Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue • Hacker News Board

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#181

Post by omni » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 12:30 AM UTC

gohrt wrote: post #157

omni wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's entirely logical. You're talking about emotions, not logic. Patent trolls win => his legit companies lose value, his patent troll gains value Patent trolls lose => legit companies gain value, patent trolls lose value

To be clear, it is the same logic that justifies patent trolling. Imagine if some startup "hedged" by covertly transfering funds from customers' bank accounts when they cancel their subscriptions: Great product => paying customers Bad product => steal money from customers

Oh yeah, filing a civil suit and outright stealing from people are totally the same thing. Great comparison, bravo.

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#182

Post by mmorris » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 12:56 AM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #175

mmorris wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not disagreeing with your point, but I chuckled a bit at your examples. I wouldn't qualify either Facebook or Windows as being "first to market". Though I think this mainly just points out the squishiness of the term.

Mentioning the term "first to market" was unfortunate, but the key phrase in that sentence was "network effects", and Windows, Office, and Facebook all great examples of the advantage of network effects.

Agreed!

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#183

Post by magicalist » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 3:58 AM UTC

josephlord wrote: post #138

zyrthofar wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. It's no indication, but it would generate fear and doubt when I code. What if the code I'm writing right now is patented by some company taking advantage of a system, with resources searching everywhere just to sue? I probably wouldn't, but I could become paranoiac because of this, looking on the internet to find if I am infringing patents, instead of being productive. It's true 1.36% seems like nothing,…

I really wouldn't let it worry you, there are many more things likely to make you fail than patents unless you are going into an especially patent heavy field (such as video codecs). Patent holders generally need to target big players to get worthwhile payoffs so unless you are big (in which case you have already won) then it is only the Lodsys type scum you need to worry about trying to extort you (in which case you…

> Patent holders generally need to target big players to get worthwhile payoffs so unless you are big (in which case you have already won) then it is only the Lodsys type scum you need to worry about trying to extort you

Uh, yeah, exactly. I don't know what you think Lodsys is that's not a "patent holder", but that's exactly what they are, and they're a great example of patent trolls going after small businesses. This happens all the time.

In this whole thread you've also ignored the fact that this is 1.36% of revenue for one small aspect of a product. Now consider the fact that your product is also highlighting certain parts of data returned from a database, or you have a a certain type of UI interaction when you scroll past the bottom of a widget, etc etc etc and you have a whole lot of companies ready to claim their 1.36%.

I don't know if it's enough that it should stop people from wanting to start at all, but it is a very real problem that is very much affecting real people. For instance:

The Patent, Used as a Sword

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-amo...

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#184

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 4:08 AM UTC

iribe wrote: post #23

Gustomaximus wrote: post #17

The Microsoft settlement for the same was interesting: "Vringo also sued Microsoft over ads in its Bing search engine. Microsoft settled that case in May, agreeing to pay $1 million plus 5 percent of whatever Google ultimately pays." It's strange agreeing to pay 5% of Google outcome on the same and quite clever the more I consider the pros/cons.

They're arming patent trolls and aiming them at google. This isn't the first one (rockstar).

[deleted]

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#185

Post by PythonicAlpha » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 4:24 AM UTC

SpaceRaccoon wrote: post #178

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #30

So called "intellectual property" is an other way to decrease the value of manual work and increase the income of pure "possessions". By making creative work "property" that can be owned and making minimal creative acts "possessable" in a way, that other creativity is inhibited or at least "billed", actual work is diminished for pure "property" holding. The only way, non-possessing people can climb up "from rags to r…

What if manual work is required to produce this intellectual property? And isn't the intent that the rights belong to the inventor or creator?

Yes, it is.

But that is not the point. The point is, that the manual labor gets less and less earnings, but the possession of the properties. How many creative products with high value are in the hands of their creators?

In reality, the high earnings are not made by the inventors or creators of things, but by those that have acquired them in any way. In corporations, it is normal, that inventors just get some small fixed amounts for their inventions. Even in the music business, the musicians have the smallest part of the earnings. Often time, the musicians have to sell the rights to the companies, so the companies are earning most of the money. Only very few musicians can make extra-deals and get rich.

To answer your second question: No, it is absolutely not the intent! By making "intellectual property" the same level as other property, the intent is not, that the inventors should have them (as normal copyright once was intended), but the intention is, that it is a trade-able good, that can be accumulated by the wealthy and used against those that are creative (something, that money is not, so creativity must kept cheap).

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#186

Post by josephlord » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 9:59 AM UTC

magicalist wrote: post #183

josephlord wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wouldn't let it worry you, there are many more things likely to make you fail than patents unless you are going into an especially patent heavy field (such as video codecs). Patent holders generally need to target big players to get worthwhile payoffs so unless you are big (in which case you have already won) then it is only the Lodsys type scum you need to worry about trying to extort you (in which case you…

> Patent holders generally need to target big players to get worthwhile payoffs so unless you are big (in which case you have already won) then it is only the Lodsys type scum you need to worry about trying to extort you Uh, yeah, exactly. I don't know what you think Lodsys is that's not a "patent holder", but that's exactly what they are, and they're a great example of patent trolls going after small businesses. Thi…

Fair points although I didn't say Lodsys wasn't a patent holder ('generally' meant 'mostly' not 'universally') I think you overstate the density of patents in general software (at least of valid ones without prior art).

I agree expense of the US legal system that makes settling vexatious (Lodsys etc.) suits financially attractive is a real problem.

The 1.36% of revenue is for an aspect of the product that Google were not happy to remove or change sufficiently following a loss in court and includes an increase for willfulness. If I understand correctly it includes the key revenue maximisation process. It is not just for a minor UI feature and that is presumably why Google didn't just work round it. Yes the stacking of percentage royalties could be a real problem but that would mostly happen on standards if FRAND wasn't enforced and everyone stayed outside patent pools and claimed 2.4% of final retail price (Motorola/Google).

Regarding your article that does sound troubling although a large part of the problem seems to have been a dependence on winning some big deals. I do suspect that speech recognition is one of the patent heavy areas along with codecs as I mentioned, probably autonomous cars, audio and video tagging, watermarking and recognition. In these areas I would definitely want to be careful and perhaps apply for patents before proceeding too far (this would both mean patent searches were conducted and give something to defend attacks with). Alternatively I would be studying the literature and material that was 20 years old and documenting the process of obvious steps when combing approaches. Most software is not in these patent thick areas.

A proper list of dangerous areas for patents would be really quite useful...maybe an Ask HN topic?

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#187

Post by skj » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 12:35 PM UTC

shadowfox wrote: post #171

skj wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Googlers would revolt.

You may be overestimating a lot of googlers

I'm sure there are a lot who wouldn't care, but MANY would leave (including myself), and recruitment would dry up. It would be a disaster.

Despite what hacker news comments would have you believe, Google is (in my strongly held opinion) a force for good in the tech world, and very genuine in what it tries to accomplish.

Becoming a patent troll would undermine that sentiment.

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#188

Post by andrewfong » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 5:51 PM UTC

Glyptodon wrote: post #159

andrewfong wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of an independent invention defense (or some variation of this) is pretty much 80% of what's wrong with patent law in my opinion. A sampling of the issues an independent invention addresses: * Obviousness. Patents are required to be non-obvious to a "person holding ordinary skill in the art", but obviousness is highly subjective and difficult to assess (especially for a non-technical jury). In contrast, eval…

I don't see why independent invention wouldn't lead to a legal assumption of obviousness. Independent invention seems like incredibly clear cut proof of obviousness to me, anyway.

The issue is: obvious to whom? Both Newton and Leibniz independently invented* Calculus at about the same time. That may mean Calculus was obvious to Newton and Leibniz (and it may very well have been obvious to anyone in that particular community of mathematician), but it certainly wasn't obvious to the average mathematician at the time.

* More like discovered (don't want to imply math is patentable), but the point remains the same.

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#189

Post by zaroth » Fri, Jan 31, 2014, 10:40 AM UTC

Goronmon wrote: post #152

zaroth wrote: post #104

The money is going to the guy who patented a crucial part of Google's AdWords algorithm which neither they nor Bing can apparently design around. The guy got crushed in the market, being just a little fish, he was gobbled right up. But he bought back his patent, and took the fight to Google and Bing and won. You can argue the percentage calculation is a too rich by an order of magnitude or two (and I think it is), bu…

The money is going to the guy who patented a crucial part of Google's AdWords algorithm which neither they nor Bing can apparently design around. Was the patent obvious? Nope. These comments seem to be at odds with on another. If the patent covers an algorithm that is a natural solution to the problem multiple companies are trying to solve, doesn't that mean the solution is 'obvious'? Is that how we want software dev…

I think 'natural solution' is a play on words. My understanding is that all the search engines (including Google) spent many years figuring this out, failing many times along the way. PG's patent on Bayesian anti-spam is another example of something which seems obvious in retrospect, and now everyone does it.

'Natural' to me means a product or feature which just fits perfectly within the system. A natural solution is the most valuable and often hardest to come by. They also tend to seem incredibly obvious in retrospect, and yet examining history will demonstrate that others suffered for years for lack of that exact functionality.

For example, the intermittent wiper, or the teleprompter, or maybe even the paper clip. It's the ideas that seem the most obvious in retrospect which need the strongest patent protection. But only if you can show it's novel.

One way the patent office will let you demonstrate something is 'non-obvious' is if you can show something is both novel and actually solves a large existing problem in the market. The novel, simple, elegant solution to a large problem is by definition non-obvious, or else someone else would already be doing it.

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#190

Post by zaroth » Fri, Jan 31, 2014, 11:06 AM UTC

Goronmon wrote: post #153

zaroth wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree with everything you've said, and I still think Google has to pay for infringing. Patents are NOT just to prevent copying. Patents are not supposed to be worthless against larger companies who can just replicate your work without your help. If you could just re-engineer any patented invention, patents would be worthless. Companies would be incentivized to bury their heads in the sand so they could be sure they w…

Patents are not supposed to be worthless against larger companies who can just replicate your work without your help. If people can replicate your work without having to look at any specific about your work, why should your work be patentable? What about if you reverse the actors in your example? Should large companies with vast warchests filled with patents be allowed to strong arm smaller competitors who likely don…

All work can be replicated.

Patents aren't about protecting an idea because the person who came up with it was uniquely qualified to create that particular thing. Any number of people could create the same thing independently. But only one person can be the first person to create a thing.

Patents reward those who come first, those who push a boundary, who create something novel. Novel doesn't say anything about how many hours it took to come up with the idea.

Remember, this patent is from 1996, and soon to be expired. 16 years later the algorithm powering AdWords can't live without it. I'd say this patent was 'ahead of the curve' when it was written.

Injunctions are becoming more rare, and if the penalty is apportioned correctly it would always make very little sense for a much larger company to sue a smaller one, because even a win would cost more than it was worth.

Even with recent changes, the law could due with some strengthening to protect against harassment suits. From large companies against small, and from trolls against anyone. Reasonable costs for the defendant could be carried by the plaintiff in some cases.