7 ms·

Wait wait wait wait. A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a license would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer t

Wait wait wait wait. A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a license would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners. Having the license to the patent means you get to use the patented technology--no one can come after you. That's the protection, you get to use it. This is bullshit, Google didn't decline the offer because it didn't give them protection, they declined the offer because it didn't give them an ability use those patents against Microsoft.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
joebadmo 15y ago
You need to learn how defensive patents work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_patent_aggregation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_patent_aggregation It's not just to stop from being sued over that particular patent, but to be able to use that patent to counter-sue when litigated for other patents. Google has yet to use any of its patents offensively.
- eridius 15y ago
  Google didn't argue that this patent purchase was for defensive reasons. They argued that it was for offensive reasons, that these patents could then be used to attack Google and force licensing fees onto Android. That entire argument is negated by the fact that Google had the option of bidding jointly on the patents and, therefore, having a license to them.
  - joebadmo 15y ago
    They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them; Microsoft’s objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. Where did they argue that it was for offensive reasons?
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      > Where did they argue that it was for offensive reasons? And since when a weapon directed at someone who's attacking you is offensive?
  - hn_decay 15y ago
    Would you mind pointing out where Google made that argument? Because Google didn't make that argument, no matter how terribly M G Sielger may misinterpret it. "They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them;" That's what Google actually said. Google partly owning them in concert with Apple and Microsoft does nothing given that Apple and Microsoft are the primary antagonists of Android.
    - pohl 15y ago
      ...to make sure Google didn’t get them I haven't been following this closely, but isn't this phrase contradicted by having been invited to be in the band of Rockstars?
      - hn_decay 15y ago
        Not at all. Microsoft and Apple simply want to make sure that Google has nothing to counter their patent attacks with. They don't want Google to have them. Now Google sharing them with its two biggest antagonist...even footing a part of the bill...no surprise that they don't mind that.
        kenjackson 15y ago
        That's not what it says though. Drummond said, "Google didn't get them", period. You either get them (which they could have) or you don't. Now you can add to that with additional constraints and rationale, which is what Google did in their update, but it's no longer the same statement. It's not a simple clarification, but a change of statement. Google tried to give the impression that they were blocked from getting the patents at all. Now they reveal their true motivation, which wasn't a simple "get them", but rather a more nuanced "we wanted to get them, and also have them not get them, so that we could use them against them". I think this is a perfectly valid reason Google gives, but its not what they were trying to evoke in their first blog post. They were trying to tug at heart strings at first -- this update is just kind of like, "Oh, big companies doing what big companies do -- again."
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    You're saying if Google bought them anyway, it would've meant fewer patents for Google to worry about, but that still wouldn't have been as effective as buying patents that could be used against Microsoft as retaliation. Google doesn't just want to counter all Microsoft's future patents that they will buy, because that still doesn't change anything. They want to counter Microsoft's old patents, the ones they are using right now.
  - juiceandjuice 15y ago
    Google wanted the patents to fight back against Microsoft, since Microsoft is the one probably leveraging the greatest patent tax against Android devices. A joint ownership of the patents would be useless against Microsof. They could leverage them against Apple, or Oracle, or other parties that didn't own them, however, but even that could be to Microsoft's benefit. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
    - cube13 15y ago
      >Google wanted the patents to fight back against Microsoft, since Microsoft is the one probably leveraging the greatest patent tax against Android devices. A joint ownership of the patents would be useless against Microsof. They could leverage them against Apple, or Oracle, or other parties that didn't own them, however, but even that could be to Microsoft's benefit. Here's the problem: Even if Google won the Novell bid, they would not be able to use the patents as a defense against MS. MS is licensing the patents from Novell, and I think that if any other party bought the patent pool, they would continue to license them from whomever bought the pool. So Google couldn't use them in a defensive manner. They could make life annoying for MS by increasing the fees, but that's about it, especially because if they increased the fees too high, they'd doing the exact same thing that MS is. Plus, I think that the DoJ's decision to put the patents under GPLv2 and the OIN patent license would have been made regardless of who actually bought the pool, considering that a lot of the patents apply to Linux. So even if Google had won, it's not clear if it would have actually helped them in the end.
      - juiceandjuice 15y ago
        I can't believe Microsoft is licensing all of them, otherwise they wouldn't care about them as much. In fact, they probably wouldn't have even bothered to buy them, especially if they thought the DoJ would rule in the way that they did. The DoJ ruling merely means they can't really leverage those patents against Google to stifle them more, which I'm sure the legal departments of Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle would have loved to do. It means those patents are less of a threat, but it wasn't a win for Google either. I don't agree that the DoJ would have made the same decision in the case that Google had exclusively won the patents. I think the litigious nature of Apple, Oracle, and Microsoft, especially towards Android, had quite a bit to do with that decision. I feel like Google is pulling the same thing they pulled with the FCC's 700Mhz Spectrum auction: Highlighting the faults of the system, advocating for consumers, getting some help from the government and trying to get their way without actually paying for it.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
nextparadigms 15y ago
The point is to have weapons for "mutually-assured destruction". Even if they never plan on using them, if Microsoft can use other patents against them and they can't use these patents against Microsoft, then they are useless to them, and Microsoft can go ahead and sue/threaten them with their other patents. That's the whole point of getting these patents - so you're more "dangerous". If Microsoft had them too, they wouldn't be a threat to them.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
haberman 15y ago
Google: MSFT (and others) have a cache of nuclear warheads pointed at us, and they outbid us when we tried to get our own stockpile for deterrence. MSFT: We gladly would have been part owners in a stockpile that can never be used on us. It would be like fighting the cold war by investing in nuclear stockpiles that can never be used unless both the USA and the USSR put their keys in the launcher. That's not how deterrence works.
redthrowaway 15y ago
Microsoft has a set of patents. We'll call them A. Google has a few patents. We'll call them B. The Novell auction was for a third set, C. Now |A| > |C| > |B|, by a long shot. Defensive patents work by allowing you to countersue anyone who sues you, and claim they are infringing upon your patents. In the end, the parties settle out of court and agree to a cross-licensing deal, which amounts to, "I won't sue you and you won't sue me." Because of the general stupidity of most patents issued, this is a game of quantity, not quality. Thus having 10,000 patents is far preferable to having 1,000, even if those 1,000 are for genuine innovations. This brings us back to our sets of patents. Google doesn't have much to defend themselves with, hence their desire to acquire C. However, if they jointly acquired C with Microsoft, those patents could only be used to defend themselves against entities other than Microsoft. As MS has the rights to C, Google couldn't sue them for infringement, whereas Microsoft could still sue Google for infringement on A. The only thing Google would have gained is protection from Microsoft suing them for infringement of C. Since Google was primarily concerned about Microsoft suing them, this wouldn't have done them any good. It would have amounted to a multi-billion dollar settlement with Microsoft, only against suits based on C. It simply wasn't worth it for them, as they would have been sued anyway and still had no protection.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

joebadmo 15y ago

You need to learn how defensive patents work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_patent_aggregation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_patent_aggregation It's not just to stop from being sued over that particular patent, but to be able to use that patent to counter-sue when litigated for other patents. Google has yet to use any of its patents offensively.

eridius 15y ago
Google didn't argue that this patent purchase was for defensive reasons. They argued that it was for offensive reasons, that these patents could then be used to attack Google and force licensing fees onto Android. That entire argument is negated by the fact that Google had the option of bidding jointly on the patents and, therefore, having a license to them.
- joebadmo 15y ago
  They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them; Microsoft’s objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. Where did they argue that it was for offensive reasons?
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    > Where did they argue that it was for offensive reasons? And since when a weapon directed at someone who's attacking you is offensive?
- hn_decay 15y ago
  Would you mind pointing out where Google made that argument? Because Google didn't make that argument, no matter how terribly M G Sielger may misinterpret it. "They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them;" That's what Google actually said. Google partly owning them in concert with Apple and Microsoft does nothing given that Apple and Microsoft are the primary antagonists of Android.
  - pohl 15y ago
    ...to make sure Google didn’t get them I haven't been following this closely, but isn't this phrase contradicted by having been invited to be in the band of Rockstars?
    - hn_decay 15y ago
      Not at all. Microsoft and Apple simply want to make sure that Google has nothing to counter their patent attacks with. They don't want Google to have them. Now Google sharing them with its two biggest antagonist...even footing a part of the bill...no surprise that they don't mind that.
      - kenjackson 15y ago
        That's not what it says though. Drummond said, "Google didn't get them", period. You either get them (which they could have) or you don't. Now you can add to that with additional constraints and rationale, which is what Google did in their update, but it's no longer the same statement. It's not a simple clarification, but a change of statement. Google tried to give the impression that they were blocked from getting the patents at all. Now they reveal their true motivation, which wasn't a simple "get them", but rather a more nuanced "we wanted to get them, and also have them not get them, so that we could use them against them". I think this is a perfectly valid reason Google gives, but its not what they were trying to evoke in their first blog post. They were trying to tug at heart strings at first -- this update is just kind of like, "Oh, big companies doing what big companies do -- again."
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  You're saying if Google bought them anyway, it would've meant fewer patents for Google to worry about, but that still wouldn't have been as effective as buying patents that could be used against Microsoft as retaliation. Google doesn't just want to counter all Microsoft's future patents that they will buy, because that still doesn't change anything. They want to counter Microsoft's old patents, the ones they are using right now.
- juiceandjuice 15y ago
  Google wanted the patents to fight back against Microsoft, since Microsoft is the one probably leveraging the greatest patent tax against Android devices. A joint ownership of the patents would be useless against Microsof. They could leverage them against Apple, or Oracle, or other parties that didn't own them, however, but even that could be to Microsoft's benefit. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
  - cube13 15y ago
    >Google wanted the patents to fight back against Microsoft, since Microsoft is the one probably leveraging the greatest patent tax against Android devices. A joint ownership of the patents would be useless against Microsof. They could leverage them against Apple, or Oracle, or other parties that didn't own them, however, but even that could be to Microsoft's benefit. Here's the problem: Even if Google won the Novell bid, they would not be able to use the patents as a defense against MS. MS is licensing the patents from Novell, and I think that if any other party bought the patent pool, they would continue to license them from whomever bought the pool. So Google couldn't use them in a defensive manner. They could make life annoying for MS by increasing the fees, but that's about it, especially because if they increased the fees too high, they'd doing the exact same thing that MS is. Plus, I think that the DoJ's decision to put the patents under GPLv2 and the OIN patent license would have been made regardless of who actually bought the pool, considering that a lot of the patents apply to Linux. So even if Google had won, it's not clear if it would have actually helped them in the end.
    - juiceandjuice 15y ago
      I can't believe Microsoft is licensing all of them, otherwise they wouldn't care about them as much. In fact, they probably wouldn't have even bothered to buy them, especially if they thought the DoJ would rule in the way that they did. The DoJ ruling merely means they can't really leverage those patents against Google to stifle them more, which I'm sure the legal departments of Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle would have loved to do. It means those patents are less of a threat, but it wasn't a win for Google either. I don't agree that the DoJ would have made the same decision in the case that Google had exclusively won the patents. I think the litigious nature of Apple, Oracle, and Microsoft, especially towards Android, had quite a bit to do with that decision. I feel like Google is pulling the same thing they pulled with the FCC's 700Mhz Spectrum auction: Highlighting the faults of the system, advocating for consumers, getting some help from the government and trying to get their way without actually paying for it.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

nextparadigms 15y ago

The point is to have weapons for "mutually-assured destruction". Even if they never plan on using them, if Microsoft can use other patents against them and they can't use these patents against Microsoft, then they are useless to them, and Microsoft can go ahead and sue/threaten them with their other patents. That's the whole point of getting these patents - so you're more "dangerous". If Microsoft had them too, they wouldn't be a threat to them.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

haberman 15y ago

Google: MSFT (and others) have a cache of nuclear warheads pointed at us, and they outbid us when we tried to get our own stockpile for deterrence. MSFT: We gladly would have been part owners in a stockpile that can never be used on us. It would be like fighting the cold war by investing in nuclear stockpiles that can never be used unless both the USA and the USSR put their keys in the launcher. That's not how deterrence works.

redthrowaway 15y ago

Microsoft has a set of patents. We'll call them A. Google has a few patents. We'll call them B. The Novell auction was for a third set, C. Now |A| > |C| > |B|, by a long shot. Defensive patents work by allowing you to countersue anyone who sues you, and claim they are infringing upon your patents. In the end, the parties settle out of court and agree to a cross-licensing deal, which amounts to, "I won't sue you and you won't sue me." Because of the general stupidity of most patents issued, this is a game of quantity, not quality. Thus having 10,000 patents is far preferable to having 1,000, even if those 1,000 are for genuine innovations. This brings us back to our sets of patents. Google doesn't have much to defend themselves with, hence their desire to acquire C. However, if they jointly acquired C with Microsoft, those patents could only be used to defend themselves against entities other than Microsoft. As MS has the rights to C, Google couldn't sue them for infringement, whereas Microsoft could still sue Google for infringement on A. The only thing Google would have gained is protection from Microsoft suing them for infringement of C. Since Google was primarily concerned about Microsoft suing them, this wouldn't have done them any good. It would have amounted to a multi-billion dollar settlement with Microsoft, only against suits based on C. It simply wasn't worth it for them, as they would have been sued anyway and still had no protection.