12 ms·

When patents attack Android

• marcamillion 15y ago
  I just finished listening to that Planet Money podcast on this, just to see this blog post this now. 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.
• brlewis 15y ago
  Nice to read a Chief Legal Officer using plain language.
  • tobias3 15y ago
    And due to this plain language this reads like a like a declaration of war of Google vs. Microsoft & Apple. He is accusing them of illegal behaviour. He is accusing them of impeding innovation. And he says they will increase their own weapons arsenal to defend their products as well as fight through other channels. Due to him being a Google official this means this is officialy a confrontation course. No more diplomacy. This will be fun to watch. I'm for google :).
• rufo 15y ago
  I'm kind of disappointed that the word "reform" doesn't show up anywhere in this article. Indeed, one of the main courses of action they're taking is to "strengthen our own patent portfolio"…
  • tobias3 15y ago
    Given the current state of american politics would you want to rely on "reform" as crucial element of your business strategy?
    • rufo 15y ago
      I certainly don't blame them for continuing to play the game as it's currently played. I was just hoping that they would also look into other, broader, more beneficial options.
• davidu 15y ago
  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.
  • watty 15y ago
    They're being painted as a victim because they are. Patents are BS and continue to hinder innovation. They may be anti-competitive in other areas (although I don't know specifics). Can you provide some sources?
    • cma 15y ago
      They sure touted their PageRank patent.
      • yanw 15y ago
        Having patents doesn't mean you agree with the state of the patent system, also they have yet to sue anyone over patents.
      • azakai 15y ago
• jawns 15y ago
  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?
  • sorbus 15y ago
    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]. [1] http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
  • kizel 15y ago
    They seem to be taking a defensive stance. The WebM pool is a step in the right direction. 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-google-buys-a-batch-from-i-b-m/?WT.mc_id=DB-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M212-ROS-0811-PH&WT.mc_ev=click http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/in-battle-for-patents...
• lambtron 15y ago
  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.
• ChrisArchitect 15y ago
  a tough topic/post to go front-and-center public with. a bit surprised to see it coming from Google. Guess it is the CLO griping.. but the multiple sides of this coin are hard to ignore. Coin being an operative word as much of this calls into question the nature of business and competition
• patrickaljord 15y ago
  Good to see Google speak out against the patent trolls that Microsoft and Apple are, shame on them. Edit for people downvoting: As I say in my comment below, this is one of the definition of a patent troll according to wikipedia[1]: > Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent; This is what Apple and Microsft did by buying Novel and Nortel patents, making them de facto patent trolls. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll#Etymology_and_definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll#Etymology_and_defi...
  • danilocampos 15y ago
    You have to be careful throwing around the "patent troll" label or it'll lose all meaning. Microsoft and Apple actively ship product. They're playing the patent game but they're also doing real shit that impacts users every day. This is a far cry from the Intellectual Ventures and Lodsyses of the world.
    • patrickaljord 15y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll#Etymology_and_definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll#Etymology_and_defi... > Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;
      • tzs 15y ago
        Do you have an example of Apple doing that?
        • patrickaljord 15y ago
          Yes, the Nortel and Novel patent acquisition a couple of weeks ago.
          • raganwald 15y ago
• AllenKids 15y ago
  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.
  • Krylez 15y ago
    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.
    • AllenKids 15y ago
      First I hate patent trolls, but the ill effects are financially not that devastating. Trolls do not kill the geese. No geese, no egg. And then there are the tech giants, they do not notice you until you get real big yourself. So yeah, the situation sure is depressing, but then again at the end of the tunnel is money and fame, it is only reasonable the path shall be difficult.
  • azakai 15y ago
    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?
• febeling 15y ago
  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.
  • nitrogen 15y ago
    That is indeed the status quo for the large corporate players, but small-time developers/founders such as myself will still argue against the game because the same tactics are used by slow-moving incumbents and patent trolls to crush the nimble startups that are innovating at a much faster rate. A patent threat against Android in particular is treated as a threat by proxy against all independent developers because of its open nature.
    • mcantelon 15y ago
      It's also a further disincentive to be involved in the American market. The Indian and Chinese markets aren't similarly encumbered.
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
• evilswan 15y ago
  If the "innovations" in Android were already covered by prior patents; they weren't innovations at all, were they? Not necessarily my point of view, but isn't that how patents should work? Protecting prior art.
  • watty 15y ago
    There are plenty of innovative and unpatented areas of Android. The problem is "A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims" - this is insane. Patents should protect prior art, not every single trivial software task. I'd guess it's impossible to create a new mobile phone and OS without violating patents.
  • edwardy20 15y ago
    The patents are so broad that any new invention is likely to be patented already.
• hullo 15y ago
  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".
  • JunkDNA 15y ago
    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.
  • sek 15y ago
    Does make sense when you compare the numbers, Android is bigger than the iPhone now. Doesn't tell the whole story but is a valid argument.
• funkah 15y ago
  I keep seeing this idea that Apple is filing patent lawsuits because they are afraid of their competitors and their business is on the verge of collapse, and I just don't understand. Their business is better than ever, breaking records every quarter. I think maybe people are reading too much into market-share figures, or projecting their wishes onto reality. Also, did Google not just try to buy the Nortel patents? Weren't they in an auction with the same companies called out in this blog post? I wonder if we would be reading this post at all, had Google won that auction. Ultimately, patents are not good for our industry, obviously. And if Google manages to bring about change in this area, we will no doubt be the better for it. But it just seems a little funny to strike this "patents are bad" pose when they just bid like $3B for a bunch of 'em.
  • mithaler 15y ago
    I play board games, many of which have an auction mechanic. It's not uncommon in such a game to bid on something to prevent everyone else from getting it and using it against you. Why wouldn't the same thing happen in the real world, where real money is at stake?
  • yanw 15y ago
    They bid for them defensively as dictated by a broken patent system. The problem is that all their competitors joined together to block them from buying the patents so they could tax Android.
  • rudiger 15y ago
    Countries can argue that nuclear weapons are bad and call for disarmament, but it's not contradictory to stockpile them when there's the credible threat of other countries fighting with these weapons.
  • wvenable 15y ago
    Apple is doing just fine but that doesn't mean they've laid off their legal department. As long as there is money to be made here, they're going to do something about it. That's business.
  • mnutt 15y ago
• mikaelgramont 15y ago
  Hopefully Google will use some of those $3B to lobby against software patents.
• justin_hancock 15y ago
  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.
• jerf 15y ago
  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...
  • JunkDNA 15y ago
    Astute observation. Reminds me of this pg classic on PR: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html The timing is certainly convenient for Google.
    • nitrogen 15y ago
      Software developers, and Open Source developers in particular, have been adamantly against software patents for a very long time. It seems equally as likely that independent developers are taking advantage of Google's predicament to further their own goal of abolishing software patents. Edit: I will add that I personally have done exactly this in conversation. But, in the worst case, Google is exploiting a sentiment that already exists, rather than creating it from nothing.
      • econgeeker 15y ago
        "Software developers, and Open Source developers in particular, have been adamantly against software patents for a very long time." This is exactly as true as the claim that all scientists support AGW theory. Reality-- most scientists don't support that theory. But proponents of the theory say that they all do, all over the place. And since there is nobody who actually speaks for all scientists, there's nobody to prove them wrong. So they repeat it over and over and over and over again, even though it isn't true. Logically, your statement is easily disproven. I have been developing software for two decades, including open source, and I support software patents. Now you can never make that statement again. Well, you can't if you're honest.
        • 15y ago
• blinkingled 15y ago
  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.
• yanw 15y ago
  It's sad that pro-patent asstroturf hijacks serious anti-patent discussions on HN, it's obvious that the HN sentiment towards software patents is that of disgust, yet when a passionate and rare post like this makes headlines somehow a pro-patent sentiment creeps out. Software patents are a joke, just listen to this now famous 'This American Life' piece: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w... In this case it's so blatantly anti-competitive you have to be blind no to see the problem with it, we have all of Android's competitors consorting together, time and time again to block Google from buying patents so they could kill it. Even if you are pro-patent (slim chance if you are a HN member) you should appreciate the anti-competitive risk of these patent consortiums. And if the government wasn't infested with IP lawyers (former RIAA, MPAA, BSA; None reformists) this issue would have taken center stage ages ago.
  • davidu 15y ago
    I'm not pro-patent, I just want Google's motives as I see them to be more transparent, and that is what I am aiming to achieve with my comment. If they thought patents were more strategic for them, they wouldn't be anti-patent. For them it's purely a strategic viewpoint that benefits them due to their current size. That patents are grossly abused is a serious issue that is quickly coming to a head, so it won't take ages from now for major reform to occur.
    • dman 15y ago
      Companies that consider themselves in a growth phase take an anti intellectual property stance. Once they are sitting on an empire they shift positions. Its the rational thing to do. All this says about Google is that they are still looking to enter and disrupt new markets.
      • Steko 15y ago
        I'd say the dynamic is more complicated, many small businesses are highly reliant on IP protections. Innovators are pro-IP, followers are contra-IP.
• jannes 15y ago
  They clearly listened to This American Life's piece on patents. That title can't be coincidence. They just appended the word "Android" to it. :-)
• napierzaza 15y ago
  Google is lying if they are pretending that Apple and MSFT have started the software patent issues. And they clearly could have tried harder for the Nortel patents if they wanted to. How about try to not just bid a magical number but actually try and win auctions instead? If Google really cared about the issue of PATENTS they'd be putting as much leverage behind changing the patent laws and not just calling sour grapes for themselves. I haven't seen them jumping in and defending (actually small) tech companies from litigation or doing much more than... a blog posting. They're also saying that the Nortel patents are dubious, but I doubt it. A legacy company like Nortel probably had a lot of patents made long ago that are worth their weight in gold. What is Google doing about it (based on this blog post)? Not fighting the patent system itself but of course trying to overturn the patent sale, buy more patents for themselves and basically become involved in the back and forth that had predominated software patents for a while now. This is a blog post from Google about how they want to be heavy hitters with patents too. They want to throw their weight around with patents just like everyone else and use the system in the exact same way as this axis of evil who are conspiring against them.
  • Steko 15y ago
    The incredible irony is one of the major benefits of patents is "openness" and public disclosure of techniques. The alternative to patents is massive secrecy, sorta like Google's search algorithm.
    • ericd 15y ago
      Openness + death by a thousand papercut licensing fees whenever you try to write any piece of software. I'll take secrecy and copyright, thanks.
    • kelnos 15y ago
      Isn't PageRank patented and therefore public? I believe the patent is held by Stanford and exclusively licensed to Google. Of course, Google's search algo has evolved considerably from the early Stanford days and is secret. I'd prefer that to patents in most cases, though. Trade secret law should be good enough for most things. And I think if it's not, then it shouldn't be patentable. If I can figure out how to make a decent multi-touch UI just by taking 10 minutes and playing with a device that has one, that feels unpatentable to me.
• econgeeker 15y ago
  The problem with this is that prior to the introduction of the iPhone, android was designed to look like and work on phones like the blackberry. It was a better feature phone OS. After the iPhone came out, Google changed courses and counterfeited the iPhone. If google wanted to compete, they could have spent 7 years investing in fundamental innovations-- like Apple did with touch-- to create their own new UI. Maybe they could have done a voice driven phone. OR, if touch was inevitable, they could have done their own, innovative take on touch UIs. They did not. They turned around and cloned the iPhone and then gave the OS away for free. They were able to do this because the patent system requires Apple to publicly disclose their inventions. In exchange for this disclosure, Apple gets a monopoly on the use of their inventions. If you don't like this, that's fine, amend the constitution, and take it up with your congressman. Google is now claiming that the government should step in and use force-- that is, decrees backed by men with guns and the threat of violence-- to allow google to steal other companies innovations and get away with it. Think about that. Google cannot compete fair and square, so they steal their competitors technology. When this is pointed out, they call for the use of violence to let them get away with it! Talk about Doing Evil! Apple learned their lesson last time around. They relied on copyright and license agreements to protect the invention of the GUI. The government did not have their back when Microsoft stole their invention, so this time, Apple made sure to patent their inventions. This is not "anti-competitive", this the very definition of competition. Apple made a better widget to break into the fiercely competitive mobile phone market. People only say "anti-competitive" when someone is competing successfully and they don't like it. If justice prevails, Google will become the wholly owned search and advertising subsidiary of Apple. If corruption prevails, Apple will be prevented in succeeding against google in court. We'll see how it turns out. Either way, Once again, Apple-- the only company in Silicon Valley with a track record of genuine innovation-- is being attacked by counterfeiters who can't be bothered to spend any R&D on coming up with something new themselves, and once again, the thieves are claiming that they're just "competing." If you hope to ever profit form doing something innovative... and not get squashed by a company like google ripping you off... you really should be on Apple's side on this. They have always been the underdog that stuck to their guns and innovated really hard. That they've been successful at this shows that the underdog can sometimes win. If its taken away from them, it will not be justice, and it will not be moral.
• charlieok 15y ago
  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.
  • ConstantineXVI 15y ago
    You're more than welcome to forego the contract subsidy to buy a Nexus S (or many other phones) at full price and use it on any GSM network. Nothing stops you from pulling your SIM card out and using it in another device, provided said device supports your carrier's frequencies. The rest of your complaints are the fault of the carriers, not Google or OEMs.
    • charlieok 15y ago
      And so I would like to see Google, who are so intent on fighting anti-competitive business practices, throw its weight behind this in their negotiations with carriers, so that they can make such an offer on their home page. I seem to remember them trying this originally, with the nexus one, and it didn't go very well. But, the nexus one was a mediocre phone and it was relatively early days for android. Now the phones are better, and android's market share greater. I want to see them take this idea seriously again. But yes, you are right. The real problem in this case is the carriers.
      • 15y ago
• MrScruff 15y ago
  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.
  • FxChiP 15y ago
    "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." There are actually quite a few differences between Android and iOS in terms of interface, and there always have been -- in fact, many features found in later versions of iOS were found first in earlier versions of Android, such as copy & paste, wallpapers, and the upcoming notification area. In addition, applications are presented differently (you have to slide up a panel, generally, or tap a button somewhere to get to them), wallpapers can be dynamic (Live Wallpapers), and Android is, in general, much more reliant on menu structures than iOS, which seems to take a more simple and transparent route to most functions. Sure, there are similarities -- like the fact that it's a touch interface and applications are represented first as icons -- but I'm inclined to think they're less prevalent than seems to be thought, and the ones that are there are (more or less) common sense. (I could be wrong, of course :))
    • FxChiP 15y ago
      (I forgot to mention also that manufacturers and carriers also seem to have a lot to do with the overall interface -- Samsung's stock Android for the Captivate, for example, does mirror iOS quite a bit, while HTC Sense probably couldn't be much more different if they tried!)
      • 15y ago
• beerglass 15y ago
  To put their money where their mouth is, Google should may be put their thousands of patents in the public domain and license it to anyone as per the alternative system they believe is better than the current patents system.
• kleptco 15y ago
  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.
• pohl 15y ago
  I wonder if anyone in Google is wishing that they hadn't tried to adorably bid pi billion, and had instead played to win.
  • orangecat 15y ago
    This is a rather silly meme. Bidders were allowed to place more than one bid.
    • pohl 15y ago
      What you're saying does not contradict the meme at all. The meme goes that Google first bid Brun's constant, then upped it to the Meissel–Mertens constant, and finally pi. That's more than one bid.
      • orangecat 15y ago
        And then they continued bidding to over $4 billion. There's nothing to indicate that bidding non-round amounts changed the outcome.
• there 15y ago
  off-topic, but if your weblog is not a personal one and has multiple people authoring content, put the author name immediately under the post's title. reading a post that starts with "I have worked" makes me immediately stop reading and scroll around to find out who "I" is.
• pcj 15y ago
  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.
  • kelnos 15y ago
    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.
• jchrisa 15y ago
  Google should buy Lodsys :)
• gord 15y ago
  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.
  • fpgeek 15y ago
    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.
• worshipGoogle 15y ago
  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. Just my $.02.
  • fpgeek 15y ago
    Yes, because Google was using ideas that were implemented long before Java, Sun was just the first one to bother patenting them.
  • ig1 15y ago
    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.
• jheriko 15y ago
  i am yet to hear a valid justification for ANY patent. can we just ignore them en masse please? the law will then have to change... at any rate i have zero respect for them. if i invent something already patented, good luck trying to extract money from me... i dare you.
• swarzkeiser 15y ago
  Google was born off of a patent: PageRank. It is unfair to criticize the entire concept of patents when they've guaranteed the just reward for several great, honest inventions.
• kooshball 15y ago
  adding more content for discussions http://twitter.com/#!/bradsmi/status/98902130412355585 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 15y ago
    With this, it is difficult to believe and trust whatever Drummond is selling (apple and microsoft ganging up on google).
• fredliu 15y ago
  pro- or anti-patent aside, this post sounds to me more like Google is really not confident in winning the current lawsuits around Android against its competitors. As this blog is definitely not just a random rant against patent from some random lawyer. Its intention is more interesting. Is Google crying out loud just because it sees the patent system unjust? or is it really because they believe they are gonna lose most of their android related lawsuits, so they want to cry "its unfair!" earlier before the final whistle? just a thought...
• flocial 15y ago
  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.