More on Google and Patents • Hacker News Board

Re: More on Google and Patents

#21

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

A-K wrote: post #13

joebadmo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you think about it, it's obvious why we turned down Microsoft’s offer. Microsoft's objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a license would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners. Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android — and having us pay for the privilege — must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn't fall for it.

From the update to the original google blog post. Maybe you should read the whole thing. It's not that long. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-a...

Re: More on Google and Patents

#22

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

>And yes, there are some who will argue that there are no “worthy patents”, that the entire U.S. patent system should be simply abolished.

I like how Gruber conflates patents in general with software patents: as if you can't have one without the other.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#23

Post by stanleydrew » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:09 PM UTC

mcantelon wrote: post #22

>And yes, there are some who will argue that there are no “worthy patents”, that the entire U.S. patent system should be simply abolished. I like how Gruber conflates patents in general with software patents: as if you can't have one without the other.

I noticed this too. I don't read Gruber regularly but he seems to be either very careless or wilfully misleading in the way that he conflates concepts.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#24

Post by halostatue » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:14 PM UTC

rosejn wrote: post #16

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 t…

Just a point: John Gruber has never allowed comments on Daring Fireball. This is not a new policy nor something he chooses on a per-post basis.

To me, Gruber is being consistent here: he doesn't like software patents (see his commentary on Lodsys and other NPEs), but the fact is that they exist and the way they're used now is as he describes. Google is being disingenuous about Android and patents; Google's lawyer lied about the Novell patents and the lie has been called out by Microsoft. Google may have good reason to have not wanted to go into a co-purchase agreement of the Novell patents (as Gruber outlines in this post), but to complain of unfairness now that you lost a bidding war? That's childish.

Google would actually have a moral high ground if they hadn't even bid for the Novell patents. Not bidding for them would have been a remarkably stupid move given the current patent/legal landscape, even though it meant that Google gave up the moral high ground.

Patents in the U.S. are badly broken, and I despair that software patents were ever granted in the first place. One of the things that I suspect that most people who oppose software patents forget, though, is that even if software patents were taken off the table tomorrow, the existing patents wouldn't go away. The government wouldn't retroactively invalidate any software patent ever granted (it'd be a hard enough fight just to get software patents blocked for the future), and courts examining the patents tend to look at whether the patent was (or could have been) valid at the time of its granting, not whether it makes sense now.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#25

Post by joebadmo » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:16 PM UTC

AllenKids wrote: post #20

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. Las…

Yes, that's generally what smart people do when they're losing an argument: deny all terms and definitions. That's my point: once you render it all meaningless, it's easy to argue whatever you want, as Gruber demonstrates.

For example: But the bottom line is that they wanted to use these patents competitively.

Why is that the bottom line? That's in fact clearly not the bottom line, since it completely elides the distinction that Google is making. And calling it the bottom line is misdirection.

Some people seem to think that Android doesn’t really violate any existing worthy patents. That’s all just a bunch of bogus patents that never should have been granted, and companies like Microsoft and Apple are just tying up Android handset makers in court out of dishonest competitive spite. If that’s the case, then I suppose you can argue that Google’s pursuit of these patents was out of the goodness of their corporate heart.

But if Android does violate worthy patents, Google’s actions here are just as competitive as any other companies. You can guess which side I’m on, I suppose.

This is maybe the most disingenous part. The same could be said of anyone afraid of getting sued by patent trolls like Lodsys/Intellectual Vultures. 'If you're not really violating any "existing worthy" patents, then you have nothing to worry about.'

"But these are the laws we have." Indeed.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#26

Post by beej71 » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:17 PM UTC

So the summary is... Google comes across as whining...?

The thing is, with a title like "More of Google and Patents", I can't quickly tell that a link in my RSS feed is headed to daringfireball.

There is a nice Chrome plugin I just found called "Blocker", however, so that just put a final end to that.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#27

Post by azakai » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:19 PM UTC

> But if Android does violate worthy patents, Google’s actions here are just as competitive as any other companies. You can guess which side I’m on, I suppose.

Why not point us to such a worthy patent, then? All the patents that have been mentioned publicly so far have clearly been worthless and trivial.

To make his case, a single worthy patent would suffice.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#28

Post by MikeCapone » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:19 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…

He must be extremely angry at car companies all copying each other. And what about microwave makers? Toasters? Airplanes? How dare they?

Re: More on Google and Patents

#29

Post by thezilch » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:19 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #12

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.

The only reports I've read about are Apple's claims and lawsuits [against Android handsets], which I have found fairly disingenuous when one can find Apple borrowing from past IP. The remaining claims I've not heard of and have little reason they are anything but hot air and rabid FUD.

Places copies Yelp data? Beyond the shallow article and the sites themselves, it is not obvious for the places I frequent. We are not given details about what Google was allowed to crawl, scrape, or otherwise. Google has millions, for any given site, of records that it will display through its search or otherwise.

Gruber's claims against Google Plus and Offers are him merely grasping at straws and trying to paint Google as bad guys. What exactly is he or "his audience" claiming against these properties?

Re: More on Google and Patents

#30

Post by nextparadigms » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:20 PM UTC

AllenKids wrote: post #20

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. Las…

Well, Gruber definitely sounds like he's part of Apple's undercover PR team. Why send your messages through official channels and put yourself out there like Google does, and then risk the backlash on the company, when 3rd party PR agents can do it for you.