3 ms·

1. This is not new in the corporate world. Large companies like GE have patent-buying departments that do something similar, except they are are a lot more flex

1. This is not new in the corporate world. Large companies like GE have patent-buying departments that do something similar, except they are are a lot more flexible (you can sell entire portfolios and even unpatented ideas) and a lot less efficient. The big difference is, other companies advertise their intent as being "driving innovation" rather than starving patent trolls. 2. This is not new for Google either. They have been quietly talking to and buying from various kinds of patent holders for many years now. 3. I'd be very interested to know what kinds of patents they're hoping to buy. Are they looking for "bad" patents to really "disarm the trolls"? Or are they just hoping to get good ones for cheap and use the "patent troll" narrative for PR? Unfortunately, I doubt they'll disclose the results of this promotion.

minthd 11y ago
>> you can sell entire portfolios and even unpatented ideas How can you sell an unptaented(or maybe just loosely patent-pending idea you did the work yourself, as a non-lawyer) ?
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  I have not done this myself, but know this from a guy who used to work there: They have a portal where you can submit ideas, which they will evaluate and offer to acquire if they like. Of course, they say "ideas", but they're really looking for well developed technologies that haven't been patented yet. I imagine they want fairly detailed technical submissions, maybe a published paper. Something along the lines of "do X on a computer" probably won't do as well. Edit: I don't know how they actually "acquire" it, but I'm guessing they offer payment and a portion of future royalties for exclusive rights. But you do bring up a good point - since there is no patent, the scope of the rights being acquired is legally undefined.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> This is not new in the corporate world. I think you don't quite understand what is supposed to be new about it. > Large companies like GE have patent-buying departments that do something similar, except they are are a lot more flexible Google has a patent buying department and program that offers a more flexible, but less well-defined and streamlined process -- this new program refers to it as an option for patents that don't meet the criteria for this experimental new streamlined process. The new part (and Google says this directly) is the attempt the experiment with more streamlined process to reduce friction. > This is not new for Google either. They have been quietly talking to and buying from various kinds of patent holders for many years now. Having a patent purchase program isn't new, and Google doesn't claim that it is (in fact, their materials on the new program point to the pre-existing one as well); what is new is the particular process. > I'd be very interested to know what kinds of patents they're hoping to buy. Are they looking for "bad" patents to really "disarm the trolls"? Or are they just hoping to get good ones for cheap and use the "patent troll" narrative for PR? I don't think there really worried about "for cheap"; I think they want to provide a good experience for sellers so that people interested in arms-length sales of patents (whether the kinds that trolls are most interested or not) that might be useful to Google (whether for troll neutralization or otherwise -- and even good patents in the hands of someone whose interest is to in maximizing short-term return can be harmful to industry players other than the patent-holder, so "bad" patents aren't the only threat to Google out there) have a better chance of being offered to Google, so Google has a chance to act on them. They don't really need them "for cheap", except compared to the cost of potential litigation or workarounds -- to Google or, e.g., its hardware partners -- if some hostile party were to end up holding them.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  Google certainly are doing this differently, and I even mentioned how (less flexible, more efficient, different narrative). But then every company that engages in this does it differently. GE does it differently from Microsoft does it differently from IBM does it differently from IV. In fact, one of the models IV actually seems to have is closer to what Google is proposing here... They have a "sell your invention" page that has similar inputs as what Google describes. Again, I've never interacted with IV, but I expect it's be like any other licensing negotiations rather than "name your price, we'll buy it if we like it". So the big difference (other than being a practicing entity) is, to your point, Google has made the process simpler by eliminating the negotiation aspect. This certainly would be a good experience for sellers... If it works. The reason everybody else negotiates is because it's very hard to price patents (or anything, really). Unless you have a dialog about why each side think it's worth what, nobody will agree on a price. As such I would guess Google will end up acquiring only those patents that are actually useful and people underprice. These will be very few mostly because 1) very few patents actually cover anything useful and 2) people almost always vastly overvalue their inventions. I say this partly from personal experience and partly from hearsay, but the fact that the vast majority (95% +) of active patents lie fallow backs this up. People have paid thousands for a piece of paper that they're getting 0 returns on. Google may very well get some good patents submitted, but if they don't negotiate, they will either leave them on the table or pay more than they're worth. Certainly would be very interesting to see how this turns out.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Google certainly are doing this differently, and I even mentioned how (less flexible, more efficient, different narrative). But then every company that engages in this does it differently. Even so Google is different in the high-level meta structure of how it is doing it differently, since it has a both an established and still operational more traditional, more flexible, more general, and less streamlined system and the new, experimental, less flexible, more specific, and more streamlined system. It's essentially do a public (not "visible only to insiders", though obviously the operational details of the results are unlikely to be public) real-business-at-stake side-by-side test of different options. > As such I would guess Google will end up acquiring only those patents that are actually useful and people underprice. I suspect that there are a wide range of potential patents that have expected value to Google that exceeds their expected value to most (and possibly any) other market participant that could actually muster the resources to pay that value, so I don't think "underpriced" is the only option. I also don't think "useful" in the sense that the patent actually covers a useful invention is necessary, anything that might provide a remotely colorable case for a Google-hostile entity to use against something useful Google does or might do in the life of the patent (even if it doesn't actually cover the thing Google is concerned about, and even if it wouldn't survive scrutiny in a lawsuit) can have positive net utility for Google to secure to prevent a hostile party from doing so if the price tag is less than the expected cost of defeating it in a lawsuit times the probability of such a suit should a hostile party get a hold of it. > Google may very well get some good patents submitted, but if they don't negotiate, they will either leave them on the table or pay more than they're worth. Paying above-market price but spending less resources on the pre-purchase process than would be spent getting down to market price can be a net win. An even bigger net win if it makes Google such an attractive place to shop your patents that the most threatening patents that would otherwise get picked up by Google-hostile entities end up getting shopped to Google first.

minthd 11y ago

>> you can sell entire portfolios and even unpatented ideas How can you sell an unptaented(or maybe just loosely patent-pending idea you did the work yourself, as a non-lawyer) ?

throwawaykf05 11y ago
I have not done this myself, but know this from a guy who used to work there: They have a portal where you can submit ideas, which they will evaluate and offer to acquire if they like. Of course, they say "ideas", but they're really looking for well developed technologies that haven't been patented yet. I imagine they want fairly detailed technical submissions, maybe a published paper. Something along the lines of "do X on a computer" probably won't do as well. Edit: I don't know how they actually "acquire" it, but I'm guessing they offer payment and a portion of future royalties for exclusive rights. But you do bring up a good point - since there is no patent, the scope of the rights being acquired is legally undefined.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> This is not new in the corporate world. I think you don't quite understand what is supposed to be new about it. > Large companies like GE have patent-buying departments that do something similar, except they are are a lot more flexible Google has a patent buying department and program that offers a more flexible, but less well-defined and streamlined process -- this new program refers to it as an option for patents that don't meet the criteria for this experimental new streamlined process. The new part (and Google says this directly) is the attempt the experiment with more streamlined process to reduce friction. > This is not new for Google either. They have been quietly talking to and buying from various kinds of patent holders for many years now. Having a patent purchase program isn't new, and Google doesn't claim that it is (in fact, their materials on the new program point to the pre-existing one as well); what is new is the particular process. > I'd be very interested to know what kinds of patents they're hoping to buy. Are they looking for "bad" patents to really "disarm the trolls"? Or are they just hoping to get good ones for cheap and use the "patent troll" narrative for PR? I don't think there really worried about "for cheap"; I think they want to provide a good experience for sellers so that people interested in arms-length sales of patents (whether the kinds that trolls are most interested or not) that might be useful to Google (whether for troll neutralization or otherwise -- and even good patents in the hands of someone whose interest is to in maximizing short-term return can be harmful to industry players other than the patent-holder, so "bad" patents aren't the only threat to Google out there) have a better chance of being offered to Google, so Google has a chance to act on them. They don't really need them "for cheap", except compared to the cost of potential litigation or workarounds -- to Google or, e.g., its hardware partners -- if some hostile party were to end up holding them.

throwawaykf05 11y ago
Google certainly are doing this differently, and I even mentioned how (less flexible, more efficient, different narrative). But then every company that engages in this does it differently. GE does it differently from Microsoft does it differently from IBM does it differently from IV. In fact, one of the models IV actually seems to have is closer to what Google is proposing here... They have a "sell your invention" page that has similar inputs as what Google describes. Again, I've never interacted with IV, but I expect it's be like any other licensing negotiations rather than "name your price, we'll buy it if we like it". So the big difference (other than being a practicing entity) is, to your point, Google has made the process simpler by eliminating the negotiation aspect. This certainly would be a good experience for sellers... If it works. The reason everybody else negotiates is because it's very hard to price patents (or anything, really). Unless you have a dialog about why each side think it's worth what, nobody will agree on a price. As such I would guess Google will end up acquiring only those patents that are actually useful and people underprice. These will be very few mostly because 1) very few patents actually cover anything useful and 2) people almost always vastly overvalue their inventions. I say this partly from personal experience and partly from hearsay, but the fact that the vast majority (95% +) of active patents lie fallow backs this up. People have paid thousands for a piece of paper that they're getting 0 returns on. Google may very well get some good patents submitted, but if they don't negotiate, they will either leave them on the table or pay more than they're worth. Certainly would be very interesting to see how this turns out.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Google certainly are doing this differently, and I even mentioned how (less flexible, more efficient, different narrative). But then every company that engages in this does it differently. Even so Google is different in the high-level meta structure of how it is doing it differently, since it has a both an established and still operational more traditional, more flexible, more general, and less streamlined system and the new, experimental, less flexible, more specific, and more streamlined system. It's essentially do a public (not "visible only to insiders", though obviously the operational details of the results are unlikely to be public) real-business-at-stake side-by-side test of different options. > As such I would guess Google will end up acquiring only those patents that are actually useful and people underprice. I suspect that there are a wide range of potential patents that have expected value to Google that exceeds their expected value to most (and possibly any) other market participant that could actually muster the resources to pay that value, so I don't think "underpriced" is the only option. I also don't think "useful" in the sense that the patent actually covers a useful invention is necessary, anything that might provide a remotely colorable case for a Google-hostile entity to use against something useful Google does or might do in the life of the patent (even if it doesn't actually cover the thing Google is concerned about, and even if it wouldn't survive scrutiny in a lawsuit) can have positive net utility for Google to secure to prevent a hostile party from doing so if the price tag is less than the expected cost of defeating it in a lawsuit times the probability of such a suit should a hostile party get a hold of it. > Google may very well get some good patents submitted, but if they don't negotiate, they will either leave them on the table or pay more than they're worth. Paying above-market price but spending less resources on the pre-purchase process than would be spent getting down to market price can be a net win. An even bigger net win if it makes Google such an attractive place to shop your patents that the most threatening patents that would otherwise get picked up by Google-hostile entities end up getting shopped to Google first.