Google and Microsoft make patent peace • Hacker News Board

Re: Google and Microsoft make patent peace

#31

Post by rayiner » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 3:59 AM UTC

jeswin wrote: post #29

rhino369 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's sorta the purpose of patents. Incumbent companies create a ton of valuable technology that new competitors would otherwise get access to only because the incumbents invested in them. You can disagree with rewarding it, but it's not totally insane.

That an idea can have ownership is totally insane. The only reason it doesn't sound insane is because we've been told over and over that it's a good thing. - People will invent no matter what. Money is just one type of reward. - If you don't want competitors copying immediately, don't announce or demo it before hand and keep it secret until you have all marketing in place. Or limit distribution and offer it in contro…

That really misses the point of how R&D works in most fields. LTE wasn't invented by people tinkering in their basement. It took rooms full of PhDs and those cost money. At the same time, it's not technology where having a first-mover marketing advantage matters much. It may take six months for someone to reverse-engineer your technology, but much longer than that to recoup your initial R&D.

There is a reason companies like Qualcomm and most Internet companies are on opposite sides of the patent debate, and its not because Qualcomm is evil and Twitter isn't. It's because what it takes to make their respective products, and what it takes to protect their markets from copycats is fundamentally different.

Re: Google and Microsoft make patent peace

#32

Post by tracker1 » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 4:00 AM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #11

bsimpson wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. It sounds a lot like a "we were here first" shakedown.

That's sorta the purpose of patents. Incumbent companies create a ton of valuable technology that new competitors would otherwise get access to only because the incumbents invested in them. You can disagree with rewarding it, but it's not totally insane.

The problem is that in certain segments, most specifically in terms of software development... the "valuable technology" can generally be implemented by anyone skilled in the crafy, and generally speaking doesn't have a lot of outlay in terms of research/development. That's not to say there aren't segments of software development that should qualify, but imho if allowed should really be more like 5 years, not 20 for software patents. And most software patents should simply have been denied outright.

Re: Google and Microsoft make patent peace

#33

Post by jeswin » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 4:25 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #31

jeswin wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That an idea can have ownership is totally insane. The only reason it doesn't sound insane is because we've been told over and over that it's a good thing. - People will invent no matter what. Money is just one type of reward. - If you don't want competitors copying immediately, don't announce or demo it before hand and keep it secret until you have all marketing in place. Or limit distribution and offer it in contro…

That really misses the point of how R&D works in most fields. LTE wasn't invented by people tinkering in their basement. It took rooms full of PhDs and those cost money. At the same time, it's not technology where having a first-mover marketing advantage matters much. It may take six months for someone to reverse-engineer your technology, but much longer than that to recoup your initial R&D. There is a reason compani…

LTE could very well be invented by international collaboration involving academia, industry and individuals. Why should industry get into it? To build expertise. Need to shift from companies seeing patents as assets to expertise/people as assets. That will also create better work environments.

Re: Google and Microsoft make patent peace

#34

Post by throwawaykf05 » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 4:26 AM UTC

nemothekid wrote: post #22

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It started a couple months before the acquisition but largely went through and ended (I.e. with the 14M verify against) while Google owned Motorola.

Well I'm not sure how the article backs up your statement. It was Microsoft who started the patent litigation against Motorola , and it was Motorola who decided to not pay Microsoft. Google was only tangentially involved due to its acquisition which happened after the litigation started, so I'm unsure how Google is getting a free pass - Google really didn't do anything (as far as the scope of the article goes).

When you fully own the entity that is involved, you are not "tangentially" involved.

Re: Google and Microsoft make patent peace

#35

Post by throwawaykf05 » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 5:05 AM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #20

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My bad, was not very clear, I meant TFA does not mention the 14M judgement that Google was slapped with, marking it as the only company legally proven to be abusing patents.

Litigation is a crap-shoot. Microsoft could have just as easily been slapped with such a judgement on its FAT patent that provoked that countersuit. Instead, it went the other way. The only thing that's clear is that Microsoft was the aggressor. Without the FAT litigation, there would have been no h.264 litigation.

Sure, litigation a crapshoot, but MS has asserted the FAT (and other) patents numerous times but has not seen anything like this judgement. In fact, even the most egregious patent trolls have not suffered anything like this. The thing that is really clear but missed by most is that this was the one lawsuit where pretty much every nuetral party involved agreed that Google / Motorola was the bad actor, and a penalty was imposed on the badness of the actions, totally unrelated to the quantity of infringement itself.

Re: Google and Microsoft make patent peace

#36

Post by Oletros » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 5:09 AM UTC

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #15

nemothekid wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you link the right article - the referenced article references a court case between Motorola and Microsoft - one that started before Google's acquisition of Moto. It seems the patent battle was Microsoft abuse of its own patents to take a percentage of all Android sales (and Moto's revenue). Edit: Motorola vs Microsoft, not Google

It started a couple months before the acquisition but largely went through and ended (I.e. with the 14M verify against) while Google owned Motorola.

The filling by Microsoft in november 2010 is not a couple of months before Google's acquisition

Re: Google and Microsoft make patent peace

#37

Post by throwawaykf05 » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 5:14 AM UTC

jeswin wrote: post #33

rayiner wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That really misses the point of how R&D works in most fields. LTE wasn't invented by people tinkering in their basement. It took rooms full of PhDs and those cost money. At the same time, it's not technology where having a first-mover marketing advantage matters much. It may take six months for someone to reverse-engineer your technology, but much longer than that to recoup your initial R&D. There is a reason compani…

LTE could very well be invented by international collaboration involving academia, industry and individuals. Why should industry get into it? To build expertise. Need to shift from companies seeing patents as assets to expertise/people as assets. That will also create better work environments.

Not all collaboration is equal, or even comparable. If your part of the collaboration is sinking huge amount of resources into inventing the technology, and somebody else's is turning it into marketable products, shouldn't both enjoy the rewards? There are straightforward mechanisms for the latter party. What mechanism would you propose for adequate compensation to the former?

Re: Google and Microsoft make patent peace

#38

Post by throwawaykf05 » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 5:20 AM UTC

tracker1 wrote: post #32

rhino369 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's sorta the purpose of patents. Incumbent companies create a ton of valuable technology that new competitors would otherwise get access to only because the incumbents invested in them. You can disagree with rewarding it, but it's not totally insane.

The problem is that in certain segments, most specifically in terms of software development... the "valuable technology" can generally be implemented by anyone skilled in the crafy, and generally speaking doesn't have a lot of outlay in terms of research/development. That's not to say there aren't segments of software development that should qualify, but imho if allowed should really be more like 5 years, not 20 for…

Sure, most things in software can be implemented by anyone skilled in the craft, but how many can invent it? And furthermore, when speaking of "skilled in the art", let's keep in mind the perennial HN threads about hiring and how 99% of developers can't do FizzBuzz.

Re: Google and Microsoft make patent peace

#39

Post by digi_owl » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 5:41 AM UTC

jeswin wrote: post #29

rhino369 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's sorta the purpose of patents. Incumbent companies create a ton of valuable technology that new competitors would otherwise get access to only because the incumbents invested in them. You can disagree with rewarding it, but it's not totally insane.

That an idea can have ownership is totally insane. The only reason it doesn't sound insane is because we've been told over and over that it's a good thing. - People will invent no matter what. Money is just one type of reward. - If you don't want competitors copying immediately, don't announce or demo it before hand and keep it secret until you have all marketing in place. Or limit distribution and offer it in contro…

Well patents are not really an ownership. It is a time limited exclusive use of what the patent covers, in exchange for writing it down. This so that once the patent runs out, the wider society benefits.

Mind you, patents came about when the steam engine was a new thing.

Also, that they cover software is a very recent thing. Initially they covered mechanical systems (pistons, rods, cogs etc etc) set up to specific tasks, and chemicals (put X parts of Y into Z under boil).

What seemed to happen was that at some point software got involved as controlling these earlier items in a more precise manner than humans or mechanics alone could (monitor temperature, put stuff into other stuff when it hits the exact one, extract everything a precise number of seconds later etc).

This was then declared, by court, to be a distinct patent from the same process done via purely manual or mechanical means. A ruling that later lawyers built on to basically get de-facto software patents.

Re: Google and Microsoft make patent peace

#40

Post by throwawaykf05 » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 5:49 AM UTC

Oletros wrote: post #36

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It started a couple months before the acquisition but largely went through and ended (I.e. with the 14M verify against) while Google owned Motorola.

The filling by Microsoft in november 2010 is not a couple of months before Google's acquisition

Mea culpa, my memory is bad, so let's lay out the timeline:

Early Oct 2010: Microsoft files lawsuit.

Late Oct 2010: Motorola countersues.

Aug 2011: Google announces Motorola acquisition. (Many would say Google's watch starts now.)

May 2012: Google closes Motorola acquisition.

Sept 2013: Microsoft wins 14M judgement with jury deciding unanimously that Google was a bad actor.

Regardless of where you start the stopwatch, Google had at least a full 16 months to prevent this outcome. And note again, Google was the only company involved in the smartphone wars to suffer this fate. Given its previous rhetoric about "patent abuse", this is nothing but hypocrisy.