7 ms·

More on Google and Patents

28 points by Vexenon 15y ago

A-K 15y ago
"I never said it wasn’t OK for “Google to try and buy the same patents to not be sued.” Apple, Google, Microsoft, Oracle — they’re all playing the game. If Google had won the Nortel patents, and used those patents to secure licensing agreements for other patents (from, say, Microsoft and Apple) — that’s how the patent game is played. What I’m complaining about isn’t Google playing the game, but rather their insistent whining about their competitors only after they lost the game." Can't say I disagree.
- stanleydrew 15y ago
  Google isn't complaining about losing. It's complaining about the unfair way it believes the winners won.
  - sasidharm 15y ago
    How is it unfair?
    - stanleydrew 15y ago
      Read Google's post again. That's where it's explained. Note that the following is not necessarily my opinion, but my interpretation of Google's post. Google believes that a cartel of competitors formed to combine resources with the main purpose of using those resources to bid on IP to use against Android. The winning bid didn't reflect any individual competitor's valuation of the asset, but rather the aggregate of their valuations given that they all plan to use the asset as leverage against Android. Google thinks this is anticompetitive.
      - sasidharm 15y ago
        I read Google's post and Microsoft's response and Google's update to the post and Microsoft's response to the update as well: http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/gentlemen-take-this-outside/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/gentlemen-take-this-outside... Considering all arguments, I think there is more to this story than what Google told in the blog post. The fact that they did not even mention that they were offered to be part of the joint bid in the initial post raises a lot of questions.
        stanleydrew 15y ago
        Its fine for you to think that. I'm just discussing the merits of Gruber's post. I think he is trying to spin as whining what Google believes to be a legitimate claim of anticompetitive behavior.
  - A-K 15y ago
    Unfair? Through legitimately bidding higher than 3.14 billion dollars?
    - 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; seeking $15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android... From the original Google blog post.
      - A-K 15y ago
        But Google had the choice to be a part of the consortium, according to Microsoft's counsel. Assuming that invitation was indeed extended, how does that jive at all with what you just quoted?
        joebadmo 15y ago
        If you think about it, it's obvious why we turned down Microsoft’s offer. Microsoft's objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. 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. Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android — and having us pay for the privilege — must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn't fall for it. From the update to the original google blog post. Maybe you should read the whole thing. It's not that long. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-android.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-a...
        A-K 15y ago
        I did confused Nortel and Novell. My mistake. The biggest issue I guess I have is that, in addition to causing a fair bit of confusion, David Drummond didn't do Google any favors by originally writing as if they were also excluded from being included in the Novell buy. It's easy to backtrack once your competition has some illuminating facts to put out into the open. I'm of the opinion that there aren't really any true winners, at least in the public's eye, in patent bidding wars. But Google has definitely stumbled through the post-bidding PR.
stanleydrew 15y ago
Google could have joined consortium to take the Novell patents off the table. But Google wanted those patents for itself to defend against other patents they already infringed upon. This is extremely disingenuous. It is likely that Google would need to obtain defensive patents whether it believes it violates any patents at all.
kenjackson 15y ago
Doesn't the fact that everybody is jockeying to buy the IP of other companies to protect themselves from patent lawsuits suggest the system is broken? One piece of patent reform that might be nice is that you can't acquire IP, unless you have a majority of the people who created the IP under full-time employment (or something to that effect).
joebadmo 15y ago
The convolutions continue. "What I’m complaining about isn’t Google playing the game, but rather their insistent whining about their competitors only after they lost the game." It's easy to redefine the game as whatever suits your outcome. And it's perfectly reasonable to complain about an unfair game that you're losing because it's unfair. And anyway, by this logic, you could simply call the PR battle 'part of the game' and say Google is just playing on the rising anti-patent sentiment in the industry.
- AllenKids 15y ago
  Then Gruber's piece can be considered a rebuttal of such PR move. Oh it's so meta isn't it? Also the rules haven't changed a bit, Google got in the game knowingly. Though one can argue the patent system is broken and needs urgent adjustment. Nortel IP incident is more of bidding war and Google played its hand spectacularly badly plain and simple. There is nothing illegal and shady about Apple/Microsoft/RIM's win. Last I checked, throwing money at things is a perfect good strategy at owning them.
  - joebadmo 15y ago
    Yes, that's generally what smart people do when they're losing an argument: deny all terms and definitions. That's my point: once you render it all meaningless, it's easy to argue whatever you want, as Gruber demonstrates. For example: But the bottom line is that they wanted to use these patents competitively. Why is that the bottom line? That's in fact clearly not the bottom line, since it completely elides the distinction that Google is making. And calling it the bottom line is misdirection. Some people seem to think that Android doesn’t really violate any existing worthy patents. That’s all just a bunch of bogus patents that never should have been granted, and companies like Microsoft and Apple are just tying up Android handset makers in court out of dishonest competitive spite. If that’s the case, then I suppose you can argue that Google’s pursuit of these patents was out of the goodness of their corporate heart. But if Android does violate worthy patents, Google’s actions here are just as competitive as any other companies. You can guess which side I’m on, I suppose. This is maybe the most disingenous part. The same could be said of anyone afraid of getting sued by patent trolls like Lodsys/Intellectual Vultures. 'If you're not really violating any "existing worthy" patents, then you have nothing to worry about.' "But these are the laws we have." Indeed.
thezilch 15y ago
Google seems to feel entitled to copy whatever it wants. Android copies the UI from the iPhone. Places copied data from Yelp. Google+ copies from Facebook. Their coupon thing is a clone of Groupon. And yet it’s Google that acts as though it has been offended when these competitors fight back. The one sited source is extremely shallow, and the rest is both not sourced and laughable. Gruber is making quite the leap after his hand waving and backpedaling.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  While I'm not a fan of Gruber I think its fair to say that he's writing to an audience for which all of these are well known. You may disagree with their validity, but you're already well familiar with their arguments and evidence -- sources probably aren't a necessity for a blog post on the topic.
  - thezilch 15y ago
    The only reports I've read about are Apple's claims and lawsuits [against Android handsets], which I have found fairly disingenuous when one can find Apple borrowing from past IP. The remaining claims I've not heard of and have little reason they are anything but hot air and rabid FUD. Places copies Yelp data? Beyond the shallow article and the sites themselves, it is not obvious for the places I frequent. We are not given details about what Google was allowed to crawl, scrape, or otherwise. Google has millions, for any given site, of records that it will display through its search or otherwise. Gruber's claims against Google Plus and Offers are him merely grasping at straws and trying to paint Google as bad guys. What exactly is he or "his audience" claiming against these properties?
    - kenjackson 15y ago
      Honestly, I'm not clear if you're arguing the validity of Gruber's claims or that you'd never heard of them. I'm not saying that his audience is making any claim. I'm saying that his audience knows what claims Gruber is referring to. I do agree that sources rarely hurt, but in this case it doesn't seem crucial. With that said, Gruber is the guy who did a crusade against Ina Fried because she only linked to a source and didn't spell out the author's full name. So given that, it's probably fair to stretch Gruber for his ommission of sources.
rosejn 15y ago
He has to turn comments off on Daring Fireball or else he would be called out as an Apple fanboy/lobbyist after posts like this. Plenty of companies are willing to compete by creating better products rather than taking their competition to court. The iPhone is getting pushed aside by Android and they are playing dirty to stop it. Unless you can point to some novel technology that Apple should control because it was truly new and different, then Android should be able to compete. Just calling it "competitive" rather than offense and defense is a political tactic that tries to make Google look just as bad as the other guys, or conversely make Apple look just as good as the others. This is not a valid comparison. Combative patent lawsuits are not a requirement for successful businesses. There is a major difference between companies that choose to be litigious to stifle competition rather than focus on creating better products at a cheaper price. Buying a patent portfolio in order to stifle innovation rather than to enable you to create new or better products goes against the purpose of the patent system as it is described in the constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." They should have pooled these billions to create a massive patent reform campaign. It probably would have been cheaper and more effective in the long run.
- halostatue 15y ago
  Just a point: John Gruber has never allowed comments on Daring Fireball. This is not a new policy nor something he chooses on a per-post basis. To me, Gruber is being consistent here: he doesn't like software patents (see his commentary on Lodsys and other NPEs), but the fact is that they exist and the way they're used now is as he describes. Google is being disingenuous about Android and patents; Google's lawyer lied about the Novell patents and the lie has been called out by Microsoft. Google may have good reason to have not wanted to go into a co-purchase agreement of the Novell patents (as Gruber outlines in this post), but to complain of unfairness now that you lost a bidding war? That's childish. Google would actually have a moral high ground if they hadn't even bid for the Novell patents. Not bidding for them would have been a remarkably stupid move given the current patent/legal landscape, even though it meant that Google gave up the moral high ground. Patents in the U.S. are badly broken, and I despair that software patents were ever granted in the first place. One of the things that I suspect that most people who oppose software patents forget, though, is that even if software patents were taken off the table tomorrow, the existing patents wouldn't go away. The government wouldn't retroactively invalidate any software patent ever granted (it'd be a hard enough fight just to get software patents blocked for the future), and courts examining the patents tend to look at whether the patent was (or could have been) valid at the time of its granting, not whether it makes sense now.
mcantelon 15y ago
>And yes, there are some who will argue that there are no “worthy patents”, that the entire U.S. patent system should be simply abolished. I like how Gruber conflates patents in general with software patents: as if you can't have one without the other.
- stanleydrew 15y ago
  I noticed this too. I don't read Gruber regularly but he seems to be either very careless or wilfully misleading in the way that he conflates concepts.
beej71 15y ago
So the summary is... Google comes across as whining...? The thing is, with a title like "More of Google and Patents", I can't quickly tell that a link in my RSS feed is headed to daringfireball. There is a nice Chrome plugin I just found called "Blocker", however, so that just put a final end to that.
azakai 15y ago
> But if Android does violate worthy patents, Google’s actions here are just as competitive as any other companies. You can guess which side I’m on, I suppose. Why not point us to such a worthy patent, then? All the patents that have been mentioned publicly so far have clearly been worthless and trivial. To make his case, a single worthy patent would suffice.
- ender7 15y ago
  Exactly. Every patent that I've seen (for example, Apple vs. HTC) boils down to complete bullshit. I'd welcome someone finding a non-bullshit patent that Android is clearly violating (possibly something with Java? They don't use any of the JVM technology and I don't think I could consider programming language semantics patentable). Relatedly: Google seems to feel entitled to copy whatever it wants. Android copies the UI from the iPhone. Places copied data from Yelp. Google+ copies from Facebook. Their coupon thing is a clone of Groupon. And yet it’s Google that acts as though it has been offended when these competitors fight back. For a man who is so in love with Everything is a Remix [1], this strikes me as an odd position. Once things like this are up for grabs, you can start pointing fingers all the way back to the first transistor. There's a thick line between "remix" and "ripoff" and I've yet to see Google cross it in a significant manner. [1] http://www.everythingisaremix.info/ http://www.everythingisaremix.info/
icarus_drowning 15y ago
Google’s blog post comes across as whining that Apple and Microsoft (Microsoft especially) aren’t sitting back and allowing Android to destroy their businesses. No, Google's blog post rightly points out that Microsoft and Apple haven chosen to fight against Android by litigation rather than invention. If Google where "whining" that Microsoft and Apple were building cooler stuff into their phones, it would be laughable. But that isn't what Google is saying. Suggesting that Google wants MS/Apple to "[sit] back and [allow] Android to destroy their business" is an obvious and clumsy strawman. Gruber isn't arguing the merits of the platforms. He's arguing that the patent system as-is does work, and that Microsoft and Apple shouldn't be criticized for using it. The problem is, they aren't merely using it, they are abusing it, which seems to suggest that it doesn't work nearly as well as Gruber says it does. [EDIT: Minor grammatical cleanup]
- technoslut 15y ago
  I've never taken this as Gruber believing the patent system is working well. A post from DF: http://daringfireball.net/2010/03/this_apple_htc_patent_thing http://daringfireball.net/2010/03/this_apple_htc_patent_thin... From the post: "But for software the system, in practice, is undeniably broken. There’s an argument to be made that software is inherently different than other fields of invention, different in such a way that patents should not apply — or, should apply for a significantly shorter period of time before expiring. You can’t (or at least shouldn’t) be able to patent mathematics, and there are good arguments that programming is a branch of mathematics. But because software patents are granted, concede at least for the moment that certain kinds of software innovations ought to be patentable. Even with that in mind, clearly the U.S. Patent Office is and has granted patents for things which ought not be patentable. Not just silly frivolous things, but patents that have been granted for concepts alone, rather than specific innovative implementations of said concepts. Ideas in the abstract, rather than implementations of ideas." To me this sounds like a well-reasoned post that acknowledges the patent system is broken. I'm not sure if I would validate software patents at all but it's a far better system than what's in place now. Also: "To me, “user interface” patents are hand-in-hand with “business method patents” as examples of things which, no matter how innovative or original, ought not be patentable. They’re idea patents." This is just something to point out that this where Gruber and Apple do seem to stray paths. Gruber may be an Apple fan but it doesn't go beyond all reason. Regarding the situation with Google, I do think he is mostly right. I would have liked to have seen Google publicly lobby against software patents in general, with the consumer and Congress. That is not the path they chose. Instead they chose to become an investor in Intellectual Ventures and play the game of mutually assured destruction with MS, Apple & Oracle. Doing so makes them equally complicit in the process. Winning the battle against these three companies does not protect the indie dev. It only serves Google's end which means their motives are ultimately selfish. If they can play selfish why can't others who currently have the law on their side?
nextparadigms 15y ago
Is anyone willing to go through what Apple copies, and make a full list with specific items they've copied from others? Because I'm sure like 80% of the technology used in their products is not their own, and most of the other 20% was based on older technology. Look, I'm not saying Apple is not an innovative company. It is. But what exactly does an innovative company mean? Does it mean their product is 100% based on their own technology? 90% based on their own technology? I doubt it even comes close to that. Take the iPhone for example. Did Apple re-invent the the 2G tech in it? The 3G one? Did they invent the processor in it? What about the GPU? Did they invent the whole multi-touch panel? Was the invention 100% based on their knowledge and technology if it was? I'm sure the UI can be de-constructed the same way, too, to prove most of it is not "brand new". If they invented so much in the iPhone, why is it that they can only win against HTC with patents from 1994 and 1996, that aren't even related to smartphones, let alone the iPhone? It really bothers me to see how everyone treats iPhone as if 100% of its technology was invented by Apple, and 100% of Android's technology was "stolen" and "copied", because that's completely false. Perhaps, the iPhone has 10% of its technology that is actually new, and perhaps Android only has 5% of it that is brand new, and because of that I suppose you can call Apple more innovative than Google, but let's not pretend that Apple doesn't copy anything, or let's turn a blind eye to the things Apple copies, just because they're a little more innovative than Google. People need to wake up and see that ALL companies copy and base their technology on something else, but even when they do copy it, it's usually not a 100% carbon copy, but a derivative technology (think iOS 5 notification system), and that's how technology evolves.

28 points by Vexenon 15y ago

A-K 15y ago

"I never said it wasn’t OK for “Google to try and buy the same patents to not be sued.” Apple, Google, Microsoft, Oracle — they’re all playing the game. If Google had won the Nortel patents, and used those patents to secure licensing agreements for other patents (from, say, Microsoft and Apple) — that’s how the patent game is played. What I’m complaining about isn’t Google playing the game, but rather their insistent whining about their competitors only after they lost the game." Can't say I disagree.

stanleydrew 15y ago
Google isn't complaining about losing. It's complaining about the unfair way it believes the winners won.
- sasidharm 15y ago
  How is it unfair?
  - stanleydrew 15y ago
    Read Google's post again. That's where it's explained. Note that the following is not necessarily my opinion, but my interpretation of Google's post. Google believes that a cartel of competitors formed to combine resources with the main purpose of using those resources to bid on IP to use against Android. The winning bid didn't reflect any individual competitor's valuation of the asset, but rather the aggregate of their valuations given that they all plan to use the asset as leverage against Android. Google thinks this is anticompetitive.
    - sasidharm 15y ago
      I read Google's post and Microsoft's response and Google's update to the post and Microsoft's response to the update as well: http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/gentlemen-take-this-outside/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/gentlemen-take-this-outside... Considering all arguments, I think there is more to this story than what Google told in the blog post. The fact that they did not even mention that they were offered to be part of the joint bid in the initial post raises a lot of questions.
      - stanleydrew 15y ago
        Its fine for you to think that. I'm just discussing the merits of Gruber's post. I think he is trying to spin as whining what Google believes to be a legitimate claim of anticompetitive behavior.
- A-K 15y ago
  Unfair? Through legitimately bidding higher than 3.14 billion dollars?
  - 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; seeking $15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android... From the original Google blog post.
    - A-K 15y ago
      But Google had the choice to be a part of the consortium, according to Microsoft's counsel. Assuming that invitation was indeed extended, how does that jive at all with what you just quoted?
      - joebadmo 15y ago
        If you think about it, it's obvious why we turned down Microsoft’s offer. Microsoft's objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. 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. Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android — and having us pay for the privilege — must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn't fall for it. From the update to the original google blog post. Maybe you should read the whole thing. It's not that long. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-android.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-a...
        A-K 15y ago
        I did confused Nortel and Novell. My mistake. The biggest issue I guess I have is that, in addition to causing a fair bit of confusion, David Drummond didn't do Google any favors by originally writing as if they were also excluded from being included in the Novell buy. It's easy to backtrack once your competition has some illuminating facts to put out into the open. I'm of the opinion that there aren't really any true winners, at least in the public's eye, in patent bidding wars. But Google has definitely stumbled through the post-bidding PR.

stanleydrew 15y ago

Google could have joined consortium to take the Novell patents off the table. But Google wanted those patents for itself to defend against other patents they already infringed upon. This is extremely disingenuous. It is likely that Google would need to obtain defensive patents whether it believes it violates any patents at all.

kenjackson 15y ago

Doesn't the fact that everybody is jockeying to buy the IP of other companies to protect themselves from patent lawsuits suggest the system is broken? One piece of patent reform that might be nice is that you can't acquire IP, unless you have a majority of the people who created the IP under full-time employment (or something to that effect).

joebadmo 15y ago

The convolutions continue. "What I’m complaining about isn’t Google playing the game, but rather their insistent whining about their competitors only after they lost the game." It's easy to redefine the game as whatever suits your outcome. And it's perfectly reasonable to complain about an unfair game that you're losing because it's unfair. And anyway, by this logic, you could simply call the PR battle 'part of the game' and say Google is just playing on the rising anti-patent sentiment in the industry.

AllenKids 15y ago
Then Gruber's piece can be considered a rebuttal of such PR move. Oh it's so meta isn't it? Also the rules haven't changed a bit, Google got in the game knowingly. Though one can argue the patent system is broken and needs urgent adjustment. Nortel IP incident is more of bidding war and Google played its hand spectacularly badly plain and simple. There is nothing illegal and shady about Apple/Microsoft/RIM's win. Last I checked, throwing money at things is a perfect good strategy at owning them.
- joebadmo 15y ago
  Yes, that's generally what smart people do when they're losing an argument: deny all terms and definitions. That's my point: once you render it all meaningless, it's easy to argue whatever you want, as Gruber demonstrates. For example: But the bottom line is that they wanted to use these patents competitively. Why is that the bottom line? That's in fact clearly not the bottom line, since it completely elides the distinction that Google is making. And calling it the bottom line is misdirection. Some people seem to think that Android doesn’t really violate any existing worthy patents. That’s all just a bunch of bogus patents that never should have been granted, and companies like Microsoft and Apple are just tying up Android handset makers in court out of dishonest competitive spite. If that’s the case, then I suppose you can argue that Google’s pursuit of these patents was out of the goodness of their corporate heart. But if Android does violate worthy patents, Google’s actions here are just as competitive as any other companies. You can guess which side I’m on, I suppose. This is maybe the most disingenous part. The same could be said of anyone afraid of getting sued by patent trolls like Lodsys/Intellectual Vultures. 'If you're not really violating any "existing worthy" patents, then you have nothing to worry about.' "But these are the laws we have." Indeed.

thezilch 15y ago

Google seems to feel entitled to copy whatever it wants. Android copies the UI from the iPhone. Places copied data from Yelp. Google+ copies from Facebook. Their coupon thing is a clone of Groupon. And yet it’s Google that acts as though it has been offended when these competitors fight back. The one sited source is extremely shallow, and the rest is both not sourced and laughable. Gruber is making quite the leap after his hand waving and backpedaling.

kenjackson 15y ago
While I'm not a fan of Gruber I think its fair to say that he's writing to an audience for which all of these are well known. You may disagree with their validity, but you're already well familiar with their arguments and evidence -- sources probably aren't a necessity for a blog post on the topic.
- thezilch 15y ago
  The only reports I've read about are Apple's claims and lawsuits [against Android handsets], which I have found fairly disingenuous when one can find Apple borrowing from past IP. The remaining claims I've not heard of and have little reason they are anything but hot air and rabid FUD. Places copies Yelp data? Beyond the shallow article and the sites themselves, it is not obvious for the places I frequent. We are not given details about what Google was allowed to crawl, scrape, or otherwise. Google has millions, for any given site, of records that it will display through its search or otherwise. Gruber's claims against Google Plus and Offers are him merely grasping at straws and trying to paint Google as bad guys. What exactly is he or "his audience" claiming against these properties?
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    Honestly, I'm not clear if you're arguing the validity of Gruber's claims or that you'd never heard of them. I'm not saying that his audience is making any claim. I'm saying that his audience knows what claims Gruber is referring to. I do agree that sources rarely hurt, but in this case it doesn't seem crucial. With that said, Gruber is the guy who did a crusade against Ina Fried because she only linked to a source and didn't spell out the author's full name. So given that, it's probably fair to stretch Gruber for his ommission of sources.

rosejn 15y ago

He has to turn comments off on Daring Fireball or else he would be called out as an Apple fanboy/lobbyist after posts like this. Plenty of companies are willing to compete by creating better products rather than taking their competition to court. The iPhone is getting pushed aside by Android and they are playing dirty to stop it. Unless you can point to some novel technology that Apple should control because it was truly new and different, then Android should be able to compete. Just calling it "competitive" rather than offense and defense is a political tactic that tries to make Google look just as bad as the other guys, or conversely make Apple look just as good as the others. This is not a valid comparison. Combative patent lawsuits are not a requirement for successful businesses. There is a major difference between companies that choose to be litigious to stifle competition rather than focus on creating better products at a cheaper price. Buying a patent portfolio in order to stifle innovation rather than to enable you to create new or better products goes against the purpose of the patent system as it is described in the constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." They should have pooled these billions to create a massive patent reform campaign. It probably would have been cheaper and more effective in the long run.

halostatue 15y ago
Just a point: John Gruber has never allowed comments on Daring Fireball. This is not a new policy nor something he chooses on a per-post basis. To me, Gruber is being consistent here: he doesn't like software patents (see his commentary on Lodsys and other NPEs), but the fact is that they exist and the way they're used now is as he describes. Google is being disingenuous about Android and patents; Google's lawyer lied about the Novell patents and the lie has been called out by Microsoft. Google may have good reason to have not wanted to go into a co-purchase agreement of the Novell patents (as Gruber outlines in this post), but to complain of unfairness now that you lost a bidding war? That's childish. Google would actually have a moral high ground if they hadn't even bid for the Novell patents. Not bidding for them would have been a remarkably stupid move given the current patent/legal landscape, even though it meant that Google gave up the moral high ground. Patents in the U.S. are badly broken, and I despair that software patents were ever granted in the first place. One of the things that I suspect that most people who oppose software patents forget, though, is that even if software patents were taken off the table tomorrow, the existing patents wouldn't go away. The government wouldn't retroactively invalidate any software patent ever granted (it'd be a hard enough fight just to get software patents blocked for the future), and courts examining the patents tend to look at whether the patent was (or could have been) valid at the time of its granting, not whether it makes sense now.

mcantelon 15y ago

>And yes, there are some who will argue that there are no “worthy patents”, that the entire U.S. patent system should be simply abolished. I like how Gruber conflates patents in general with software patents: as if you can't have one without the other.

stanleydrew 15y ago
I noticed this too. I don't read Gruber regularly but he seems to be either very careless or wilfully misleading in the way that he conflates concepts.

beej71 15y ago

So the summary is... Google comes across as whining...? The thing is, with a title like "More of Google and Patents", I can't quickly tell that a link in my RSS feed is headed to daringfireball. There is a nice Chrome plugin I just found called "Blocker", however, so that just put a final end to that.

azakai 15y ago

> But if Android does violate worthy patents, Google’s actions here are just as competitive as any other companies. You can guess which side I’m on, I suppose. Why not point us to such a worthy patent, then? All the patents that have been mentioned publicly so far have clearly been worthless and trivial. To make his case, a single worthy patent would suffice.

ender7 15y ago
Exactly. Every patent that I've seen (for example, Apple vs. HTC) boils down to complete bullshit. I'd welcome someone finding a non-bullshit patent that Android is clearly violating (possibly something with Java? They don't use any of the JVM technology and I don't think I could consider programming language semantics patentable). Relatedly: Google seems to feel entitled to copy whatever it wants. Android copies the UI from the iPhone. Places copied data from Yelp. Google+ copies from Facebook. Their coupon thing is a clone of Groupon. And yet it’s Google that acts as though it has been offended when these competitors fight back. For a man who is so in love with Everything is a Remix [1], this strikes me as an odd position. Once things like this are up for grabs, you can start pointing fingers all the way back to the first transistor. There's a thick line between "remix" and "ripoff" and I've yet to see Google cross it in a significant manner. [1] http://www.everythingisaremix.info/ http://www.everythingisaremix.info/

icarus_drowning 15y ago

Google’s blog post comes across as whining that Apple and Microsoft (Microsoft especially) aren’t sitting back and allowing Android to destroy their businesses. No, Google's blog post rightly points out that Microsoft and Apple haven chosen to fight against Android by litigation rather than invention. If Google where "whining" that Microsoft and Apple were building cooler stuff into their phones, it would be laughable. But that isn't what Google is saying. Suggesting that Google wants MS/Apple to "[sit] back and [allow] Android to destroy their business" is an obvious and clumsy strawman. Gruber isn't arguing the merits of the platforms. He's arguing that the patent system as-is does work, and that Microsoft and Apple shouldn't be criticized for using it. The problem is, they aren't merely using it, they are abusing it, which seems to suggest that it doesn't work nearly as well as Gruber says it does. [EDIT: Minor grammatical cleanup]

technoslut 15y ago
I've never taken this as Gruber believing the patent system is working well. A post from DF: http://daringfireball.net/2010/03/this_apple_htc_patent_thing http://daringfireball.net/2010/03/this_apple_htc_patent_thin... From the post: "But for software the system, in practice, is undeniably broken. There’s an argument to be made that software is inherently different than other fields of invention, different in such a way that patents should not apply — or, should apply for a significantly shorter period of time before expiring. You can’t (or at least shouldn’t) be able to patent mathematics, and there are good arguments that programming is a branch of mathematics. But because software patents are granted, concede at least for the moment that certain kinds of software innovations ought to be patentable. Even with that in mind, clearly the U.S. Patent Office is and has granted patents for things which ought not be patentable. Not just silly frivolous things, but patents that have been granted for concepts alone, rather than specific innovative implementations of said concepts. Ideas in the abstract, rather than implementations of ideas." To me this sounds like a well-reasoned post that acknowledges the patent system is broken. I'm not sure if I would validate software patents at all but it's a far better system than what's in place now. Also: "To me, “user interface” patents are hand-in-hand with “business method patents” as examples of things which, no matter how innovative or original, ought not be patentable. They’re idea patents." This is just something to point out that this where Gruber and Apple do seem to stray paths. Gruber may be an Apple fan but it doesn't go beyond all reason. Regarding the situation with Google, I do think he is mostly right. I would have liked to have seen Google publicly lobby against software patents in general, with the consumer and Congress. That is not the path they chose. Instead they chose to become an investor in Intellectual Ventures and play the game of mutually assured destruction with MS, Apple & Oracle. Doing so makes them equally complicit in the process. Winning the battle against these three companies does not protect the indie dev. It only serves Google's end which means their motives are ultimately selfish. If they can play selfish why can't others who currently have the law on their side?

nextparadigms 15y ago

Is anyone willing to go through what Apple copies, and make a full list with specific items they've copied from others? Because I'm sure like 80% of the technology used in their products is not their own, and most of the other 20% was based on older technology. Look, I'm not saying Apple is not an innovative company. It is. But what exactly does an innovative company mean? Does it mean their product is 100% based on their own technology? 90% based on their own technology? I doubt it even comes close to that. Take the iPhone for example. Did Apple re-invent the the 2G tech in it? The 3G one? Did they invent the processor in it? What about the GPU? Did they invent the whole multi-touch panel? Was the invention 100% based on their knowledge and technology if it was? I'm sure the UI can be de-constructed the same way, too, to prove most of it is not "brand new". If they invented so much in the iPhone, why is it that they can only win against HTC with patents from 1994 and 1996, that aren't even related to smartphones, let alone the iPhone? It really bothers me to see how everyone treats iPhone as if 100% of its technology was invented by Apple, and 100% of Android's technology was "stolen" and "copied", because that's completely false. Perhaps, the iPhone has 10% of its technology that is actually new, and perhaps Android only has 5% of it that is brand new, and because of that I suppose you can call Apple more innovative than Google, but let's not pretend that Apple doesn't copy anything, or let's turn a blind eye to the things Apple copies, just because they're a little more innovative than Google. People need to wake up and see that ALL companies copy and base their technology on something else, but even when they do copy it, it's usually not a 100% carbon copy, but a derivative technology (think iOS 5 notification system), and that's how technology evolves.