6 ms·

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 disgus

by 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.
    - dman 15y ago
      I did not say anything about size of business. I think a better framing of your latter point would be - incumbents are pro-IP newcomers are contra-IP. Just being first in a field does not mean that you are innovating in it currently.
      - Steko 15y ago
        "I did not say anything about size of business." Well 'empire' has some connotations you may not be aware of.
        dman 15y ago
        Sorry about that, I can now see how I miscommunicated. I was lazily using empire to allude to - 'an economic entity with a well defined identity and well defined borders'. Let me take an example to clarify this situation - Lets assume a hypothetical situation where Nokia has reached its limits of what it thinks a Phone could be it has stopped doing fundamental innovation ie it has a well defined empire with a well defined cost structure and a well defined revenue model. In such a situation it is in Nokia's self interest to use their immense patent portfolio to create a moat around their business to keep upstarts like Apple / Google away. On the other hand lets consider another hypothetical situation where Nokia were innovating and trying to reimagine what a phone could be. Perhaps they were doing interesting things in software to displace desktops and make the phone the central location of the users global state. In this case they would be encroaching onto areas where other entities (like Microsoft, Google) might hold significant patents. In this case it would be in Nokia's self interest to be the anti patent candidate. I have often found that when I use more words to clarify a miscommunication I often end up causing more damage. I hope that is not the case here.
    - kelnos 15y ago
      Innovators are pro-IP, followers are contra-IP. Strongly disagree. This kind of statement really needs some supporting evidence.
      - 15y ago
- moultano 15y ago
  So if the ethical position is also strategic, it is no longer ethical? That's a pretty high standard for what constitutes ethical behavior. >If they thought patents were more strategic for them, they wouldn't be anti-patent. This needs a gigantic [citation needed] next to it.
  - davidu 15y ago
    You believe that being pro IPP or anti IPP is an ethical position? I am pro IP protection (IPP) and but I strongly dislike the existing IPP system we have.
    - moultano 15y ago
      What do you mean? Any normative statement is ultimately an ethical one, so any position on the proper use and law of patents is an ethical position as well.
      - davidu 15y ago
        You're conflating two issues. An individual can be in support of protecting intellectual property and against our current laws that implement said protection.
        moultano 15y ago
        I agree. I didn't say otherwise. My assertion is that Google's position is still an ethical one even though it is also strategic.
        davidu 15y ago
        It may be your ethical belief that all patents are bad, but we know it isn't Google's. They have hundreds of patents, a number of which list one of your co-founders as inventors. So sure, I guess it's nice that in this instance your company's strategy lines up with your ethical beliefs.
hn_decay 15y ago
Perhaps this is an unfair caricature, but it has been my observation that the vast majority of "pro-software patent" supporters are misguided fans of either Microsoft or Apple. They seldom have anything to do with software development, and their perspective is seldom enlightened or nuanced. Strawman, unfair, bigotry, whatever -- I would love to be proven wrong. I have yet to hear a pro-software patent argument that isn't littered with corporate partisan nonsense.
- econgeeker 15y ago
  I have yet to hear an anti-patent argument that wasn't just repetition of the "patents are wrong" ideology. I'm actually neutral on patents in the sense of "what would be best in an ideal world". But the bottom line is this- my work is not free unless I choose to donate it. Thus in exchange for giving you my work, I'm going to require a license. If you steal it, you've stolen it, just as if you stole a car. But wait-- if you steal my car I don't have it anymore, you say, but if you steal my technology, I still have it, you say. And yes, that's true, but it is irrelevant. If you want my technology enough to steal it, then my technology has value, and it is property, just as anything else I might build with my own hands is property. It isn't that technology can be replicated-- after all, I don't hear you saying software shouldn't be copyrighted or sold-- it is whether you can get your copy without paying me for my work or not. Just because software or a patent can be replicated, doesn't mean it isn't property and isn't valuable. Am I knocking down a straw man? Well, you didn't actually make any argument-- you just disparaged people who have a different point of view. So, that forced me to guess what your argument was, and then respond. I do this so you understand that I am capable of making an argument... I just find the anti-patent people rarely give actual arguments to rebut.
  - hn_decay 15y ago
    Your argument is ludicrous. My position on software patents mirrors the general complaint about software patents -- overwhelmingly they provide a monopoly on trivial, obvious, or inevitable "inventions". Your position on multitouch alone is a perfect example, really -- they didn't invent the hardware, didn't make the first implementation, and it had been predicted by mainstream media a decade in advance, but because Apple had the foresight to patent it first (even Microsoft Surface has years on Apple)...invention. Hardly. There are novel software implementations. That applies to vanishingly few software patents.
econgeeker 15y ago
I'm a software developer and have been working at startups for 20 years. I am pro-patent because I've seen it successfully used to protect a startup from an evil corporation-- in this case Microsoft. I know the anti-patent people like to pretend that all programmers are anti-patent. I find it shameful to see how shoddy the thinking is when anti-patent people are confronted with pro-patent arguments. I'm an HN member and have been participating in this website since 2006 or 2007 (though I got the boot for having a minority opinion.) Patents are not anti-competitive. They actually force competition-- and they give a leg up to all of your competitors by quickly bringing them up to speed on the state of the art. If the patent system didn't exist, and Apple didn't reveal its inventions, android would be 7 years behind the iPhone. In fact, android phones wouldn't exist. They'd still be at the drawing board trying to figure out how to make multi-touch work. Its not like Apple just had this idea and then 7 months later introduced the iPhone! I think people who are anti-patent don't actually understand what it takes to be innovative. It isn't easy, and it is silly to think that android would exist if Apple hadn't revealed its secrets as part of the patent process. The thing is, in exchange for this revelation, google is required to come up with something new using this knowledge, not just copy it and sell it.
- MikeCapone 15y ago
  Can we settle for "anti bogus patents" and say that the vast majority of the software patents out there, and especially of the cases going to the courts, are about "bogus patents"?
  - econgeeker 15y ago
    I was part of a team that developed a distributed realtime database. That is to say, a record could exist on a dozen servers, and these servers could be handling transactions from hundreds of thousands or millions of simultaneous users. This was back in the day of high latency due to modems, so we worked out how to deal with the fact that by the time a client might get some information it might be out of date. We did this to allow for massively multiplayer online games... this was not a bogus patent because we really did advance the state of the art, and for a couple years there only about a dozen people in the world were capable of producing this kind of software. However, on slashdot, people claimed that this patent was a patent on "the idea of online games!!!!!!". Later there was a big discussion claiming we'd patented IRC and oh, how bogus that was, because IRC was around for YEARS before we filed our patent! Nothing in the IRC protocol, or any of the online games at the time (or most of them sense) solved the problems we were solving in our patent. The thing is, the anti-patent people never read the patent. The Amazon "one click patent "is not a patent on putting a "Buy now" button on a website. Our patent didn't cover IRC, etc. I haven't done a survey of patents, and so I can't say what percentage of them are bogus, and what aren't. I can believe a bogus patent could exist, and there is a remedy for that-- present prior art and the patent gets thrown out. This is a pretty functional solution, and anyone pressing their case better be prepared because the possibility of prior art always exists. So, I doubt there are many bogus patents, at least, not many that ever make it to court. I do think there are a lot of patents that are presented as "bogus" that aren't. My other patent has a headline that makes it sound totally bogus... but it isn't. I just can imagine what people will say about it-- because they never bother to read the patent. They already believe patents are bogus and whenever they see yet another claim that a patent is bogus they are ready to believe it.
Steko 15y ago
It's sad that namecalling posts like this get upvoted because they echo the "general sentiment" of HN. Herd mentality != right.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  This is illuminating in a way regarding HN. Regardless of the arguments on patents, there are 2 large contingents on HN, Apple supporters and Google supporters. Thus if this were Google Vs. MS or Apple Vs.MS(with the same arguments like patents(, the arguments and modding would be too predictable... just bash MS regardless(they can't innovte so they sue) and move on with the upvotes for pro-Apple/Google comments and downvotes or no votes for proMS comments(been there, done that). Now that this issue is Apple vs. Google, the discussion has turned into a huge number of namecalling arguments with conflicting upvotes vs. downvotes. My take: Patents need a MUCH higher bar than what's currently out there. Eg. RSA patent = VALID and the Apple patent of using accelerometer to rotate a display, but-on-a-mobile-phone-instead-of-camera = LAME & INVALID. Kind of going off on a tangent, but Android didn't bring nothing much new to the UI(except maybe notifications?), it's mostly a pale imitation of iOS. WP7 on the other hand, atleast has an innovative mobile UI in the form of metro. http://www.riagenic.com/archives/487 http://www.riagenic.com/archives/487 Some android apps are copying it verbatim...
  - powerje 15y ago
    Saying of Android's UI that 'it's mostly a pale imitation of iOS' makes me wonder if you have ever actually used an Android device. The UI is similar but beyond the notification system you noted as being different (vastly different, much improved, and what iOS 5's notification system seems to be based off of) the app drawer and management of the home screen goes far beyond iOS's pile of apps.
  - Steko 15y ago
    Agree with most here here but I think we should break people out into 5 categories for these threads: Apple zealots Mostly rational people who prefer iOS Mostly rational people who like both Mostly rational people who prefer Google Android zealots There should be some way algorithmically to determine the people who are in the extreme categories, say... extremism quotient:= (|upv| + |dwnv|) / max (1,|net score|) Then if that exceeds some threshold over a certain period the person's votes could be ignored or diluted.
grellas 15y ago
This piece really is all about the Nortel patents. Google wanted the Nortel patents very badly but couldn't find enough fellow bidders whose interests matched its own to overcome the concerted efforts of Apple, Microsoft, and others who have a stake in pulling Android down. An interesting analysis of who the winners and losers were in this bidding process appears here: http://www.tangible-ip.com/2011/what-does-nortel-mean-for-the-winners-and-losers.htm http://www.tangible-ip.com/2011/what-does-nortel-mean-for-th.... Having lost that bid, Google is in a far worse position to defend Android from patent attacks than it ever has been before. Essentially, all of its competitors now have formidable new weapons to use against the Android platform. This isn't so much an issue of "trolls" as it is conventional large players who use patent portfolios as arsenals for both offensive and defensive purposes. Google's enemies are now much more formidably armed as a result of the bidding. Google therefore hopes to stir the DOJ into doing something about this on the antitrust front. The DOJ is scrutinizing this deal and may wind up imposing conditions that could be vital to Google. Its antitrust chief, Christine Varney, had represented Netscape while in private practice years ago in its antitrust fight with Microsoft and she has publicly expressed concerns about the misuse of patents by trolls and others for anti-competitive purposes (for those with a subscription, see this WSJ piece: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576363781889157222.html?KEYWORDS=nortel+patents http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230365740457636...). Quite apart from her personal views, however, it is problematic that competitors can collude horizontally to do a major IP acquisition for what seems like an obvious anti-competitive purpose. Google is not a "little guy" that might elicit sympathy in battling over the mobile space but it clearly has had its competitors gang up on it in pulling off the Nortel bid. Android will undoubtedly survive this attack but Google is seriously worried about being besieged in this way. In this piece, it is essentially looking to its last best hope in the DOJ for attempting to block this attack by competitors who hope to win by artificial legal means that which they can't win in the marketplace. Let's hope this gets the scrutiny it deserves.
- macrael 15y ago
  What do you think about the fact that Microsoft council claims the following: Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no. https://twitter.com/#!/BradSmi/status/98902130412355585 https://twitter.com/#!/BradSmi/status/98902130412355585 Why would Google decline to be a part of this consortium? It would have disarmed its competitors.
linuxhansl 15y ago
I will wager a guess that anybody coming out in favor of software patents either does not understand software or has ulterior motives. To a software engineer it is clear that patents on software are worthless (i.e. don't serve society) and hamper innovation. At it stands I predict that we'll either have a 5 year all out patent war after which companies will beg law makers collectively to abolish patents on software or have 5 decades of patent cold war.
guelo 15y ago
What I always wonder about with every Apple story on HN is if all the sycophants are just willing fanboys or if PR types are being paid to work HN comments.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  Sorry to see you get downvoted,I too suffered the same fate from Apple fans a lot of times on tech sites. The answer is simple: http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-is-a-religion-neuroscientists-find-it-triggers-the-same-reaction-in-your-brain-2011-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-is-a-religion-neuroscie... They don't need paid PR when the best techies like some of the ones on HN are abject fans of their beloved company. Gruber makes thousands per ad off his pro-Apple RSS feed ads.
billmcneale 15y ago
> Software patents are a joke, just listen to this now famous 'This American Life' piece: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w.. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w.... This is a fantastic episode but you don't seem to have paid much attention: it's a piece against patent trolls, not patents. Patent trolls need to go, but the jury is still out on software patents.

by yanw 15y 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.
  - dman 15y ago
    I did not say anything about size of business. I think a better framing of your latter point would be - incumbents are pro-IP newcomers are contra-IP. Just being first in a field does not mean that you are innovating in it currently.
    - Steko 15y ago
      "I did not say anything about size of business." Well 'empire' has some connotations you may not be aware of.
      - dman 15y ago
        Sorry about that, I can now see how I miscommunicated. I was lazily using empire to allude to - 'an economic entity with a well defined identity and well defined borders'. Let me take an example to clarify this situation - Lets assume a hypothetical situation where Nokia has reached its limits of what it thinks a Phone could be it has stopped doing fundamental innovation ie it has a well defined empire with a well defined cost structure and a well defined revenue model. In such a situation it is in Nokia's self interest to use their immense patent portfolio to create a moat around their business to keep upstarts like Apple / Google away. On the other hand lets consider another hypothetical situation where Nokia were innovating and trying to reimagine what a phone could be. Perhaps they were doing interesting things in software to displace desktops and make the phone the central location of the users global state. In this case they would be encroaching onto areas where other entities (like Microsoft, Google) might hold significant patents. In this case it would be in Nokia's self interest to be the anti patent candidate. I have often found that when I use more words to clarify a miscommunication I often end up causing more damage. I hope that is not the case here.
  - kelnos 15y ago
    Innovators are pro-IP, followers are contra-IP. Strongly disagree. This kind of statement really needs some supporting evidence.
    - 15y ago
moultano 15y ago
So if the ethical position is also strategic, it is no longer ethical? That's a pretty high standard for what constitutes ethical behavior. >If they thought patents were more strategic for them, they wouldn't be anti-patent. This needs a gigantic [citation needed] next to it.
- davidu 15y ago
  You believe that being pro IPP or anti IPP is an ethical position? I am pro IP protection (IPP) and but I strongly dislike the existing IPP system we have.
  - moultano 15y ago
    What do you mean? Any normative statement is ultimately an ethical one, so any position on the proper use and law of patents is an ethical position as well.
    - davidu 15y ago
      You're conflating two issues. An individual can be in support of protecting intellectual property and against our current laws that implement said protection.
      - moultano 15y ago
        I agree. I didn't say otherwise. My assertion is that Google's position is still an ethical one even though it is also strategic.
        davidu 15y ago
        It may be your ethical belief that all patents are bad, but we know it isn't Google's. They have hundreds of patents, a number of which list one of your co-founders as inventors. So sure, I guess it's nice that in this instance your company's strategy lines up with your ethical beliefs.

hn_decay 15y ago

Perhaps this is an unfair caricature, but it has been my observation that the vast majority of "pro-software patent" supporters are misguided fans of either Microsoft or Apple. They seldom have anything to do with software development, and their perspective is seldom enlightened or nuanced. Strawman, unfair, bigotry, whatever -- I would love to be proven wrong. I have yet to hear a pro-software patent argument that isn't littered with corporate partisan nonsense.

econgeeker 15y ago
I have yet to hear an anti-patent argument that wasn't just repetition of the "patents are wrong" ideology. I'm actually neutral on patents in the sense of "what would be best in an ideal world". But the bottom line is this- my work is not free unless I choose to donate it. Thus in exchange for giving you my work, I'm going to require a license. If you steal it, you've stolen it, just as if you stole a car. But wait-- if you steal my car I don't have it anymore, you say, but if you steal my technology, I still have it, you say. And yes, that's true, but it is irrelevant. If you want my technology enough to steal it, then my technology has value, and it is property, just as anything else I might build with my own hands is property. It isn't that technology can be replicated-- after all, I don't hear you saying software shouldn't be copyrighted or sold-- it is whether you can get your copy without paying me for my work or not. Just because software or a patent can be replicated, doesn't mean it isn't property and isn't valuable. Am I knocking down a straw man? Well, you didn't actually make any argument-- you just disparaged people who have a different point of view. So, that forced me to guess what your argument was, and then respond. I do this so you understand that I am capable of making an argument... I just find the anti-patent people rarely give actual arguments to rebut.
- hn_decay 15y ago
  Your argument is ludicrous. My position on software patents mirrors the general complaint about software patents -- overwhelmingly they provide a monopoly on trivial, obvious, or inevitable "inventions". Your position on multitouch alone is a perfect example, really -- they didn't invent the hardware, didn't make the first implementation, and it had been predicted by mainstream media a decade in advance, but because Apple had the foresight to patent it first (even Microsoft Surface has years on Apple)...invention. Hardly. There are novel software implementations. That applies to vanishingly few software patents.

econgeeker 15y ago

I'm a software developer and have been working at startups for 20 years. I am pro-patent because I've seen it successfully used to protect a startup from an evil corporation-- in this case Microsoft. I know the anti-patent people like to pretend that all programmers are anti-patent. I find it shameful to see how shoddy the thinking is when anti-patent people are confronted with pro-patent arguments. I'm an HN member and have been participating in this website since 2006 or 2007 (though I got the boot for having a minority opinion.) Patents are not anti-competitive. They actually force competition-- and they give a leg up to all of your competitors by quickly bringing them up to speed on the state of the art. If the patent system didn't exist, and Apple didn't reveal its inventions, android would be 7 years behind the iPhone. In fact, android phones wouldn't exist. They'd still be at the drawing board trying to figure out how to make multi-touch work. Its not like Apple just had this idea and then 7 months later introduced the iPhone! I think people who are anti-patent don't actually understand what it takes to be innovative. It isn't easy, and it is silly to think that android would exist if Apple hadn't revealed its secrets as part of the patent process. The thing is, in exchange for this revelation, google is required to come up with something new using this knowledge, not just copy it and sell it.

MikeCapone 15y ago
Can we settle for "anti bogus patents" and say that the vast majority of the software patents out there, and especially of the cases going to the courts, are about "bogus patents"?
- econgeeker 15y ago
  I was part of a team that developed a distributed realtime database. That is to say, a record could exist on a dozen servers, and these servers could be handling transactions from hundreds of thousands or millions of simultaneous users. This was back in the day of high latency due to modems, so we worked out how to deal with the fact that by the time a client might get some information it might be out of date. We did this to allow for massively multiplayer online games... this was not a bogus patent because we really did advance the state of the art, and for a couple years there only about a dozen people in the world were capable of producing this kind of software. However, on slashdot, people claimed that this patent was a patent on "the idea of online games!!!!!!". Later there was a big discussion claiming we'd patented IRC and oh, how bogus that was, because IRC was around for YEARS before we filed our patent! Nothing in the IRC protocol, or any of the online games at the time (or most of them sense) solved the problems we were solving in our patent. The thing is, the anti-patent people never read the patent. The Amazon "one click patent "is not a patent on putting a "Buy now" button on a website. Our patent didn't cover IRC, etc. I haven't done a survey of patents, and so I can't say what percentage of them are bogus, and what aren't. I can believe a bogus patent could exist, and there is a remedy for that-- present prior art and the patent gets thrown out. This is a pretty functional solution, and anyone pressing their case better be prepared because the possibility of prior art always exists. So, I doubt there are many bogus patents, at least, not many that ever make it to court. I do think there are a lot of patents that are presented as "bogus" that aren't. My other patent has a headline that makes it sound totally bogus... but it isn't. I just can imagine what people will say about it-- because they never bother to read the patent. They already believe patents are bogus and whenever they see yet another claim that a patent is bogus they are ready to believe it.

Steko 15y ago

It's sad that namecalling posts like this get upvoted because they echo the "general sentiment" of HN. Herd mentality != right.

recoiledsnake 15y ago
This is illuminating in a way regarding HN. Regardless of the arguments on patents, there are 2 large contingents on HN, Apple supporters and Google supporters. Thus if this were Google Vs. MS or Apple Vs.MS(with the same arguments like patents(, the arguments and modding would be too predictable... just bash MS regardless(they can't innovte so they sue) and move on with the upvotes for pro-Apple/Google comments and downvotes or no votes for proMS comments(been there, done that). Now that this issue is Apple vs. Google, the discussion has turned into a huge number of namecalling arguments with conflicting upvotes vs. downvotes. My take: Patents need a MUCH higher bar than what's currently out there. Eg. RSA patent = VALID and the Apple patent of using accelerometer to rotate a display, but-on-a-mobile-phone-instead-of-camera = LAME & INVALID. Kind of going off on a tangent, but Android didn't bring nothing much new to the UI(except maybe notifications?), it's mostly a pale imitation of iOS. WP7 on the other hand, atleast has an innovative mobile UI in the form of metro. http://www.riagenic.com/archives/487 http://www.riagenic.com/archives/487 Some android apps are copying it verbatim...
- powerje 15y ago
  Saying of Android's UI that 'it's mostly a pale imitation of iOS' makes me wonder if you have ever actually used an Android device. The UI is similar but beyond the notification system you noted as being different (vastly different, much improved, and what iOS 5's notification system seems to be based off of) the app drawer and management of the home screen goes far beyond iOS's pile of apps.
- Steko 15y ago
  Agree with most here here but I think we should break people out into 5 categories for these threads: Apple zealots Mostly rational people who prefer iOS Mostly rational people who like both Mostly rational people who prefer Google Android zealots There should be some way algorithmically to determine the people who are in the extreme categories, say... extremism quotient:= (|upv| + |dwnv|) / max (1,|net score|) Then if that exceeds some threshold over a certain period the person's votes could be ignored or diluted.

grellas 15y ago

This piece really is all about the Nortel patents. Google wanted the Nortel patents very badly but couldn't find enough fellow bidders whose interests matched its own to overcome the concerted efforts of Apple, Microsoft, and others who have a stake in pulling Android down. An interesting analysis of who the winners and losers were in this bidding process appears here: http://www.tangible-ip.com/2011/what-does-nortel-mean-for-the-winners-and-losers.htm http://www.tangible-ip.com/2011/what-does-nortel-mean-for-th.... Having lost that bid, Google is in a far worse position to defend Android from patent attacks than it ever has been before. Essentially, all of its competitors now have formidable new weapons to use against the Android platform. This isn't so much an issue of "trolls" as it is conventional large players who use patent portfolios as arsenals for both offensive and defensive purposes. Google's enemies are now much more formidably armed as a result of the bidding. Google therefore hopes to stir the DOJ into doing something about this on the antitrust front. The DOJ is scrutinizing this deal and may wind up imposing conditions that could be vital to Google. Its antitrust chief, Christine Varney, had represented Netscape while in private practice years ago in its antitrust fight with Microsoft and she has publicly expressed concerns about the misuse of patents by trolls and others for anti-competitive purposes (for those with a subscription, see this WSJ piece: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576363781889157222.html?KEYWORDS=nortel+patents http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230365740457636...). Quite apart from her personal views, however, it is problematic that competitors can collude horizontally to do a major IP acquisition for what seems like an obvious anti-competitive purpose. Google is not a "little guy" that might elicit sympathy in battling over the mobile space but it clearly has had its competitors gang up on it in pulling off the Nortel bid. Android will undoubtedly survive this attack but Google is seriously worried about being besieged in this way. In this piece, it is essentially looking to its last best hope in the DOJ for attempting to block this attack by competitors who hope to win by artificial legal means that which they can't win in the marketplace. Let's hope this gets the scrutiny it deserves.

macrael 15y ago
What do you think about the fact that Microsoft council claims the following: Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no. https://twitter.com/#!/BradSmi/status/98902130412355585 https://twitter.com/#!/BradSmi/status/98902130412355585 Why would Google decline to be a part of this consortium? It would have disarmed its competitors.

linuxhansl 15y ago

I will wager a guess that anybody coming out in favor of software patents either does not understand software or has ulterior motives. To a software engineer it is clear that patents on software are worthless (i.e. don't serve society) and hamper innovation. At it stands I predict that we'll either have a 5 year all out patent war after which companies will beg law makers collectively to abolish patents on software or have 5 decades of patent cold war.

guelo 15y ago

What I always wonder about with every Apple story on HN is if all the sycophants are just willing fanboys or if PR types are being paid to work HN comments.

recoiledsnake 15y ago
Sorry to see you get downvoted,I too suffered the same fate from Apple fans a lot of times on tech sites. The answer is simple: http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-is-a-religion-neuroscientists-find-it-triggers-the-same-reaction-in-your-brain-2011-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-is-a-religion-neuroscie... They don't need paid PR when the best techies like some of the ones on HN are abject fans of their beloved company. Gruber makes thousands per ad off his pro-Apple RSS feed ads.

billmcneale 15y ago

> Software patents are a joke, just listen to this now famous 'This American Life' piece: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w.. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w.... This is a fantastic episode but you don't seem to have paid much attention: it's a piece against patent trolls, not patents. Patent trolls need to go, but the jury is still out on software patents.