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

91–100 of 160 posts

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#91

Post by triaboat »

smokeyj wrote: post #88
danilocampos wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everything about business is predatory. By that reasoning, Google should have either bought the patents or taken their lumps when they lost, right? If business is inherently predatory, whatever predatory groups wish to form are free to do so in the advancement of their own interests. Why is it for Google to bandy about anticompetitive concerns, crying "DOJ!" but not their competitors?

Anti-competition isn't an empirically observable phenomena. In theory it was supposed to serve the consumer, but there is a disconnect between the alleged intention and reality. Kind of a big problem. Preventing a company from offering a free product in no way serves the consumer. I don't want to imply google is more ethical than the competition, but in this instance calling for an abolition of patents is in line wit…

Preventing a company from offering a free product in no way serves the consumer.

In a general context, a company practicing 'predatory pricing' may do so to drive the other competitors out of business. Once that happens, it's free to raise prices to monopolistic levels which would end up hurting consumers eventually.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#92

Post by GHFigs »

tensor wrote: post #71
Steko wrote: post #67

"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 bi…

That argument seems completely fine to me. If you have more funds then you can block a competitor from competing by buying up all the resources. Another example of this is cellular providers in Canada. New spectrum opened up, but somehow the established duopoly managed to by all the new spectrum in Quebec leaving none for the incumbent providers. They are not even using the spectrum, but effectively locked competitor…

People are simply calling it as they see it.

So is Gruber.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#93

Post by tensor »

Steko wrote: post #86
tensor wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument seems completely fine to me. If you have more funds then you can block a competitor from competing by buying up all the resources. Another example of this is cellular providers in Canada. New spectrum opened up, but somehow the established duopoly managed to by all the new spectrum in Quebec leaving none for the incumbent providers. They are not even using the spectrum, but effectively locked competitor…

Gruber is fairly critical of Apple at times but generally takes a "I wish Apple would do X but I understand why they're doing Y (or ~X)" position when he does so. Apple's a company that hasn't missed that often or that big recently though so it's hard for me to judge where he should have gone hugely negative on them in your view.

MobileMe was a nearly complete failure. The original Apple TV was not a strong product at all. The new iCal and Contacts in Lion are a huge design failure. Their server line was pretty much a failure too.

Those are Apple's biggest failures in recent times. Looking at Gruber's blog archives, I don't think it's a much of a stretch to say that he's a biased writer.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#94

Post by mikeash »

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?

Do you think Apple would have decided not to make the iPhone if they hadn't been able to patent aspects of it?

Other companies are trying desperately to match the iPhone, and failing. As far as I can tell, their failure to match it has nothing to do with patents.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#95

Post by falien »

GHFigs wrote: post #79
ender7 wrote: post #55

Gruber's argument is dependent on the assumption that only people like Nathan Myrvold hold what I'm going to call "bullshit patents". "Google isn’t arguing against a handful of never-should-have-been-issued software patents. They’re not arguing against patent trolls like Myrvold and his shell companies like Lodsys — companies that have no products of their own, no actual inventions, just patents for ideas for product…

Copyright should protect UI But it doesn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_v._Borland

um, that is not what that decision says. It says the interface may be covered by copyright to the extent that it contains expression. That would seem to me to have a large overlap with look and feel patents.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#96

Post by kelnos »

danilocampos wrote: post #49
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…

"Yes, because Google isn't forming a cartel to stifle competition." Hmm. I'm not so sure. There's a way to see Google's behavior where what they're doing is precisely that. Predatory pricing exists when you try to take over a market by selling something so cheap, other competitors are driven out – or prevented from entering, since they couldn't recoup the costs involved in developing a product. In league with their m…

Predatory pricing exists when you try to take over a market by selling something so cheap, other competitors are driven out

This doesn't really hold for something that doesn't have to be physically "produced" like a software license. If that were the case, you could accuse every open source alternative of engaging in predatory pricing. Usually you see this term applied to physical goods, when a company sells them at or below cost for the sole reason of forcing out a competitor who cannot stay in business doing the same.

... or prevented from entering, since they couldn't recoup the costs involved in developing a product.

Well, Android started as a little company that Google eventually bought. There's no reason why someone couldn't do something similar. The barrier of entry is pretty low, at least for the software stack. Getting it onto real devices is another matter, but I don't think that part is particularly relevant here.

Hell, there's no reason why MS couldn't license WP7 for free. They just choose not to.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#97

Post by kelnos »

kljensen wrote: post #68
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.

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…

That makes no sense. How can you sue a non-practicing entity for infringing your patents? If they're non-practicing, they're not doing anything.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#98

Post by smokeyj »

triaboat wrote: post #91
smokeyj wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-competition isn't an empirically observable phenomena. In theory it was supposed to serve the consumer, but there is a disconnect between the alleged intention and reality. Kind of a big problem. Preventing a company from offering a free product in no way serves the consumer. I don't want to imply google is more ethical than the competition, but in this instance calling for an abolition of patents is in line wit…

Preventing a company from offering a free product in no way serves the consumer. In a general context, a company practicing 'predatory pricing' may do so to drive the other competitors out of business. Once that happens, it's free to raise prices to monopolistic levels which would end up hurting consumers eventually.

> Once that happens, it's free to raise prices to monopolistic levels

These fears are not based on evidence. When has someone released a free product only until they wiped out all the competition, proceeding to jack up prices? I mean, once they jack up the prices there is an established market ripe to pick customers from. Furthermore, the temporary profits, if any, would only be temporary and would be a greater cost to their corporate image.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#99

Post by Dysiode »

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

I may be naive but I simply don't understand the concept of transferring the ownership of a patent. If Google buys a patent related to Android then HOORAY! They can use that idea in Android. If Microsoft buys that patent related to Android then HOORAY! Microsoft gets to sue Google.

It seems to me that "violations" are simply "didn't pay enough monies." Why is buying a patent your product violates a bad thing?

and, on a semi-unrelated note, why are patents transferable at all? Shouldn't they only benefit the person who created it? what claim does some arbitrary company dozens of sales down the line have to that patent?

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#100

Post by gaulinmp »

triaboat wrote: post #91
smokeyj wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-competition isn't an empirically observable phenomena. In theory it was supposed to serve the consumer, but there is a disconnect between the alleged intention and reality. Kind of a big problem. Preventing a company from offering a free product in no way serves the consumer. I don't want to imply google is more ethical than the competition, but in this instance calling for an abolition of patents is in line wit…

Preventing a company from offering a free product in no way serves the consumer. In a general context, a company practicing 'predatory pricing' may do so to drive the other competitors out of business. Once that happens, it's free to raise prices to monopolistic levels which would end up hurting consumers eventually.

Thank you for raising this point, because it's only in this case that lower (free) prices are anti-competitive. If the company raises prices to _above_ fair market value after their artificially low prices have driven out competition then the DOJ comes after them. If they leave the product free forever, that's not a problem because it's good for the consumer.

So my question to the Google nay-sayers is do you expect Google to raise prices on Android once they have forced MS and Apple out of the smartphone market? Or do they just have a superior product model in which they can offer free software and make money on ads while their competition must charge for the software. I personally don't think they will ever raise Android prices so it's just good competition.

Post reply on HN