6 ms·

Kinda crappy but i'm sure google has tons of patents on things we would find trivial as well, as far as i'm concerned, let shitty mega corps duke it out.

chaosharmonic 5y ago
That's also a feedback loop though, that exists in part specifically because of how easy and common patent trolling has been. They have to have patents over stupid trivial things because if they don't register these someone else will, and then suddenly it's an even bigger waste of time and money for everyone involved. There's a reason orgs like the Alliance for Open Media -- a Google-led initiative -- use licensing that explicitly grants you use of the patents owned by member orgs, but also explicitly revoke those if you sue any of them over a patent claim.
- mason55 5y ago
  > They have to have patents over stupid trivial things because if they don't register these someone else will, and then suddenly it's an even bigger waste of time and money for everyone involved. It also works as a way to keep incumbents in power. Say Google has 100 important mobile OS patents and Apple has 100 important mobile OS patents. It makes sense for them to cross-license. But a new mobile OS entrant has nothing of interest to Google or Apple and so no way to get access to those important patents.
josephcsible 5y ago
> let shitty mega corps duke it out The problem with that is that we the customers end up as collateral damage.
- strikelaserclaw 5y ago
  i've begun to believe that customers have no power in first place. The most recent example being how youtube just came in and removed the dislike count, and no one could do anything, not only that i bet youtube usage hasn't gone down. These big companies are so entrenched in our minds at this point that they could essentially do whatever and get away with it.
  - makapuf 5y ago
    Again, Customers being advertisers and content producers have some power. You dont.
- mtarnovan 5y ago
  Exactly. Case in point: Sonos not getting along with Google means the Youtube Music app doesn't allow casting to a Sonos speaker directly (like the Spotify app for example). This means I have to use the Sonos app, which "wraps" the Youtube API, but in a very shitty way (there's lots of contents that I can easily find if I search for it on Youtube directly, but the same search string gives no or bad results if searched in the Sonos app). Not sure if this is just a poor implementation of the YT API by Sonos or more bad will on Google's part (I'm inclined to think it's the first), but either way the user experience is horrible. It's so bad that the Sonos speaker basically sits there unused (even though the sound quality is very good). I'm not taking Sonos' part here though: like other people here pointed out, I'm pretty sure they patented some very obvious things which they should imo never have gotten a patent for in the first place. edited to add this link for reference: https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/12/10/the-forced-switch-to-youtube-music-is-leaving-sonos-users-in-the-cold/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/12/10/the-forced-switch-t...
ceras 5y ago
Not all companies have an aggressive patent strategy. Historically, I believe Google felt negatively about software patents, and had fewer than other tech companies. Eventually they bought a large portfolio of patents (e.g. through the Motorola acquisition; when they later sold Motorola, they kept the patents) so that they could use them defensively, because not having enough patents became a liability. Even after that, I believe Google only used their patents defensively: they'd only sue company X for patent violations if company X sued Google for patent violations. When I worked there, that was the impression the company gave off, and some initiatives like "Alliance for Open Media" the other commenter mentioned are in line with that. I don't think Google is unique in this: older tech companies seem to have more aggressive patent strategies, whereas newer (.com era and onward) seem to dislike software patents but are forced to play the game by more aggressive companies and patent trolls. It's a drag on the industry IMO. The biggest losers are newer and smaller companies, who haven't had enough time or resources to build up a defensive patent portfolio.
- josho 5y ago
  Young companies typically aren’t aggressive on their patents because they are seeking growth. When their growth stalls out that’s when a shift to monetizing their patents occur. I’m starting to understand the capitalism is cancer arguments. Infinite growth is unsustainable. So inevitably companies that were once great need to use tactics like this to continue their infinite growth trajectory.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    Young companies with 'great patents' will leverage them both offensively and defensively if it makes sense to do that. Sonos, in this case, is 'kind of' a younger company. They're not making huge profits and 'free cash flow from a giant' would be huge for them. Mostly, patents are used defensively, so that companies big and small, don't get sued by trolls or steamrolled.
    - josho 5y ago
      I think Sonos proves my point. My understanding is that their growth has stalled out. So, that's why they are shifting to patent licensing. And maybe to your point that's fair assuming their patents are truly innovative inventions that Google is unfairly using.
Jensson 5y ago
As far as I know Google are very open that they never use their patents offensively, they just have them as a defence against other companies attacking them with patents. I think that is still true today, can't find any articles about Google suing companies over patents without being sued first. Now that Googles founders are no longer leading the company that might change, but so far their "do not be evil" still lives on in this regard, at least it did a few years ago.

chaosharmonic 5y ago

That's also a feedback loop though, that exists in part specifically because of how easy and common patent trolling has been. They have to have patents over stupid trivial things because if they don't register these someone else will, and then suddenly it's an even bigger waste of time and money for everyone involved. There's a reason orgs like the Alliance for Open Media -- a Google-led initiative -- use licensing that explicitly grants you use of the patents owned by member orgs, but also explicitly revoke those if you sue any of them over a patent claim.

mason55 5y ago
> They have to have patents over stupid trivial things because if they don't register these someone else will, and then suddenly it's an even bigger waste of time and money for everyone involved. It also works as a way to keep incumbents in power. Say Google has 100 important mobile OS patents and Apple has 100 important mobile OS patents. It makes sense for them to cross-license. But a new mobile OS entrant has nothing of interest to Google or Apple and so no way to get access to those important patents.

josephcsible 5y ago

> let shitty mega corps duke it out The problem with that is that we the customers end up as collateral damage.

strikelaserclaw 5y ago
i've begun to believe that customers have no power in first place. The most recent example being how youtube just came in and removed the dislike count, and no one could do anything, not only that i bet youtube usage hasn't gone down. These big companies are so entrenched in our minds at this point that they could essentially do whatever and get away with it.
- makapuf 5y ago
  Again, Customers being advertisers and content producers have some power. You dont.
mtarnovan 5y ago
Exactly. Case in point: Sonos not getting along with Google means the Youtube Music app doesn't allow casting to a Sonos speaker directly (like the Spotify app for example). This means I have to use the Sonos app, which "wraps" the Youtube API, but in a very shitty way (there's lots of contents that I can easily find if I search for it on Youtube directly, but the same search string gives no or bad results if searched in the Sonos app). Not sure if this is just a poor implementation of the YT API by Sonos or more bad will on Google's part (I'm inclined to think it's the first), but either way the user experience is horrible. It's so bad that the Sonos speaker basically sits there unused (even though the sound quality is very good). I'm not taking Sonos' part here though: like other people here pointed out, I'm pretty sure they patented some very obvious things which they should imo never have gotten a patent for in the first place. edited to add this link for reference: https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/12/10/the-forced-switch-to-youtube-music-is-leaving-sonos-users-in-the-cold/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/12/10/the-forced-switch-t...

ceras 5y ago

Not all companies have an aggressive patent strategy. Historically, I believe Google felt negatively about software patents, and had fewer than other tech companies. Eventually they bought a large portfolio of patents (e.g. through the Motorola acquisition; when they later sold Motorola, they kept the patents) so that they could use them defensively, because not having enough patents became a liability. Even after that, I believe Google only used their patents defensively: they'd only sue company X for patent violations if company X sued Google for patent violations. When I worked there, that was the impression the company gave off, and some initiatives like "Alliance for Open Media" the other commenter mentioned are in line with that. I don't think Google is unique in this: older tech companies seem to have more aggressive patent strategies, whereas newer (.com era and onward) seem to dislike software patents but are forced to play the game by more aggressive companies and patent trolls. It's a drag on the industry IMO. The biggest losers are newer and smaller companies, who haven't had enough time or resources to build up a defensive patent portfolio.

josho 5y ago
Young companies typically aren’t aggressive on their patents because they are seeking growth. When their growth stalls out that’s when a shift to monetizing their patents occur. I’m starting to understand the capitalism is cancer arguments. Infinite growth is unsustainable. So inevitably companies that were once great need to use tactics like this to continue their infinite growth trajectory.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Young companies with 'great patents' will leverage them both offensively and defensively if it makes sense to do that. Sonos, in this case, is 'kind of' a younger company. They're not making huge profits and 'free cash flow from a giant' would be huge for them. Mostly, patents are used defensively, so that companies big and small, don't get sued by trolls or steamrolled.
  - josho 5y ago
    I think Sonos proves my point. My understanding is that their growth has stalled out. So, that's why they are shifting to patent licensing. And maybe to your point that's fair assuming their patents are truly innovative inventions that Google is unfairly using.

Jensson 5y ago

As far as I know Google are very open that they never use their patents offensively, they just have them as a defence against other companies attacking them with patents. I think that is still true today, can't find any articles about Google suing companies over patents without being sued first. Now that Googles founders are no longer leading the company that might change, but so far their "do not be evil" still lives on in this regard, at least it did a few years ago.