Google and Samsung Sign Global Patent Deal

An anonymous reader writes "Google and Samsung have signed a global patent cross-licensing agreement aimed at reducing 'the potential for litigation' and enhancing innovation. The deal will cover 'a broad range of technologies and business areas' and apply to both existing patents and any filed over the next decade. The move is also expected to strengthen their position against rivals such as Apple, which has filed multiple lawsuits worth billions of dollars for alleged patent infringements."

Comments

1 edge

[i kan reed]

So we have a broken patent system with thousands of broken abusive nodes(companies with dumb patents), and millions of broken abusive edges(suing each other).

But good news, everyone! We removed one edge from the graph, and everything's better now. We're treating the symptoms and not the disease.

Re:1 edge

[JavaBear]

MAD

As in mutually assured destruction. I hate it, and I hate the need for it, but if Google/Samsung etc. don't build a portfolio of essential patents, litigious bastards, like Apple and other patent trolls, will steam-roll them in the courts.

Re:1 edge

[Anonymous Coward]

Please know the correct definition of "patent troll" before you lump Apple in with them.

Re:1 edge

[gnasher719]

Interesting how your opinion forgets that Samsung has been trying to stop Apple from selling iPhones. Samsung has actually been threatened by the EU with a fine of up to thirteen billion dollars if they continue patent trolling against Apple and others.

Re:1 edge

[JavaBear]

Remember: MAD.

Apple does it, and like it or not (most likely not) Samsung have to do it to protect themselves. And yes, I'm aware that they are all litigious bastards. Apple just seems to be the worst, with the least substantial patents.

Re:1 edge

[interkin3tic]

Who is "we?" Were you expecting google and samsung to team up to fix IP globally? Of course they're going to remove that one edge from the graph: that's one that they deal with and can fix.

"Hey, fuck you Mr. Politician! You fixed ONE problem in your ONE country! Not EVERY PROBLEM IN THE WORLD SIMULTANEOUSLY!!!"

(That joke would be better if I could give an example of a politician who fixed anything)

Re:1 edge

[jellomizer]

Companies do this all the time.
In some ways it is around to fix a broken system, where there is too many patents for silly things, that really shouldn't be patented.
But also it is just an affordable way to partner with a company with a mutual befitting self interests.
Samsung (A really large device manufacture) and Google (Maker of the OS which these devices run off of), have a common competitor of Apple. So now they have in essence increased their R&D without having to pay more for it.

Re:1 edge

[i kan reed]

"We" being the world as a whole, yes.

Re: 1 edge

[Anonymous Coward]

Rounded corners anyone?

Re: 1 edge

[Dixie_Flatline]

They patented it, so they get to use it. Whether or not that's a valid patent is a completely different matter. The system is internally consistent, and Apple is playing by those rules very well. The fact that the system is broken is a different matter.

Re:1 edge

[InvalidError]

Ironic how governments' failure to fix patent systems is forcing companies to the point they have to cross-license to reduce patent troll liabilities.

If everyone cross-licenses with almost everyone else, it would end up almost as if patents did not exist beyond the purpose of crediting the initial inventor(s). I imagine this would make the patent trolls' lives much more difficult due to the high probability of similar, related or prerequisite patents in those extended patent pools.

Re:1 edge

[bob_super]

The problem with MAD is that it applies between the big guys to keep their sovereign position over the small guys.

Re:1 edge

[squiggleslash]

Samsung hasn't been "patent trolling", it's been asking Apple to pay for its FRAND patents, and Apple's been refusing because it doesn't like the terms.

The EU's response has been dubious at best.

{{prose|date=February 2013}}
The '''smartphone wars''' or '''smartphone patents licensing and litigation''' is an ongoing business battle by [[smartphone]] manufacturers including [[Sony]], [[Google]], [[Apple Inc.]], [[Samsung]], [[Microsoft]], [[Nokia]], [[Motorola]], and [[HTC]], among others, in [[Patent infringement|patent litigation]]. The conflict is part of the [[Technology patent wars|wider "patent wars"]] between multinational technology and software corporations.

To secure and increase their [[market share]], companies granted a [[patent]] can sue to prevent competitors from using the methods the patent covers. Since 2010 the number of lawsuits, counter-suits, and trade complaints based on patents and [[Industrial design right|designs]] in the market for smartphones, and devices based on [[Mobile operating system|smartphone OSes]] such as [[Android (operating system)|Android]] and [[iOS]], has increased significantly.

==Timeline==
Initial suits, countersuits, rulings, licence agreements, and other major events in ''italics'':<ref>{{cite web |author=Florian Mueller |url=http://www.scribd.com/doc/44759893/Apple-vs-Android-10-12-02 |title=Apple vs Android 10.12.02 |accessdate=September 8, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Florian Mueller |url=http://www.scribd.com/doc/52195210/NokiaVsApple-11-03-31-100 |title=NokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100 |accessdate=September 8, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Florian Mueller |url=http://www.scribd.com/doc/52754079/Microsoft-vs-Motorola-11-04-09 |title=Microsoft vs Motorola 11.04.09
|accessdate=September 8, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Florian Mueller |url=http://www.scribd.com/doc/59474521/AppleVsSamsung-11-07-05 |title=AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05 |accessdate=September 8, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Florian Mueller |url=http://www.scribd.com/doc/61387056/AppleVsHTCandS3-11-07-29 |title=AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.29 |accessdate=September 8, 2011}}</ref>

===2009===
The pattern of suing and countersuing really began in 2009 as the smartphone market grew more rapidly.
* 2009, Oct 22: ''Nokia sues Apple over 10 patents.''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/10/22/nokia_sues_apple_over_iphones_use_of_patented_wireless_standards.html |title=Nokia sues Apple over iPhone's use of patented wireless standards |publisher=Appleinsider.com |date=October 22, 2009 |accessdate=January 5, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/29/nokia-vs-apple-the-in-depth-analysis/ |title=Nokia vs. Apple: the in-depth analysis |publisher=Engadget.com |date= |accessdate=January 5, 2012}}</ref>
* 2009, Dec 11: ''Apple countersues Nokia over 13 patents.''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/11/apple-countersues-nokia-for-infringing-13-patents/ |title=Apple countersues Nokia for infringing 13 patents |publisher=Engadget.com |date= |accessdate=January 5, 2012}}</ref>
* 2009, Dec 29: Nokia files a second lawsuit<ref>{{cite web|last=Foresman |first=Chris |url=http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/nokia-adds-additional-lawsuit-in-patent-catfight-with-apple.ars |title=Nokia adds additional lawsuit in patent catfight with Apple |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=January 4, 2010 |accessdate=January 5, 2012}}</ref> and a [[United States International Trade Commission|U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)]] complaint against Apple over 7 more patents.<ref>{{cite web|last=Foresman |first=Chris |url=http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/12/nokia-hurls-new-salvo-in-spat-with-apple-complains-to-itc.ars |title=Nokia hurls new salvo in spat with Apple, complains to ITC |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=December 29, 2009 |accessdate=January 5, 2012}}</ref>

Re: 1 edge

[cheesybagel]

Just because slavery used to be legal at one point in our history, it did not make it less atrocious. This is much the same. Dumbass laws that are restraints on technological progress.

Also blocks startups.

[Anonymous Coward]

So these megacorps can freely use each other's overbroad patents-of-vague-concepts, but any time an independent inventor tries to get a business off the ground, he will be litigated into oblivion.

Patents do not foster innovation, they protect the wealthy from it.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[Nerdfest]

I'm not sure about Samsung, but find me an instance of Google suing someone without being sued first, and no Motorola before Google bought them does not count. Google has not been a patent dick.

There are also some open patent pools that will also help stop the abuses of ... certain companies. Of course, the laws really need to be changed. No software patents, FRAND charges defining 'reasonable' in dollars or percentages, etc.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents do not foster innovation, they protect the wealthy from it.

Not to oblivion. The megacorp will buy the smaller company for a smaller cost than the patent litigation would cost them before that happens.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[PopeRatzo]

but find me an instance of Google suing someone without being sued first

So, as long as they've ever been sued by someone, then it's OK for Google to sue over a different overbroad patent?

This isn't the playground, where "He hit me first!" has any meaning.

Google certainly has the means to defend itself from infringement suits, and by filing it's own suits on different patents, instead of just mounting a defense, they're participating in making the problem worse.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[alvinrod]

They haven't done it directly as far as I'm aware, but they've essentially done so by proxy. I think they're the only company that's figured out that they won't make any money even if they do successfully sue someone as the lawyers will eat away most of whatever award they would receive and the case would still be tied up in appeals for years and years to eat away whatever's left.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you see, the big guys just make the startup has an offer they can't refuse: We either buy you out and laBorgimize you, or we spend the same money on lawyers to put your business through hell. What'll it be? A buy out where you watch your dreams eaten alive but still get to put food on the table, or you can crumble under the weight of the legal system that's supposed to protect you until you're in the poor house.

Now, don't be too hasty. We're bigger, so we may just decide to re-invent your wheel, while avoiding your past dead end costs in R&D, and put a similar enough product in front of more eyes than you can. You try to sue with your pea-shooter, and we'll go nuclear.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[alen]

if you want to make your own smartphone you already have to license lots of patents controlled by the standards bodies

anything else you just have to design your own antenna, phone frame and dozens of other parts of the phone yourself and patent it yourself

Re:Also blocks startups.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you live in an alternate universe. My universe is teeming with technology start-ups. In fact there is an entire community of venture capitalists who scour the world for good new companies to fund. For example just last week Google purchased DeepMinds founded in London in 2012 by Demis Hassabis, Shane Legg and Mustafa Suleyman. I suspect the founders are now instant millionaires if not billionaires.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[Anonymous Coward]

The operative words here are "Google purchased DeepMinds" did you ever think that DeepMinds may not want to be purchased. Maybe they wanted to remain in control of their company, but Google made them an offer that they couldn't refuse. It was that or be blasted to oblivion.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[dontbemad]

Or perhaps it is a "taste of one's own medicine" treatment?

Re:Also blocks startups.

[Bengie]

It's the only way to survive. It's like saying "It's not right to kill someone even if you life depends on it because they're attacking you"

Re:Also blocks startups.

[Chas]

Unfortunately "Stop it! Just stop it!" doesn't work.
The amounts of money involved here are significant enough that simply brushing them off by flat-out winning a court case isn't enough to deter them from trying again, and again and again:

Pretty much the only thing keeping some of these lawsuits at bay are:

A: Massive patent portfolios that can be trotted out, invalidating patent claims, thus costing them money.
B: The threat of being punitively counter-sued based on above-mentioned patent portfolios, thus costing them more money.
C: The possibility of losing one of these counter-suits, possibly bankrupting them, or at least detrimentally disrupting their cash flow.

Would it be EASIER if these companies didn't need to build up monster war chests of patents?
Sure!

In our current legal climate, would it be SMARTER if they didn't?
No fucking way in hell!

Re:Also blocks startups.

[i kan reed]

I'd remind you that that is the ethical position of everyone who is actually a pacifist. Some belief systems come to that conclusion.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[AmiMoJo]

So, as long as they've ever been sued by someone, then it's OK for Google to sue over a different overbroad patent?

That's how patent law works in the US. Both sides show that the other was violating their patents and then the judge tells them to settle their differences out of court. Either that or the aggressor realizes that they stand to lose big time and backs down. It's unfortunately but it's how the game is played, and Google has no choice but to participate.

I'm interested to know what over-broad patents you are referring to, BTW. They certainly don't seem to use anything like the rounded corners nonsense or "on a computer" shenanigans in court.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[MachineShedFred]

Eye for an Eye makes the whole world blind.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is also the ethical position of everyone who is a Christian. That's why the pacifist sentiment dominates the American discourse.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[Bengie]

That is not the ethical position of Christians in general. The Bible says that we should not kill with malice.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[Anonymous Coward]

But I say to you not to resist evil

Re:Also blocks startups.

[Bengie]

I find that logic faulty as I must kill plants in order to survive. Heck, I have to kill bacteria. Without killing, I myself would die on a daily basis. The logic should apply at all levels, which it does not. I do value sentient beings in general, so obviously humans, but also the possibility of aliens, computer AIs, and I currently think dolphins and some whales may be smart enough to fall into the category.

I also think that allowing someone to do something is no different than doing it yourself, assuming you are in a position to stop it. A pacifist that is in the position to stop someone from harming another is no better than the person who committed the harm. A person in a position of power must take responsibility for those whom they have power over, even if not an official position of power, but one of circumstance.

I'm not judging anyone, just stating my opinion. I am human and have my own flaws.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[PopeRatzo]

The sixth commandment doesn't mention malice.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those were donated for HTC's defense, since they were being sued.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[alvinrod]

They were used to file a suit against Apple, not against claims made in an Apple filed suit. Defensively would be showing that they now had patents which covered their method for accomplishing those things which Apple accused them of infringing. Don't mistake deflecting a blow from throwing one of your own.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[Kjella]

This isn't the playground, where "He hit me first!" has any meaning.

Like the cops wouldn't care who started the fight.if two adults were in a fight. One is called assault, the other self defense. If you can't dodge or block, hitting back is absolutely a fair option. And this is more like sports than a fight, if you can't keep a tight defense score more points on the offense instead.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[Bacon Bits]

So these megacorps can freely use each other's overbroad patents-of-vague-concepts, but any time an independent inventor tries to get a business off the ground, he will be litigated into oblivion.

Nonsense. First you wait for your competitor to buy out the small independent inventor. Then you sue into oblivion. You'll never make any money litigating people that can't afford the kind of damages you need to claim to pay for your lawsuits.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[PopeRatzo]

If you can't dodge or block, hitting back is absolutely a fair option.

That's my point. When it comes to the legal system, Google is singularly well-equipped to dodge and block. Their lawyers could fight the patent trolls in court and set precedents that might start rolling back this insane intellectual property racket.

Instead, they just sue back using the same tactics, raising the stakes and creating another legal arms race. So the problem gets worse.

Google may be the only company in a position to do this the right way, and they missed an opportunity and just had their army of lawyers sue instead of fixing the problem.

Re:Also blocks startups.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has not been a patent dick.

Yet.

never alone again promise comes true

[Anonymous Coward]

due to morale problems many corepirate nazi minions have been issued brand new mirrors to see how well they are doing. intended to be a morale booster everything went batfarm when many of the minions failed to show up on their new mirrors which do also answer properly approved questions automatically... never ends... the gargoyle dna video receptor upgrade solves some of the 'unvisible' problems. the few weakling minions who lamented (vocally) they could not even stand to look at themselves anymore have been deleted

Lawyers team up, news at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent law is where trolls go to make careers pretending to be actual lawyers.

The market seems unhappy at the moment.

[jeffb (2.718)]

Wonder how much this has to do with this morning's 2% drop in stock price? I'd think this would be reducing uncertainty, tending to drive the price up...

Asus

[Jacek Poplawski]

What about Asus and others? If the deal is against Apple then it should be between everyone not just Samsung and Google.

Re:Asus

[tlhIngan]

What about Asus and others? If the deal is against Apple then it should be between everyone not just Samsung and Google.

Alas, Samsung's the only big player in the Android space, with roughly 90% of Android marketshare. (Though, most of that is NOT of the high end devices - which make up around 10% of Android sales as a whole.). Samsung makes dozens of phones, practically releasing a new variant or other daily.

And you can bet that it's also a pre-emptive move by Google to prevent Samsung from releasing non-Google phones. Samsung is the only manufacturer who has a whole suite of apps that rival Google's (even if methods to get apps in its store were a bit questionable).

And they're big enough to quite possibly challenge Google and win - remember, OHA members are not allowed to release anything that's "Android compatible (see what happened to Aliyun and Acer). But Samsung could with their Linux based OS and all that - if Google kicks them out, they're at the ready with AOSP and their own apps.

Samsung is a bigger threat to Google's control of Android than anything. Google released Android as open-source to counter being locked out of iOS. Now it fears being locked out of Android because of it (on two fronts - the Kindle, and Samsung).

Samsung gains a lot of early Android access, and cheap patents. Google gains reassurance that Samsung won't go it alone and screw them on Android.

Great deal for Samsung, not so much for Google

[the_B0fh]

This basically allows Samsung to commoditize everything Google is doing over the next 10 years. Does Google care about or need Samsung's patents? For the most part, not particularly, since Google isn't interested in manufacturing.

However, Samsung is interested in everything Google does, now, anything that Google has patented, or will patent, is now available to be productionized. Including anything coming out of Google X.

Re:Great deal for Samsung, not so much for Google

[oodaloop]

For the most part, not particularly, since Google isn't interested in manufacturing.

Except for Motorola, Nest, and who knows how many other branches and acquisitions. Google may have not been involved much with manufacturing in the past, but the future seems more so.

Re:Great deal for Samsung, not so much for Google

[the_B0fh]

Oh, so all the current Android manufacturers have more to worry about? That'd go over really well.

Future manufacturers of things that use Google will have to worry about competing with Google itself? Don't think they'd like that.

And manufacturing goes away from organizing the world's data.

Re:Great deal for Samsung, not so much for Google

[djdanlib]

If Google can merge Samsung's camera stuff into stock Android... win for everyone!

Re:Great deal for Samsung, not so much for Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has been in the phone business for a while now, what are you talking about. It is just trying to strengthen it's hold on the market. Ever heard of the G1, G2, Nexus, etc...They are all Google designed phones. Now Google never makes their own hardware but they do the designing, and have companies like LG do the dirty work.

Re:Great deal for Samsung, not so much for Google

[Andrio]

It's all for Google's upcoming robotics division. The products they'll make will, at least to some extent, benefit from the manufacturing and technology patents that Samsung has.

Samsung may be going "Aha! Now all of Google's mobile phone patents are mine!" While Google is thinking "Yeah, have fun with those. Wait to you see what I'll be coming out with next."

Re:Great deal for Samsung, not so much for Google

[Kjella]

Well, I think they're only interested in it in order to use the platform as a means to push Google services. They don't want to be caught in a situation where Microsoft controls the browser (95% MSIE) or Apple controls the smartphone/tablet (before Android), but even though they can produce Google Nexus I don't think they're genuinely interested in developing CPUs, GPUs, 3G/LTE chips, cameras, OLED screens or dealing with breakage, support, warranties and such, I think they'd rather leave most of that to partners. What they want is the information, "smart" gadgets that gives them data to mine.

For example, take the self driving car I can almost guarantee it'll come with a host of useful services that require you to turn on a location service, while you can hopefully go "off the grid" most people would feed Google a ton of information about where they're going and when that they could sell. That's what they want, not to compete with Ford and Chevrolet. They might have to sell a "Google Car" first, but it'll be mainly to sell the concept to other manufacturers.

Re:Great deal for Samsung, not so much for Google

[the_B0fh]

*smirk* Look what news just popped up today...

http://googleblog.blogspot.com...

Re:Great deal for Samsung, not so much for Google

[the_B0fh]

Ooopsies, look... Google leaving manufacturing....

http://googleblog.blogspot.com...

Market headed down Friday, deal announced Sunday

[raymorris]

The current market slide started Friday morning. This deal was announced two days later, on Sunday.
I suspect the Sunday announcement did not cause anything to happen two days before.

cooperation on unbreakable phone than suing

[raymorris]

I'd rather have Google and Samsung cooperating, making things like flexible, unbreakable phones than have them waste that money on patent lawsuits back and forth .

Re:Market headed down Friday, deal announced Sunda

[Anonymous Coward]

The current market slide started Friday morning. This deal was announced two days later, on Sunday.
I suspect the Sunday announcement did not cause anything to happen two days before.

unless he is time traveler!

Unholy Alliance

[DarthVain]

Does anyone else see this as an unholy alliance in the tech war? Google and Samsung just called a truce. Each has huge patent portfolios, and not only that the agreement is binding on future technology for the next 10 years.

Their main competitors being Apple and Microsoft, I am fairly certain hell would freeze over before those two unite...

Pretty strong strategic plan for the future dominance.

Re:Unholy Alliance

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else see this as an unholy alliance in the tech war? Google and Samsung just called a truce. Each has huge patent portfolios, and not only that the agreement is binding on future technology for the next 10 years.

Their main competitors being Apple and Microsoft, I am fairly certain hell would freeze over before those two unite...

Pretty strong strategic plan for the future dominance.

Well then, Hell has frozen over, SOLID!

Re:Unholy Alliance

[mjwx]

Does anyone else see this as an unholy alliance in the tech war? Google and Samsung just called a truce. Each has huge patent portfolios, and not only that the agreement is binding on future technology for the next 10 years.

Unholy, no.

Both Samsung and Google aren't particularly evil.

This alliance was pretty much forced on them by the likes of Apple and Microsoft who have been extremely aggressive on the patent front.

Their main competitors being Apple and Microsoft, I am fairly certain hell would freeze over before those two unite...

They have a lot more in common than you think and this would be a true unholy alliance.

I can see an Apple/Microsoft alliance easily happening, with both sides thinking that they are using the other. In fact this has happened before when Microsoft bailed them out in the 90's. Apple and Microsoft have been firing their patent guns blindly at Android and Android manufacturers like there is no tomorrow but haven't even said so much as a harsh word to each other. It's almost as if they're already co-operating.

The dark horse in all of this isn't Samsung or Google, their motivations are clear. The dark horse is IBM and it's huge patent trove.

Good on them.

[csumpi]

While this is probably not best for innovation in general, whatever puts a curb on Apple's asshole behavior is a good thing.

Wait, what makes you think that Google and Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

You appear to be making several assumptions:
1. That Google and Samsung are doing this for any other reason other than to save themselves time/money/headaches and to strengthen themselves against common enemies like Apple.
2. That Google and Samsung could directly change the patent system even if they wanted too.
3. That the focus of this article has anything to do with the patent system at all.
4. That Google and Samsung even think the patent system is broken and needs to be fixed.

Google and Samsung have a nearly symbiotic relationship, and this move makes a lot of sense for them. I am surprised they didn't do something like this a long time ago. Patent disputes have been a continuing problem for them, and so they are trying to fix the problems they can. Their motivation is obviously for personal gain, but it is still overall a good thing as it removes stress from the world. But if you honestly expect companies like Google and Samsung to be champions for the change of the patent system, I just have to laugh at that! That is a pie in the sky dream. Obviously, if they thought the system was broken and it was in their best interest to fix it, and they were capable of fixing it, they would have done it already. They certainly aren't going to listen to people like you bitching about it on Slashdot. Things like the patent system and law are in the hands of politicians in congress to change. If you really want change, become a politician, go to congress, resist bribes from companies, fight against the other politicians taking bribes, and then pass a law, k? If you can't do that, then don't be so bitter and cynical and harsh toward companies actually doing something positive that is within their power to do.