Google: Patently Absurd • Hacker News Board

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#121

Post by olalonde » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 3:27 AM UTC

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…

> 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?

Because he's not really anti-Google, he's just pro-Apple (read Apple fanboy).

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#122

Post by tambourine_man » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 3:30 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #52

tomerico wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication is that these are legitimate, unassailable patents that Google has ripped off in some nefarious scheme to steal Apple's good ol' homegrown American hard work I would argue that android "borrowed" a lot from Apple, and that the iPhone was truly innovative in many ways. The question whether they copied too much , or whether Apple's idea were innovative in the first place is what the Patent system is try…

Ideas are worth almost nothing. What matters is execution, and Google hasn't ripped off any of Apple's execution. So what if Android borrowed a lot from Apple? It doesn't make the iPhone any worse, and we all benefit from cross-pollination of ideas.

I wouldn't say that. Some people are really great at execution but can't think of an original idea if their life depended on it. Conversely, there are those brilliant creative people who can't make a scrambled egg.

Having a finished product like the iPhone as a horizon surely helped Android. But of course, that's not the whole story. Only Google managed to be inspired by the iPhone and launch a successful competitor. The rest of the industry was simply inspired.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#123

Post by Elepsis » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 3:33 AM UTC

smokeyj wrote: post #98

triaboat wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preventing a company from offering a free product in no way serves the consumer. In a general context, a company practicing 'predatory pricing' may do so to drive the other competitors out of business. Once that happens, it's free to raise prices to monopolistic levels which would end up hurting consumers eventually.

> Once that happens, it's free to raise prices to monopolistic levels These fears are not based on evidence. When has someone released a free product only until they wiped out all the competition, proceeding to jack up prices? I mean, once they jack up the prices there is an established market ripe to pick customers from. Furthermore, the temporary profits, if any, would only be temporary and would be a greater cost…

Jacking up prices isn't the only potentially-negative consequence of driving its competitors out of business, nor is it a requirement to be considered anti-competitive. The history of Internet Explorer is an interesting illustration of both.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#124

Post by Elepsis » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 3:36 AM UTC

tolmasky wrote: post #118

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?"

It isn't inconsistent to be opposed to patent trolls without being opposed to patents in general.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#125

Post by amartya916 » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 3:41 AM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #57

amartya916 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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 The first is obviously true, and I'd argue the second is as well. An effective duopoly of iOS and WP7 would be bad for consumers in the short term due to decreased competition, and even worse in the long term due to the effects of all mainstream mobile platforms being lo…

"An effective duopoly of iOS and WP7 would be bad for consumers in the short term due to decreased competition, and even worse in the long term due to the effects of all mainstream mobile platforms being locked down."

I broadly agree with you on this count. However, I think that for us, the techie community, the fact that a majority of mobile platforms are locked might be an issue; for the average customer it is not.

"Not mutually exclusive." Again agreed broadly but it can be argued that at the end of the day Google is a company chasing revenues (just like every other company) and not having to get involved in patent litigation is going to save "them" money. While the patent system might be broken, but as long as it's not fixed, Google has to play along (just like MSFT and AAPL). I just do not see how they can ever take the higher ground here, other than being miffed at missing the deal.

The true price of any commodity is not static, it is always dependent on competition/availability/demand etc. The patents might be worth 1 billion, but if Google offered in excess of 3 billion, they thought that it was worth the price "in the current environment". Also Google can claim that the patents were worth 1 billion, but they have a vested interest in portraying this as being the case. I am a little cynical of such claims.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#126

Post by GHFigs » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 3:43 AM UTC

nextparadigms wrote: post #74

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.

Yeah, he is totally fine with the idea of using HTML5 vs Flash, because "Flash is proprietary and bad", even though Flash was and still is the standard for online video! But then he turns around and says "why bother with the open WebM when you can use this "standardized" codec that is h.264", even though it's proprietary and patent-encumbered. Completely opposite positions and double standard on his part. The only co…

Meanwhile, in reality:

Let me be clear, though: there is nothing wrong with playing a video in Flash. I mean that seriously, no sarcasm. What there’s something wrong with is requiring Flash Player to play video. That’s the whole point of the HTML5 element: to enable web video without requiring the use of proprietary plugins.

And:

I have nothing against WebM. In fact, prior to this week’s announcement, I thought Chrome had the best HTML5 video policy of any browser: they supported all the relevant codecs. Supporting WebM and H.264 is better than supporting only one or the other, in my book. But if you’re only going to support one, I say support the one that is in wide use, with extensive wide-ranging support from camera makers, mobile playback devices, and online video services.

-- http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/practical_vs_idealistic

This aren't "completely opposite positions". This is consistent pragmatism. I believe you frame it as a contradiction because you see the issue primarily as an ideological one of open vs. closed, with the "open" nature of WebM trumping any utility of h.264. Not everybody sees it that way.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#127

Post by blinkingled » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 3:47 AM UTC

Caballera wrote: post #105

blinkingled wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can mention Android borrowing from iPhone while ignoring that iPhone borrows from Android too - iOS 5 notifications being the prime example. All complicated systems borrow from each other - there is nothing evil about it - it's just evolution.

Can you show us the patents Google has on notifications?

Let's first try to understand what is implied by your question. Is it that unless an idea is patented it does not qualify as innovation and in that case if someone else copies it, it becomes acceptable?

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#128

Post by tolmasky » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 3:51 AM UTC

Elepsis wrote: post #124

tolmasky wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?"

It isn't inconsistent to be opposed to patent trolls without being opposed to patents in general .

His comment was specifically criticizing Google's position of wanting to have defensive patents:

    Google supporters claim that Google only wants to use patents defensively. But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?

He is basically scoffing at the very idea of defensive patents. Someone who understands and accepts the concept of patent trolls should also understand the strategy of defensive patents and shouldn't hand wave it away.

This should be particularly obvious in the Nortel case because everyone was theoretically an infringer until the very moment that someone won the bid, at which point the winner magically becomes non-infringing and the loser is all of a sudden an "idea stealer".

Just think about it this way: had Lodsys or Intellectual Ventures been able to afford Nortel's patent portfolio they'd be suing everyone right now and I can guarantee Gruber would not be saying "well, Apple did violate actual patents", instead he'd be calling it patent trolling.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#129

Post by Pooter » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 4:04 AM UTC

Lewisham wrote: post #40

doe88 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if Google had won the bid and was using these patents (they hadn't developed) defensively to defend against the fact they have violated patents developed by others companies, would it more fair? I don't think so.

No, but you can play "what if" games to death. You can't be slighted as being hypocritical for something you haven't done yet , which is what Gruber is claiming.

Your point was that google hasn't sued anyone, which is pretty much a non sequitur without the assumption that this would've remained the case if they'd won the Nortel bidding.

Which, really, is just a covert "what if" game.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#130

Post by tolmasky » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 4:11 AM UTC

tomerico wrote: post #38

cheald wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That one line doesn't really discount the tone of the whole rest of the post. Google supporters claim that Google only wants to use patents defensively. But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates? - Also Gruber. The implication is that these are legitimate, unassailable patents that Google has ripped off in some nefarious scheme to steal Apple's good ol' homeg…

The implication is that these are legitimate, unassailable patents that Google has ripped off in some nefarious scheme to steal Apple's good ol' homegrown American hard work I would argue that android "borrowed" a lot from Apple, and that the iPhone was truly innovative in many ways. The question whether they copied too much , or whether Apple's idea were innovative in the first place is what the Patent system is try…

How is that relevant? Nortel's patents do not represent the cases where Android borrowed from iPhone, if they did, then they would be Apple's patents wouldn't they? These patents were being violated by BOTH parties, and one happens to own them now.