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

The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#41

Post by AlbertCory »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #20
gota wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was part of this "acquire patents" effort at Google. I actually interviewed people to be in Legal whose job would be to acquire patents. The theory (since discarded) was that a heavy patent portfolio would give you a better negotiating position if you were sued. Interesting! Can you expand on this topic? Does/has the strategy work?

The theory goes like this. The Patent Office keeps granting overly broad patents to your competitors, who then show up to sue you for unintentionally violating them. So you get your own overly broad patents, counter-sue them when this happens, and then they all cancel out. The main problem with this strategy is patent trolls. Some company that doesn't make anything buys up some broad patents. Then there is nothing yo…

Some of that is correct, but patent trolls are only after money. They like to settle quickly for a fairly small amount, and move on. An effective counter-strategy is to resist them (with IPRs, especially) because that ties up their resources.

As for big companies suing smaller ones: citations (in the mobile space), please?

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#42

Post by mips_avatar »

The thing I think Doctorow is missing is the motivation at the engineering level to get a patent. There is very minimal strategizing between corporate attorney's about how the patent might be strategic. If something is patentable, the engineering teams will often pursue a patent mostly motivated from a bragging rights perspective. It's a great way to give recognition to engineers. Most of Google's/Microsoft's portfolio are collections of patents like that. Maybe at a portfolio level there is some strategizing, but not at the level of the engineers actually inventing things.

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#43

Post by guerrilla »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #40
guerrilla wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no credible economic theory of firm “power seeking” How is the theory of market power combined with everything else we know not that? [1] It seems obviously in the firms interest even if their primary motive were still profit since it ensures increased rates of profit (modulo risk of a regulatory smackdown.) 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power

Market power is a well defined economic concept. I am an economist who works on that issue. If he wants to talk about market power I think that would be great! (Though not as an explanation for this case.) Indeed, I said I thought he was ignorant of economics in part bc he brought up this weird “capital as power” thing which has nothing to do (AFAICT) with actual market power as we understand it. Furthermore, in this…

They seem to be economists too [1] and it seems like he's deferring to them. I haven't read their work but the way Cory presented it makes it sound like it's just basic Machiavellian realism[2] applied to economics and if that's all it is then I'm all in. Is there something specific you didn't like or just that the theory isn't presently popular among economists? What's your alternative story of what happened here? I'm not sure how intellectual property and patent litigation would conflict with what he's saying.

1. https://capitalaspower.com/about/

2. https://iep.utm.edu/polreal/

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#44

Post by cmrdporcupine »

johncena33 wrote: post #34
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of this information could have been delivered without also delivering personal insults on the side.

Well, it wouldn't be HN if people couldn't post angry rants about Google. 10% of HN is just a group of same people complaining about Google again and again. Anytime I see a link about Google, I know there wouldn't be any insightful discussion. Just same people complaining endlessly about the same things. I wish mods would do a better job moderating this relentless tirades.

Except in this case it's not against Google, but someone being aggressive against someone taking a position critical of Google.

Disclaimer: I work at Google, and I'm used to keeping things polite when the workforce here is attacked on the forum. So not sure why the reverse can't also be true.

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#45

Post by AnthonyMouse »

AlbertCory wrote: post #41
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The theory goes like this. The Patent Office keeps granting overly broad patents to your competitors, who then show up to sue you for unintentionally violating them. So you get your own overly broad patents, counter-sue them when this happens, and then they all cancel out. The main problem with this strategy is patent trolls. Some company that doesn't make anything buys up some broad patents. Then there is nothing yo…

Some of that is correct, but patent trolls are only after money. They like to settle quickly for a fairly small amount, and move on. An effective counter-strategy is to resist them (with IPRs, especially) because that ties up their resources. As for big companies suing smaller ones: citations (in the mobile space), please?

You're asking for citations to things that happen behind closed doors. "Big company pressures little company into a buyout/capitulation" is bad PR for big company, so part of the buyout/capitulation is to sign the NDA.

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#46

Post by webmaven »

AlbertCory wrote: post #18
cma wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt the little guy acquiring patents at behest of some corporate initiative from executives actually necessarily gets told the real reason. It would leave an paper trail for antitrust. "Would give you a better negotiating position if you were sued" is the exact kind of generic motivation you'd want on something that's real purposes could look worse in an antitrust trial. Especially in light of stuff like "Google…

You and gota both need to read the literature on patent strategy in maturing markets. This is well-known and informed everyone's strategy in the 2010 era, Google's and Microsoft's. The literature says that in mature markets, the major players all have cross-licensing agreements sharing their giant patent portfolios, shutting out the minor players. They form an oligarchy, in other words. I may be a few years behind, h…

The difficulty of negotiating cross licensing deals has led to the creation of large patent pools like the Open Invention Network and Allied Security Trust.

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#47

Post by staticman2 »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #13

Cory Doctorow is ignorant of economics and competition policy. It’s frustrating to see his thoughts shared here so often. There is no credible economic theory of firm “power seeking”. What’s more, you don’t need such a theory to explain what’s going on here. If you want to explain why Google paid so much for Motorola, you can do so via the various defects in intellectual property law. All large firms are at least occ…

Doctorow seemingly believes most economists are full of crap so isn't going to recite whatever theory you subscribe to.

He discusses his view of economics in this twitter thread here:

https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1450136949327425537?s=20

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#48

Post by monocasa »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #13

Cory Doctorow is ignorant of economics and competition policy. It’s frustrating to see his thoughts shared here so often. There is no credible economic theory of firm “power seeking”. What’s more, you don’t need such a theory to explain what’s going on here. If you want to explain why Google paid so much for Motorola, you can do so via the various defects in intellectual property law. All large firms are at least occ…

Patent portfolios aren't typically used as a defense against trolls. Since they're overwhelmingly non practicing entities, they're typically not infringing on anything.

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#49

Post by [deleted] »

some_furry wrote: post #25
AlbertCory wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only "prove[s] part of the argument" if you rephrase the argument to your liking. You are also conflating "defensive" and "aggressive." Kinda like saying Switzerland is "aggressive" because they have mandatory military service for all males.

> Kinda like saying Switzerland is "aggressive" because they have mandatory military service for all males. I'm curious: Have you heard of the state's "monopoly on violence" before? It comes up a lot in political theory discussions, and it applies to this attempted rebuttal by analogy.

[deleted]

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#50

Post by josaka »

monocasa wrote: post #48
huitzitziltzin wrote: post #13

Cory Doctorow is ignorant of economics and competition policy. It’s frustrating to see his thoughts shared here so often. There is no credible economic theory of firm “power seeking”. What’s more, you don’t need such a theory to explain what’s going on here. If you want to explain why Google paid so much for Motorola, you can do so via the various defects in intellectual property law. All large firms are at least occ…

Patent portfolios aren't typically used as a defense against trolls. Since they're overwhelmingly non practicing entities, they're typically not infringing on anything.

It's a defense against trolls acquiring those patents and leverage to force license on transfer deals with other large cos.
Post reply on HN