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

81–90 of 160 posts

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#81

Post by statictype »

danilocampos wrote: post #49
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 m…

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.

Fair point, and that got me thinking:

Would you say the same about the iPad?

Would you say that Apple is stifling competition in the tablet space by making a tablet that's really good and reasonably priced? That's also technically speaking, stifling competition right?

Yet, I don't think anyone would argue that Apple is doing anything unfair.

So what's the difference?

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#82

Post by danilocampos »

smokeyj wrote: post #77
danilocampos wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> Predatory pricing exists when you try to take over a market by selling something so cheap, other competitors are driven out This is what happens when innovation threatens dinosaurs. Phrases such as "predatory pricing" exemplifies a fundamental misunderstanding of how pricing works, or markets in general. People forget the whole point of the market is to serve the consumer. The point of the market is not to protect…

> Everything about business is predatory.

By that reasoning, Google should have either bought the patents or taken their lumps when they lost, right? If business is inherently predatory, whatever predatory groups wish to form are free to do so in the advancement of their own interests. Why is it for Google to bandy about anticompetitive concerns, crying "DOJ!" but not their competitors?

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#83

Post by danilocampos »

statictype wrote: post #81
danilocampos wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

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. Fair point, and that got me thinking: Would you say the same about the iPad? Would you say that Apple is stifling competition in the tablet space by making a tablet that's really good and reasona…

I think you'd have to look at the margins and intent involved.

If Apple was foregoing any margin, and perhaps even operating in the red in attempt to prevent competition, that would get a little touchy. For example, if tomorrow Apple slashed the iPad's price to $150 just to fuck over the rest of the market, that'd be weird.

But the thing is, Apple isn't invoking the DOJ or crying "anticompetitive." Google is. So they need to have competitively clean hands if they want that to mean something. I'm not sure they can claim that.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#84

Post by galactus »

Lewisham wrote: post #29
sasidharm wrote: post #24

Earlier 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.

Did the soviet union ever used their nukes offensively?

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#85

Post by billmcneale »

"So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK."

It's a war. You have to take arms to defend yourself, but it doesn't mean you're happy about it.

Gruber is almost bipolar: his insight on the industry is usually pretty interesting, but he becomes borderline retarded when he starts posting about Apple competitors.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#86

Post by Steko »

tensor wrote: post #71
Steko wrote: post #67

"anti-Google", "disingenuous", "deep dishonesty", "willfully dishonest". "very twisted", "oblivious", "shill", "clown" The Engadgetization of HN comments is nearly complete. Get off your high horses, Gruber is exactly right that this screed by Google's counsel is incredibly hypocritical. Regardless of what you think about patents, Google, Apple, etc. the following argument is total bullshit: Group A has a right to bi…

That argument seems completely fine to me. If you have more funds then you can block a competitor from competing by buying up all the resources. Another example of this is cellular providers in Canada. New spectrum opened up, but somehow the established duopoly managed to by all the new spectrum in Quebec leaving none for the incumbent providers. They are not even using the spectrum, but effectively locked competitor…

Gruber is fairly critical of Apple at times but generally takes a "I wish Apple would do X but I understand why they're doing Y (or ~X)" position when he does so.

Apple's a company that hasn't missed that often or that big recently though so it's hard for me to judge where he should have gone hugely negative on them in your view.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#87

Post by harryh »

amartya916 wrote: post #23
aristidb wrote: post #3

"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 in the customers interest that these patents not be used against Google. The patent trolling being done by Apple/Microsoft/etc against Google is raising (or at the very least attempting to raise) the price of Android phones.

Raising the cost of a product through litigation is not in the interest of customers.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#88

Post by smokeyj »

danilocampos wrote: post #82
smokeyj wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Predatory pricing exists when you try to take over a market by selling something so cheap, other competitors are driven out This is what happens when innovation threatens dinosaurs. Phrases such as "predatory pricing" exemplifies a fundamental misunderstanding of how pricing works, or markets in general. People forget the whole point of the market is to serve the consumer. The point of the market is not to protect…

> Everything about business is predatory. By that reasoning, Google should have either bought the patents or taken their lumps when they lost, right? If business is inherently predatory, whatever predatory groups wish to form are free to do so in the advancement of their own interests. Why is it for Google to bandy about anticompetitive concerns, crying "DOJ!" but not their competitors?

Anti-competition isn't an empirically observable phenomena. In theory it was supposed to serve the consumer, but there is a disconnect between the alleged intention and reality. Kind of a big problem. Preventing a company from offering a free product in no way serves the consumer.

I don't want to imply google is more ethical than the competition, but in this instance calling for an abolition of patents is in line with my personal views, which is markets should serve the consumer. I have no unconditional support for any of these companies.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#89

Post by ender7 »

GHFigs wrote: post #79
ender7 wrote: post #55

Gruber'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 product…

Copyright should protect UI But it doesn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_v._Borland

Very true! I was thinking of UI art assets. Aspects related to the layout or behavior of a UI (having a touchscreen interface, momentum scrolling, etc.) should be (IMO) neither patentable nor copyrightable.

When you get into issues of truly ripoff UI, trade dress [1] seems like the most natural solution to me. However, the legal standing of UI w/rt trade dress is still being determined.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#90

Post by RexRollman »

yanw wrote: post #18

It's hard to take Gruber seriously when everything he writes distorts reality and commonsense in the sake of representing them in ways that favor Apple Inc and its endeavors. His thoughts on WebM vs. Apple backed MPEG-LA are equally ridiculous.

True. Gruber is at his worst when he discusses patents. I do enjoy his writings otherwise.
Post reply on HN