6 ms·

I think separating good guys and bad guys is pretty simple, if one is against (at least software) patents: Using patents aggressively makes you a bad guy. Goo

by air 13y ago

I think separating good guys and bad guys is pretty simple, if one is against (at least software) patents: Using patents aggressively makes you a bad guy. Google has not done this, Microsoft and Apple have.

IBM 13y ago
They haven't done it because they don't have many patents. It's easy to act noble about how you'll use your patents when you don't have any. Other commenters have noted that Google is currently suing Apple and others over standards essential patents (no just because the lawsuit started before their acquisition closed doesn't mean anything, they could settle or withdraw their case). Google had the opportunity to join a consortium with Microsoft to bid on the Novell patents, they declined. They could have joined this consortium as well but they decided to bid for it alone. Not only would it have shared the costs among the group, but it would have also prevented each other from suing over them. Google clearly wanted to control these patents themselves so that they could extract licensing deals from others, something that isn't so easy to do when you just have a license for a patent.
- Thirsty 13y ago
  >"Google clearly wanted to control these patents themselves so that they could extract licensing deals from others..." Has Google ever extracted licensing deals from others?
  - IBM 13y ago
    They've certainly tried to against Microsoft but they failed. Microsoft and Apple were required by the government to license their standards related patents under reasonable terms to anyone before this Nortel patent portfolio buy was cleared. As far as I know none of them are trying to sue over SEPs. I don't even think this lawsuit contains patents related to standards, but it's kind of a moot point because no company actually has a controlling interest in Rockstar. It's all John Veschi and other former Nortel employees who run their company. http://allthingsd.com/20130905/microsoft-trounces-google-in-battle-over-standard-essential-patents/ http://allthingsd.com/20130905/microsoft-trounces-google-in-...
    - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
      I find your username amusing given the context of this thread. IBM could stand to make some money by licencing out some of their patents as they have done in the past: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/yahoo-was-licensing-patents-facebook-bought-from-ibm-rumor/10813 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/yahoo-was-licensing-paten... http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-buys-patents-ibm-defend-itself-224236649.html http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-buys-patents-ibm-defend-itsel... Incidentally if anyone is told their work is to be patented and will only be used in defense - bear the above behaviour in mind, over time, companies will not just use patents in defense. Ha, it seems I'm a bit late to make that prediction - it's already happened. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/google-purchases-1-023-patents-from-ibm-to-bolster-portfolio.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/google-purchases-1-...
- air 13y ago
  Because Google bought Motorola after Motorola-Apple fight started, the aggressor is a bit more complicated, but still pretty clear cut to me: Whichever side that is not willing to end the patent fight (without payments to either side) is the aggressor. And it seems to me Apple is the one not willing to quit.
  - IBM 13y ago
    Well considering Apple was willing to actually pay a small amount rather than no payment at all, I don't see how you can see them as the aggressor. Motorola clearly stated that they wanted more for it. It seems like Google had more control over whether that lawsuit was filed than I thought. From FOSS Patents: >A few months after that Zeitgeist talk, in January 2012, Google authorized a Motorola Mobility lawsuit against Apple over six patents in the Southern District of Florida. The merger agreement was publicly available and absolutely unequivocal about the fact that Motorola needed Google's consent prior to bringing new IP assertions while the merger was under antitrust review. EDIT: Since it's not letting me reply to your comment, gonna post it here. If you're talking about Motorola vs. Apple in general now, clearly Apple wasn't the aggressor. Motorola was the first to sue over patents prompting Apple to counter-sue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility_v._Apple_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility_v._Apple_Inc.
    - air 13y ago
      You forget that Apple has their own patent suits against Motorola that they are not dropping. Ending the fight would mean that both drop their patent suits. Seems to me that GoogleMotorola wants this and Apple doesn't.
      - czr80 13y ago
        What's your evidence for that claim?
        air 13y ago
        I think it's pretty clear when you read things like http://googleblog.blogspot.fi/2011/08/when-patents-attack-android.html http://googleblog.blogspot.fi/2011/08/when-patents-attack-an...
blumkvist 13y ago
This is according to some moral code or what? The world doesn't abide a set of moral rules. Rules are made by people who can't win without them. You can't tell everybody to stick it and start entering several industries at once. In the real world you have to be cooperative, as well as persistent, because you are not the only 800-pound gorilla.
- sgift 13y ago
  > Rules are made by people who can't win without them. What's that? The official motto of all bullys and anarchists?
  - blumkvist 13y ago
    When I come to think of it, I might indeed sound like pro-anarchi but I don't share any political or religious views, rather try to accept things for what they are. Rules are nothing but conditioning. Attempting to give moral and ethics questions an ultimate answer bounds that group of people to go radical and crash with reality. Nothing extreme could ever work. It's an equilibrium with lots of different sides that change their weight with time. Another manifestation of this is the mafia. It is present in every society in History. It's a human flaw. Rather than ignore it and pretend it's not there, maybe we should talk about it. Understanding other people's position and making compromises is key if sustainability is your primary goal.
  - nzp 13y ago
    Anarchists? I'm sorry, but how about learning what that word actually means?
- air 13y ago
  Well, if you want to label good guys and bad guys, you need some rules to judge them with. In this case the moral code for me is that software patents are bad and whoever abuses them is in the wrong.
- MaysonL 13y ago
  No,rules are made by people who can enforce them.
Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
But isn't the point being made that this is better not looked at as a good versus bad, it's better looked at as one sort of bad against another sort of bad. The fact that one of them is slightly better than the other in one regard doesn't change the fact that neither of them are really that worthy of your support. You're right that Google haven't been patent aggressors up until now but if recent behaviour teaches us anything it's that Google have been very willing to change what they've stood for historically. If you believe that they'd never change that position if they felt it suited them then you have more faith in them than I do.
- Perseids 13y ago
  > But isn't the point being made that this is better not looked at as a good versus bad, it's better looked at as one sort of bad against another sort of bad. The direct consequence of this would be a call to get rid of the evil on both sides and abolish the (software) patent system altogether. I'd like to emphasize a quote from the end of the article: > Patents have become the arena in which tech companies have chosen to do battle. There is no longer competition about the best user experience or the best technical solution to an engineering problem but competition about who can file the best vague, yet court approved patent and secure the most destructive intellectual properties. I don't understand why we are still only talking about reforming the patent system.
  - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
    > There is no longer competition about the best user experience or the best technical solution to an engineering problem but competition about who can file the best vague, yet court approved patent and secure the most destructive intellectual properties. I don't understand why we are still only talking about reforming the patent system. Seriously? iOS7 and Android Kit Kat both move user experience forward both in terms of the UI and the functionality offered. The latest iPhones, Android phones and Lumias are clearly better than what went before. I suspect if you asked average engineers at Apple, Google or Microsoft how much of their time and energy is taken up addressing problems caused by patents the number would be pretty small and if you look at how much those companies spend on patents, lawyers and settlements it's dwarfed by what they spend on product development. To put the giant $4.5bn spent on the patents in question in context (and remember that's was shared between several companies), it's about what Samsung spend on marketing in a year or half of Apple's 5C/5S iPhone sales for the first weekend they were on sale. Yes patents are impacting the industry but that's not to say that competition about things users care about has stopped, it's just slowing things up a bit.
aroch 13y ago
>Google has not done this, Microsoft and Apple have. Google's Motorola Mobility has sued others based on patents in their portfolio.
- scholia 13y ago
  This included Google trying to extort absurd sums for FRAND patents. I don't see how Google gets a free pass because that was its wholly-owned Motorola Mobility when Apple/Microsoft/RIM/etc don't get a free pass because Rockstar is an independent entity.
  - TheMagicHorsey 13y ago
    Google has only asserted patents against people that are trying to attack Android using patents. The previous two comments are absurd. You look at Google's patent litigation record and shit is crystal clear. Patents are being used defensively by them.
  - nullc 13y ago
    Because this litigation began before the acquisition of Motorola Mobility? Or because the patents in question were H.264 ones, which the defendant themselves already collects royalties on?
jmodp 13y ago
When Jobs claimed that Android was a stolen product and that he was willing to go nuclear on it, this is what he meant. And his claims have some merit. It is hard to blame Apple for using legal weapons to go after Google no matter how distasteful the use of such weapons might be.

by air 13y ago

IBM 13y ago

They haven't done it because they don't have many patents. It's easy to act noble about how you'll use your patents when you don't have any. Other commenters have noted that Google is currently suing Apple and others over standards essential patents (no just because the lawsuit started before their acquisition closed doesn't mean anything, they could settle or withdraw their case). Google had the opportunity to join a consortium with Microsoft to bid on the Novell patents, they declined. They could have joined this consortium as well but they decided to bid for it alone. Not only would it have shared the costs among the group, but it would have also prevented each other from suing over them. Google clearly wanted to control these patents themselves so that they could extract licensing deals from others, something that isn't so easy to do when you just have a license for a patent.

Thirsty 13y ago
>"Google clearly wanted to control these patents themselves so that they could extract licensing deals from others..." Has Google ever extracted licensing deals from others?
- IBM 13y ago
  They've certainly tried to against Microsoft but they failed. Microsoft and Apple were required by the government to license their standards related patents under reasonable terms to anyone before this Nortel patent portfolio buy was cleared. As far as I know none of them are trying to sue over SEPs. I don't even think this lawsuit contains patents related to standards, but it's kind of a moot point because no company actually has a controlling interest in Rockstar. It's all John Veschi and other former Nortel employees who run their company. http://allthingsd.com/20130905/microsoft-trounces-google-in-battle-over-standard-essential-patents/ http://allthingsd.com/20130905/microsoft-trounces-google-in-...
  - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
    I find your username amusing given the context of this thread. IBM could stand to make some money by licencing out some of their patents as they have done in the past: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/yahoo-was-licensing-patents-facebook-bought-from-ibm-rumor/10813 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/yahoo-was-licensing-paten... http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-buys-patents-ibm-defend-itself-224236649.html http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-buys-patents-ibm-defend-itsel... Incidentally if anyone is told their work is to be patented and will only be used in defense - bear the above behaviour in mind, over time, companies will not just use patents in defense. Ha, it seems I'm a bit late to make that prediction - it's already happened. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/google-purchases-1-023-patents-from-ibm-to-bolster-portfolio.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/google-purchases-1-...
air 13y ago
Because Google bought Motorola after Motorola-Apple fight started, the aggressor is a bit more complicated, but still pretty clear cut to me: Whichever side that is not willing to end the patent fight (without payments to either side) is the aggressor. And it seems to me Apple is the one not willing to quit.
- IBM 13y ago
  Well considering Apple was willing to actually pay a small amount rather than no payment at all, I don't see how you can see them as the aggressor. Motorola clearly stated that they wanted more for it. It seems like Google had more control over whether that lawsuit was filed than I thought. From FOSS Patents: >A few months after that Zeitgeist talk, in January 2012, Google authorized a Motorola Mobility lawsuit against Apple over six patents in the Southern District of Florida. The merger agreement was publicly available and absolutely unequivocal about the fact that Motorola needed Google's consent prior to bringing new IP assertions while the merger was under antitrust review. EDIT: Since it's not letting me reply to your comment, gonna post it here. If you're talking about Motorola vs. Apple in general now, clearly Apple wasn't the aggressor. Motorola was the first to sue over patents prompting Apple to counter-sue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility_v._Apple_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility_v._Apple_Inc.
  - air 13y ago
    You forget that Apple has their own patent suits against Motorola that they are not dropping. Ending the fight would mean that both drop their patent suits. Seems to me that GoogleMotorola wants this and Apple doesn't.
    - czr80 13y ago
      What's your evidence for that claim?
      - air 13y ago
        I think it's pretty clear when you read things like http://googleblog.blogspot.fi/2011/08/when-patents-attack-android.html http://googleblog.blogspot.fi/2011/08/when-patents-attack-an...

blumkvist 13y ago

This is according to some moral code or what? The world doesn't abide a set of moral rules. Rules are made by people who can't win without them. You can't tell everybody to stick it and start entering several industries at once. In the real world you have to be cooperative, as well as persistent, because you are not the only 800-pound gorilla.

sgift 13y ago
> Rules are made by people who can't win without them. What's that? The official motto of all bullys and anarchists?
- blumkvist 13y ago
  When I come to think of it, I might indeed sound like pro-anarchi but I don't share any political or religious views, rather try to accept things for what they are. Rules are nothing but conditioning. Attempting to give moral and ethics questions an ultimate answer bounds that group of people to go radical and crash with reality. Nothing extreme could ever work. It's an equilibrium with lots of different sides that change their weight with time. Another manifestation of this is the mafia. It is present in every society in History. It's a human flaw. Rather than ignore it and pretend it's not there, maybe we should talk about it. Understanding other people's position and making compromises is key if sustainability is your primary goal.
- nzp 13y ago
  Anarchists? I'm sorry, but how about learning what that word actually means?
air 13y ago
Well, if you want to label good guys and bad guys, you need some rules to judge them with. In this case the moral code for me is that software patents are bad and whoever abuses them is in the wrong.
MaysonL 13y ago
No,rules are made by people who can enforce them.

Tyrannosaurs 13y ago

But isn't the point being made that this is better not looked at as a good versus bad, it's better looked at as one sort of bad against another sort of bad. The fact that one of them is slightly better than the other in one regard doesn't change the fact that neither of them are really that worthy of your support. You're right that Google haven't been patent aggressors up until now but if recent behaviour teaches us anything it's that Google have been very willing to change what they've stood for historically. If you believe that they'd never change that position if they felt it suited them then you have more faith in them than I do.

Perseids 13y ago
> But isn't the point being made that this is better not looked at as a good versus bad, it's better looked at as one sort of bad against another sort of bad. The direct consequence of this would be a call to get rid of the evil on both sides and abolish the (software) patent system altogether. I'd like to emphasize a quote from the end of the article: > Patents have become the arena in which tech companies have chosen to do battle. There is no longer competition about the best user experience or the best technical solution to an engineering problem but competition about who can file the best vague, yet court approved patent and secure the most destructive intellectual properties. I don't understand why we are still only talking about reforming the patent system.
- Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
  > There is no longer competition about the best user experience or the best technical solution to an engineering problem but competition about who can file the best vague, yet court approved patent and secure the most destructive intellectual properties. I don't understand why we are still only talking about reforming the patent system. Seriously? iOS7 and Android Kit Kat both move user experience forward both in terms of the UI and the functionality offered. The latest iPhones, Android phones and Lumias are clearly better than what went before. I suspect if you asked average engineers at Apple, Google or Microsoft how much of their time and energy is taken up addressing problems caused by patents the number would be pretty small and if you look at how much those companies spend on patents, lawyers and settlements it's dwarfed by what they spend on product development. To put the giant $4.5bn spent on the patents in question in context (and remember that's was shared between several companies), it's about what Samsung spend on marketing in a year or half of Apple's 5C/5S iPhone sales for the first weekend they were on sale. Yes patents are impacting the industry but that's not to say that competition about things users care about has stopped, it's just slowing things up a bit.

aroch 13y ago

>Google has not done this, Microsoft and Apple have. Google's Motorola Mobility has sued others based on patents in their portfolio.

scholia 13y ago
This included Google trying to extort absurd sums for FRAND patents. I don't see how Google gets a free pass because that was its wholly-owned Motorola Mobility when Apple/Microsoft/RIM/etc don't get a free pass because Rockstar is an independent entity.
- TheMagicHorsey 13y ago
  Google has only asserted patents against people that are trying to attack Android using patents. The previous two comments are absurd. You look at Google's patent litigation record and shit is crystal clear. Patents are being used defensively by them.
- nullc 13y ago
  Because this litigation began before the acquisition of Motorola Mobility? Or because the patents in question were H.264 ones, which the defendant themselves already collects royalties on?

jmodp 13y ago

When Jobs claimed that Android was a stolen product and that he was willing to go nuclear on it, this is what he meant. And his claims have some merit. It is hard to blame Apple for using legal weapons to go after Google no matter how distasteful the use of such weapons might be.