacturer of smart phones with some resemblance of an update system.
These patent wars are all just a big circle jerk. Google first invests in IV, now they fight with them. Nest, a company that Google just bought for $3B, recently bought a bunch of patents from IV, which Google is now the beneficiary of. Google also bought Motorola, largely due to its patent portfolio that it could use in retaliation from other patent lawsuits. This is not a moral war with good guys and bad guys, it's just a large cluster-f#@% among corporate tech titans.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
"In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
"Google Still Holds 74% Majority Share of Search Engine Usage"
First hit from https://www.google.com/search?...
Engaging in monopolistic practices doesn't require 100% market control.
I personally don't think Google engages in evil monopolistic practices, but they certainly have enough market share to do so. And while they have made some mistakes, I think that, as a company, they generally try to do the right thing.
Care to point out a case where Google has actively used patents to sue a competitor without being sued first? Please don't include Motorola suits from before they were purchased.
if google lose IV will go after every android phone.
Not google. Why would google attack android? Ever?
Modded 0? Really? Just because I don't hate on IV? Good grief.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
No one cares what you post
Bother - insists both sides are the same no matter what evidence is presented. See also Truther, Birther.
Shut up, Ballmer. Go shill somewhere else.
And don't forget IV is owned by the even more anti-competitive Apple & Microsoft.
You're fabricating facts to suit your narrative. From wikipedia, here's the ownership breakdown:
- 40% Nathan Myhrvold
- 20% Peter Detkin
- 20% Gregory Gorder
- 20% Edward Jung
Gorder and Detkin are lawyers (Detkin worked for Intel before co-founding IV). The only tie either Apple or Microsoft has to IV (aside from being sued by them or licensing rights to patents from them), is that Myhrvold and Jung are both former Microsoft employees. Neither company has an ownership stake in IV.
You're fabricating facts to suit your narrative.
Really? Because from TFA:
Microsoft and Apple were both early investors in Intellectual Ventures.
While they might not be "owners" now, but they are investors & profit from IV.
While they might not be "owners" now, [...]
They never were owners, with or without scare quotes, any more than Google (who also invested in IV) was or is. In fact, if you look into it, what you'll find is that Apple, Google, Microsoft, and a whole host of other companies made investments in IV in exchange for licensing agreements for IV's patents (i.e. to keep the patent troll away). That hasn't stopped IV or its subsidiaries from suing all three of them at different points in time for patents that weren't licensed, however, so any suggestion that Apple and Microsoft are behind IV's actions against Google here seems misguided, at best.