Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google and Microsoft make patent peace

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: Google and Microsoft make patent peace

#41

Post by throwawaykf05 »

rhino369 wrote: post #27
throwawaykf05 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a big fan of lawyers (personally seen people screwed by them twice) but there's this weird meme that lawyers can make lawsuits happen as they please. The cases where this can happen are very rare as far as I can see, yet the meme persists.

In some situations you actually can essentially create lawsuits out of thin air. In class actions, you can pick and choose people to be "class representatives" and file a suit. Patent trolling is a pretty good example too. You buy some patent you find and then start suing anyone under the sun. But this sort of competitor patent battle isn't easy to start by a lawyer. You'd have to convince your client to start it. Bu…

I was thinking more of the corporate warfare type of lawsuits, but I would still say, given the litigation landscape, that lawyer-initiated lawsuits are rare. Both class-action and patent trolls, despite the disproportionate media attention they garner, appear to be statistically a small fraction of the total litigation activity.

Re: Google and Microsoft make patent peace

#43

Post by icebraining »

doubt_me wrote: post #21
throwawaykf05 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a big fan of lawyers (personally seen people screwed by them twice) but there's this weird meme that lawyers can make lawsuits happen as they please. The cases where this can happen are very rare as far as I can see, yet the meme persists.

Well I am not at all knowledgeable about the different types of lawyers out there but in general the problem doesn't even begin to start with them. Its all the USPTOs fault for even allowing software (zeros and ones) to be patented in the first place (There are probably very legitimate reasons for this that I don't know about). I don't even know how many resources and time are wasted in courts but I imagine it would…

It's not up to the USPTO to decide what is patentable. The courts have repeatedly reaffirmed the legal validity of software patents, so the Patent Office would probably get sued itself if it discriminated against software inventions.

Re: Google and Microsoft make patent peace

#44

Post by Oletros »

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #40
Oletros wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

yap, Google is evil, got it

Re: Google and Microsoft make patent peace

#45

Post by nemothekid »

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #40
Oletros wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

Prevent what outcome. You aren't being clear on how Google abused patents. What patents did specifically Google abuse? If my reading comprehension serves me right, Google didn't sue anyone over the use of any patents - Motorola and Microsoft did. The litigation you listed says Motorola refused to pay a licensing fee, and Microsoft sued - all without the help of Google.

If your argument is that after the the acquisition, Google should have went behind the backs of Moto's lawyers who had been working 8 months on this case and done something - then I assume you are just grasping at straws to create some "hypocrisy" story.

Re: Google and Microsoft make patent peace

#46

Post by WildUtah »

icebraining wrote: post #43
doubt_me wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I am not at all knowledgeable about the different types of lawyers out there but in general the problem doesn't even begin to start with them. Its all the USPTOs fault for even allowing software (zeros and ones) to be patented in the first place (There are probably very legitimate reasons for this that I don't know about). I don't even know how many resources and time are wasted in courts but I imagine it would…

It's not up to the USPTO to decide what is patentable. The courts have repeatedly reaffirmed the legal validity of software patents, so the Patent Office would probably get sued itself if it discriminated against software inventions.

The USPTO isn't required to follow court rulings. The MPEP (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure) isn't even updated to reflect what the courts say unless the PTO likes it.

If you don't like what PTO says, you can always just go to your local federal courthouse to sue for your patent. And the PTO gets sued all the time.

The courts are split on the idea of software patenting because the Supreme Court doesn't understand what software is. Nobody alive can reconcile Benson, Flook, Diehr, Bilski, and Alice. There were four Supreme votes in 2010's Bilski that pure software logic was unpatentable but software that changed the hardware to make it work better was patentable and the example of eligibility was linear programming and compression. Only Scalia was smart enough to see the problem there and even he can't articulate why.

The CAFC -- the patent appeals court -- is relentless in overturning Supreme Court precedents against software patents. Known for being contemptuous of the law and harboring a deeply corrupt majority, the CAFC sees software patents as a gravy train for the patent bar and a permanent tax on a major industry for the benefit of the judges and their friends. Their opinions on the most awful abusive patents reflect a pirate's mentality deliberately ignoring cheating to reach the most harmful conclusions.

Re: Google and Microsoft make patent peace

#49

Post by icebraining »

WildUtah wrote: post #46
icebraining wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not up to the USPTO to decide what is patentable. The courts have repeatedly reaffirmed the legal validity of software patents, so the Patent Office would probably get sued itself if it discriminated against software inventions.

The USPTO isn't required to follow court rulings. The MPEP (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure) isn't even updated to reflect what the courts say unless the PTO likes it. If you don't like what PTO says, you can always just go to your local federal courthouse to sue for your patent. And the PTO gets sued all the time. The courts are split on the idea of software patenting because the Supreme Court doesn't understan…

The USPTO isn't required to follow court rulings. The MPEP (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure) isn't even updated to reflect what the courts say unless the PTO likes it. If you don't like what PTO says, you can always just go to your local federal courthouse to sue for your patent. And the PTO gets sued all the time.

Wouldn't the plaintiffs likely win? I fail to see the major difference.

Re: Google and Microsoft make patent peace

#50

Post by forgotpwtomain »

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.

It's a tricky subject. The argument from the patent side is that if these companies could not patent their technologies / products, they would not be willing to invest nearly as much in development and this would generally hurt human progress.

On the other-hand if you look at big companies like Apple, Facebook the amounts the are investing in genuine human progress is truly paltry compared to their net-worth, and what they are patenting is often ridiculous, generic and clearly not in any way conducive to human progress.

Post reply on HN