More on Google and Patents • Hacker News Board

Re: More on Google and Patents

#11

Post by stanleydrew » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 4:50 PM UTC

sasidharm wrote: post #5

stanleydrew wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google isn't complaining about losing. It's complaining about the unfair way it believes the winners won.

How is it unfair?

Read Google's post again. That's where it's explained. Note that the following is not necessarily my opinion, but my interpretation of Google's post.

Google believes that a cartel of competitors formed to combine resources with the main purpose of using those resources to bid on IP to use against Android. The winning bid didn't reflect any individual competitor's valuation of the asset, but rather the aggregate of their valuations given that they all plan to use the asset as leverage against Android. Google thinks this is anticompetitive.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#12

Post by kenjackson » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 4:50 PM UTC

thezilch wrote: post #9

Google seems to feel entitled to copy whatever it wants. Android copies the UI from the iPhone. Places copied data from Yelp. Google+ copies from Facebook. Their coupon thing is a clone of Groupon. And yet it’s Google that acts as though it has been offended when these competitors fight back. The one sited source is extremely shallow, and the rest is both not sourced and laughable. Gruber is making quite the leap aft…

While I'm not a fan of Gruber I think its fair to say that he's writing to an audience for which all of these are well known. You may disagree with their validity, but you're already well familiar with their arguments and evidence -- sources probably aren't a necessity for a blog post on the topic.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#13

Post by A-K » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 4:55 PM UTC

joebadmo wrote: post #10

A-K wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfair? Through legitimately bidding higher than 3.14 billion dollars?

They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them; seeking $15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android... From the original Google blog post.

But Google had the choice to be a part of the consortium, according to Microsoft's counsel. Assuming that invitation was indeed extended, how does that jive at all with what you just quoted?

Re: More on Google and Patents

#14

Post by sasidharm » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 4:57 PM UTC

stanleydrew wrote: post #11

sasidharm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it unfair?

Read Google's post again. That's where it's explained. Note that the following is not necessarily my opinion, but my interpretation of Google's post. Google believes that a cartel of competitors formed to combine resources with the main purpose of using those resources to bid on IP to use against Android. The winning bid didn't reflect any individual competitor's valuation of the asset, but rather the aggregate of th…

I read Google's post and Microsoft's response and Google's update to the post and Microsoft's response to the update as well: http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/gentlemen-take-this-outside... Considering all arguments, I think there is more to this story than what Google told in the blog post. The fact that they did not even mention that they were offered to be part of the joint bid in the initial post raises a lot of questions.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#15

Post by stanleydrew » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 4:58 PM UTC

A-K wrote: post #7

stanleydrew wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google isn't complaining about losing. It's complaining about the unfair way it believes the winners won.

Unfair? Through legitimately bidding higher than 3.14 billion dollars?

See my other reply on this thread. Basically Google believes the bidding represents anticompetitive behavior on the part of a cartel of android competitors.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#16

Post by rosejn » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 4:58 PM UTC

He has to turn comments off on Daring Fireball or else he would be called out as an Apple fanboy/lobbyist after posts like this. Plenty of companies are willing to compete by creating better products rather than taking their competition to court. The iPhone is getting pushed aside by Android and they are playing dirty to stop it. Unless you can point to some novel technology that Apple should control because it was truly new and different, then Android should be able to compete. Just calling it "competitive" rather than offense and defense is a political tactic that tries to make Google look just as bad as the other guys, or conversely make Apple look just as good as the others. This is not a valid comparison. Combative patent lawsuits are not a requirement for successful businesses. There is a major difference between companies that choose to be litigious to stifle competition rather than focus on creating better products at a cheaper price. Buying a patent portfolio in order to stifle innovation rather than to enable you to create new or better products goes against the purpose of the patent system as it is described in the constitution:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

They should have pooled these billions to create a massive patent reform campaign. It probably would have been cheaper and more effective in the long run.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#17

Post by nextparadigms » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:01 PM UTC

A-K wrote: post #7

stanleydrew wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google isn't complaining about losing. It's complaining about the unfair way it believes the winners won.

Unfair? Through legitimately bidding higher than 3.14 billion dollars?

In your comment below, you're confusing Nortel with Novell. Google was NOT asked to bid for Nortel patents together with Microsoft.

And about the Novell ones - is it still not clear why Google did it? They did it to get defensive patents against Microsoft. How would they have used those patents to counter Microsoft, if Microsoft had them, too?

The whole point of buying patents now is to use them to keep Microsoft and the others from attacking the Android manufacturers. If they buy them together with Microsoft, they can't stop Microsoft's other patents.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#18

Post by stanleydrew » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:01 PM UTC

sasidharm wrote: post #14

stanleydrew wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read Google's post again. That's where it's explained. Note that the following is not necessarily my opinion, but my interpretation of Google's post. Google believes that a cartel of competitors formed to combine resources with the main purpose of using those resources to bid on IP to use against Android. The winning bid didn't reflect any individual competitor's valuation of the asset, but rather the aggregate of th…

I read Google's post and Microsoft's response and Google's update to the post and Microsoft's response to the update as well: http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/gentlemen-take-this-outside... Considering all arguments, I think there is more to this story than what Google told in the blog post. The fact that they did not even mention that they were offered to be part of the joint bid in the initial post raises a lot of…

Its fine for you to think that. I'm just discussing the merits of Gruber's post. I think he is trying to spin as whining what Google believes to be a legitimate claim of anticompetitive behavior.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#19

Post by shareme » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:03 PM UTC

thezilch wrote: post #9

Google seems to feel entitled to copy whatever it wants. Android copies the UI from the iPhone. Places copied data from Yelp. Google+ copies from Facebook. Their coupon thing is a clone of Groupon. And yet it’s Google that acts as though it has been offended when these competitors fight back. The one sited source is extremely shallow, and the rest is both not sourced and laughable. Gruber is making quite the leap aft…

Funny Apple copied stuff from Palm..hmm did Palm sue Apple though or come up with a better plan to innovate?

And notice folks no Apple sues MS even though there is some UI copying..

Re: More on Google and Patents

#20

Post by AllenKids » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:04 PM UTC

joebadmo wrote: post #8

The convolutions continue. "What I’m complaining about isn’t Google playing the game, but rather their insistent whining about their competitors only after they lost the game." It's easy to redefine the game as whatever suits your outcome. And it's perfectly reasonable to complain about an unfair game that you're losing because it's unfair. And anyway, by this logic, you could simply call the PR battle 'part of the g…

Then Gruber's piece can be considered a rebuttal of such PR move.

Oh it's so meta isn't it?

Also the rules haven't changed a bit, Google got in the game knowingly. Though one can argue the patent system is broken and needs urgent adjustment. Nortel IP incident is more of bidding war and Google played its hand spectacularly badly plain and simple. There is nothing illegal and shady about Apple/Microsoft/RIM's win. Last I checked, throwing money at things is a perfect good strategy at owning them.