> Even though there was no evidence of copying—Vringo admitted as much
What a ridiculous system we all operate under. You come up with a mathematical formula for ranking some text on a page (in this case, what ads to show first), and you could now owe $250M/year to some company you've never heard of because they already bought the rights to that formula. It turns my stomach; sorry that I have nothing of more substance to add to this story.
The lack of an independent invention defense (or some variation of this) is pretty much 80% of what's wrong with patent law in my opinion. A sampling of the issues an independent invention addresses:
* Obviousness. Patents are required to be non-obvious to a "person holding ordinary skill in the art", but obviousness is highly subjective and difficult to assess (especially for a non-technical jury). In contrast, evaluating whether something was independently invented, while not necessarily simple, is a more objective test.
* Utility. One of the rationales behind the patent system is that we want to encourage inventors to share their ideas with the world instead of just keeping them secret for as long as possible. While the patent system requires publication of the invention, it doesn't require publication in a manner that's particularly useful. If you could only assert patents against people actually using them, then you would have a strong incentive to make them useful (e.g. source code).
* Supply and Demand. The current system grants a flat 20 years to each patented invention, regardless of how difficult or expensive it was to invent. Recognizing independent invention creates the opportunity for a more flexible system. Inventions that are hard to reproduce independently are more valuable to society and should enjoy a longer term than easier ones.
The obvious problem with all of the above of course is how feasible it is to assess whether something was invented "independently". I've addressed that to some degree in this blog post (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121011/14171220681/yes-in...), but I admit it's a hard problem.
I agree. The basis for the plaintiff's suit no doubt consists of rarefied lawyerese, and the plaintiff has probably added no value to the world. But they get many millions. How has the property law been allowed to tie itself up into this knot?
edit: I am rate limited from replying to fpgeeks reply below so I will post my reply here.
First, the author is extremely clear that he invested in Vringo, in fact the whole article is about why he did so., so I am not sure why you talk about it as if it is kind of a revelation. Second, the article is very informative about the history of the patents and is highly relevant. Third,which of my comments are pro Vringo, really? Fourth, can I be suspicious that you're short Vringo stock, or do you get a free pass just because you have an older HN account.
Just because the same thing can be invented independently doesn't mean the system is ridiculous. In fact, it's the very fact that the system relies on to create research competition.
Being the Vringo is the motivation to invent things before the competition does.
Wow the Microsoft angle is pretty corrupt. They paid the plaintiff a million bucks plus 5% of the judgement they get against Google, effectively bankrolling their lawsuit and putting a patent troll on commission.
There's near-endless bitching and whining about Google being evil these days, but even today nobody sinks as low as Microsoft.
I read that and thought, how funny if Google bought Vringo out, then determined Google owed $10B. Of course that'd mean paying Vringo, which is a vile thing.
I don't think it's corrupt though. Sounds like MS said hey, here's some money (versus losing a settlement for far more, like they did over XML), and if you win against Google, then we'll pay likewise. Otherwise, you'll fight both of us.
Of course it'd be nice if MS stood up and fought, but it's easy to say what other people should do with their billions.
I read it as Microsoft paid a million dollars and will pay 5% of what Google pays. I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy, but it seems like they believed the patent would win in court and wanted the cheapest way out.
I mean I guess that is one way to look at it. The other could be that they settled. If Google wins the case they pay 5% more of zero, if they lose, Microsoft pays more but so does Google. Its not totally win-win but yeah I can see it mostly being such. But to even get a settlement like that, wouldn't Vringo have to accept it? It isn't just Microsoft malice.
Bing was infringing and Vringo had tens of millions in cash and big investors like Mark Cuban bankrolling it. They certainly didn't need a paltry million bucks to continue the lawsuit.
Vringo already had the jury verdict against Google before the MS settlement. Also, maybe Bing has only 5% of Google's revenue/profit.
Funny that you seem to be falling victim to what you accuse others of doing i.e kneejerk birching and whining.
One thing to consider is if Vringo is bankrolled by a steady $200+million revenue stream, they are most likely going to turn around and use that money to buy up patents all over the place. I doubt the money will be used to create any products. We'd be looking at the next Intellectual Ventures, backed by a massive hundred million dollar guaranteed revenue stream.
Even if you hate Google, this is a pretty raw deal for the industry.
So called "intellectual property" is an other way to decrease the value of manual work and increase the income of pure "possessions".
By making creative work "property" that can be owned and making minimal creative acts "possessable" in a way, that other creativity is inhibited or at least "billed", actual work is diminished for pure "property" holding.
The only way, non-possessing people can climb up "from rags to riches" is by their work. But working is less and less valued in this system.
And with the patent system, the true inventors are getting very limited money (in big companies, it is most often just a fixed amount per patent) -- the rest of the value goes to lawyers, the companies investors and the buyers of the patents when the company goes bankrupt or looses interest. Thus creating a system, where part of the mobile phone or the software or whatever gadgets price must pay the royalties for the patent owner (not the inventor!). Thus this amount goes away from the money that can be paid to workers and inventors. The whole system improves income generated by possessions, but reduces income possibilities for workers and creative people.
There are few things which can effect change better than billionaires in fear of losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year. When it happens to small fry you lament because they can't do anything to change and end up settling to save themselves or losing and losing everything. When it happens to the 55th largest company you rejoice because they have the power and motivation to change the rules.
I remember thinking exactly that, when Microsoft was hit by the $100M Stac Electronics judgement in 1993. "Surely large companies will understand now that they have a lot more to lose from software patents than they could possibly have to gain," I said to myself. "I'll bet they're calling their pet Congressmen and writing checks this very minute."
I've been wrong before, but not usually that wrong.
> There are few things which can effect change better than billionaires in fear of losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
What change would you like this to effect? I thought Google already had a solid reputation of being against patent trolls and software patents. For example:
nothing would happen until google is driven into the ground(bankrupcy) with spurious judgements from various companies against its profits. I would love to see that happen, because then something will be done. Anything above is just a blip in earnings diagram. Digital mafia will just keep on truckin'
What's also terrible about the patent system is there is simply no way for any of us to tell, when we develop something, if we're infringing on patents or not. We're all subject, at any time, to being subject to some massive infringement lawsuit.
What I do not understand is why the big companies do not all get together and lobby to abolish software patents. Do they think that if they acquire enough patents, they will win? They all seem to be losing as many patent suits as they win. Pyrrhic victories all around.
The Microsoft settlement for the same was interesting:
"Vringo also sued Microsoft over ads in its Bing search engine. Microsoft settled that case in May, agreeing to pay $1 million plus 5 percent of whatever Google ultimately pays."
It's strange agreeing to pay 5% of Google outcome on the same and quite clever the more I consider the pros/cons.
I tried really hard to understand the 2 patents in question in this case. I can see that both patents relate to a method of assigning value to search results based on how long a user spends looking at the result, or number of clicks, etc. But I am sure I am missing a bunch of nuances. Could someone with Patent background explain these to patents:
Or maybe link me to the explanation. I am interested because from what I have understood this sounds really obvious, just application of good business practices to the internet. If customers like a particular product (click on one link a lot), you get more of that product (show the link more often), so you can sell more. Is there more to it? There has to be, right?
>just application of good business practices to the internet...
That's the foundation of nearly all software patents these days. Its business, but on the internet.
It seems to work because of the built in novelty factor. When there was no internet, it was impossible to do business on it, now that there is, its suddenly possible and so seems novel. It feels like a new invention when in fact, its really just an application of the technology to the same old same old.
The money is going to the guy who patented a crucial part of Google's AdWords algorithm which neither they nor Bing can apparently design around.
The guy got crushed in the market, being just a little fish, he was gobbled right up. But he bought back his patent, and took the fight to Google and Bing and won.
You can argue the percentage calculation is a too rich by an order of magnitude or two (and I think it is), but you can't argue whether the patent is valid or whether they infringe. A judge and jury said it is, and they did, and that will stand until a higher court says otherwise.
Did Google invent it first? Nope. Did Google find any prior art? Nope. Was the patent obvious? Nope.
I don't have a problem with large companies paying large sums to inventors who actually produce a product, patent their invention, but get crushed by the market a few years later.
This is actually kinda how it's supposed to work. If this is an example of what is "wrong" then there there must be no patent that is "right".
The money is going to the guy who patented a crucial part of Google's AdWords algorithm which neither they nor Bing can apparently design around.
Was the patent obvious? Nope.
These comments seem to be at odds with on another. If the patent covers an algorithm that is a natural solution to the problem multiple companies are trying to solve, doesn't that mean the solution is 'obvious'?
Is that how we want software development to work? I solve a technical problem in an application, but because someone I've never heard of on the other side of the country happened to patent that solution first, I can be sued for money? Sure, it benefits the people who file patents, but I don't think patents should exist solely because they can profit a revenue stream to the people who file them.
Let's remember that when the guy was "gobbled right up", Google was a dozen people with one server in a garage.
The fact that multiple entities came up with this idea, without communication of the idea between them, means that it was more a function of the environment the idea was conceived in than the person who did the conceiving.
It seems to be pretty well established now that this system does not support innovation (at least not in the software business.
If the benefit of society as a whole is the objective then inventions are only worth protecting if they would not have occurred without such protection.
An idea clearly does not fall into that category, it's worth is in the execution and not in "having it".
Software startups are more likely to raise VC funding if they can demonstrate they have a defensible product or service.
One of the ways of making a product defensible is to patent its underlying technology.
If a software startup doesn't hold a patent, there is a chance a larger player could just copy the startup's product or service and drive the startup out of business.
This sort of 'litle parent that could' story are the post child for pro patent folk.
No, that's not how it works. No, small one-time inventors to not benefit from the current parent system. Irritating as anything seeing it being played out this way.
This is a commercial patent trolling company, from the inception it was so, and it remains so now. These are the people who the current patent system benefits.
Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Fuck software patents... Absolutely.
Copyright... Not so much. That is actually useful. Open source and free software would not work without copyright law.
Copyright only triggers when you copy somebody else's work, I.e. a specific expression of an idea.
Patents trigger when you merely happen to have the same idea.
So is the tech industry as such not interested in changing this system? I find it inconceivable that the entire tech industry is not able to change the law about just software patents, not all patents, but just software patents. All the old laggard companies have invested a lot of time and money and hoarded a bunch of patents and so they do not care enough. Eventually the companies that are hurt in this are the small ones.
Google is already appealing, but what happens if Google loses ? Would the supreme court agree to hear this case ? If so, the silver lining might be that the supreme court overturns this decision and in doing to comes up with something useful like the 2007 decision which limits a patent troll's ability to get an injunction to knock out a product.
This is largely a showcase of stupid economy in United States. If you look back past 20 years, there really isn't any meaningful economy growth except the high tech industry. In most cases, you simply higher price for the same house, transportation, education, healthcare, food, lawsuit, and other BS. Instead of encouraging people and companies to do great things that actually improve living quality, the current economic and political system simply drags everything down.
American voters stuck too much with personal values and elect a congress that does not do anything and gets 10% approval rate. Now we have to deal with this kind of stupidity. #thanksobama
Is there any push right now to enact legislation that makes patent litigation available only to entities that actively participate in the relevant marketplaces? It doesn't seem like there is, but maybe I'm not that informed in these affairs.
We need a numbers based study that shows patent trolls retard innovation and consequently weaken national security. Regulators, senators, and Presidents (in the US) prioritize that stuff.
How can I, as a small start up, produce a new mobile phone? Every concept from the hardware to the software is layered in patents. What other things are small companies not bothering to produce because of the patent minefield? At every turn and corner you may be stepping on another patent troll waiting to take a percentage of your earnings as well as drain your bank account on legal fees.
[+] [-] dangrossman|12 years ago|reply
What a ridiculous system we all operate under. You come up with a mathematical formula for ranking some text on a page (in this case, what ads to show first), and you could now owe $250M/year to some company you've never heard of because they already bought the rights to that formula. It turns my stomach; sorry that I have nothing of more substance to add to this story.
[+] [-] andrewfong|12 years ago|reply
* Obviousness. Patents are required to be non-obvious to a "person holding ordinary skill in the art", but obviousness is highly subjective and difficult to assess (especially for a non-technical jury). In contrast, evaluating whether something was independently invented, while not necessarily simple, is a more objective test.
* Utility. One of the rationales behind the patent system is that we want to encourage inventors to share their ideas with the world instead of just keeping them secret for as long as possible. While the patent system requires publication of the invention, it doesn't require publication in a manner that's particularly useful. If you could only assert patents against people actually using them, then you would have a strong incentive to make them useful (e.g. source code).
* Supply and Demand. The current system grants a flat 20 years to each patented invention, regardless of how difficult or expensive it was to invent. Recognizing independent invention creates the opportunity for a more flexible system. Inventions that are hard to reproduce independently are more valuable to society and should enjoy a longer term than easier ones.
The obvious problem with all of the above of course is how feasible it is to assess whether something was invented "independently". I've addressed that to some degree in this blog post (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121011/14171220681/yes-in...), but I admit it's a hard problem.
EDIT: Typos
[+] [-] allochthon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] graving|12 years ago|reply
http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/31/why-google-might-be-going-t...
edit: I am rate limited from replying to fpgeeks reply below so I will post my reply here.
First, the author is extremely clear that he invested in Vringo, in fact the whole article is about why he did so., so I am not sure why you talk about it as if it is kind of a revelation. Second, the article is very informative about the history of the patents and is highly relevant. Third,which of my comments are pro Vringo, really? Fourth, can I be suspicious that you're short Vringo stock, or do you get a free pass just because you have an older HN account.
[+] [-] bsdetector|12 years ago|reply
Being the Vringo is the motivation to invent things before the competition does.
[+] [-] thrownaway2424|12 years ago|reply
There's near-endless bitching and whining about Google being evil these days, but even today nobody sinks as low as Microsoft.
[+] [-] MichaelGG|12 years ago|reply
I don't think it's corrupt though. Sounds like MS said hey, here's some money (versus losing a settlement for far more, like they did over XML), and if you win against Google, then we'll pay likewise. Otherwise, you'll fight both of us.
Of course it'd be nice if MS stood up and fought, but it's easy to say what other people should do with their billions.
[+] [-] arunabha|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xzel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] graving|12 years ago|reply
Vringo already had the jury verdict against Google before the MS settlement. Also, maybe Bing has only 5% of Google's revenue/profit.
Funny that you seem to be falling victim to what you accuse others of doing i.e kneejerk birching and whining.
[+] [-] cromwellian|12 years ago|reply
Even if you hate Google, this is a pretty raw deal for the industry.
[+] [-] PythonicAlpha|12 years ago|reply
By making creative work "property" that can be owned and making minimal creative acts "possessable" in a way, that other creativity is inhibited or at least "billed", actual work is diminished for pure "property" holding.
The only way, non-possessing people can climb up "from rags to riches" is by their work. But working is less and less valued in this system.
And with the patent system, the true inventors are getting very limited money (in big companies, it is most often just a fixed amount per patent) -- the rest of the value goes to lawyers, the companies investors and the buyers of the patents when the company goes bankrupt or looses interest. Thus creating a system, where part of the mobile phone or the software or whatever gadgets price must pay the royalties for the patent owner (not the inventor!). Thus this amount goes away from the money that can be paid to workers and inventors. The whole system improves income generated by possessions, but reduces income possibilities for workers and creative people.
[+] [-] SpaceRaccoon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eob|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colechristensen|12 years ago|reply
There are few things which can effect change better than billionaires in fear of losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year. When it happens to small fry you lament because they can't do anything to change and end up settling to save themselves or losing and losing everything. When it happens to the 55th largest company you rejoice because they have the power and motivation to change the rules.
[+] [-] CamperBob2|12 years ago|reply
I've been wrong before, but not usually that wrong.
[+] [-] munificent|12 years ago|reply
What change would you like this to effect? I thought Google already had a solid reputation of being against patent trolls and software patents. For example:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/17/4233818/google-submits-pub...
http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/pledge/
http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/patents/
[+] [-] ceejayoz|12 years ago|reply
Or they just settle next time.
[+] [-] Goronmon|12 years ago|reply
Or they realize that fighting the system is a suckers game and join in, this cementing the system against their competition.
[+] [-] perlpimp|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GhotiFish|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WalterBright|12 years ago|reply
What I do not understand is why the big companies do not all get together and lobby to abolish software patents. Do they think that if they acquire enough patents, they will win? They all seem to be losing as many patent suits as they win. Pyrrhic victories all around.
[+] [-] zyrthofar|12 years ago|reply
It is also why I will not create a startup company, and have my dream crash because of a failed and corrupt system.
[+] [-] Gustomaximus|12 years ago|reply
"Vringo also sued Microsoft over ads in its Bing search engine. Microsoft settled that case in May, agreeing to pay $1 million plus 5 percent of whatever Google ultimately pays."
It's strange agreeing to pay 5% of Google outcome on the same and quite clever the more I consider the pros/cons.
[+] [-] iribe|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] x0054|12 years ago|reply
http://www.google.com/patents/US6314420 and http://www.google.com/patents/US6775664
Or maybe link me to the explanation. I am interested because from what I have understood this sounds really obvious, just application of good business practices to the internet. If customers like a particular product (click on one link a lot), you get more of that product (show the link more often), so you can sell more. Is there more to it? There has to be, right?
[+] [-] noonespecial|12 years ago|reply
That's the foundation of nearly all software patents these days. Its business, but on the internet.
It seems to work because of the built in novelty factor. When there was no internet, it was impossible to do business on it, now that there is, its suddenly possible and so seems novel. It feels like a new invention when in fact, its really just an application of the technology to the same old same old.
[+] [-] zaroth|12 years ago|reply
The guy got crushed in the market, being just a little fish, he was gobbled right up. But he bought back his patent, and took the fight to Google and Bing and won.
You can argue the percentage calculation is a too rich by an order of magnitude or two (and I think it is), but you can't argue whether the patent is valid or whether they infringe. A judge and jury said it is, and they did, and that will stand until a higher court says otherwise.
Did Google invent it first? Nope. Did Google find any prior art? Nope. Was the patent obvious? Nope.
I don't have a problem with large companies paying large sums to inventors who actually produce a product, patent their invention, but get crushed by the market a few years later.
This is actually kinda how it's supposed to work. If this is an example of what is "wrong" then there there must be no patent that is "right".
[+] [-] Goronmon|12 years ago|reply
Was the patent obvious? Nope.
These comments seem to be at odds with on another. If the patent covers an algorithm that is a natural solution to the problem multiple companies are trying to solve, doesn't that mean the solution is 'obvious'?
Is that how we want software development to work? I solve a technical problem in an application, but because someone I've never heard of on the other side of the country happened to patent that solution first, I can be sued for money? Sure, it benefits the people who file patents, but I don't think patents should exist solely because they can profit a revenue stream to the people who file them.
[+] [-] skj|12 years ago|reply
The fact that multiple entities came up with this idea, without communication of the idea between them, means that it was more a function of the environment the idea was conceived in than the person who did the conceiving.
[+] [-] cycrutchfield|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] linuxhansl|12 years ago|reply
If the benefit of society as a whole is the objective then inventions are only worth protecting if they would not have occurred without such protection. An idea clearly does not fall into that category, it's worth is in the execution and not in "having it".
[+] [-] stevewilhelm|12 years ago|reply
One of the ways of making a product defensible is to patent its underlying technology.
If a software startup doesn't hold a patent, there is a chance a larger player could just copy the startup's product or service and drive the startup out of business.
[+] [-] shadowmint|12 years ago|reply
This sort of 'litle parent that could' story are the post child for pro patent folk.
No, that's not how it works. No, small one-time inventors to not benefit from the current parent system. Irritating as anything seeing it being played out this way.
This is a commercial patent trolling company, from the inception it was so, and it remains so now. These are the people who the current patent system benefits.
[+] [-] mwally|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] linuxhansl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yalogin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arunabha|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vinhboy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moca|12 years ago|reply
American voters stuck too much with personal values and elect a congress that does not do anything and gets 10% approval rate. Now we have to deal with this kind of stupidity. #thanksobama
[+] [-] dmak|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yetanotherphd|12 years ago|reply
http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-035.pdf
[+] [-] increment_i|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AJ007|12 years ago|reply
How can I, as a small start up, produce a new mobile phone? Every concept from the hardware to the software is layered in patents. What other things are small companies not bothering to produce because of the patent minefield? At every turn and corner you may be stepping on another patent troll waiting to take a percentage of your earnings as well as drain your bank account on legal fees.