5 ms·

Google Fi Patent

55 points by empressplay 12y ago

empressplay 12y ago
It's an interesting patent. I'm not sure how defendable it is though, since there seems to be prior art in existing network switching and routing mechanisms, but it might keep competition away initially, and allow Google to get a strong foothold in the market (unless Google states that it's a purely defensive patent.)
- xxgreg 12y ago
  The patent appears to be about selecting a network carrier using a bidding process. The device can choose a network based on price and quality of service. What prior art is there for this?
  - IBM 12y ago
    Apple has one about selecting a network carrier using a bidding process. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=5&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&p=1&p=1&S1=%2820110208.PD.+AND+apple.ASNM.%29&OS=isd/2/8/2011+and+an/apple&RS=%28ISD/20110208+AND+AN/apple%29 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H...
    - Flimm 12y ago
      Why the downvotes?
      - psykovsky 12y ago
        I think it's because it had the word Apple when responding to a post about Google.
        hemonthe 12y ago
        That's a prior patent not prior art i.e. Apple hasn't used it in a product yet. Moreover Apple having a patent suggests Google applied for a patent for their own implementation to avoid getting sued by Apple. Apple has a history of litigation to stifle competition.
        IBM 12y ago
        It appears patents can serve as prior art. http://www.ericksonlawgroup.com/law/patents/patentfaq/what-is-prior-art/ http://www.ericksonlawgroup.com/law/patents/patentfaq/what-i...
  - cgio 12y ago
    In terms of utilities this is how the energy market works for producers.
  - blackkettle 12y ago
    Assuming that is true, and while IANAL I read it that way too, it is baffling that someone in the patent office can read something like this and not feel compelled to laugh and toss it in the dustbin. Replace 'network carrier' with 'fishmonger', 'device' with 'person', and 'network' with 'fish' and you can probably find prior art that predates recorded history.
    - thaumasiotes 12y ago
      I also have the urge to laugh and toss the patent in the trash, but I don't think your example helps the case, and it might hurt. Replacing 'network carrier' with 'fishmonger' and 'network' with 'fish' works fine, but... If I say "I've created a machine that can do something humans used to have to do themselves"... is it really obvious that, based on that description alone, I should be ineligible for a patent? Substituting a new process that uses a device for an old process that uses a person is significant. You can't swap between the concepts without triggering an entirely different context.
      - falcolas 12y ago
        > Substituting a new process that uses a device for an old process that uses a person The thing is, processes are not patentable. The problem lies in the fact that there's a loophole which allows processes to be patented if they include the phrase "implemented on a machine". This loophole is the problem, since it makes something previously unpatentable (such as mathematics, business logic) patentable.
        thaumasiotes 12y ago
        OK, look. Carrying water up a hill in buckets is a process for raising the water. Using an Archimedes screw is also a process for raising the water. Yet the Archimedes screw is (conceptually) patentable. Feel free to rephrase my earlier comment to say "A machine that does what used to require a person is significant". In fact, I'm pretty sure I used that phrasing myself just one sentence earlier -- compare "a machine that can do something humans used to have to do themselves". There's no reason a machine that can negotiate for you shouldn't be patentable, any more than a machine that can wash your clothes for you shouldn't be patentable. The problem here is that it's a stupid-obvious idea.
  - hurin 12y ago
    > The patent appears to be about selecting a network carrier using a bidding process. The device can choose a network based on price and quality of service. What prior art is there for this? It's a common-knowledge approach in general: Obtain a service based on price and quality. Modifying that to obtain service of type __ should not represent a novel patentable idea. In a non-broken system these kind of patents would only apply to the specific selection technology/method and not to an obvious general concept. How broadly applicable it will be in practice? Who knows? I'd say since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Interna... it's more promising.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jcoffland 12y ago
It's painful reading these things. Companies like Google file thousands of patents gobbling up all kinds of fairly obvious ideas and by doing so create a minefield of inovation stifiling lawyer fodder. Many people forget that the original intent of the patent system was to give inovators a leg up not to create a market for buying and selling IP.
- binaryanomaly 12y ago
  I thought the same. Google wasn't always like this but since the android patent wars which made them buy Motorola for their patent portfolio - they seem to be just like all the others now.
  - dgregd 12y ago
    And most incumbent players seem to like the current state of affairs. The whole situation is beginning to resemble feudal Europe class system. You cannot sell a car unless you belong to a specific fraternity. You cannot sell Android phones unless you pay licence fees to some company. The free market is shrinking because of various regulations written by lobbyists. Unfortunately this seems to a trend for societies across the globe. The older society, the more walls higher class builds to protect their status.
    - morb 12y ago
      "You cannot sell Android phones unless you pay licence fees to some company"? Of course you need to pay licence fees to "some company" if you are selling Android phones, they're the ones making it. Why shouldn't Google get paid for their work? You can always remove Play store and other Gstuff and "leech" Android like Amazon. Let's not compare selling(licensing) software to some kind of feudal extortion pls. I kinda can see what you're trying to say, it has been said many times before - patents make it harder for new players to enter the market. We have Jolla (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolla), and that spanish Ubuntu/Android-phone maker (http://www.bq.com/gb/ http://www.bq.com/gb/), and the other spanish company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeeksPhone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeeksPhone) which kinda prove otherwise.
bluecalm 12y ago
>>A method of initiating... Can you really patent an idea?
julianpye 12y ago
The reality is that any public company that does not file a patent related to a major service launch is foolish. The most important purpose is crosslicensing as well as using it as a licensing hook for compliance, i.e. ensuring compatibility. Aggressive litigation is usually a question of corporate culture, but patents need to be defended to remain valuable for licensing agreements.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- muraiki 12y ago
  The sad reality is that if Google doesn't patent it, some troll or some other big company will and that will be the end of this tech. It's a horrible game, but the alternatives are pretty bad: 1. Google never develops anything new. 2. A startup or small company develops it, some troll patents it, and even though they should win via prior art the company is destroyed through the cost of litigation. It's then bought up by a troll or some other big company, which then patents it.
- the_ancient 12y ago
  So what is your alternative to Google? Apple? MS? I would make the exact same post as you have about Google about either of these companies.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  >Down vote me to heck. Well if that's how you're going to be about it, sure. Try not to spitefully take it as proving you right about anything, though.
cpfohl 12y ago
Doesn't Republic Wireless have prior art here?
monochromatic 12y ago
This is actually just the pre-grant publication of the application. The actual issued patent is available here: http://www.google.com/patents/US8238965 http://www.google.com/patents/US8238965 (Yes, it's pretty similar. But no reason to be looking at the pre-grant version.)
dataker 12y ago
Google is gradually becoming the IBM of the 2010s
ummonkwatz 12y ago
Google filed a patent! LET'S RAGEPOST ABOUT PATENTS!

55 points by empressplay 12y ago

It's an interesting patent. I'm not sure how defendable it is though, since there seems to be prior art in existing network switching and routing mechanisms, but it might keep competition away initially, and allow Google to get a strong foothold in the market (unless Google states that it's a purely defensive patent.)

xxgreg 12y ago
The patent appears to be about selecting a network carrier using a bidding process. The device can choose a network based on price and quality of service. What prior art is there for this?
- IBM 12y ago
  Apple has one about selecting a network carrier using a bidding process. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=5&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&p=1&p=1&S1=%2820110208.PD.+AND+apple.ASNM.%29&OS=isd/2/8/2011+and+an/apple&RS=%28ISD/20110208+AND+AN/apple%29 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H...
  - Flimm 12y ago
    Why the downvotes?
    - psykovsky 12y ago
      I think it's because it had the word Apple when responding to a post about Google.
      - hemonthe 12y ago
        That's a prior patent not prior art i.e. Apple hasn't used it in a product yet. Moreover Apple having a patent suggests Google applied for a patent for their own implementation to avoid getting sued by Apple. Apple has a history of litigation to stifle competition.
        IBM 12y ago
        It appears patents can serve as prior art. http://www.ericksonlawgroup.com/law/patents/patentfaq/what-is-prior-art/ http://www.ericksonlawgroup.com/law/patents/patentfaq/what-i...
- cgio 12y ago
  In terms of utilities this is how the energy market works for producers.
- blackkettle 12y ago
  Assuming that is true, and while IANAL I read it that way too, it is baffling that someone in the patent office can read something like this and not feel compelled to laugh and toss it in the dustbin. Replace 'network carrier' with 'fishmonger', 'device' with 'person', and 'network' with 'fish' and you can probably find prior art that predates recorded history.
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    I also have the urge to laugh and toss the patent in the trash, but I don't think your example helps the case, and it might hurt. Replacing 'network carrier' with 'fishmonger' and 'network' with 'fish' works fine, but... If I say "I've created a machine that can do something humans used to have to do themselves"... is it really obvious that, based on that description alone, I should be ineligible for a patent? Substituting a new process that uses a device for an old process that uses a person is significant. You can't swap between the concepts without triggering an entirely different context.
    - falcolas 12y ago
      > Substituting a new process that uses a device for an old process that uses a person The thing is, processes are not patentable. The problem lies in the fact that there's a loophole which allows processes to be patented if they include the phrase "implemented on a machine". This loophole is the problem, since it makes something previously unpatentable (such as mathematics, business logic) patentable.
      - thaumasiotes 12y ago
        OK, look. Carrying water up a hill in buckets is a process for raising the water. Using an Archimedes screw is also a process for raising the water. Yet the Archimedes screw is (conceptually) patentable. Feel free to rephrase my earlier comment to say "A machine that does what used to require a person is significant". In fact, I'm pretty sure I used that phrasing myself just one sentence earlier -- compare "a machine that can do something humans used to have to do themselves". There's no reason a machine that can negotiate for you shouldn't be patentable, any more than a machine that can wash your clothes for you shouldn't be patentable. The problem here is that it's a stupid-obvious idea.
- hurin 12y ago
  > The patent appears to be about selecting a network carrier using a bidding process. The device can choose a network based on price and quality of service. What prior art is there for this? It's a common-knowledge approach in general: Obtain a service based on price and quality. Modifying that to obtain service of type __ should not represent a novel patentable idea. In a non-broken system these kind of patents would only apply to the specific selection technology/method and not to an obvious general concept. How broadly applicable it will be in practice? Who knows? I'd say since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Interna... it's more promising.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

jcoffland 12y ago

It's painful reading these things. Companies like Google file thousands of patents gobbling up all kinds of fairly obvious ideas and by doing so create a minefield of inovation stifiling lawyer fodder. Many people forget that the original intent of the patent system was to give inovators a leg up not to create a market for buying and selling IP.

binaryanomaly 12y ago
I thought the same. Google wasn't always like this but since the android patent wars which made them buy Motorola for their patent portfolio - they seem to be just like all the others now.
- dgregd 12y ago
  And most incumbent players seem to like the current state of affairs. The whole situation is beginning to resemble feudal Europe class system. You cannot sell a car unless you belong to a specific fraternity. You cannot sell Android phones unless you pay licence fees to some company. The free market is shrinking because of various regulations written by lobbyists. Unfortunately this seems to a trend for societies across the globe. The older society, the more walls higher class builds to protect their status.
  - morb 12y ago
    "You cannot sell Android phones unless you pay licence fees to some company"? Of course you need to pay licence fees to "some company" if you are selling Android phones, they're the ones making it. Why shouldn't Google get paid for their work? You can always remove Play store and other Gstuff and "leech" Android like Amazon. Let's not compare selling(licensing) software to some kind of feudal extortion pls. I kinda can see what you're trying to say, it has been said many times before - patents make it harder for new players to enter the market. We have Jolla (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolla), and that spanish Ubuntu/Android-phone maker (http://www.bq.com/gb/ http://www.bq.com/gb/), and the other spanish company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeeksPhone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeeksPhone) which kinda prove otherwise.

bluecalm 12y ago

>>A method of initiating... Can you really patent an idea?

julianpye 12y ago

The reality is that any public company that does not file a patent related to a major service launch is foolish. The most important purpose is crosslicensing as well as using it as a licensing hook for compliance, i.e. ensuring compatibility. Aggressive litigation is usually a question of corporate culture, but patents need to be defended to remain valuable for licensing agreements.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

muraiki 12y ago
The sad reality is that if Google doesn't patent it, some troll or some other big company will and that will be the end of this tech. It's a horrible game, but the alternatives are pretty bad: 1. Google never develops anything new. 2. A startup or small company develops it, some troll patents it, and even though they should win via prior art the company is destroyed through the cost of litigation. It's then bought up by a troll or some other big company, which then patents it.
the_ancient 12y ago
So what is your alternative to Google? Apple? MS? I would make the exact same post as you have about Google about either of these companies.
Dylan16807 12y ago
>Down vote me to heck. Well if that's how you're going to be about it, sure. Try not to spitefully take it as proving you right about anything, though.

cpfohl 12y ago

Doesn't Republic Wireless have prior art here?

monochromatic 12y ago

This is actually just the pre-grant publication of the application. The actual issued patent is available here: http://www.google.com/patents/US8238965 http://www.google.com/patents/US8238965 (Yes, it's pretty similar. But no reason to be looking at the pre-grant version.)

dataker 12y ago

Google is gradually becoming the IBM of the 2010s

ummonkwatz 12y ago

Google filed a patent! LET'S RAGEPOST ABOUT PATENTS!