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 for-pay OS licensing business by giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?"
Yes, because Google isn't using an artificial barrier (the patent system). And because those patents are bogus. Because most, if not all, software patents are bogus. That's pretty clearly Google's stated position.
"First, the “estimate” of $1 billion was partially set by Google itself."
But there's no denying that this is by several times the largest amount ever paid for a patent portfolio.
"They’re effectively arguing against the idea of the patent system itself, simply because Android violates a bunch of patents held by Google’s competitors."
Yes they are arguing against the patent system, at least for software, as do many in the industry. There's nothing hypocritical about that.
"Google supporters claim that Google only wants to use patents defensively. But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?"
This argument betrays either a very weak understanding of how defensive patents work or a deep dishonesty of argumentation. Maybe both. This argument can be applied to the very idea of defensive patents.
It's conflicting that someone who's so obviously intelligent and often terribly insightful (not to mention witty) can be so willfully dishonest.
I'm going to back to only reading Gruber's writing on Apple, and ignoring his writing on anything else.
"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 manufacturing partners, Google has their own cartel, attempting to homogenize the smartphone landscape under a single, free OS.
The incentives are obvious: it's much easier for Google to make its ad money if it controls the next big platform.
They may have dressed it up as pious and open – but for their purposes, it's a land grab. Is it anticompetitive? I'm not sure. My antitrust scholarship began and ended with The Microsoft File back in the 90's. But I'm also not sure it's any better than whatever satanic pact they are intimating has been formed by Apple and Microsoft.
Google's argument here is summed up as "You could trust us with those patents. But we didn't get them. You can't trust the guys who did get them." I'm pretty sure at this scale, with this much cash on the line, business just doesn't work that way. Google will run over anyone to keep their ad money flowing, just as Microsoft will run over anyone to keep their license money flowing. Why should we side with one cause over the other?
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.
I think it's a bit unfair to call him willfully dishonest. I find Gruber's writing really fascinating in that he's clearly intelligent but he appears to have no awareness of the way he twists things like this. It seems more likely to me that he is a case study in cognitive dissonance.
It would seem like someone who links to that (and apparently agrees with it), would not say something like "But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?"
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?
> 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?
Because he's not really anti-Google, he's just pro-Apple (read Apple fanboy).
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 likely in violation of several thousand patents with Android, and all of its other software products. Guess what? So is damn near every other developer on the face of the planet, but Google has a big fat target painted on their back because of Android's success. They would be crazy to not try to acquire a defensive patent portfolio.
I'll guarantee you that I violated a good half-dozen patents in the course of my absolutely routine work today. That doesn't mean that I'm a mean nasty violator out to undermine free enterprise, it means that software patents suck. Apple and Microsoft have both proven that they will use these garbage patents offensively to drive competitors out of the market, and Google is left in the position of "acquire means of mutually assured destruction to protect ourselves with or die by horribly broken patent law". Which do you think is the sane and responsible course of action?
"No one other than Nathan Myrvold and his cronies sees the U.S. patent system as functioning properly, but Google’s hypocrisy here is absurd. 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 products." - Gruber
Amen. EVERYONE violates patents when writing software, even a simple web app. Be sure of it. The best defense (I've been told by laywers) is NOT to look up possible patents, so at least you can say you didn't know if you ever get sued. It's a strange world. Google is totally doing the right thing.
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 interesting point that if software patents are valid then why should these other companies allow Google to use it and give away Android for free to undermine their own business.
It's all the more reason that the patent system needs to be reformed but it will never happen because there are too many powerful people involved that don't want to see it happen.
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 products."
Unfortunately, just because you actually make products doesn't mean that you are incapable of holding and/or abusing bullshit patents. Apple owns more bullshit UI patents than most other companies that I can think of, and they've made it clear over the years that they think it's morally right, not just defensively necessary, to patent user interface ideas.[1]
Apple has not, historically, abused its patent portfolio to the same degree that Microsoft or Oracle have.[2] However, now that they've thrown their hat into the same ring, they're getting lumped in with these dastardly anticompetitive badguy companies when this comes up in the tech press. I'm sure that makes Apple - and Apple fans - uneasy. It seems like they're being blamed for their newfound parters' bad behavior. Well, I'm sorry. You sign a deal with the devil, and you better buckle in.
[1] As as someone who designs and builds UIs for a living, I think this is complete bullshit. Copyright should protect UI; patents should not.
Absolutely spot on. That being said, in this rare occasion, I think John Gruber is raising points that needed to be raised. If you read Google's version of the story, it'd seem like Google is the champion of innovation and it is being targeted due to the success of Android, and crucially, it's in the customer's interest that these patents shouldn't be used against them. Well not really; it's basically in Google's interest. To say nothing about their own 3.14 billion dollar bid for Nortel's patent portfolio and then claiming that their true worth was 1 billion, being completely disingenuous.
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.
- 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.
How is Google’s argument here different than simply demanding that Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, et al should simply sit back and let Google do whatever it wants with Android, regardless of the patents they hold?
And why should it be different? The fact of the matter is that the idea of Google going after Apple, Microsoft etc for violating Google's patents isn't even an issue. Wanna know why? Because Google's competing on the merit of the product. It's letting the customers make the choice b/w the Microsoft OS and Android.
Whereas if Microsoft had it's way, the customer wouldn't even have a choice. Thats the real difference.
What choice? Oh wait, you mean what kind of Ads you would receive :P?
On a serious note though, assume that you have a sandwich shop and your business is of course to sell sandwich (not free) and people flock to you for your tasty sandwiches. Now, if I open a Sandwich shop that gives away free sandwiches and it also tastes pretty much (close to 85%) like your sandwiches (say, i was inspired by your sandwiches, but i don't acknowledge publicly) and make money out of the numerous solicitors selling all kinds of things (you can decline to buy stuff, but they're always in-your-face) that are in and around my shop. Now, why would customers go to you if I sell the same (pretty much) sandwich for free?
Does it mean that I am a philanthropist because I give away free sandwiches to the people? And because I am doing a charity (technically), does it mean that you should not sue me?
That said, patent troll (like Lordsys) is entirely different issue. However, I don't think Apple has a choice here. It is trying to defend its business, and the only legal way it can do it is through these stupid patents.
Edit - Instead of just down-voting, why not elaborate?
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."
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 competitors out of the market.
Regarding Gruber, your argument may have merit if it wasn't the case that Gruber never publishes anything seriously negative about Apple, and also never says much good about competitors. Sadly, I knew the article was going to be a negative piece about google the minute I saw it was by Gruber.
People are simply calling it as they see it. There is no real favorite here between Apple and Google that I've ever seen.
Isn't your comment and Gruber's entire premise ignoring empirical evidence of how Google and (basically everyone else) uses their patents? I don't see Google rushing to make a cut from iPhone sales, and I don't see Google making more off of WP7 sales than Android sales. (Much the way Apple is wanting to make some ridiculous amount for each of Samsung's sales and the fact that Microsoft gets more revenue from Android licensing than WP7).
Google can be opposed to patents, but also try to purchase them because at this point in time, if they don't then they will be crushed by others using patents against them.
Also, Gruber seems to think that that it's hypocritical for Google to have bid for the patents and upset that others won them, though he seems to be missing the part where a consortium of competitors are the people that won them, not a single company.
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?"
It's ok for Apple, Microsoft et al to defend themselves if Android violates their own patents.
It's not ok for Apple, Microsoft et al to defend themselves if Android violates patents they didn't develop.
Also, remember that although Microsoft & Oracle claims that Android violated some of their software patents, Apple claims against Samsung go far beyond that, this analysis by Nilay Patel is pretty good: http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analys...
The distinction made by Gruber here is between two kinds of companies:
- Apple, MS and similar companies who buy patents and actually use them to make products.
- The Lodsys's of the world that use them as revenue sources and don't actually contribute any value to anyone.
In the blog post, Google is lumping everyone together, whereas Gruber disagrees.
Apple's patents that they've used against HTC and similar are for things that are remarkably unique - more unique than the Amazon 1-click patent and similar. Notably, they're not seeking out patents to use as weapons - it's likely, if not transparently obvious that they purchased the portfolios in question to remove the chance that those patents would be used against them.
I'm no friend of patent law (I think it should be reformed to function in a manner similar to real-estate property law), but I'm thinking that there is more nuance to this debate than "Gruber is a Google Hater".
This patent thing has to come to a head. Something has to happen.
It's not just big companies that are involved here.
Guys like me. A family man in the northwest just trying to make a living doing pretty obvious things with technology is going to get screwed by all of this eventually.
I develop on Android and it's a massive chunk of my income. If they go down, so do I.
All these games have to stop and something has to be decided. The courts need to look at this, the government needs to look at this, and things need to move swiftly.
I'm about ready to start painting houses. I've never heard one of them complain about getting sued for the way they move their arm up and down when they paint.
In his quest of defend everything related to Apple, Gruber is probably stepping on a lot of good principles or ideas - like admitting the patent system is broken. I think he made it obvious before, I don't remember in which case exactly, probably the one with Apple's new policy of taxing content distributors, that he would defend anything Apple does, no matter how absurd. This is no different. I know it's become cliche by now, but I think Gruber has become too engulfed in Steve Jobs reality distortion field, and as others have said here, even he might not realize it.
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.
Does anyone else feel the word undermine is not appropriate in this quote (due to which, I'm unable to understand the point behind the comparison):
It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s for-pay OS licensing business by giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?
First of all, Linux violates 0 patents in my book til Microsoft at least specifies them. Then maybe we can talk about whether or not the present tense "violates" and not "potentially violating" is accurate.
Secondly, even if that is true, does Gruber think Microsoft deserves to win that fight? I mean seriously? If you can develop something on your own time that violates a software patent, that means we need massive patent reform. Not that somebody did something wrong, or that it should be stopped. Making that assumption is unjustifiable and something that should be apologized for.
Google doesn't have a lab with reverse engineers working on "hurting M$". No, they are simply distributing a flavor of Linux. And unlike the other scared/ignorant companies that are signing costly patent deals with Microsoft based on claims and threats of potential litigation, Google actually wants to fight. I think that's pretty respectful.
Software patents are a joke. They leverage the playing field towards the rich and ensconced individuals/corporations and against the hackers who are actually inventing the technologies. It's a sad, depressing joke no one wants to laugh at.
I found the word very clear. Here, rewritten to use both of the most common definitions of the word:
"It's OK for Google to weaken or impair Microsoft's for-pay licensing business by giving away Android for free, by eroding the foundational concept of an OS being something you pay for; but it's not OK for Microsoft to weaken or impair Google's attempts to give away for free, by eroding the foundational concept of its free-ness[1], an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?"
[1] undermining free as in speech by showing it is encumbered, and undermining free as in beer by licensing the relevant patents for relevant dollars
The one thing I'll agree on with Google: the patent system is flawed ― too bad this is really the only good point (or excuse, I should say) they're using to defend themselves. Then again, Gruber shouldn't be condoning the validity of software patents in the first place, because they suck.
Aside from that, I think Gruber hit the nail on the head (though his usage of undermine seemed a bit odd and out of place).
"So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK."
It's a war. You have to take arms to defend yourself, but it doesn't mean you're happy about it.
Gruber is almost bipolar: his insight on the industry is usually pretty interesting, but he becomes borderline retarded when he starts posting about Apple competitors.
Sounds to me like what he's trying to say is that using patents isn't such a terrible idea as long as you've actually used it to make money on your own products. I think that's not an unreasonable statement to make, whether or not you agree with it.
"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?
[+] [-] joebadmo|14 years ago|reply
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 for-pay OS licensing business by giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?"
Yes, because Google isn't using an artificial barrier (the patent system). And because those patents are bogus. Because most, if not all, software patents are bogus. That's pretty clearly Google's stated position.
"First, the “estimate” of $1 billion was partially set by Google itself."
But there's no denying that this is by several times the largest amount ever paid for a patent portfolio.
"They’re effectively arguing against the idea of the patent system itself, simply because Android violates a bunch of patents held by Google’s competitors."
Yes they are arguing against the patent system, at least for software, as do many in the industry. There's nothing hypocritical about that.
"Google supporters claim that Google only wants to use patents defensively. But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?"
This argument betrays either a very weak understanding of how defensive patents work or a deep dishonesty of argumentation. Maybe both. This argument can be applied to the very idea of defensive patents.
It's conflicting that someone who's so obviously intelligent and often terribly insightful (not to mention witty) can be so willfully dishonest.
I'm going to back to only reading Gruber's writing on Apple, and ignoring his writing on anything else.
[+] [-] danilocampos|14 years ago|reply
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 manufacturing partners, Google has their own cartel, attempting to homogenize the smartphone landscape under a single, free OS.
The incentives are obvious: it's much easier for Google to make its ad money if it controls the next big platform.
They may have dressed it up as pious and open – but for their purposes, it's a land grab. Is it anticompetitive? I'm not sure. My antitrust scholarship began and ended with The Microsoft File back in the 90's. But I'm also not sure it's any better than whatever satanic pact they are intimating has been formed by Apple and Microsoft.
Google's argument here is summed up as "You could trust us with those patents. But we didn't get them. You can't trust the guys who did get them." I'm pretty sure at this scale, with this much cash on the line, business just doesn't work that way. Google will run over anyone to keep their ad money flowing, just as Microsoft will run over anyone to keep their license money flowing. Why should we side with one cause over the other?
[+] [-] Lewisham|14 years ago|reply
I felt a decent amount of relief when I dropped him from my RSS reader.
[+] [-] evmar|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tolmasky|14 years ago|reply
It would seem like someone who links to that (and apparently agrees with it), would not say something like "But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?"
[+] [-] sasidharm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] olalonde|14 years ago|reply
Because he's not really anti-Google, he's just pro-Apple (read Apple fanboy).
[+] [-] blutonium|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bonch|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] AllenKids|14 years ago|reply
To stifle competition one can simply flood the market with goods priced under cost.
Besides, Google formed a cartel with Intel, they lost.
[+] [-] cheald|14 years ago|reply
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 likely in violation of several thousand patents with Android, and all of its other software products. Guess what? So is damn near every other developer on the face of the planet, but Google has a big fat target painted on their back because of Android's success. They would be crazy to not try to acquire a defensive patent portfolio.
I'll guarantee you that I violated a good half-dozen patents in the course of my absolutely routine work today. That doesn't mean that I'm a mean nasty violator out to undermine free enterprise, it means that software patents suck. Apple and Microsoft have both proven that they will use these garbage patents offensively to drive competitors out of the market, and Google is left in the position of "acquire means of mutually assured destruction to protect ourselves with or die by horribly broken patent law". Which do you think is the sane and responsible course of action?
[+] [-] pkamb|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petervandijck|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] technoslut|14 years ago|reply
He makes an interesting point that if software patents are valid then why should these other companies allow Google to use it and give away Android for free to undermine their own business.
It's all the more reason that the patent system needs to be reformed but it will never happen because there are too many powerful people involved that don't want to see it happen.
[+] [-] shabble|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fpgeek|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bonch|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ddrmaxgt37|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ender7|14 years ago|reply
"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 products."
Unfortunately, just because you actually make products doesn't mean that you are incapable of holding and/or abusing bullshit patents. Apple owns more bullshit UI patents than most other companies that I can think of, and they've made it clear over the years that they think it's morally right, not just defensively necessary, to patent user interface ideas.[1]
Apple has not, historically, abused its patent portfolio to the same degree that Microsoft or Oracle have.[2] However, now that they've thrown their hat into the same ring, they're getting lumped in with these dastardly anticompetitive badguy companies when this comes up in the tech press. I'm sure that makes Apple - and Apple fans - uneasy. It seems like they're being blamed for their newfound parters' bad behavior. Well, I'm sorry. You sign a deal with the devil, and you better buckle in.
[1] As as someone who designs and builds UIs for a living, I think this is complete bullshit. Copyright should protect UI; patents should not.
[2] Although they have done so. Just not as much.
[+] [-] GHFigs|14 years ago|reply
But it doesn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_v._Borland
[+] [-] aristidb|14 years ago|reply
Of course Android violates patents. Just like any sufficiently non-trivial piece of software...
[+] [-] amartya916|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Terretta|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rumpelstiltskin|14 years ago|reply
And why should it be different? The fact of the matter is that the idea of Google going after Apple, Microsoft etc for violating Google's patents isn't even an issue. Wanna know why? Because Google's competing on the merit of the product. It's letting the customers make the choice b/w the Microsoft OS and Android.
Whereas if Microsoft had it's way, the customer wouldn't even have a choice. Thats the real difference.
[+] [-] doe88|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcj|14 years ago|reply
On a serious note though, assume that you have a sandwich shop and your business is of course to sell sandwich (not free) and people flock to you for your tasty sandwiches. Now, if I open a Sandwich shop that gives away free sandwiches and it also tastes pretty much (close to 85%) like your sandwiches (say, i was inspired by your sandwiches, but i don't acknowledge publicly) and make money out of the numerous solicitors selling all kinds of things (you can decline to buy stuff, but they're always in-your-face) that are in and around my shop. Now, why would customers go to you if I sell the same (pretty much) sandwich for free?
Does it mean that I am a philanthropist because I give away free sandwiches to the people? And because I am doing a charity (technically), does it mean that you should not sue me?
That said, patent troll (like Lordsys) is entirely different issue. However, I don't think Apple has a choice here. It is trying to defend its business, and the only legal way it can do it is through these stupid patents.
Edit - Instead of just down-voting, why not elaborate?
[+] [-] Steko|14 years ago|reply
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."
[+] [-] tensor|14 years ago|reply
Regarding Gruber, your argument may have merit if it wasn't the case that Gruber never publishes anything seriously negative about Apple, and also never says much good about competitors. Sadly, I knew the article was going to be a negative piece about google the minute I saw it was by Gruber.
People are simply calling it as they see it. There is no real favorite here between Apple and Google that I've ever seen.
[+] [-] drivebyacct2|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Caballera|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darrenkopp|14 years ago|reply
Also, Gruber seems to think that that it's hypocritical for Google to have bid for the patents and upset that others won them, though he seems to be missing the part where a consortium of competitors are the people that won them, not a single company.
[+] [-] timack|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kylekramer|14 years ago|reply
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?"
[+] [-] barredo|14 years ago|reply
It's ok for Apple, Microsoft et al to defend themselves if Android violates their own patents.
It's not ok for Apple, Microsoft et al to defend themselves if Android violates patents they didn't develop.
Also, remember that although Microsoft & Oracle claims that Android violated some of their software patents, Apple claims against Samsung go far beyond that, this analysis by Nilay Patel is pretty good: http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analys...
[+] [-] aphexairlines|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pkamb|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petervandijck|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doe88|14 years ago|reply
Is it right for Google to defend itself with patents they didn't develop? (like for instance those bought from IBM)
In this case I think not.
[+] [-] zdw|14 years ago|reply
- Apple, MS and similar companies who buy patents and actually use them to make products.
- The Lodsys's of the world that use them as revenue sources and don't actually contribute any value to anyone.
In the blog post, Google is lumping everyone together, whereas Gruber disagrees.
Apple's patents that they've used against HTC and similar are for things that are remarkably unique - more unique than the Amazon 1-click patent and similar. Notably, they're not seeking out patents to use as weapons - it's likely, if not transparently obvious that they purchased the portfolios in question to remove the chance that those patents would be used against them.
I'm no friend of patent law (I think it should be reformed to function in a manner similar to real-estate property law), but I'm thinking that there is more nuance to this debate than "Gruber is a Google Hater".
[+] [-] dpcan|14 years ago|reply
It's not just big companies that are involved here.
Guys like me. A family man in the northwest just trying to make a living doing pretty obvious things with technology is going to get screwed by all of this eventually.
I develop on Android and it's a massive chunk of my income. If they go down, so do I.
All these games have to stop and something has to be decided. The courts need to look at this, the government needs to look at this, and things need to move swiftly.
I'm about ready to start painting houses. I've never heard one of them complain about getting sued for the way they move their arm up and down when they paint.
[+] [-] nextparadigms|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] b0sk|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdhe|14 years ago|reply
It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s for-pay OS licensing business by giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/undermine
[+] [-] lawfulfalafel|14 years ago|reply
Secondly, even if that is true, does Gruber think Microsoft deserves to win that fight? I mean seriously? If you can develop something on your own time that violates a software patent, that means we need massive patent reform. Not that somebody did something wrong, or that it should be stopped. Making that assumption is unjustifiable and something that should be apologized for.
Google doesn't have a lab with reverse engineers working on "hurting M$". No, they are simply distributing a flavor of Linux. And unlike the other scared/ignorant companies that are signing costly patent deals with Microsoft based on claims and threats of potential litigation, Google actually wants to fight. I think that's pretty respectful.
Software patents are a joke. They leverage the playing field towards the rich and ensconced individuals/corporations and against the hackers who are actually inventing the technologies. It's a sad, depressing joke no one wants to laugh at.
[+] [-] Terretta|14 years ago|reply
"It's OK for Google to weaken or impair Microsoft's for-pay licensing business by giving away Android for free, by eroding the foundational concept of an OS being something you pay for; but it's not OK for Microsoft to weaken or impair Google's attempts to give away for free, by eroding the foundational concept of its free-ness[1], an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?"
[1] undermining free as in speech by showing it is encumbered, and undermining free as in beer by licensing the relevant patents for relevant dollars
[+] [-] Vexenon|14 years ago|reply
Aside from that, I think Gruber hit the nail on the head (though his usage of undermine seemed a bit odd and out of place).
[+] [-] fpgeek|14 years ago|reply
Once you take away Gruber's presumption that most software patents are valid, the rest of his piece collapses.
[+] [-] billmcneale|14 years ago|reply
It's a war. You have to take arms to defend yourself, but it doesn't mean you're happy about it.
Gruber is almost bipolar: his insight on the industry is usually pretty interesting, but he becomes borderline retarded when he starts posting about Apple competitors.
[+] [-] statictype|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dysiode|14 years ago|reply
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?