More on Google and Patents • Hacker News Board

Re: More on Google and Patents

#31

Post by mythz » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:21 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?

Microsoft invited Google to be apart of Novell's patents NOT Nortel's 4.5B war chest of patents.

If Google wanted to buy Novell's patents and use them as defensive patents - it makes little sense for them to go in partnership with the company it's trying to defend themselves against.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#32

Post by AllenKids » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:25 PM UTC

nextparadigms wrote: post #30

AllenKids wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Gruber certainly has his vested interest and POV. Is there anything wrong and unethical about it?

If a VP of one $190B public company can whine like a spoiled brat and be considered a good PR move. Perhaps we hit a new low much lower than Gruber's obvious bias.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#33

Post by icarus_drowning » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:25 PM UTC

Google’s blog post comes across as whining that Apple and Microsoft (Microsoft especially) aren’t sitting back and allowing Android to destroy their businesses.

No, Google's blog post rightly points out that Microsoft and Apple haven chosen to fight against Android by litigation rather than invention. If Google where "whining" that Microsoft and Apple were building cooler stuff into their phones, it would be laughable. But that isn't what Google is saying. Suggesting that Google wants MS/Apple to "[sit] back and [allow] Android to destroy their business" is an obvious and clumsy strawman.

Gruber isn't arguing the merits of the platforms. He's arguing that the patent system as-is does work, and that Microsoft and Apple shouldn't be criticized for using it. The problem is, they aren't merely using it, they are abusing it, which seems to suggest that it doesn't work nearly as well as Gruber says it does.

[EDIT: Minor grammatical cleanup]

Re: More on Google and Patents

#34

Post by ender7 » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:26 PM UTC

azakai wrote: post #27

> 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.

Exactly. Every patent that I've seen (for example, Apple vs. HTC) boils down to complete bullshit. I'd welcome someone finding a non-bullshit patent that Android is clearly violating (possibly something with Java? They don't use any of the JVM technology and I don't think I could consider programming language semantics patentable).

Relatedly:

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.

For a man who is so in love with Everything is a Remix [1], this strikes me as an odd position. Once things like this are up for grabs, you can start pointing fingers all the way back to the first transistor. There's a thick line between "remix" and "ripoff" and I've yet to see Google cross it in a significant manner.

[1] http://www.everythingisaremix.info/

Re: More on Google and Patents

#35

Post by hullo » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:31 PM UTC

nextparadigms wrote: post #17

A-K wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, true. but: that doesn't matter, at least to the argument in question.

a. Google complains that these companies were colluding against them in the Novell deal. b. Microsoft shows that they were not in fact colluding against them in the Novell deal.

Whether or not it would have made business sense for Google to join that pool (it clearly wouldn't have) doesn't matter within the narrow scope of whether they're entitled to complain using the specific words they've chosen to make their complaint, which, for whatever reason, people seem to really enjoy discussing on the internet this week.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#36

Post by AllenKids » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:35 PM UTC

joebadmo wrote: post #25

AllenKids wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dist…

Patent trove is not a defense against patent troll.

Patent Trolls do not have any product that can be counter-sued.

A powerful weapon against frivolous patent claims whether they are brought up by patent trolls or litigious competitors is simply trying to invalidate such patents, or proving that you in fact does not violate patents in dispute. And it can be done. Smaller developers and individuals may not have the means to fight the battle, which is a serious problem in itself. But it is so not a problem for Google I would assume.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#37

Post by nextparadigms » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:36 PM UTC

Is anyone willing to go through what Apple copies, and make a full list with specific items they've copied from others? Because I'm sure like 80% of the technology used in their products is not their own, and most of the other 20% was based on older technology.

Look, I'm not saying Apple is not an innovative company. It is. But what exactly does an innovative company mean? Does it mean their product is 100% based on their own technology? 90% based on their own technology?

I doubt it even comes close to that. Take the iPhone for example. Did Apple re-invent the the 2G tech in it? The 3G one? Did they invent the processor in it? What about the GPU? Did they invent the whole multi-touch panel? Was the invention 100% based on their knowledge and technology if it was? I'm sure the UI can be de-constructed the same way, too, to prove most of it is not "brand new".

If they invented so much in the iPhone, why is it that they can only win against HTC with patents from 1994 and 1996, that aren't even related to smartphones, let alone the iPhone?

It really bothers me to see how everyone treats iPhone as if 100% of its technology was invented by Apple, and 100% of Android's technology was "stolen" and "copied", because that's completely false.

Perhaps, the iPhone has 10% of its technology that is actually new, and perhaps Android only has 5% of it that is brand new, and because of that I suppose you can call Apple more innovative than Google, but let's not pretend that Apple doesn't copy anything, or let's turn a blind eye to the things Apple copies, just because they're a little more innovative than Google.

People need to wake up and see that ALL companies copy and base their technology on something else, but even when they do copy it, it's usually not a 100% carbon copy, but a derivative technology (think iOS 5 notification system), and that's how technology evolves.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#38

Post by A-K » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:38 PM UTC

joebadmo wrote: post #21

A-K wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I did confused Nortel and Novell. My mistake. The biggest issue I guess I have is that, in addition to causing a fair bit of confusion, David Drummond didn't do Google any favors by originally writing as if they were also excluded from being included in the Novell buy. It's easy to backtrack once your competition has some illuminating facts to put out into the open.

I'm of the opinion that there aren't really any true winners, at least in the public's eye, in patent bidding wars. But Google has definitely stumbled through the post-bidding PR.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#39

Post by stanleydrew » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 5:56 PM UTC

AllenKids wrote: post #36

joebadmo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dist…

Patent trove is not a defense against patent troll. Patent Trolls do not have any product that can be counter-sued. A powerful weapon against frivolous patent claims whether they are brought up by patent trolls or litigious competitors is simply trying to invalidate such patents, or proving that you in fact does not violate patents in dispute. And it can be done. Smaller developers and individuals may not have the me…

A powerful weapon against frivolous patent claims whether they are brought up by patent trolls or litigious competitors is simply trying to invalidate such patents, or proving that you in fact does not violate patents in dispute.

Let me say that I completely agree. However, this assumes that pursuing such a defense is less costly than cross-licensing or other settlement options. Moreover it misses the fact that owning patents almost certainly deters competitors from suing in the first place. That's what mutually assured destruction is all about.

Re: More on Google and Patents

#40

Post by kenjackson » Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 6:02 PM UTC

thezilch wrote: post #29

kenjackson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Honestly, I'm not clear if you're arguing the validity of Gruber's claims or that you'd never heard of them.

I'm not saying that his audience is making any claim. I'm saying that his audience knows what claims Gruber is referring to. I do agree that sources rarely hurt, but in this case it doesn't seem crucial.

With that said, Gruber is the guy who did a crusade against Ina Fried because she only linked to a source and didn't spell out the author's full name. So given that, it's probably fair to stretch Gruber for his ommission of sources.