All I know is that the lawyers are gonna be making a whole lotta cash from this showdown!
Google: Patently Absurd
51–60 of 160 posts
Re: Google: Patently Absurd
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
That one line doesn't really discount the tone of the whole rest of the post. Google supporters claim that Google only wants to use patents defensively. But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates? - Also Gruber. The implication is that these are legitimate, unassailable patents that Google has ripped off in some nefarious scheme to steal Apple's good ol' homeg…
The implication is that these are legitimate, unassailable patents that Google has ripped off in some nefarious scheme to steal Apple's good ol' homegrown American hard work I would argue that android "borrowed" a lot from Apple, and that the iPhone was truly innovative in many ways. The question whether they copied too much , or whether Apple's idea were innovative in the first place is what the Patent system is try…
Ideas are worth almost nothing. What matters is execution, and Google hasn't ripped off any of Apple's execution.
So what if Android borrowed a lot from Apple? It doesn't make the iPhone any worse, and we all benefit from cross-pollination of ideas.
Re: Google: Patently Absurd
#53It'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…
To stifle competition one not necessarily needs to form a cartel. To stifle competition one can simply flood the market with goods priced under cost. Besides, Google formed a cartel with Intel, they lost.
[deleted]
Re: Google: Patently Absurd
#54It'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…
To stifle competition one not necessarily needs to form a cartel. To stifle competition one can simply flood the market with goods priced under cost. Besides, Google formed a cartel with Intel, they lost.
Android is not priced under cost, it just has a different revenue model. Stifling competition happens when a company uses their cash reserves to sustain a product which is losing money, forcing smaller companies to leave the market. This is not what they're doing, at all.
Re: Google: Patently Absurd
#55Gruber's argument is dependent on the assumption that only people like Nathan Myrvold hold what I'm going to call "bullshit patents".
"Google isn’t arguing against a handful of never-should-have-been-issued software patents. They’re not arguing against patent trolls like Myrvold and his shell companies like Lodsys — companies that have no products of their own, no actual inventions, just patents for ideas for products."
Unfortunately, just because you actually make products doesn't mean that you are incapable of holding and/or abusing bullshit patents. Apple owns more bullshit UI patents than most other companies that I can think of, and they've made it clear over the years that they think it's morally right, not just defensively necessary, to patent user interface ideas.[1]
Apple has not, historically, abused its patent portfolio to the same degree that Microsoft or Oracle have.[2] However, now that they've thrown their hat into the same ring, they're getting lumped in with these dastardly anticompetitive badguy companies when this comes up in the tech press. I'm sure that makes Apple - and Apple fans - uneasy. It seems like they're being blamed for their newfound parters' bad behavior. Well, I'm sorry. You sign a deal with the devil, and you better buckle in.
[1] As as someone who designs and builds UIs for a living, I think this is complete bullshit. Copyright should protect UI; patents should not.
[2] Although they have done so. Just not as much.
Re: Google: Patently Absurd
#56It'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 m…
That argument is fair and interesting, but it has no bearing on the current issue:
"So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK."
It's in no way hypocritical for Google to try to acquire the patents and then, on subsequent failure, condemn their acquisition by the opposing consortium.
I'd be willing to entertain arguments along the lines of Google's anti-competitive behavior, but I find their stance on patents is cogent and consistent. I find Gruber's argument to be, OTOH, totally disingenuous.
Re: Google: Patently Absurd
#57"But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?" Of course Android violates patents. Just like any sufficiently non-trivial piece of software...
Absolutely spot on. That being said, in this rare occasion, I think John Gruber is raising points that needed to be raised. If you read Google's version of the story, it'd seem like Google is the champion of innovation and it is being targeted due to the success of Android, and crucially, it's in the customer's interest that these patents shouldn't be used against them. Well not really; it's basically in Google's int…
it is being targeted due to the success of Android, and crucially, it's in the customer's interest that these patents shouldn't be used against them
The first is obviously true, and I'd argue the second is as well. An effective duopoly of iOS and WP7 would be bad for consumers in the short term due to decreased competition, and even worse in the long term due to the effects of all mainstream mobile platforms being locked down.
Well not really; it's basically in Google's interest.
Not mutually exclusive.
To say nothing about their own 3.14 billion dollar bid for Nortel's patent portfolio and then claiming that their true worth was 1 billion, being completely disingenuous.
How? Google's claim is that if the patent system were fixed, Nortel's patents would be worth much less than they are in the current environment.
Re: Google: Patently Absurd
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then it's more choices for the customer. Nothing's stopping the original 'innovator' from bring his product to market as well.
Then what incentive does the original company have in spending time & money into R&D to develop new products when some other company can just rip them off?
I'm not sure that's as pertinent a question as "do patents stop your ideas from being ripped off?" And as it currently stands, I think the answer to that is no. But I also see companies innovating like mad. Maybe the pace would be even faster with better protections, but I am sceptical.
Re: Google: Patently Absurd
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gruber is no Google-lover, but in this case he is right on the money for calling out Google's hypocrisy. What if Google won the Nortel patents with their pi billion dollars bid?
Do you know of any case of where Google has used its patents offensively? I don't.
[deleted]
Re: Google: Patently Absurd
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
That one line doesn't really discount the tone of the whole rest of the post. Google supporters claim that Google only wants to use patents defensively. But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates? - Also Gruber. The implication is that these are legitimate, unassailable patents that Google has ripped off in some nefarious scheme to steal Apple's good ol' homeg…
The implication is that these are legitimate, unassailable patents that Google has ripped off in some nefarious scheme to steal Apple's good ol' homegrown American hard work I would argue that android "borrowed" a lot from Apple, and that the iPhone was truly innovative in many ways. The question whether they copied too much , or whether Apple's idea were innovative in the first place is what the Patent system is try…
I don't think you can mention Android borrowing from iPhone while ignoring that iPhone borrows from Android too - iOS 5 notifications being the prime example.
All complicated systems borrow from each other - there is nothing evil about it - it's just evolution.