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*
IBM
http://www.pcworld.com/article...
No sig today...
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.
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/
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.
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.