Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google: Patently Absurd

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 160 posts

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#41

Post by zdw »

The distinction made by Gruber here is between two kinds of companies:

- Apple, MS and similar companies who buy patents and actually use them to make products.

- The Lodsys's of the world that use them as revenue sources and don't actually contribute any value to anyone.

In the blog post, Google is lumping everyone together, whereas Gruber disagrees.

Apple's patents that they've used against HTC and similar are for things that are remarkably unique - more unique than the Amazon 1-click patent and similar. Notably, they're not seeking out patents to use as weapons - it's likely, if not transparently obvious that they purchased the portfolios in question to remove the chance that those patents would be used against them.

I'm no friend of patent law (I think it should be reformed to function in a manner similar to real-estate property law), but I'm thinking that there is more nuance to this debate than "Gruber is a Google Hater".

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#42

Post by evmar »

joebadmo wrote: post #17

It's weird to me that Gruber claims, like he did in a recent episode of his podcast with Dan Benjamin, that he's not anti-Google. I mean, why deny something that's so self-evident? His arguments here are just so disingenuous. "So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK." Yes, because Google isn't forming a cartel to stifle competition. "It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s f…

I think it's a bit unfair to call him willfully dishonest. I find Gruber's writing really fascinating in that he's clearly intelligent but he appears to have no awareness of the way he twists things like this. It seems more likely to me that he is a case study in cognitive dissonance.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#43

Post by Terretta »

bdhe wrote: post #2

Does anyone else feel the word undermine is not appropriate in this quote (due to which, I'm unable to understand the point behind the comparison): It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s for-pay OS licensing business by giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft? [1] http://dictionary.referenc…

I found the word very clear. Here, rewritten to use both of the most common definitions of the word:

"It's OK for Google to weaken or impair Microsoft's for-pay licensing business by giving away Android for free, by eroding the foundational concept of an OS being something you pay for; but it's not OK for Microsoft to weaken or impair Google's attempts to give away for free, by eroding the foundational concept of its free-ness[1], an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?"

[1] undermining free as in speech by showing it is encumbered, and undermining free as in beer by licensing the relevant patents for relevant dollars

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#44

Post by andylei »

doe88 wrote: post #36
Lewisham wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know of any case of where Google has used its patents offensively? I don't.

But what if Google had won the bid and was using these patents (they hadn't developed) defensively to defend against the fact they have violated patents developed by others companies, would it more fair? I don't think so.

then it would be hypocrisy. but they didn't. so its not hypocrisy.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#45

Post by icebraining »

sasidharm wrote: post #32
joebadmo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they would have unhypocrytically continued to use them only defensively. Can you explain exactly how Google is being hypocritical in this case?

They are being hypocritical by saying that Apple and Msft bid many more times than what those patents are really worth, when Google itself bid upto 4 billion dollars. And what gaurantee does Google provide that they wouldn't sue competitors aggressively? Dont tell me its because their 'motto' is Dont be evil.

>And what gaurantee does Google provide that they wouldn't sue competitors aggressively?

So they are hypocritical because of something they haven't done? By that logic, everyone is an hypocrite.

Has Google ever actually sued competitors aggressively? Not that I know of.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#47

Post by aphexairlines »

barredo wrote: post #4

What I think: It's ok for Apple, Microsoft et al to defend themselves if Android violates their own patents . It's not ok for Apple, Microsoft et al to defend themselves if Android violates patents they didn't develop . Also, remember that although Microsoft & Oracle claims that Android violated some of their software patents, Apple claims against Samsung go far beyond that, this analysis by Nilay Patel is pretty goo…

All patents held by companies were bought from someone else. They're just usually paid for with salaries.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#48

Post by pcj »

rumpelstiltskin wrote: post #11

How is Google’s argument here different than simply demanding that Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, et al should simply sit back and let Google do whatever it wants with Android, regardless of the patents they hold? And why should it be different? The fact of the matter is that the idea of Google going after Apple, Microsoft etc for violating Google's patents isn't even an issue. Wanna know why? Because Google's competing o…

What choice? Oh wait, you mean what kind of Ads you would receive :P?

On a serious note though, assume that you have a sandwich shop and your business is of course to sell sandwich (not free) and people flock to you for your tasty sandwiches. Now, if I open a Sandwich shop that gives away free sandwiches and it also tastes pretty much (close to 85%) like your sandwiches (say, i was inspired by your sandwiches, but i don't acknowledge publicly) and make money out of the numerous solicitors selling all kinds of things (you can decline to buy stuff, but they're always in-your-face) that are in and around my shop. Now, why would customers go to you if I sell the same (pretty much) sandwich for free?

Does it mean that I am a philanthropist because I give away free sandwiches to the people? And because I am doing a charity (technically), does it mean that you should not sue me?

That said, patent troll (like Lordsys) is entirely different issue. However, I don't think Apple has a choice here. It is trying to defend its business, and the only legal way it can do it is through these stupid patents.

Edit - Instead of just down-voting, why not elaborate?

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#49

Post by danilocampos »

joebadmo wrote: post #17

It's weird to me that Gruber claims, like he did in a recent episode of his podcast with Dan Benjamin, that he's not anti-Google. I mean, why deny something that's so self-evident? His arguments here are just so disingenuous. "So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK." Yes, because Google isn't forming a cartel to stifle competition. "It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s f…

"Yes, because Google isn't forming a cartel to stifle competition."

Hmm. I'm not so sure. There's a way to see Google's behavior where what they're doing is precisely that.

Predatory pricing exists when you try to take over a market by selling something so cheap, other competitors are driven out – or prevented from entering, since they couldn't recoup the costs involved in developing a product.

In league with their manufacturing partners, Google has their own cartel, attempting to homogenize the smartphone landscape under a single, free OS.

The incentives are obvious: it's much easier for Google to make its ad money if it controls the next big platform.

They may have dressed it up as pious and open – but for their purposes, it's a land grab. Is it anticompetitive? I'm not sure. My antitrust scholarship began and ended with The Microsoft File back in the 90's. But I'm also not sure it's any better than whatever satanic pact they are intimating has been formed by Apple and Microsoft.

Google's argument here is summed up as "You could trust us with those patents. But we didn't get them. You can't trust the guys who did get them." I'm pretty sure at this scale, with this much cash on the line, business just doesn't work that way. Google will run over anyone to keep their ad money flowing, just as Microsoft will run over anyone to keep their license money flowing. Why should we side with one cause over the other?

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#50

Post by lawfulfalafel »

bdhe wrote: post #2

Does anyone else feel the word undermine is not appropriate in this quote (due to which, I'm unable to understand the point behind the comparison): It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s for-pay OS licensing business by giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft? [1] http://dictionary.referenc…

First of all, Linux violates 0 patents in my book til Microsoft at least specifies them. Then maybe we can talk about whether or not the present tense "violates" and not "potentially violating" is accurate.

Secondly, even if that is true, does Gruber think Microsoft deserves to win that fight? I mean seriously? If you can develop something on your own time that violates a software patent, that means we need massive patent reform. Not that somebody did something wrong, or that it should be stopped. Making that assumption is unjustifiable and something that should be apologized for.

Google doesn't have a lab with reverse engineers working on "hurting M$". No, they are simply distributing a flavor of Linux. And unlike the other scared/ignorant companies that are signing costly patent deals with Microsoft based on claims and threats of potential litigation, Google actually wants to fight. I think that's pretty respectful.

Software patents are a joke. They leverage the playing field towards the rich and ensconced individuals/corporations and against the hackers who are actually inventing the technologies. It's a sad, depressing joke no one wants to laugh at.

Post reply on HN