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

Google: Patently Absurd

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 160 posts

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#61

Post by icebraining »

itg wrote: post #35
rumpelstiltskin wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it's more choices for the customer. Nothing's stopping the original 'innovator' from bring his product to market as well.

Then what incentive does the original company have in spending time & money into R&D to develop new products when some other company can just rip them off?

The profit to be made between the time the original product launches, and the copies appear. This keeps companies on their toes instead of launching once and milking it for twenty years.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#62

Post by shawndrost »

doe88 wrote: post #36
Lewisham wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know of any case of where Google has used its patents offensively? I don't.

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.

Sure, maybe it'd be unfair (in your view). However, Gruber paints it as hypocritical, which it's not. Google's actions (and the blog post under review) reflect a cohesive ideology: software patents are bunk.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#63

Post by Kylekramer »

But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?

This logic confuses me, and kind of undermines his premise. Seems like the same logic would say "Why does this accused criminal need a lawyer, if he did not actually commit a crime?"

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#64

Post by pohl »

b0sk wrote: post #30

Since Microsoft, Apple cartel bought the Nortel patents aren't they exactly behaving like patent trolls ( Intellectual Ventures ) in this context? You have to be wilfully ignorant not to see the similarity.

I would think not having used an acquired patent in offensive litigation is the salient dissimilarity.

One would have to be willfully ignorant not to see that.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#65

Post by Daishiman »

itg wrote: post #33
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.

"It's hard to take yanw seriously when everything he writes distorts reality and commonsense in the sake of representing them in ways that favor Google Inc and its endeavors." It goes both ways. I don't agree with the way software patents currently work and think patent trolls such as Intellectual Ventures are the scum of the Earth, but Gruber has made some valid points here.

No not really. There's nothing of value in this article.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#66

Post by hn_decay »

Lewisham wrote: post #27
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…

I used to really like Gruber, but he's become a very twisted orator, who seems to bend everything to Apple's favor. Maybe he was always that way, and when Apple was the underdog, it felt more like cheerleading than dishonesty. I felt a decent amount of relief when I dropped him from my RSS reader.

He recently posted a link to a story about Amazon removing the various buy bits from their app, which the snarky commentary "That wasn't hard, was it?"

A few hours later he completely changed position to one where he was mildly critical of Apple for making the app less user friendly. I suspect his overwhelming bias just became too strong for even him to bear.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#67

Post by Steko »

"anti-Google", "disingenuous", "deep dishonesty", "willfully dishonest". "very twisted", "oblivious", "shill", "clown"

The Engadgetization of HN comments is nearly complete. Get off your high horses, Gruber is exactly right that this screed by Google's counsel is incredibly hypocritical.

Regardless of what you think about patents, Google, Apple, etc. the following argument is total bullshit:

Group A has a right to bid on X. Group B is an evil cartel for bidding on X.

Regardless of what you think about patents, Google, Apple, etc. the following argument is total bullshit:

Group A bids 4 billion. Group B bids 4.5 billion. Group B is paying way beyond what they are really worth! Group B has inflated the value of patents! Group B has created a patent bubble!

Gruber's conclusion is spot on:

"No one other than Nathan Myhrvold and his cronies sees the U.S. patent system as functioning properly, but Google’s hypocrisy here is absurd."

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#68

Post by kljensen »

Lewisham wrote: post #29
sasidharm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gruber is no Google-lover, but in this case he is right on the money for calling out Google's hypocrisy. What if Google won the Nortel patents with their pi billion dollars bid?

Do you know of any case of where Google has used its patents offensively? I don't.

Here are all the patent cases in which Google was a plaintiff. They appear to all be declaratory judgments against NPE defendants.

4:2004-cv-04922 Google Inc. v. Skyline Software Systems Inc. 5:2005-md-01654 In re Compression Labs, Inc., Patent Litigation 5:2004-cv-03934 Google Inc. v. Compression Labs Inc et al 4:2008-cv-04144 Google Inc. v. Netlist, Inc. 3:2009-cv-00642 Google Inc. v. Traffic Information LLC 1:2011-cv-00175 Microsoft Corporation et al v. GeoTag Inc. 1:2011-cv-00637 Google Inc. v. Sourceprose, Inc. 4:2009-cv-01243 Google, Inc. v. EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Technology, LLC et al

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#69

Post by Terretta »

To rewind a bit, Apple didn't open this can of worms.

Several companies, all used to using patent suits as a cross licensing negotiation tool, got pissed at the lopsided profitability of truly innovative products in the mobile space, and started to sue. Kodak sued Apple. Nokia sued Apple. And no wonder -- shipping 5.3% of handsets, Apple's taking in 66% of mobile industry profits. How do you mollify your shareholders that some non-handset company is eating your lunch? You try to get a licensing fee.

Apple was new to this game, didn't start by playing it, but thanks to embarrassingly unprecedented success, got turned on from all sides, and drawn in to the fray. Now those throwing stones are realizing Apple (with 25 years of mobile device R&D the phone guys forgot about) can throw back.

I shared the timeline a year ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1166321

... to put this in context:

- Apple accuses HTC of iPhone tech theft (2 March 2010)

- Kodak prompts ITC to consider iPhone ban (18 February 2010)

- Motorola seeks ban on US BlackBerries (26 January 2010)

- Nokia sues Apple, says iPhone infringes ten patents (22 October 2009)

One test for patents' validity is whether the company is enforcing them. With Kodak, Sony, Nokia, Motorola, RIM, and others suing one another as a business-as-usual step in licensing negotiations, the value of Apple's defensive patent portfolio at the licensing negotiation table depends in part on Apple's perceived willingness to stand behind the validity of their portfolio and enforce their patents.

Kodak got their judgment. The other pigeons will eventually all come home to roost. In the mobile industry this is how it's always gone -- we're just noticing it because Apple made phones interesting to the general public so now the press is involved.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#70

Post by hn_decay »

technoslut wrote: post #20
cheald wrote: post #5

I'm not sure how to say this without coming across as incendiary, but what the hell? Is Gruber utterly oblivious to the horrible state of software patents and their abuses? Is he actually condoning the abominable software patents that every other sane developer despises? Yes, Google is trying to ward off being picked to death by a myriad of utterly worthless (in the market, not legal sense) patents. Yes, Google is li…

I don't think that Gruber was making a case for software patents. He has said in the past that he doesn't believe in them. His argument seemed to be that instead of Google lobbying to rid the world of software patents, they seemed to be playing the same game as MS, Apple & Oracle by bidding on the Nortel patents. It doesn't help Google's case that they're an investor in Intellectual Ventures as well. He makes an inte…

I don't think that Gruber was making a case for software patents.

But he was. He is arguing that only a small handful of patents -- those used to attack Apple and/or app store developers -- are the problem with the patent system. That is directly in the section quoted.

His argument seemed to be that instead of Google lobbying to rid the world of software patents, they seemed to be playing the same game as MS, Apple & Oracle by bidding on the Nortel patents.

Google is essentially the bitch of the patent world right now, simply because they're a younger company and a land claim occurred. They can both appeal for changes -- which that very blog entry does in droves -- while preparing for the reality that nothing is going to change overnight.

Google will likely acquire a lot of ammunition (the IBM purchase puts them in a very interesting position relative to Oracle, threatening Oracle's entire platform), make life painful for its competitors, and then will be in a position to call for change without everyone declaring, as they are now, that it is merely convenience.

Post reply on HN