When patents attack Android • Hacker News Board

Re: When patents attack Android

#11

Post by yanw » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 8:10 PM UTC

davidu wrote: post #3

Drummond is very smart. And he's always been friendly to me. But that's not to be confused with Google being the good guy. They tried to buy these patents and failed. And they claim that they aren't litigious with patents, and they haven't been yet. But to paint them as the victim is disingenuous -- while they don't use patents offensively, they have many other tools at their disposal that they do use offensively, ma…

Your innuendo doesn't prove any 'anti-competitive' practices, consorting to band a patent cartel in order to strangle opensource on the other hand is.

Re: When patents attack Android

#12

Post by AllenKids » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 8:10 PM UTC

If the patents were used to block android out of market, then maybe it is harming the consumers. But I see no problem with demanding license fees and maintaining certain feature exclusivity, even that means Android become not so free or less user-friendly. Google does not represent all people and Android has no inherent right to be free.

Re: When patents attack Android

#13

Post by nextparadigms » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 8:11 PM UTC

davidu wrote: post #3

Drummond is very smart. And he's always been friendly to me. But that's not to be confused with Google being the good guy. They tried to buy these patents and failed. And they claim that they aren't litigious with patents, and they haven't been yet. But to paint them as the victim is disingenuous -- while they don't use patents offensively, they have many other tools at their disposal that they do use offensively, ma…

We're talking about patents here. Even if what you say is true, does that mean they "deserve" to be crushed by bogus patents? Bogus patents aren't helping anyone, and in at least several cases they have been used by others to hunt Apple and Microsoft, too.

Re: When patents attack Android

#14

Post by danilocampos » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 8:12 PM UTC

patrickaljord wrote: post #8

Good to see Google speak out against the patent trolls that Microsoft and Apple are, shame on them. Edit for people downvoting: As I say in my comment below, this is one of the definition of a patent troll according to wikipedia[1]: > Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent; This is what Apple and Microsft did…

You have to be careful throwing around the "patent troll" label or it'll lose all meaning.

Microsoft and Apple actively ship product. They're playing the patent game but they're also doing real shit that impacts users every day. This is a far cry from the Intellectual Ventures and Lodsyses of the world.

Re: When patents attack Android

#15

Post by azakai » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 8:12 PM UTC

cma wrote: post #10

watty wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're being painted as a victim because they are. Patents are BS and continue to hinder innovation. They may be anti-competitive in other areas (although I don't know specifics). Can you provide some sources?

They sure touted their PageRank patent.

They are proud of it, for sure. But have they ever used it to sue anyone?

Re: When patents attack Android

#16

Post by febeling » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 8:12 PM UTC

Patent lawsuits are probably filed nowadays how you would threat opponent in a game of chess. You just need to attack to maintain the strategic position. You need a lawsuit in an advanced state as a strategic asset. I don't buy that Google is really any better in a moral sense.

I do believe, though, that there are plenty of people at the companies driving these current litigations that hate what they are doing. It's just the rules of the game that let aggression emerge.

Re: When patents attack Android

#17

Post by sorbus » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 8:13 PM UTC

jawns wrote: post #4

So ... if Google had won the patents, was their plan to just release them into the wild? Or would they be defending them, just as these other companies are doing?

Based on what they publicly said, it would probably be something like granting a license to anyone who asked which would be revoked if they sued Google. It would probably have been very much like the license for WebM[1].

[1] http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/

Re: When patents attack Android

#18

Post by chaz » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 8:14 PM UTC

cma wrote: post #10

watty wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're being painted as a victim because they are. Patents are BS and continue to hinder innovation. They may be anti-competitive in other areas (although I don't know specifics). Can you provide some sources?

They sure touted their PageRank patent.

The patent is owned by Stanford. From Wikipedia:

The name "PageRank" is a trademark of Google, and the PageRank process has been patented (U.S. Patent 6,285,999). However, the patent is assigned to Stanford University and not to Google. Google has exclusive license rights on the patent from Stanford University. The university received 1.8 million shares of Google in exchange for use of the patent; the shares were sold in 2005 for $336 million.

Re: When patents attack Android

#19

Post by MikeCapone » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 8:15 PM UTC

cma wrote: post #10

watty wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're being painted as a victim because they are. Patents are BS and continue to hinder innovation. They may be anti-competitive in other areas (although I don't know specifics). Can you provide some sources?

They sure touted their PageRank patent.

To me, that one seems to actually be a non-obvious, patentable idea. It made the world a better place. This isn't 1-click checkout or clickable phone numbers on a smart phone...

But I don't think Google actually sued anyone when most other search engines started using that method. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Re: When patents attack Android

#20

Post by evilswan » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 8:16 PM UTC

If the "innovations" in Android were already covered by prior patents; they weren't innovations at all, were they?

Not necessarily my point of view, but isn't that how patents should work? Protecting prior art.