12 ms·

Apple, Google reportedly in patent truce talks

44 points by morisy 14y ago

yequalsx 14y ago
I've thought for some time that Microsoft, Apple, and Google would end up forming a patent cartel. At some point they'll each have the patent equivalent of mutually assured destruction. It seems to me that it is in their interest to maintain the present patent system, not sue each other, and then crush any newcomers. It may not happen now but it will happen eventually, I think.
- eurleif 14y ago
  I'd hope that "don't be evil" would preclude Google from participating in a patent cartel to keep newcomers out of the market. Maybe not, though.
  - hammersend 14y ago
    "Don't be evil" could include being in the patent cartel and running interference for the little guys.
  - sigzero 14y ago
    Google is just like every other company, don't be fooled by any slick slogans.
    - hammersend 14y ago
      "Google is just like every other company" No company is "just like" every other company. Different personalities, different by-laws, etc. It's the height of cynicism and intellectual laziness to try to stereotype something so complex as a modern mega-corporation.
  - dan1234 14y ago
    They've already formed a consortium to buy kodak's patents[0] so I wouldn't be surprised to see them going further. [0]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57495400-92/google-apple-to-team-up-and-buy-kodak-patents-report-says/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57495400-92/google-apple-to...
- morisy 14y ago
  I think the existence of non-practicing entities is at least a small counterweight to that. A cartel doesn't do you much good if an NPE can come in and slap you with a multi-million dollar lawsuit. A million dollars here, a million dollars there, and soon enough you start talking about real money.
  - btilly 14y ago
    Actually it does if all of the patents are licensed to a defensive patent pool arranged like http://www.rpxcorp.com/ http://www.rpxcorp.com/. But, you ask, what good does that do? Well read the explanation in http://www.rpxcorp.com/index.cfm?pageid=23 http://www.rpxcorp.com/index.cfm?pageid=23 for why not to take a wait and see approach. You'll see that they are willing to sell their patents. So if a member is being sued by a troll, RPX can offer a deal where the troll drops the existing lawsuit, and is sold a new patent with a license protecting current (not future!) members of RPX. How likely are they to actually engage in this kind of behavior? Well RPX is already selling patents to trolls, and thinks that companies will take the risk that they'll care a patent you care about seriously enough that it is listed as a major selling point. If they can increase that risk while serving current clients (eg Google), what reason would they have to hesitate about that deal? This may be paranoia. But there are 3 patents that were taken out in my name by a previous employer that have wound up in the RPX portfolio. I am somewhat worried that they will eventually wind up being used to sue companies.
    - luriel 14y ago
      > This may be paranoia. But there are 3 patents that were taken out in my name by a previous employer that have wound up in the RPX portfolio. I am somewhat worried that they will eventually wind up being used to sue companies. This is why we have to make it not-socially-acceptable for programmers to play along with the patent games. From now on programmers should know that if they have (new) patents in their name, they will be considered part of the problem. And as I'm sure you are well aware, now you(or your current employer) could end up being sued for a patent you yourself invented. John Carmack had it right all along: just say no to patents.
- rm999 14y ago
  > It seems to me that it is in their interest to maintain the present patent system The present system helps and hurts them. All three are large varied companies who can't grow without offering new types of products and services that may infringe on other companies' patents. A well-functioning IP system is in their best interest. Certainly they don't want their current patents to be devalued, but I don't think they want patents to be overvalued either.
- mtgx 14y ago
  So far Google hasn't done that to newcomers. Microsoft and Apple have.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Apple has sued HTC and Samsung for patent violations. Which "newcomers" have they filed patent suits against?
    - ajross 14y ago
      Walk back 6 years, and virtually all smartphones were sold by Nokia. Of those that weren't, the majority were made up of Sony-Erickson and Motorola. Samsung was an also-ran at best, and (almost literally) no one had heard of HTC. Now they're #2 and #3. How are they not "newcomers". Of course, Apple too is a newcomer by that metric. But nonetheless I don't think it's incorrect or inconsistent with the grandparent's point. I suspect if Nokia had shot first in 2009 and gotten an iPhone ban on something equivalently ridiculous, you'd be pretty upset, right?
      - slantyyz 14y ago
        >> no one had heard of HTC To be fair, HTC was considered an up and comer around 2006. The main difference is that the HTC phones before the iPhone were mostly white labeled under the carrier names or under another company's name. My first HTC Windows Mobile phone was actually labelled as an "Audiovox" phone. My HTC Excalibur was sold in the US as the T-Mobile Dash. Around 2006, however, HTC was just beginning selling under their own brand, and were doing quite well as a Windows Mobile smartphone maker. Of course, once Android came around, things got even better for them.
      - Steko 14y ago
        Nokia did shoot first and Apple paid them [edit]a similar sum[/edit] to the amount everyone is so up in arms about Samsung owing.
        ajross 14y ago
- slantyyz 14y ago
  Wouldn't RIM and Nokia belong to this cartel as well? IIRC, RIM joined in on a group purchase of patents recently.
  - quesera 14y ago
    RIM and Nokia are on the dinner menu. The only question is who pays, and who eats.
- zik 14y ago
  Most large companies are already part of a patent cartel called "RAND". It's pretty much a Mexican stand-off where all the major companies "trade" patent rights with each other rather than being sued into oblivion. Where Apple went wrong was thinking it could start firing off lawsuits and not get crushed by the rest of the industry. Tim Cook would be smart to negotiate his way out of the mess.
  - culturestate 14y ago
    > Where Apple went wrong was thinking it could start firing off lawsuits and not get crushed by the rest of the industry. Tim Cook would be smart to negotiate his way out of the mess. In what way have they been wrong so far? They seem to piling up victories (Motorola, Samsung, Microsoft licensing) rather than defeats.
rbanffy 14y ago
Once again, the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine proves its value.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
loceng 14y ago
Will they come after the little guys then?
guimarin 14y ago
What was old is new again. All this has happened before, and all this will happen again. Apple, Google, and Microsoft are the new "Big Three" ( Ford, GM, Chrysler ).
- ktizo 14y ago
  History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. - Mark Twain I am a cautiously hopeful. The peace pact won't last without some legislative change, and they probably know it, so we might just see some lobbying for a saner patent law, much in the same way that some alcoholics know not to keep drink in the house.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  All this has happened before, and all this will happen again. Yep. The last time a global thermonuclear patent war happened, it was even uglier ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Howard_Armstrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Howard_Armstrong ).
indiecore 14y ago
Great, back to MAD fought out though the big three crushing small startups.
api 14y ago
So now we have an Apple/Google oligopoly on mobile devices and fluid UIs.
dlikhten 14y ago
To be honest, I knew this was going to happen. Apple made the lawsuit against samsung, but google has a big BIG bomb to throw: Map Reduce. If google whips out map reduce, apple is screwed. Basically without it apple will be VERY hard pressed to do business, it's techniques are used by many frameworks in the iphone. This would be the equivalent of the US throwing the a-bomb on japan. Apple being japan. Apple, with googarolla's lawsuit, may have actually realized just how big of a bear they hit. Now, I sure hope the dispute ends, BUT as yequalsx points out this is a dangerous slope. While I don't believe they will form a patent cartel, a 4th party trying to create a new mobile os will be in danger. While google won't sue, Applesoft might.
- Steko 14y ago
  The whole "patents kill new entrants" idea has kind of been exploded by the fact that two companies that didn't make phone OS's 6 years ago and didn't have a lot of mobile IP now have close to 90% of the market.
  - djloche 14y ago
    Apple bought up several companies that did have relevant patents and technology. Google did the same thing. In the age of nuclear patents, you either have to have tons of money to license patents, buy companies that own patents, or successfully be granted patents.
    - Steko 14y ago
      Why do I need tons of money to be granted a patent? Or license? What hypothetical new entrant to commercial scale phone design and manufacturing doesn't have any money?
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    OK, fine. "Patents kill new entrants who don't have multibillion-dollar war chests." Does that work better?
    - 14y ago
otneusnocuh 14y ago
Isn't this unfair business practices akin to price fixing or collusion? It certainly gives them an unfair advantage against competition. Not sure if it's illegal, but my feeling is it definitely should be.
tomkit 14y ago
So much for "thermonuclear war"

44 points by morisy 14y ago

I've thought for some time that Microsoft, Apple, and Google would end up forming a patent cartel. At some point they'll each have the patent equivalent of mutually assured destruction. It seems to me that it is in their interest to maintain the present patent system, not sue each other, and then crush any newcomers. It may not happen now but it will happen eventually, I think.

eurleif 14y ago
I'd hope that "don't be evil" would preclude Google from participating in a patent cartel to keep newcomers out of the market. Maybe not, though.
- hammersend 14y ago
  "Don't be evil" could include being in the patent cartel and running interference for the little guys.
- sigzero 14y ago
  Google is just like every other company, don't be fooled by any slick slogans.
  - hammersend 14y ago
    "Google is just like every other company" No company is "just like" every other company. Different personalities, different by-laws, etc. It's the height of cynicism and intellectual laziness to try to stereotype something so complex as a modern mega-corporation.
- dan1234 14y ago
  They've already formed a consortium to buy kodak's patents[0] so I wouldn't be surprised to see them going further. [0]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57495400-92/google-apple-to-team-up-and-buy-kodak-patents-report-says/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57495400-92/google-apple-to...
morisy 14y ago
I think the existence of non-practicing entities is at least a small counterweight to that. A cartel doesn't do you much good if an NPE can come in and slap you with a multi-million dollar lawsuit. A million dollars here, a million dollars there, and soon enough you start talking about real money.
- btilly 14y ago
  Actually it does if all of the patents are licensed to a defensive patent pool arranged like http://www.rpxcorp.com/ http://www.rpxcorp.com/. But, you ask, what good does that do? Well read the explanation in http://www.rpxcorp.com/index.cfm?pageid=23 http://www.rpxcorp.com/index.cfm?pageid=23 for why not to take a wait and see approach. You'll see that they are willing to sell their patents. So if a member is being sued by a troll, RPX can offer a deal where the troll drops the existing lawsuit, and is sold a new patent with a license protecting current (not future!) members of RPX. How likely are they to actually engage in this kind of behavior? Well RPX is already selling patents to trolls, and thinks that companies will take the risk that they'll care a patent you care about seriously enough that it is listed as a major selling point. If they can increase that risk while serving current clients (eg Google), what reason would they have to hesitate about that deal? This may be paranoia. But there are 3 patents that were taken out in my name by a previous employer that have wound up in the RPX portfolio. I am somewhat worried that they will eventually wind up being used to sue companies.
  - luriel 14y ago
    > This may be paranoia. But there are 3 patents that were taken out in my name by a previous employer that have wound up in the RPX portfolio. I am somewhat worried that they will eventually wind up being used to sue companies. This is why we have to make it not-socially-acceptable for programmers to play along with the patent games. From now on programmers should know that if they have (new) patents in their name, they will be considered part of the problem. And as I'm sure you are well aware, now you(or your current employer) could end up being sued for a patent you yourself invented. John Carmack had it right all along: just say no to patents.
rm999 14y ago
> It seems to me that it is in their interest to maintain the present patent system The present system helps and hurts them. All three are large varied companies who can't grow without offering new types of products and services that may infringe on other companies' patents. A well-functioning IP system is in their best interest. Certainly they don't want their current patents to be devalued, but I don't think they want patents to be overvalued either.
mtgx 14y ago
So far Google hasn't done that to newcomers. Microsoft and Apple have.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Apple has sued HTC and Samsung for patent violations. Which "newcomers" have they filed patent suits against?
  - ajross 14y ago
    Walk back 6 years, and virtually all smartphones were sold by Nokia. Of those that weren't, the majority were made up of Sony-Erickson and Motorola. Samsung was an also-ran at best, and (almost literally) no one had heard of HTC. Now they're #2 and #3. How are they not "newcomers". Of course, Apple too is a newcomer by that metric. But nonetheless I don't think it's incorrect or inconsistent with the grandparent's point. I suspect if Nokia had shot first in 2009 and gotten an iPhone ban on something equivalently ridiculous, you'd be pretty upset, right?
    - slantyyz 14y ago
      >> no one had heard of HTC To be fair, HTC was considered an up and comer around 2006. The main difference is that the HTC phones before the iPhone were mostly white labeled under the carrier names or under another company's name. My first HTC Windows Mobile phone was actually labelled as an "Audiovox" phone. My HTC Excalibur was sold in the US as the T-Mobile Dash. Around 2006, however, HTC was just beginning selling under their own brand, and were doing quite well as a Windows Mobile smartphone maker. Of course, once Android came around, things got even better for them.
    - Steko 14y ago
      Nokia did shoot first and Apple paid them [edit]a similar sum[/edit] to the amount everyone is so up in arms about Samsung owing.
      - ajross 14y ago
slantyyz 14y ago
Wouldn't RIM and Nokia belong to this cartel as well? IIRC, RIM joined in on a group purchase of patents recently.
- quesera 14y ago
  RIM and Nokia are on the dinner menu. The only question is who pays, and who eats.
zik 14y ago
Most large companies are already part of a patent cartel called "RAND". It's pretty much a Mexican stand-off where all the major companies "trade" patent rights with each other rather than being sued into oblivion. Where Apple went wrong was thinking it could start firing off lawsuits and not get crushed by the rest of the industry. Tim Cook would be smart to negotiate his way out of the mess.
- culturestate 14y ago
  > Where Apple went wrong was thinking it could start firing off lawsuits and not get crushed by the rest of the industry. Tim Cook would be smart to negotiate his way out of the mess. In what way have they been wrong so far? They seem to piling up victories (Motorola, Samsung, Microsoft licensing) rather than defeats.

rbanffy 14y ago

Once again, the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine proves its value.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

loceng 14y ago

Will they come after the little guys then?

guimarin 14y ago

What was old is new again. All this has happened before, and all this will happen again. Apple, Google, and Microsoft are the new "Big Three" ( Ford, GM, Chrysler ).

ktizo 14y ago
History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. - Mark Twain I am a cautiously hopeful. The peace pact won't last without some legislative change, and they probably know it, so we might just see some lobbying for a saner patent law, much in the same way that some alcoholics know not to keep drink in the house.
CamperBob2 14y ago
All this has happened before, and all this will happen again. Yep. The last time a global thermonuclear patent war happened, it was even uglier ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Howard_Armstrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Howard_Armstrong ).

indiecore 14y ago

Great, back to MAD fought out though the big three crushing small startups.

api 14y ago

So now we have an Apple/Google oligopoly on mobile devices and fluid UIs.

dlikhten 14y ago

To be honest, I knew this was going to happen. Apple made the lawsuit against samsung, but google has a big BIG bomb to throw: Map Reduce. If google whips out map reduce, apple is screwed. Basically without it apple will be VERY hard pressed to do business, it's techniques are used by many frameworks in the iphone. This would be the equivalent of the US throwing the a-bomb on japan. Apple being japan. Apple, with googarolla's lawsuit, may have actually realized just how big of a bear they hit. Now, I sure hope the dispute ends, BUT as yequalsx points out this is a dangerous slope. While I don't believe they will form a patent cartel, a 4th party trying to create a new mobile os will be in danger. While google won't sue, Applesoft might.

Steko 14y ago
The whole "patents kill new entrants" idea has kind of been exploded by the fact that two companies that didn't make phone OS's 6 years ago and didn't have a lot of mobile IP now have close to 90% of the market.
- djloche 14y ago
  Apple bought up several companies that did have relevant patents and technology. Google did the same thing. In the age of nuclear patents, you either have to have tons of money to license patents, buy companies that own patents, or successfully be granted patents.
  - Steko 14y ago
    Why do I need tons of money to be granted a patent? Or license? What hypothetical new entrant to commercial scale phone design and manufacturing doesn't have any money?
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  OK, fine. "Patents kill new entrants who don't have multibillion-dollar war chests." Does that work better?
  - 14y ago

otneusnocuh 14y ago

Isn't this unfair business practices akin to price fixing or collusion? It certainly gives them an unfair advantage against competition. Not sure if it's illegal, but my feeling is it definitely should be.

tomkit 14y ago

So much for "thermonuclear war"