4 ms·

I'm glad Google finally just came out and said it, rather than trying to say, what they said previously, which was that MS and Apple were trying to keep the pat

I'm glad Google finally just came out and said it, rather than trying to say, what they said previously, which was that MS and Apple were trying to keep the patents from them. A tip for Google, the truth works better, even if it requires a few more sentences to tell it. On the actual merits though, Google seems to be completely lost in the world of IP tactics. They should have worked to remove all of these patents off the table as cheaply as possible. The available cash that MS+Apple simply dwarfs what Google has. Head to head, if MS+Apple want the patents they'll win them. Trying to win them outright as defensive patents was a stupid attempt. The fact that their current IP strategy seems to be to buy IP is absurd. Google really needs to start producing significant IP in the mobile space. Their current IP strategy is naive, and likely costly. The fact that they didn't think about this three years ago, when Jobs was on stage talking about patenting everything, up and down, is a firing offense, IMO.

yanw 15y ago
You seem to have misunderstood the whole thing (if you have even read any of it), they haven't retracted anything nor changed their position. There is no sense in buying patents jointly with Microsoft because then they couldn't use the patents to block Microsoft from extorting handset makers which defeats the whole purpose. It's not about buying patents for the sake of having patents. If any of the reporters had bothered to ask an IP lawyer all this would have been made clear to them, but they unthinkingly quote Tweets and print comments from Florian Muller instead. And are you actually suggesting that producing IP is more efficient and quicker than buying it?! I very much urge you to think on that.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  There is no sense in buying patents jointly with Microsoft because then couldn't they use the patent to block Of course not. But you take those patents off the table. It's 7,000 fewer patents you have to deal with. Even under reasonable terms, if MS gets enough patents, they could raise licensing fees such that doing WP over Android is a no-brainer. Now the Android licensing fees are just a nuisance. Also are you actually suggesting that producing IP is more efficient and quicker than buying it?! Yes (well cheaper -- not quicker). At least buying targeted patents. These large portfolios are going for about $500k-$750k per patent. I wouldn't be surprised if Google paid $1M each for the 1,000 IBM patents they bought. The big advantage they get w/ buying is the patents are available now. But this is why this is a firing offense. Everyone else in the industry has been building up their IP warchest for some time. Apple telegraphed it years ago that they'd fight with patents in the mobile space. Google seems to be surprised.
  - hn_decay 15y ago
    >I wouldn't be surprised if Google paid $1M each for the 1,000 IBM patents they bought. A billion dollar transaction does not happen quietly, and IBM would have no reason to keep it quiet. This was strategic for IBM (which is actually a bizarrely responsible corporation): They have a strategic interest in seeing Google empowered.
    - kenjackson 15y ago
      A billion dollar transaction does not happen quietly It wasn't very quiet (that it happened). People think Nokia may have gotten $630M from Apple as licensing fees showed up in the quarterly report. Of course there isn't a line item that says, "From Apple". My point is that people just knew a transaction took place, but didn't know the price. This is the same thing with IBM. Maybe IBM sold for less, but they're not stupid. They could empower Google and get a lot of money at the same time. As you say, IBM is responsible, and responsible companies don't leave money on the table. Terms of these sorts of private negotations and settlements are usually kept quiet. Often part of the agreement itself.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    > It's 7,000 fewer patents you have to deal with Those patents can become harmless if Google acquires some other patents Microsoft and Apple infringe and force them into cross-licensing. Obviously, Apple and Microsoft would be more inclined to litigate because an unencumbered Android would doom their respective mobile platforms (Apple less than Microsoft, in this case)
joebadmo 15y ago
Maybe I'm being naively optimistic, but if we take Google to be both unafraid to take risks and long-term in its thinking, we can interpret all of its actions as spending as little as possible on patents while getting opponents to spend as much as possible and simultaneously undermining software patents at large. Seems to me like Google is taking advantage of a growing anti-patent sentiment in the tech community that's beginning to spill over into the mainstream and capitalizing on the idea that the innovation-stifling patent regime is contributing to a stagnating economy. Exhibit A: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-02/google-hires-federal-trade-commission-intellectual-property-expert-michel.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-02/google-hires-federa... Exhibit B: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/intellectual-property http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/in... Exhibit C: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w... http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/08/04/138934689/the-tuesday-podcast-the-patent-war http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/08/04/138934689/the-tues...
- kenjackson 15y ago
  Probably naively optimistic. ;-) The public generally doesn't care. The courts won't change course without congress. Congress won't make a big change. Minor reform at best (I doubt we'll see much more than what is already in the oven). The problem is that Android isn't viewed as innovative by most consumers. I think in a PR battle between Apple saying Google copies, and Google saying that Apple is blocking them from innovating -- Apple wins. And the other issue is that a lot of the patents at stake are HW patents. Undermining HW patents is a much harder sell.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    > Congress won't make a big change. Every dollar Microsoft spends on patents cannot be spent on lobbies. And the other way around applies to Google: every dollar not spent chasing patents can be spent lobbying for patent reform. And, while that leaves hardware patents untouched, they are not the problem. Microsoft is extorting Google partners using bogus software patents, not hardware ones.
hn_decay 15y ago
Came out and said what? This is just providing more detail to exactly what Google said before. Discount whatever second hand noise you've read elsewhere: Google has been very consistent thus far (they derode patents when they made their $900 bid on the Nortel patents, for instance. They didn't learn to hate patents after losing), and this inside detail does in no way change or undermine what they said yesterday. Microsoft and Apple don't want Google to have defensive patents (patents that both of them know that they infringe on in droves, otherwise they wouldn't be concerned about them). They should have worked to remove all of these patents off the table as cheaply as possible. The available cash that MS+Apple simply dwarfs what Google has. Dwarfs is a gross exaggeration. Further both Apple and Microsoft have shareholder responsibility. Microsoft has already made questionable judgment calls to maintain the upper hand -- billions of dollars in patents to make a few hundred million a year in extortion fees, while empowering their own primary competitor (Apple)? It's extraordinary. Apple shareholders are going to start demanding their cash back if it looks like one giant ego pile. And Google can't quietly buy patents because the people selling want to get as much as possible for it. Well except for IBM who just wanted to stick a gank in Oracle. The fact that their current IP strategy seems to be to buy IP is absurd. Many of the patents that Microsoft and Apple are using against Android precede the mobile explosion. They are older companies, having had a long time of big profits to pay people to sit around submitting patent applications.

yanw 15y ago

You seem to have misunderstood the whole thing (if you have even read any of it), they haven't retracted anything nor changed their position. There is no sense in buying patents jointly with Microsoft because then they couldn't use the patents to block Microsoft from extorting handset makers which defeats the whole purpose. It's not about buying patents for the sake of having patents. If any of the reporters had bothered to ask an IP lawyer all this would have been made clear to them, but they unthinkingly quote Tweets and print comments from Florian Muller instead. And are you actually suggesting that producing IP is more efficient and quicker than buying it?! I very much urge you to think on that.

kenjackson 15y ago
There is no sense in buying patents jointly with Microsoft because then couldn't they use the patent to block Of course not. But you take those patents off the table. It's 7,000 fewer patents you have to deal with. Even under reasonable terms, if MS gets enough patents, they could raise licensing fees such that doing WP over Android is a no-brainer. Now the Android licensing fees are just a nuisance. Also are you actually suggesting that producing IP is more efficient and quicker than buying it?! Yes (well cheaper -- not quicker). At least buying targeted patents. These large portfolios are going for about $500k-$750k per patent. I wouldn't be surprised if Google paid $1M each for the 1,000 IBM patents they bought. The big advantage they get w/ buying is the patents are available now. But this is why this is a firing offense. Everyone else in the industry has been building up their IP warchest for some time. Apple telegraphed it years ago that they'd fight with patents in the mobile space. Google seems to be surprised.
- hn_decay 15y ago
  >I wouldn't be surprised if Google paid $1M each for the 1,000 IBM patents they bought. A billion dollar transaction does not happen quietly, and IBM would have no reason to keep it quiet. This was strategic for IBM (which is actually a bizarrely responsible corporation): They have a strategic interest in seeing Google empowered.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    A billion dollar transaction does not happen quietly It wasn't very quiet (that it happened). People think Nokia may have gotten $630M from Apple as licensing fees showed up in the quarterly report. Of course there isn't a line item that says, "From Apple". My point is that people just knew a transaction took place, but didn't know the price. This is the same thing with IBM. Maybe IBM sold for less, but they're not stupid. They could empower Google and get a lot of money at the same time. As you say, IBM is responsible, and responsible companies don't leave money on the table. Terms of these sorts of private negotations and settlements are usually kept quiet. Often part of the agreement itself.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  > It's 7,000 fewer patents you have to deal with Those patents can become harmless if Google acquires some other patents Microsoft and Apple infringe and force them into cross-licensing. Obviously, Apple and Microsoft would be more inclined to litigate because an unencumbered Android would doom their respective mobile platforms (Apple less than Microsoft, in this case)

joebadmo 15y ago

Maybe I'm being naively optimistic, but if we take Google to be both unafraid to take risks and long-term in its thinking, we can interpret all of its actions as spending as little as possible on patents while getting opponents to spend as much as possible and simultaneously undermining software patents at large. Seems to me like Google is taking advantage of a growing anti-patent sentiment in the tech community that's beginning to spill over into the mainstream and capitalizing on the idea that the innovation-stifling patent regime is contributing to a stagnating economy. Exhibit A: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-02/google-hires-federal-trade-commission-intellectual-property-expert-michel.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-02/google-hires-federa... Exhibit B: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/intellectual-property http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/in... Exhibit C: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w... http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/08/04/138934689/the-tuesday-podcast-the-patent-war http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/08/04/138934689/the-tues...

kenjackson 15y ago
Probably naively optimistic. ;-) The public generally doesn't care. The courts won't change course without congress. Congress won't make a big change. Minor reform at best (I doubt we'll see much more than what is already in the oven). The problem is that Android isn't viewed as innovative by most consumers. I think in a PR battle between Apple saying Google copies, and Google saying that Apple is blocking them from innovating -- Apple wins. And the other issue is that a lot of the patents at stake are HW patents. Undermining HW patents is a much harder sell.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  > Congress won't make a big change. Every dollar Microsoft spends on patents cannot be spent on lobbies. And the other way around applies to Google: every dollar not spent chasing patents can be spent lobbying for patent reform. And, while that leaves hardware patents untouched, they are not the problem. Microsoft is extorting Google partners using bogus software patents, not hardware ones.

hn_decay 15y ago

Came out and said what? This is just providing more detail to exactly what Google said before. Discount whatever second hand noise you've read elsewhere: Google has been very consistent thus far (they derode patents when they made their $900 bid on the Nortel patents, for instance. They didn't learn to hate patents after losing), and this inside detail does in no way change or undermine what they said yesterday. Microsoft and Apple don't want Google to have defensive patents (patents that both of them know that they infringe on in droves, otherwise they wouldn't be concerned about them). They should have worked to remove all of these patents off the table as cheaply as possible. The available cash that MS+Apple simply dwarfs what Google has. Dwarfs is a gross exaggeration. Further both Apple and Microsoft have shareholder responsibility. Microsoft has already made questionable judgment calls to maintain the upper hand -- billions of dollars in patents to make a few hundred million a year in extortion fees, while empowering their own primary competitor (Apple)? It's extraordinary. Apple shareholders are going to start demanding their cash back if it looks like one giant ego pile. And Google can't quietly buy patents because the people selling want to get as much as possible for it. Well except for IBM who just wanted to stick a gank in Oracle. The fact that their current IP strategy seems to be to buy IP is absurd. Many of the patents that Microsoft and Apple are using against Android precede the mobile explosion. They are older companies, having had a long time of big profits to pay people to sit around submitting patent applications.