5 ms·
Not all companies have an aggressive patent strategy. Historically, I believe Google felt negatively about software patents, and had fewer than other tech compa
by 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 agoYoung 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 agoYoung 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 agoI 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.
- darkarmani 5y ago> they'd only sue company X for patent violations if company X sued Google for patent violations. That's still a problem. Suppose company X has a real innovation that is worth billions of dollars and google sues them using "bogus" patents? Most patents suck, but there are some that actually cover real innovation.
- fomine3 5y agoVP9/AV1 patent would be good example.
- sangnoir 5y ago> Suppose company X has a real innovation that is worth billions of dollars and google sues them using "bogus" patents? Bogus patents will be dismissed, eventually. Going to court means commiting to a multiyear-process with no clear outcome if the other party has a hefty patent portfolio (regardless of how you characterize them). The process is quicker and more painful against those without defense,as Google learned when Apple decided to go "Thermonuclear" with patents.
- cma 5y agoGoogle patented swapping out the entropy coder in a video codec, which is already a generic swappable module in practically every codec, for another they didn't invent, arithmetic coding.
- rasz 5y agohttps://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/inventor-says-google-is-patenting-work-he-put-in-the-public-domain/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/inventor-says-go...
- Jensson 5y agoDid Google use that patent offensively? Google takes on a lot of patents, but they don't attack people with the patents, that was the statement.