6 ms·

"If Google doesn't have enough money to buy up patents, who does? Twice it has tried and been outbid, not by a single competitor but by a group of them joining

"If Google doesn't have enough money to buy up patents, who does? Twice it has tried and been outbid, not by a single competitor but by a group of them joining together. In fact, that's where, to me, the real antitrust issue surfaces, that by joining together to squeeze Google out of two auctions, Google's competitors appear to have been plotting against it in ways that really must invite scrutiny, which, by all reports is now happening again." I think this is the main point of this story and this whole issue, and that's what Google wanted to show us. If Google can't even get patents to protect themselves, because all the others keep banding together and not letting them win any auction, then something is very wrong here. You may say, yeah but then why doesn't Android have its own patents? Well, I don't think it would've been possible for them to get that many patents in this short amount of time, and I don't think it would've been possible for Apple either. Look at Apple, they are winning with patents not related to smartphones. If Apple wasn't this 30 year old computer company, their patent chest would've probably been close to zero, and a lot of these companies would've come after them, too. Here's a look at the mobile patents everyone has. You can see Google is not in top 10, but take a closer look - neither is Apple. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/the-biggest-ip-war-chests-08042011-gfx.html http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/the-biggest-ip-war-ches... So what would've happened if Apple didn't have any of their computers patents from before, and they actually were a new smartphone company? They would've probably gotten sued into oblivion as well, especially since they seem to make a lot of money from iPhones. Their handful of mobile patents would've meant nothing in the face of the mobile patent war chest of Nokia, Samsung, Microsoft, HP(Palm patents) and Motorola. You can't create something as complex as a smartphone and a smartphone OS today, without infringing a ton of patents. So if a new mobile company can be crushed because others have more patents than them, then what does that say about the patent system? It says the patent system does nothing to protect and encourage innovation, but it lets the big incumbent companies crush the new guys with their large patent war chests. It's bad enough when it's just one of them, it's much worse when they all join together against that company. If you can't build anything complex, without being a 10+ year old company (in that market) and not having thousands of patents - then something is very wrong with the patent system that was supposed to help start-ups and innovation. I think they all know this, but since they know they have the upper hand with current broken system, they will fight to maintain the current system.

mstepniowski 15y ago
Patents are not used for crushing other companies. They are used for getting a fair recompensation for the IP you have created. That usually means licensing fees. Apple has acquired several licenses for their use in iOS (well-known example: h264) and, guess what, they are not whining about it. Acquiring "bogus" patents in order to defend from legitimate ones you infringe upon is plainly evil as it twists the whole patent system (and is one of the reasons why our current patent system is broken). Incidentally, that's what Google planned to do. That doesn't automatically mean they are now an evil corporation, but it's not fair to describe the whole scheme as righteous. It's just business.
- bandushrew 15y ago
  I dont understand how you can tell bogus patents from legitimate ones? legally speaking, they all look the same to me. could you give me a run down on the differences?
  - mstepniowski 15y ago
    I trust Google when they say that patents they wanted to buy from Novell and Nortel were "bogus".
    - bandushrew 15y ago
      hmm? they cant be bogus from a legal POV, or they would be no good for defence. Maybe google just meant that they didn't like them very much?
      - gvb 15y ago
        Even bogus patents are valuable from a legal POV. The cost of defending oneself from a bogus patent is the same as the cost of defending oneself from a valid patent, and that cost is very high, in the millions of dollars and years of wasted time. Patents are being used as blackmail or a protection racket on the offense and as a MAD on defense. They are effective at both simply because the cost of litigation to defend against or invalidate even bogus patents is insanely high. This is what makes patent trolls so frustrating. There is no MAD defense since they make nothing, and thus have no exposure to countersuits. On the other hand, the cost of settling is an order of magnitude less than the cost of defeating against them, bogus or not, so the logical response is to "roll over" and pay the license fee. Unfortunately, that just encourages them.

mstepniowski 15y ago

Patents are not used for crushing other companies. They are used for getting a fair recompensation for the IP you have created. That usually means licensing fees. Apple has acquired several licenses for their use in iOS (well-known example: h264) and, guess what, they are not whining about it. Acquiring "bogus" patents in order to defend from legitimate ones you infringe upon is plainly evil as it twists the whole patent system (and is one of the reasons why our current patent system is broken). Incidentally, that's what Google planned to do. That doesn't automatically mean they are now an evil corporation, but it's not fair to describe the whole scheme as righteous. It's just business.

bandushrew 15y ago
I dont understand how you can tell bogus patents from legitimate ones? legally speaking, they all look the same to me. could you give me a run down on the differences?
- mstepniowski 15y ago
  I trust Google when they say that patents they wanted to buy from Novell and Nortel were "bogus".
  - bandushrew 15y ago
    hmm? they cant be bogus from a legal POV, or they would be no good for defence. Maybe google just meant that they didn't like them very much?
    - gvb 15y ago
      Even bogus patents are valuable from a legal POV. The cost of defending oneself from a bogus patent is the same as the cost of defending oneself from a valid patent, and that cost is very high, in the millions of dollars and years of wasted time. Patents are being used as blackmail or a protection racket on the offense and as a MAD on defense. They are effective at both simply because the cost of litigation to defend against or invalidate even bogus patents is insanely high. This is what makes patent trolls so frustrating. There is no MAD defense since they make nothing, and thus have no exposure to countersuits. On the other hand, the cost of settling is an order of magnitude less than the cost of defeating against them, bogus or not, so the logical response is to "roll over" and pay the license fee. Unfortunately, that just encourages them.