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

111–120 of 160 posts

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#111

Post by Rusky »

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?

No, because patents aren't a normal part of business. They're an artificial limitation by the legal system intended to promote innovation but instead are promoting senseless law suits by companies who can't/don't want to deal with normal business.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#112

Post by GHFigs »

falien wrote: post #95
GHFigs wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

um, that is not what that decision says. It says the interface may be covered by copyright to the extent that it contains expression. That would seem to me to have a large overlap with look and feel patents.

You are mistaken.

It is saying that copyright applies to a user interface insofar as elements of it are subject to copyright on their own, but that "a user interface" is not itself expression, not itself subject to copyright. If you copied every last detail of my interface except the icons or other elements subject to copyright, I would have no valid claim that you infringed on my copyright.

(NB:I am not saying this is bad or wrong at all. Only that it is so, and that it's relevant.)

The trouble that stems from this is that what we call a "user interface" is not exclusively or even mostly elements subject to copyright, but consists of methods and behaviors that are often the product of much ingenuity and innovation. This is why various parties have sought patents for aspects of the interfaces they develop--because those things aren't subject to copyright.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#113

Post by Rusky »

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.

The difference is that even if Google were to try to use those patents offensively against Apple and Microsoft, they probably wouldn't have much of an impact- Google's motivation was defensive, and they pretty much had to try for those patents.

On the other hand, Apple and Microsoft are /already/ having an impact on Android and these patents would only strengthen them- their motivation was offensive and they were the ones who inflated the prices just to hurt Google.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#114

Post by sigmaxipi »

kljensen wrote: post #68
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.

Here are all the patent cases in which Google was a plaintiff. They appear to all be declaratory judgments against NPE defendants. 4:2004-cv-04922 Google Inc. v. Skyline Software Systems Inc. 5:2005-md-01654 In re Compression Labs, Inc., Patent Litigation 5:2004-cv-03934 Google Inc. v. Compression Labs Inc et al 4:2008-cv-04144 Google Inc. v. Netlist, Inc. 3:2009-cv-00642 Google Inc. v. Traffic Information LLC 1:2011…

There is a difference between being a plaintiff in a patent case and using patents offensively. In the Skyline case, it looks like Skyline sued Google over Google Earth: http://googlecopyright.blogspot.com/2007/03/google-prevails-...

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#115

Post by Drakeman »

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…

It's been a while, but a long time ago I heard the phrase, "The Rolling Stones are not in the music business, they're in the t-shirt selling business." In that way, I think if you examine Google's practices and its strategy with Android, it's that Google is an advertising company. It's where all their money comes from. Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle are traditional software companies in the sense they derive their profits from consumers and businesses purchasing services.

> 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.

Well, then, isn't GNU/Linux in general anti-competitive? Or free-libre software since many developers don't charge for services?

As for Google's trustworthiness with patents versus patent-abuse, anyone know a site with a good summary of Google's patent disputes?

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#116

Post by tonetheman »

Caballera wrote: post #107
tonetheman wrote: post #6

Does anyone else feel like the apple shill is worried that his precious is losing to android? haha... software patents suck... it is bad for apple and google and any other tech company.

Yes, because with 5.6% of the market share and 56% of the profits Apple is hurting.. lol Get real, Google can only hope to make that amount of money on Android.

Depends on what you are after. If it is only money (aka Apple) they are really doing great. Their tribe has money and loves to pay (you cant even go in the apple store for less than 30 dollars). If you are trying to spread like a virus... Android wins. Not sure where google is getting money off of it, but android will end up with insane market (but you are right much less money there)

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#117

Post by dritanm »

kelnos wrote: post #97
kljensen wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are all the patent cases in which Google was a plaintiff. They appear to all be declaratory judgments against NPE defendants. 4:2004-cv-04922 Google Inc. v. Skyline Software Systems Inc. 5:2005-md-01654 In re Compression Labs, Inc., Patent Litigation 5:2004-cv-03934 Google Inc. v. Compression Labs Inc et al 4:2008-cv-04144 Google Inc. v. Netlist, Inc. 3:2009-cv-00642 Google Inc. v. Traffic Information LLC 1:2011…

That makes no sense. How can you sue a non-practicing entity for infringing your patents? If they're non-practicing, they're not doing anything.

Being a plaintiff doesn't always mean you're the one suing. It could be an appeals court case where the positions are reversed. Also, you could sue an NPE in order to invalidate their patent(s), or to seek an injunction.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#118

Post by tolmasky »

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…

Its particularly strange because he himself has linked to the NPR story: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/07/25/when-patents-att...

It would seem like someone who links to that (and apparently agrees with it), would not say something like "But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?"

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#119

Post by tambourine_man »

Google needs to drop the “but we are the good guys” argument because they simply can't sustain it.

"Don't be evil" is sounding at best schizophrenic and at worst hypocritical.

I'd much rather hear: “Look, we love open source software and we'll use it and contribute to it in every possible way, as long as it doesn't interfere with our business strategy”.

That would be honest and not that bad in fact.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#120

Post by davorak »

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…

Andriod is offered under Apache License, Version 2.0[1]. Which is a part of Open Source Inititive[2]and part of their mission statement is "an end to predatory vendor lock-in."

Reading Apache 2[3] it looks like "an end to predatory vendor lock-in" is acheived by making it possible for anyone to use the source including Microsoft and Apple. If the land can be used by anyone it is hard for me to think of it as a land grab.

[1] http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html

[2] http://www.opensource.org/

[3] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

Post reply on HN