Drummond is very smart. And he's always been friendly to me. But that's not to be confused with Google being the good guy. They tried to buy these patents and failed.
And they claim that they aren't litigious with patents, and they haven't been yet. But to paint them as the victim is disingenuous -- while they don't use patents offensively, they have many other tools at their disposal that they do use offensively, market share in advertising and search amongst them.
Google is a massive company with massive resources. They happen to be exceptionally smart and know how to use tools outside of litigation to achieve their means -- but that doesn't make them any less a monopoly or anti-competitive company; far from it.
It's impossible to view Drummond's post in a box -- it's not just about how patents hinder innovation -- /everybody knows that/ already. But Google does everything for a reason, they are very strategic. Since Google knows it has better tools to be competitive outside of patents, it is in their interest to eliminate patents as a source of pressure from competitors.
And if you invent something amazing, and you patent it, and then Google decides to copy you -- you may not feel that patents hinder innovation as much as you do right now. But since they are a behemoth with lots of other tools at their disposal, they want to eliminate a favorite weapon of their competitors. Smart, but altruistic it may not be.
I don't understand your comment. The OP is about Android being attacked through patents instead of through innovation, and you don't seem to be denying that that's what's happening. The article doesn't claim that "Google is always good", nor even that Google never uses anti-competitive practices. So what exactly are you objecting to? I don't think anyone here needs to be reminded that Google is a business and wants to make money.
We're talking about patents here. Even if what you say is true, does that mean they "deserve" to be crushed by bogus patents? Bogus patents aren't helping anyone, and in at least several cases they have been used by others to hunt Apple and Microsoft, too.
I think there is a big difference between litigating your competition away and out competing them. I also see a big difference between the way Google approaches vendor lock in and their competitors do. I also can think of a big name brand competing service for just about everything Google does. Thusly,I disagree with your statement that Google is a monopoly or anti-competitive.
> Since Google knows it has better tools to be competitive outside of patents, it is in their interest to eliminate patents as a source of pressure from competitors.
This is nonsense. Google has a huge number of smart people working for them - if they wanted to enter a patent war they are extremely well equipped to do so. Everything I've seen from them tells me that they simply culturally biased against doing that. They'd just rather spend their time inventing cool new stuff than suing about old stuff.
It's blatantly incorrect to say of Apple (and even Microsoft) that "Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation."
Regardless of one's feelings about software patent lawsuits (I'm opposed), a better phrase than "instead of" might be "in addition to".
Agree totally. It doesn't really appeal to me personally, but Microsoft in particular is trying to do some new things from a UI and software perspective with Windows Phone. From what I have read about it, it actually seems like one of the few products where MS hasn't tried to systematically copy what is being done elsewhere.
Forget Multitouch. Let's talk about how google one day decided to take Java, a project Sun had spent decades developing and selling as a product, and copy it (not necessarily the source code) and give it away for free, in all of it's Google "Don't be Evil" righteousness. Thus causing handset makers who were paying Sun for their product to stop paying them and instead get the free version from Google instead.
Is android a better platform than Java's? Yes, definitely. But that's not the right question. The right question is: was it right for Google to take someone else's IP and give it away for free?
Frankly I hate the way people view Google, as some righteous white-knight out to save the world from having to pay for anything that's worth buying. Instead "just give me all your personal info, and look at a few advertisements, and be on your way" (pat on the head).
I think Oracle has every right to go after Google for hijacking Java and turning it into another add-generating revenue stream, without so much as a tip of the hat to the company that spent decades and billions of dollars building it into what it is today.
I don't think you're familiar with the licence history of Java, Sun has long allowed free third party implementations of Java as part of it's attempt to get Java adopted as the standard development language.
Is this why we're seeing a sudden burst of anti-patent news? Is Google in the early phases of drumming up grassroots support for a direct assault on software patents in general, without their name being on the effort? Is this post actually move 3 instead of move 1?
Honest questions, BTW, if there's anybody with answers who are allowed to give answers...
I wouldn't be surprised if Google is pushing this story along as a PR effort, but they can't be the only thing behind it. Lodsys suing iOS developers was one of the major catalysts in turning this into a relatively hot topic and I don't see how Google could have realistically have had much of a hand in that.
I find Google's stance here ingenuous. They're attempting to portray themselves as the persecuted innovator, but their behaviour in the market in question doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
While the patents Apple are using to attack Android with seem dubious, the motivation for this tactic is obvious. Google extremely blatantly cloned the look and feel of the iPhone and have pursued a strategy of dumping Android in an attempt to reduce smartphones to a commodity. Of course Apple will try every trick in the book to prevent them doing this.
As a strategy for Google this makes perfect sense, but playing the wounded party as they do in this post is ridiculous, whichever horse you have in the smartphone OS race.
I think that some people have missed some of the points in the article in particular the aggressive litigation against Samsung, HTC, Motorola etc it isn't just Google thats being targeted. This is an anti-competitive stance, Apple, Oracle and Microsoft are being very aggressive in their pursuits. In my opinion the critical and genuine patents in mobile are linked to the radio portion of the device, the remaining patents are dubious as they don't represent novel or non-obvious solutions to a problem, more I did it this particular way so I am patenting it.
The US patent system, is broken. The cases as far as I know are being fought in the US, I doubt any of the claims would be accepted by a European court, though feel free to correct me.
So ... if Google had won the patents, was their plan to just release them into the wild? Or would they be defending them, just as these other companies are doing?
Based on what they publicly said, it would probably be something like granting a license to anyone who asked which would be revoked if they sued Google. It would probably have been very much like the license for WebM[1].
Brad Smith (Microsoft General Counsel):
Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no.
Patents are here and companies will find a way to exist with either DoJ's help or by acquiring their own patent portfolio. That's not the interesting news here to me.
I think by being offensive and teaming up with Microsoft, Apple is risking being at the losing end of a huge PR and mind share battle here. Microsoft still makes money using their market position but they are no longer in the mind share race.
Apple's business is in a position right now where they aren't a monopoly yet to start abusing it - unlike Microsoft which has so much leverage that losing mind share and having bad PR doesn't do much in terms of being a dent in existing, established business. However, for Apple if the rising tide against their close-ness continues with the help of economical realities and being perceived as a bully in the same league as Microsoft - they could see stagnation.
Apple has really no reason to pick that bullying route - they are always first to create new market categories, they are the most profitable ones, they still have lot of novelty factor going for them and they can compete in every better way if they wanted.
Note to Google - fix smartphones and insure against future patent abuse by advancing an even better alternative - a fully formed HTML5+Javascript mobile OS offering.
Mobile and Web are the same thing, its just we have a legacy crud that needs to be factored away.
Ideally my phone runs linux with a GPU accelerated HTML5 UI, and has a javascript programming model with open API to get to hardware features. We are nearly there.
I believe Objective-C and Java languages are ultimately unsuited to phone app development. [ because phone app development _is_ web app development ]
This would be a bold, unifying, visionary strategy. You already have this in place, it just needs to be amplified - doing so could be the perfect strategy to win the patent game by making the patent game largely irrelevant.
Huh? HTML5 + Javascript would not avoid future patent abuse. There are lots of dubious web-related patents from the dot-com bubble that haven't expired yet.
Patent lawsuits are probably filed nowadays how you would threat opponent in a game of chess. You just need to attack to maintain the strategic position. You need a lawsuit in an advanced state as a strategic asset. I don't buy that Google is really any better in a moral sense.
I do believe, though, that there are plenty of people at the companies driving these current litigations that hate what they are doing. It's just the rules of the game that let aggression emerge.
If the patents were used to block android out of market, then maybe it is harming the consumers. But I see no problem with demanding license fees and maintaining certain feature exclusivity, even that means Android become not so free or less user-friendly. Google does not represent all people and Android has no inherent right to be free.
You make it sound so reasonable. There is a patent gold rush right now. The USPTO is approving thousands of patents that cover the same obvious ideas. Parties that have lost in the marketplace or haven't even participated are effectively taxing the winners by extorting patent fees. Google could pay the fees to the losers and acquire enough patents the reach an equilibrium via mutually assured destruction with their competition, but the market is effectively closed to anyone without the extremely deep pockets.
I have many problems with demands of license fees for patents that are trivial. All of the patents mentioned so far in this battle have been of that sort.
This isn't a valid use of the patent system - it's an abuse of that system. This is very clear to both people that suppose software patents and that oppose them.
If someone can show a valid, nontrivial patent that Android is being attacked with, I might change my mind.
Lawsuits over trivial patents scare me because I might be the next target. If I found another startup some day, and develop all my own technology, I can still be sued over trivial patents. If it can happen to Google, what's to stop it from happening to any of us, if we become successful enough to be targets for this sort of thing?
you're making the mistake of assuming that these patents cover real features or inventions. they don't. they are just pages of incomprehensible text that lawyers use to extort money. should google really be paying licensing fees for "a system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data"?
and in most of microsoft's existing licensing agreements with android vendors, that haven't even disclosed what patents are being licensed. there's just some vague threat that they have a claim, and you're expected to pay up if you don't want to get sued.
The core idea of Free Software is the notion that one's own creations have every right to be free. If I create something independently, it is my right to give it away for free. Why should some other company I've never heard of and/or never done business with get to charge license fees for something I created myself, without their help?
It isn't the demand for fees, per se, it's the intended result of those fees. Those fees are to be charged at such a rate, a rate practically guaranteed by the monopoly promised by the patent, as to make Android infeasible economically. That behavior is at the very heart of anti-competitive law.
If this was coming from an open source community (instead of Google) that's developing something like Android to give away for free, I would have understood. But, Google gives away Android for free so that it can sell loads of them and there by locking down most of the users (non-geeks) to the Google Ad universe and earn its revenue by selling loads and loads of Ads. Its not like Google genuinely cares about the expensive mobile industry and its actual intent is to provide cheap phones to those who can't afford it (on the lines of OLPC). While whether or not patents and specifically Software patents is good or bad for the society is a different argument, this issue doesn't deserve the same sympathy that companies who are attacked by patent trolls do.
Taking a course of action that is in your best interests does not somehow invalidate the premise that that action is ethical or the right thing to do absent those interests.
technology is an inherently fiercely competitive landscape--a missed technology cycle can materially adversely impact a businesses operations.
coming out of the 2008-2009 recession, companies are flush with cash, of which shareholders encourage companies to invest in various operations, assets, etc. using these cash stockpiles to buy nortel patents and prevent google from enhancing their dominance / protection against litigation in the android space is a form of competition. it is all a game.
I agree that patents are a problem. And, I saw Google's offer today for a free Android phone with a 2-year contract.
I would love a deal on a phone, but I think it is unethical to bundle products in this way. I would rather have the opportunity to switch carriers anytime I want.
I love mobile devices and mobile services, but the market conditions are too restrictive. I'd like to be able to (for example):
o Have multiple devices from different vendors on the same carrier plan
o Have multiple carriers for each of my devices, so I can use whoever has the best service at any particular location
o Pay a fair price for the data I send and receive to/from each carrier, and not pay for what I do not use
o Sign up only for internet service from a carrier, without anything else bundled in that I do not want, such as voice service, SMS plans, etc. Only internet protocol, thank you.
o Use my phone, which I bought, on any compatible carrier, in any country in the world, for a fair price.
If Google offers an android phone with these terms on their main search page, I will gladly pay a fair price for it.
It makes sense for the legal system to guard against copying. If people buying Android phones actually thought they were buying iPhones - that's a problem. But if Apple can convince the government that they had a truly original idea and that no one can use that idea regardless of how they came up with it - that's absurd.
This is wonderful actually. I don't believe Google's motives are altruistic for a minute but the only way to make this debate stick is by having one angry giant of a corporation against it and lucky for everyone Google is the one.
The system is broken but at the same time I suppose we need patents in some form at least for hardware. Apple couldn't make phones if it wasn't for innovative suppliers. The only thing between them going it alone and taking orders from Apple are patents. It's a bit tricky because if this patent battle plays out, Apple, Microsoft, and HP/Palm would be the only players able to make smartphones on their own without fear of patent suits. That's a near monopoly.
It's enough of a tricky debate and politics usually favors entrenched interests of large corporations. Despite Google's clout they couldn't match the sheer magnitude of Apple, Microsoft, and others. Plus, Google has always had an antagonistic relationship with government, since government keeps trying to pry sensitive personal information from Google.
[+] [-] davidu|14 years ago|reply
And they claim that they aren't litigious with patents, and they haven't been yet. But to paint them as the victim is disingenuous -- while they don't use patents offensively, they have many other tools at their disposal that they do use offensively, market share in advertising and search amongst them.
Google is a massive company with massive resources. They happen to be exceptionally smart and know how to use tools outside of litigation to achieve their means -- but that doesn't make them any less a monopoly or anti-competitive company; far from it.
It's impossible to view Drummond's post in a box -- it's not just about how patents hinder innovation -- /everybody knows that/ already. But Google does everything for a reason, they are very strategic. Since Google knows it has better tools to be competitive outside of patents, it is in their interest to eliminate patents as a source of pressure from competitors.
And if you invent something amazing, and you patent it, and then Google decides to copy you -- you may not feel that patents hinder innovation as much as you do right now. But since they are a behemoth with lots of other tools at their disposal, they want to eliminate a favorite weapon of their competitors. Smart, but altruistic it may not be.
[+] [-] mithaler|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] watty|14 years ago|reply
They may be anti-competitive in other areas (although I don't know specifics). Can you provide some sources?
[+] [-] nextparadigms|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WorkingDead|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zmmmmm|14 years ago|reply
This is nonsense. Google has a huge number of smart people working for them - if they wanted to enter a patent war they are extremely well equipped to do so. Everything I've seen from them tells me that they simply culturally biased against doing that. They'd just rather spend their time inventing cool new stuff than suing about old stuff.
[+] [-] yanw|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lopatamd|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hullo|14 years ago|reply
Regardless of one's feelings about software patent lawsuits (I'm opposed), a better phrase than "instead of" might be "in addition to".
[+] [-] JunkDNA|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sek|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] worshipGoogle|14 years ago|reply
Is android a better platform than Java's? Yes, definitely. But that's not the right question. The right question is: was it right for Google to take someone else's IP and give it away for free?
Frankly I hate the way people view Google, as some righteous white-knight out to save the world from having to pay for anything that's worth buying. Instead "just give me all your personal info, and look at a few advertisements, and be on your way" (pat on the head).
I think Oracle has every right to go after Google for hijacking Java and turning it into another add-generating revenue stream, without so much as a tip of the hat to the company that spent decades and billions of dollars building it into what it is today.
Just my $.02.
[+] [-] ig1|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fpgeek|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jerf|14 years ago|reply
Honest questions, BTW, if there's anybody with answers who are allowed to give answers...
[+] [-] georgemcbay|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JunkDNA|14 years ago|reply
http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
The timing is certainly convenient for Google.
[+] [-] ericb|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MrScruff|14 years ago|reply
While the patents Apple are using to attack Android with seem dubious, the motivation for this tactic is obvious. Google extremely blatantly cloned the look and feel of the iPhone and have pursued a strategy of dumping Android in an attempt to reduce smartphones to a commodity. Of course Apple will try every trick in the book to prevent them doing this.
As a strategy for Google this makes perfect sense, but playing the wounded party as they do in this post is ridiculous, whichever horse you have in the smartphone OS race.
[+] [-] justin_hancock|14 years ago|reply
The US patent system, is broken. The cases as far as I know are being fought in the US, I doubt any of the claims would be accepted by a European court, though feel free to correct me.
[+] [-] rufo|14 years ago|reply
Indeed, one of the main courses of action they're taking is to "strengthen our own patent portfolio"…
[+] [-] jawns|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sorbus|14 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
[+] [-] kizel|14 years ago|reply
Interesting to see this blog post on the heels of Google buying 1000 patents from IBM.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/in-battle-for-patents...
[+] [-] brlewis|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kooshball|14 years ago|reply
http://twitter.com/#!/bradsmi/status/98902130412355585
Brad Smith (Microsoft General Counsel): Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no.
[+] [-] srik1234|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blinkingled|14 years ago|reply
I think by being offensive and teaming up with Microsoft, Apple is risking being at the losing end of a huge PR and mind share battle here. Microsoft still makes money using their market position but they are no longer in the mind share race.
Apple's business is in a position right now where they aren't a monopoly yet to start abusing it - unlike Microsoft which has so much leverage that losing mind share and having bad PR doesn't do much in terms of being a dent in existing, established business. However, for Apple if the rising tide against their close-ness continues with the help of economical realities and being perceived as a bully in the same league as Microsoft - they could see stagnation.
Apple has really no reason to pick that bullying route - they are always first to create new market categories, they are the most profitable ones, they still have lot of novelty factor going for them and they can compete in every better way if they wanted.
[+] [-] gord|14 years ago|reply
Mobile and Web are the same thing, its just we have a legacy crud that needs to be factored away.
Ideally my phone runs linux with a GPU accelerated HTML5 UI, and has a javascript programming model with open API to get to hardware features. We are nearly there.
I believe Objective-C and Java languages are ultimately unsuited to phone app development. [ because phone app development _is_ web app development ]
This would be a bold, unifying, visionary strategy. You already have this in place, it just needs to be amplified - doing so could be the perfect strategy to win the patent game by making the patent game largely irrelevant.
[+] [-] fpgeek|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] febeling|14 years ago|reply
I do believe, though, that there are plenty of people at the companies driving these current litigations that hate what they are doing. It's just the rules of the game that let aggression emerge.
[+] [-] AllenKids|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Krylez|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azakai|14 years ago|reply
This isn't a valid use of the patent system - it's an abuse of that system. This is very clear to both people that suppose software patents and that oppose them.
If someone can show a valid, nontrivial patent that Android is being attacked with, I might change my mind.
Lawsuits over trivial patents scare me because I might be the next target. If I found another startup some day, and develop all my own technology, I can still be sued over trivial patents. If it can happen to Google, what's to stop it from happening to any of us, if we become successful enough to be targets for this sort of thing?
[+] [-] notatoad|14 years ago|reply
and in most of microsoft's existing licensing agreements with android vendors, that haven't even disclosed what patents are being licensed. there's just some vague threat that they have a claim, and you're expected to pay up if you don't want to get sued.
[+] [-] nitrogen|14 years ago|reply
The core idea of Free Software is the notion that one's own creations have every right to be free. If I create something independently, it is my right to give it away for free. Why should some other company I've never heard of and/or never done business with get to charge license fees for something I created myself, without their help?
[+] [-] yock|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pcj|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kelnos|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcamillion|14 years ago|reply
Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
I wonder if all parties involved would lobby for the destruction of software patents - wholesale - and call a ceasefire.
[+] [-] lambtron|14 years ago|reply
coming out of the 2008-2009 recession, companies are flush with cash, of which shareholders encourage companies to invest in various operations, assets, etc. using these cash stockpiles to buy nortel patents and prevent google from enhancing their dominance / protection against litigation in the android space is a form of competition. it is all a game.
[+] [-] charlieok|14 years ago|reply
I would love a deal on a phone, but I think it is unethical to bundle products in this way. I would rather have the opportunity to switch carriers anytime I want.
I love mobile devices and mobile services, but the market conditions are too restrictive. I'd like to be able to (for example):
o Have multiple devices from different vendors on the same carrier plan o Have multiple carriers for each of my devices, so I can use whoever has the best service at any particular location o Pay a fair price for the data I send and receive to/from each carrier, and not pay for what I do not use o Sign up only for internet service from a carrier, without anything else bundled in that I do not want, such as voice service, SMS plans, etc. Only internet protocol, thank you. o Use my phone, which I bought, on any compatible carrier, in any country in the world, for a fair price.
If Google offers an android phone with these terms on their main search page, I will gladly pay a fair price for it.
[+] [-] kleptco|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flocial|14 years ago|reply
The system is broken but at the same time I suppose we need patents in some form at least for hardware. Apple couldn't make phones if it wasn't for innovative suppliers. The only thing between them going it alone and taking orders from Apple are patents. It's a bit tricky because if this patent battle plays out, Apple, Microsoft, and HP/Palm would be the only players able to make smartphones on their own without fear of patent suits. That's a near monopoly.
It's enough of a tricky debate and politics usually favors entrenched interests of large corporations. Despite Google's clout they couldn't match the sheer magnitude of Apple, Microsoft, and others. Plus, Google has always had an antagonistic relationship with government, since government keeps trying to pry sensitive personal information from Google.