6 ms·

British Telecom sues Google over Android (and almost everything else)

30 points by fpgeek 15y ago

zimbatm 15y ago
Why only Google ? At a first glance, it seems to me that these patents would also cover Microsoft's Bing and Apple's AppStore(tm). So why target only Google ? Are they perceived as the weakest link or are they siding with Microsoft/Apple ? They also have these patents for long, why attack Google now ?
- schwuk 15y ago
  The article told you - licensing. They've been trying to get Google to license the patents. Presumably Microsoft and Apple have already licensed them, or come to some other arrangement.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    Or possibly they failed with those other companies too, and either a.) hope their court case will push these deals or b.) plan to take them to court, just not at the same time as Google.
DiabloD3 15y ago
I wish companies purporting to publish articles by legitimate journalists would quit citing Florian Mueller. He is neither a member of the FOSS community, nor does he have any legal background whatsoever.
- fpgeek 15y ago
  Seconded. Sadly, as a paid lobbyist, I expect Florian has more time than the rest of us to look for news in his niche and try to be the first to comment on and share it (plus there are probably times where a client notifies him directly). Which is a big reason journalists end up citing him, I suspect. BTW, for those wanting an example of Florian's bias, he posted about BT's lawsuit without saying a word about the highly-relevant "hyperlink patent" background. I'd say that is a pretty good example.
kingofspain 15y ago
No doubt this will go the way of the hyperlink nonsense. BT should really be thinking a bit bigger though, like British Rail of all people with its flying saucer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4801928.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4801928.stm)
unreal37 15y ago
It would be a delicious irony if Google, Apple, Microsoft, and IBM collectively checked their vast patent portfolios and discovered all the ways BT violates their patents. Sue them out of business.
- guelo 15y ago
  Why would Apple and Microsoft side with Google in any lawsuits when it is obvious that there is a concerted legal effort against Google?
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    Especially since Apple bought at least one patent from BT that it is using to sue HTC.
guard-of-terra 15y ago
I hate how they never did anything useful at all with those patents (at least for people outside UK) and yet they dare. Not that I like Google much.
- cloudwalking 15y ago
  Honest question: why don't you like Google? Is there a search engine you prefer?
  - guard-of-terra 15y ago
    This surely isn't an independent opinion because I work for another search engine (but not on search). This might also explain my bias against telecoms and toward internet companies, so my opinion perhaps isn't relevant at all.
tomelders 15y ago
Poor class. Even if you agree that such "things" are patentable, BT has never brought anything to market that makes use of these patents. And as a Brit, I take umbrage with BT's choice to enter the patent wars. They're costly and destructive. If BT wins,Britain will not see reduced costs for operating and maintaing the infastructure, but if BT lose and get's sucked into the more and more patent suits, Britain as a whole will foot the bill. It's reckless. It's cheap. It's undignified and It's just not cricket.
- epo 15y ago
  BT is a private company these days, has been for a long time, how does Britain as whole foot the bill?
  - DrJokepu 15y ago
    I think an argument could be made (and I don't necessarily agree with it) that since a very large portion of BT's revenues originate from the UK and BT has a very large presence on the UK telecommunications market, it will be ultimately British consumers who will end up paying for such a loss, one way or other.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    They're a private company, but they are still a monopoly with a universal service obligation and highly regulated by Ofcom. So while we (the British public) might not have to pay for their mistakes with our taxes - though worth noting that, not unlike banks, the Government would have no choice but to bail BT out if it was ever needed - any money they lose from this they regain from their customers, which are the public. And the monopoly ensures most people will pay.
  - willyt 15y ago
    BT is a state regulated monopoly in the UK for several of the tiers of the telecommunications infrastructure. The vast majority of IP packets from domestic and SME's will pas through their infrastructure at some point. Simplistically, if their costs go up then presumably their wholesale costs and everyone's phone bills go up too. In practice their accounts are heavily scrutinised (at great cost to the taxpayer) so there is probably some kind of complicated regulatory mechanism that prevents this. Quick rant as an aside: Utilities and infrastructure tend to be natural monopolies as it costs so much to get them up and running nobody wants to do it twice. Competition in infrastructure provision for any given service of this nature always seems to end up being a wasteful and bureaucratic mess of government regulated artificially created 'competition' between a few companies. For more UK examples see British Airports Authority, Network Rail, Electricity, Gas etc. Infrastructure should allow one country to compete effectively with others by improving internal efficiency. Perhaps they should be independent democratically controlled state entities; every citizen gets a share.
Mordor 15y ago
Cruise missiles used these techniques at least 10 years prior.
- DrJokepu 15y ago
  It's difficult to tell if there's prior art (or infringement for that matter) without reading the full contents of the patents in question. Being based on similar principles is not enough, it has to implement the patent exactly as described in the patent.
epo 15y ago
I used to work at BT Labs back in the day, there were very, very many smart engineers and scientists there. BT had a dismal track record of exploiting anything Labs came up with, then again Labs were very bad at being relevant and selling themselves to the company. I could easily believe that Labs (and their predecessors) discovered the key ideas behind Google many years before they knew what to do with them.
dutchbrit 15y ago
I thought software/programming related patents weren't valid here in Europe?! Or am I missing something?
- McP 15y ago
  The patents were filed in the US: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6169515.PN.&OS=PN/6169515&RS=PN/6169515 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...

30 points by fpgeek 15y ago

Why only Google ? At a first glance, it seems to me that these patents would also cover Microsoft's Bing and Apple's AppStore(tm). So why target only Google ? Are they perceived as the weakest link or are they siding with Microsoft/Apple ? They also have these patents for long, why attack Google now ?

schwuk 15y ago
The article told you - licensing. They've been trying to get Google to license the patents. Presumably Microsoft and Apple have already licensed them, or come to some other arrangement.
- corin_ 15y ago
  Or possibly they failed with those other companies too, and either a.) hope their court case will push these deals or b.) plan to take them to court, just not at the same time as Google.

DiabloD3 15y ago

I wish companies purporting to publish articles by legitimate journalists would quit citing Florian Mueller. He is neither a member of the FOSS community, nor does he have any legal background whatsoever.

fpgeek 15y ago
Seconded. Sadly, as a paid lobbyist, I expect Florian has more time than the rest of us to look for news in his niche and try to be the first to comment on and share it (plus there are probably times where a client notifies him directly). Which is a big reason journalists end up citing him, I suspect. BTW, for those wanting an example of Florian's bias, he posted about BT's lawsuit without saying a word about the highly-relevant "hyperlink patent" background. I'd say that is a pretty good example.

kingofspain 15y ago

No doubt this will go the way of the hyperlink nonsense. BT should really be thinking a bit bigger though, like British Rail of all people with its flying saucer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4801928.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4801928.stm)

unreal37 15y ago

It would be a delicious irony if Google, Apple, Microsoft, and IBM collectively checked their vast patent portfolios and discovered all the ways BT violates their patents. Sue them out of business.

guelo 15y ago
Why would Apple and Microsoft side with Google in any lawsuits when it is obvious that there is a concerted legal effort against Google?
- fpgeek 15y ago
  Especially since Apple bought at least one patent from BT that it is using to sue HTC.

guard-of-terra 15y ago

I hate how they never did anything useful at all with those patents (at least for people outside UK) and yet they dare. Not that I like Google much.

cloudwalking 15y ago
Honest question: why don't you like Google? Is there a search engine you prefer?
- guard-of-terra 15y ago
  This surely isn't an independent opinion because I work for another search engine (but not on search). This might also explain my bias against telecoms and toward internet companies, so my opinion perhaps isn't relevant at all.

tomelders 15y ago

Poor class. Even if you agree that such "things" are patentable, BT has never brought anything to market that makes use of these patents. And as a Brit, I take umbrage with BT's choice to enter the patent wars. They're costly and destructive. If BT wins,Britain will not see reduced costs for operating and maintaing the infastructure, but if BT lose and get's sucked into the more and more patent suits, Britain as a whole will foot the bill. It's reckless. It's cheap. It's undignified and It's just not cricket.

epo 15y ago
BT is a private company these days, has been for a long time, how does Britain as whole foot the bill?
- DrJokepu 15y ago
  I think an argument could be made (and I don't necessarily agree with it) that since a very large portion of BT's revenues originate from the UK and BT has a very large presence on the UK telecommunications market, it will be ultimately British consumers who will end up paying for such a loss, one way or other.
- corin_ 15y ago
  They're a private company, but they are still a monopoly with a universal service obligation and highly regulated by Ofcom. So while we (the British public) might not have to pay for their mistakes with our taxes - though worth noting that, not unlike banks, the Government would have no choice but to bail BT out if it was ever needed - any money they lose from this they regain from their customers, which are the public. And the monopoly ensures most people will pay.
- willyt 15y ago
  BT is a state regulated monopoly in the UK for several of the tiers of the telecommunications infrastructure. The vast majority of IP packets from domestic and SME's will pas through their infrastructure at some point. Simplistically, if their costs go up then presumably their wholesale costs and everyone's phone bills go up too. In practice their accounts are heavily scrutinised (at great cost to the taxpayer) so there is probably some kind of complicated regulatory mechanism that prevents this. Quick rant as an aside: Utilities and infrastructure tend to be natural monopolies as it costs so much to get them up and running nobody wants to do it twice. Competition in infrastructure provision for any given service of this nature always seems to end up being a wasteful and bureaucratic mess of government regulated artificially created 'competition' between a few companies. For more UK examples see British Airports Authority, Network Rail, Electricity, Gas etc. Infrastructure should allow one country to compete effectively with others by improving internal efficiency. Perhaps they should be independent democratically controlled state entities; every citizen gets a share.

Mordor 15y ago

Cruise missiles used these techniques at least 10 years prior.

DrJokepu 15y ago
It's difficult to tell if there's prior art (or infringement for that matter) without reading the full contents of the patents in question. Being based on similar principles is not enough, it has to implement the patent exactly as described in the patent.

epo 15y ago

I used to work at BT Labs back in the day, there were very, very many smart engineers and scientists there. BT had a dismal track record of exploiting anything Labs came up with, then again Labs were very bad at being relevant and selling themselves to the company. I could easily believe that Labs (and their predecessors) discovered the key ideas behind Google many years before they knew what to do with them.

dutchbrit 15y ago

I thought software/programming related patents weren't valid here in Europe?! Or am I missing something?

McP 15y ago
The patents were filed in the US: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6169515.PN.&OS=PN/6169515&RS=PN/6169515 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...