Submitted by “Google Inc. said Friday that it has purchased technology patents from International Business Machines Corp. as the Web-search giant stocks up on intellectual property to defend itself against lawsuits.” This article lists some of them. Google on the defensive. You kind of have to when you find yourself on the receiving end of the Apple-Microsoft-Oracle cartel’s lawsuit stick.
I can’t say I blame Google, but I also can’t say I’m happy they did this. If Google *becomes* evil, or rather more so than they are now, were pretty much screwed. A lot of the patents they purchased were irrelevant to the mobile device market.
It’s the sad state of affairs in the US. I honestly can’t blame Google if they are going on the defensive here :/. In a less insane and more competition-friendly environment, we wouldn’t need this crap, but alas.
ya cuz google would never do this to go on the offensive. This is strictly a defensive maneuver.
(Since you left out the -satire- tags I am free to say:)
Good point! Google has never sued anyone over IP. Thanks for pointing that out! Why have you been hiding this streak of logic/reasonableness until now? <(^8)<
Dude that logic has more holes than a collendar. Jennimc is actually the voice of reason in this thread. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If software patents are bad then they are always bad. What we need is a nuclear non proliferation treaty for software patents in the short term, with an eye towards banishment in the further.
Plus, I’m wrong about Google never having sued anyone:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/google/210601747
Google Launches Pre-Emptive Lawsuit Against Memory Maker
In 2006, Google considered business proposals from Netlist to supply it with server memory hardware for some of its servers but ended up buying from a different supplier.
By Thomas Claburn InformationWeek
September 15, 2008 06:00 PM
Anticipating a patent infringement lawsuit from Netlist, a maker of high-density memory subsystems, Google has taken the offensive and filed for a declaratory judgment to invalidate the patent in question.
The patent, Memory module decoder (U.S. Patent No. 7,289,386), describes a memory module and printed circuit board with a coupled logic element. It was issued to Netlist last October.
Having been sued six times already this year for patent infringement, Google has decided to launch pre-emptive litigation rather than waiting around to be served with patent lawsuit No. 7.
In 2006, according to Google’s legal filing, Google considered business proposals from Netlist to supply it with server memory hardware for some of its servers. It ended up buying from a different supplier.
In May 2008, Netlist’s CEO and president, Chun Hong, wrote to Google and claimed that the memory modules Google had chosen infringed Netlist’s patent. Netlist’s outside counsel, Morrison & Foerster, sent two follow-up letters in June.
Google, believing that litigation was imminent, responded by asking the court to issue a declaratory judgment that it is not infringing Netlist’s patent and that Netlist’s patent isn’t valid.
Google’s court filing says the Netlist patent is invalid because it fails to comply with various conditions and requirements set forth in patent law.
The point, however, was to invalidate a patent, not to suck Netlist dry.
They didn’t actually sue Netlist, but I’m sure there are actually other cases where Google sued someone.
Thus far there really hasn’t been much reason to sue… they were the ones that always took other’s ideas.
Damn, the RDF is more powerful than ever.
yah. It does amuse me to no end however. I do feel sorry for people that manage to get brainwashed to that degree.
Another good point! When Apple does it the ideas become theirs. But when Google does it (and even when they don’t) the ideas still belong to others.
Unfortunately the RDF doesn’t reach my location, so I have to be content with an unmodified feed/field.
What did Apple steal that they’re claiming is theirs? More to the point… what does this have to do with Apple?
Edited 2011-07-30 07:29 UTC
FIrst of all, you’re right this issue had nothing to do with Apple.
Second of all, you just made it about apple by responding to an apple question and asserting a blatant falsehood about Apple.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Apple+loses+patent+lawsuit
Usually it’s not Apple making the claims, instead it’s their fanboys who try to give Apple credit for everything.
Maybe it’s because “Apple fanboy” has become a synonym for “Google anti-fanboy”. Not that that would apply to you, of course…
(*coughcoughcough* http://www.osnews.com/user/uid:33949/comments *coughcoughcough*)
I don’t think so.
If Apple waves a bunch of patens around and sues some other companies, then I would call that “Apple is making claims about other stealing” their IP.
Multi-touch is a big example
Edited 2011-07-31 09:34 UTC
I doubt Apple has ever created anything original. From copying GUIs and mice, imitating 1960s Braun appliance and copying phone designs Apple are amongst the biggest IP thieves on the planet.
Google isn’t actually in the mobile device market other than the ChromeBooks, which as far as I know they distribute to testers but don’t sell (except maybe to developers.) They are in he mobile OS market of course.
But as a cloud/search/service/storage/pseudo-hosting company patents like those on memory devices and their manufacture, server and database features and configuration and server optimization for search and storage seem to be right up their alley.
And of course these are all purely (snicker) defensive, right?
{(o;[>~
Has google ever launched an offensive patent suit? Or done an MS (IBM) style shakedown?
That is not to say that they won’t…but it is worth bearing in mind when comparing them to others.
p.s. part of the problem with google is that they don’t have a culture of patenting every flimsy idea under the sun. Which also means that they have fewer weapons and less armor. Unfortunately, unlike the cold war, we are really going MAD.
Edited 2011-07-30 00:51 UTC
They have had a really ridiculous patent granted to them though….
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-gets-an-absurd-patent-for-its…
Aside from the nits you picked, exactly my thinking. Not a good thing.
“Google isn’t actually in the mobile device market”
And what da f… Google Nexus One and Google Nexus S are?
HTC and Samsung phones?
Yup. They are essentially dev phones for the platform. I don’t think google actually makes any money from the devices themselves.
Google, the new patents troll.
I guess Google has decided to go the defensive patents route rather than the outright thievery route they’ve been using. The Oracle suit will eventually get them…and apparently there are some damning emails that might sink the Android battleship.
http://allthingsd.com/20110727/old-email-may-bite-google-in-java-pa…
And, I can understand why Apple wants to go after Android, and Google. Eric Schmidt sat on their board, privy to discussions about the iPhone and strategies (he claims he recused himself, but I don’t believe him and others have not corroborated his story), then his company buys a smartphone OS to compete with the company where he sits on the board? That’s very unethical. Apparently, that doesn’t count under Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” mantra.
If you can’t compete, you gotta cheat!
Edited 2011-07-29 22:21 UTC
If Apple truly believes in the superiority of it’s products, they shouldn’t really have anything to worry about from Google.
If Google believed in their own R&D, they shouldn’t have stolen from Apple and Oracle.
Have you ever seen how close Java is to C++.
Also have you ever heard Apple’s whole OS is build upon a BSD Unix type file system.
Now who is recycling other’s technology.
Edited 2011-07-30 15:23 UTC
Not quite right. Apple shoehorned its very ancient (25+ years) HFS filesystem into a BSD OS. But the entire core of their os is based on open source unix.
So yeah, apple borrows heavily when they can.
Edited 2011-07-30 16:50 UTC
Yes. Which is why Apple should be the most reasonable of all tech corporations. Borrowing the Mach, borrowing BSD, borrowing KHTML, and somehow none of that matters to them.
Hmmm…it appears that even Andy Rubin of Google thinks it’s more than “recycling”, as you so quaintly put it.
http://allthingsd.com/20110727/old-email-may-bite-google-in-java-pa…
So Apple invented multi-touch then?
The capacitive touch screen?
Use of a digital compass?
App Markets?
In each of those cases there’s products that came to market with just those “innovations” before Apple did with the iPhone.
It’s the same throughout Apples history:
KHTML -> WebKit
Mach & BSD -> XNU (OS X’s kernel)
Xerox GUI -> Apples GUI
And many of Apples owned technologies weren’t even developed in house:
CUPS, for example, was bought by Apple
Now I’m not saying that Google (and every other company) haven’t done their fair share of copying, licensing and buy-outs. But to argue that Apple are some how more innovative than other companies is completely bullshit. Apple have just been better at marketing the stuff they’ve copied than most other companies. However marketing old ideas as new is not itself an innovation.
Well you can be innovative in marketing…
Trolololol
Allow me to summarize how the “innovation” process works for Apple:
– trawl through tradeshows, industry press, etc, to get a sense of the direction technology is moving
– cherry-pick ideas that are incredibly obvious to everyone, but that no one has implemented for the same reason no one builds floor mats for flying cars
– cut corners & limit the functionality so that you can product-ize this idea before anyone else
– hope this gives you time to make obscene amounts of money, in the year or two before your competitors finish a proper implementation of the same idea
– then watch your “innovative” product fade into irrelevance, because it ends up being hobbled by the original shortcuts taken to get it to market before anyone else (a limitation your competitors don’t have, since they’re concerned with doing things properly and not just with doing them first)
It’s the technological equivalent of “winning” a marathon by only joining in the last mile & deliberately starting from a point the other runners haven’t reached yet…. and then geiting praised as an “innovative visionary” because you read a route map.
I guess you need to know the difference between licensing and theft. All the above things regarding Apple were either licensed from the appropriate entities, bought outright…or they have patents for them (you are aware that Apple has a patent for multi-touch on smartphones, correct?). If you license, buy or patent, it’s not theft. And if Microsoft thinks Apple unfairly “copied” them, then they should be suing…correct?
I’ve posted the link twice so I don’t feel the need to do it again. Andy Rubin’s emails are damning because they clearly show that Google thought they needed a license, and they failed in ways to circumvent it (in their own eyes). So…Google chose thievery instead. Even the presiding judge stated that “Google may have simply been brazen, preferring to roll the dice on possible litigation rather than to pay a fair price.â€
If Google had licensed Java like they should have, we wouldn’t be having this conversation (although Eric Schmidt’s duplicity will not be forgotten).
ok..lets get legal. This case is not over yet.
Judge Reduces Oracle’s Patent Infringement Charge Against Google From 129 To Three
http://www.itproportal.com/2011/05/06/judge-reduces-oracles-patent-…
Judge blasts Google/Oracle over damages estimates in patent dispute
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/07/judge-blasts-googleorac…
Do you dispute now that this case if not greedily opportunistic?
All it takes is one charge of infringement to stick.
If Oracle feels they have a right to damages, it’s within their rights to pursue the case. Google chose not to license…and they will have to pay the cost of that, if they lose.
That’s just the kind of wishy-wishy pro-patent argument I’d expect to hear from greedy lawyers who have no interest in technology. It’s not something I’d have expected to hear in a technology forum.
Software patents are bad. Regardless of whether Google are guilty or not, software patents do more harm than good to the technology sector. And attitudes like the above are what’s contributing to the rotting of American technology firms.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion. However, outside of technology forums, patents do exist and companies will enforce those patents when they feel that they are being infringed. I do believe that the patent system needs to change, but until it does…this is the recourse that companies have to protect IP. And Oracle has every right to pursue their case, regardless of what you think about the current patent system.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion. However, outside of technology forums, patents do exist and companies will enforce those patents when they feel that they are being infringed. I do believe that the patent system needs to change, but until it does…this is the recourse that companies have to protect IP. And Oracle has every right to pursue their case, regardless of what you think about the current patent system. [/q]
Oh I’m not disputing that.
PS: Thanks for dragging out this off topic and inflammatory discussion to this size….
Yes…because it’s quite apparent you were busy with other things….or not…
I never mentioned theft, you did.
So do about a dozen other companies. In fact Synaptic (while not a smart phone manufacturer) has even sued Apple over their implementation of multi-touch.
However we should all know by now that a patent portfolio means jack shit as patents these days are handed out like candy.
Again, I never mentioned theft. That was your term not mine.
I don’t recall even mentioning any MS technology so I’m really confused where you pulled that one from.
Which all happened since Oracle bought out Sun. Prior to then Sun not only allowed Android’s development but even gave Google an endorsement.
Actions like this shout more of money-grabbing than genuine concerns about intellectual property.
However the court case is still on going and thus I think it’s a little early to be accusing one party of guilt until the legal system has at least had it’s 1st stab at a final verdict. (I say 1st stab because I wouldn’t be surprised if whatever result is delivered gets appealed).
Subjective personal opinion. Lets stick to facts please.
Possibly, however Sun did give Google it’s blessing.
Besides, the whole code copying saga is still yet to be proven in court and Sun/Oracle cannot patent the syntax of Java. So this whole thing could just as easily blow over light hot air.
Yeah…they don’t mean anything. That’s why the Apple/Microsoft contingent paid out $4.5 billion for the Nortel patents….because they are so worthless…
An endorsement does not constitute or replace a license. And Rubin knew that because he expressed the concern that they LACKED a license. You don’t mention things like that if you have a clear go ahead. And…there is no standing legal agreement on Java between Google and Oracle, and that’s what counts right now.
Oracle wants to be paid for its intellectual property. Are they supposed to give it away for free? Are they supposed to let a company take it without compensation? They are not open-sourcing it…and they have a right to demand a license for it.
I can express my opinion if I want. Those emails give good support for my opinion.
Blessing? What does that mean? Is that written down in a legal licensing document someplace? Blessings do not equal licensing!
Or Google can be found to have infringed and pay up. We shall wait and see.
Edited 2011-07-31 22:12 UTC
Here’s what it means:
Blessing implies, but does not automatically mean, estoppel. Estoppel means that one party relied on statements or actions by a second party that what the party of the first part was doing was OK. If estoppel can be established to exist in a case then it mitigates the harm done to the complaining party to a degree to be determined by the trier of fact, be that a judge or a jury.
And since you asked about a “legal licensing document”:
It, estoppel that is, actually is written down in a legal document, but not in a legal (or illegal/unenforceable/void) licensing ‘document’ of any sort since that isn’t what this is about. (There is no question as to the existence of a license, documented or otherwise. It is on record that Google does not have a license as they chose not to take one.) It is in one of Google’s replies to a filing by Oracle. By that I mean that the statement that is construed as a ‘blessing’ is referred to in the reply document from Google’s legal team. The only way to get a handle on how much meaning to attribute to that statement will be to get Jonathan Schwartz to testify or submit an affidavit as to what he meant by it. That process has not been initiated yet, so it remains to be seen what weight it may carry should it happen.
And the principle of estoppel is in a legal document as well. Rather than refer you to the codex in which it is established I will just give you the definition of it from m-w.com.
Definition of ESTOPPEL
: a legal bar to alleging or denying a fact because of one’s own previous actions or words to the contrary
As you may see from this it is not a license. Nor has anyone said that it is one nor that it is a substitute for one. It is merely a legal point that may be brought to bear on claims asserted in a legal case.
No matter what we feel or think about the situation it is out of our hands and is being dealt with by Judge Alsup for now. There may be a settlement. There usually is ; most cases of this type don’t go to trial. He has been smacking both parties pretty sharply, likely in the attempt to get them to resolve their differences without a trial.
In the mean time it will be at least a month or two before things start to even take shape enough to begin to anticipate any particular outcome even though some significant rulings have already been made. You have plenty of time to stock up on popcorn and drinks before then. No need to rush. (^;)
Context, my dear boy, context please.
You were talking about patents proving innovation -which they do not- not about their usefulness in legalised blackmail.
That’s a fair point. However thus far I’ve heard a lot of hot air from both camps so I’m not as ready as yourself to declare guilt.
If it’s proven that Google did copy core technologies and even entire chunks of code, then I’ll side with you on this. However if it’s just the syntax they’ve “stolen”, well that’s a little like trying to patent C++.
Re-implementing Java does not in itself need a licence. Re-using Java libraries does.
You’re missing the point.
IF (and this is still a big “if”!!) it’s proven that Google have stolen Oracles intellectual property, then more people would sympathise with Oracle.
However the way this case has been brought together, there’s little hard evidence that Google have. Plus the timing of this litigation (ie the moment Oracle bought the rights to Java through their Sun take over) leaves this whole farce smelling more like a bullshit way of drumming up cash than a genuine case of intellectual property theft.
And there’s plenty other e-mails that give good support against your opinion.
Hence why I’m kindly asking for you to stick to the facts as opinions and bias will only cloud the topic.
Actually is kind of is – in a very crude way.
If you create a product that’s endorsed by a company, then they have less legal credibility to then sue you for intellectual property infringement as they’ve lead the original developers on to believe that said product was safe.
I forget the exact legal term and I will admit that it’s a very shakey position to build a platform on – however it is still a valid legal argument.
Indeed.
I personally hope you’re wrong about this. Not because of some stupid internet debate nor because of any platform bias. But because I’ve always considered Google one of the “good guys” in terms of advocating FOSS. Sure they have their faults and I haven’t agreed with a lot of their decisions / products, but I always considered them to be above copying and pasting other peoples source code without credit nor licences.
I think if Google are found guilty, then a lot of people might lose faith in Google. However this is also another reason why I think Oracle are basically making this up. It’s such an easy attack that will create a lot of damage.
So I guess whatever the outcome, someone will emerge the “villain” of the story
Darn straight I’d defend my patent if I could afford to, if not, I’d sell it. IBM has enough lawyers to decide what is cheaper.
A very smart Smith and Wesson company never wanted to buy the original rim fire patent. They choose to write an agreement with the owner to pay a very high price per unit with the condition that the inventor protect the patent. The inventor died penniless.
And how does that show that patents are meant to encourage innovation?
Innovation is not being denied to anyone but possibly the very poorest of inventors. They too could offer their ideas to some larger company.
Look. You have to defend yourself against a lot of very old legal rules. You have to defend your claim to property as in real estate. It has always been like that. Does that stop anyone from buying land?
That is what you get in a free market. Two parts to a great idea usually. One is the idea and the other is how to market it. Almost no one ever did both ideas.
With software it is more complicated.
Take the property example you used.
Now imagined the bricks, the mix of cement, paint ect. all patented.
Now imagine you can only buy this stuff from one vendor and any other builder and building material distributor can be sued.
Also imagine the actual shape and layout of your house might be patented.
Not only that, imagine that your house can also be taken away or demolished if you bought from infringing companies.
And everyone needs shelter. And other manufacturers and tradesman livelihoods depend on building it.
Computing like shelter has become a basic human right in my opinion.
This is the software world.
Patent’s do spur innovation and do have its merit. (Although the patent period in my opinion is too long.)
But in software the most mundane prior art is going through the patent offices and is used to extort draconic amounts of licensing of some even just refused to license opting to shut competitors down.
jefro,
“You have to defend your claim to property as in real estate. It has always been like that. Does that stop anyone from buying land?”
“That is what you get in a free market. Two parts to a great idea usually. One is the idea and the other is how to market it.”
We do mostly believe in the free market’s ability to encourage innovation without the need to resort to artificial government monopolies.
I think maybe you misunderstand why software patents are so unappealing to software developers. Real estate is a tangible resource. It cannot be constructed or invented from within one’s consciousness. When someone else steals your property, you can no longer have it yourself.
Now take a look at what software developers do. We take the ideas in our heads, and write them into source code and compile them into programs that do something. We believe that we are entitled to convert our ideas into working programs. Like writers writing about the same topic, many developers do share the same ideas. In fact, often times we aren’t even aware of the other writers/developers working on the same thing. We want to be able to develop our own implementations even if someone else may have already done so. Like writers, we feel copyright is the best way to protect our work since it doesn’t prohibit multiple developers from working effectively in the same domain like patent monopolies do.
Software patents end up turning software development into a land grab such that the wealthiest corporations end up owning exclusive rights to the best ideas. But unlike tangible real estate, the same ideas can be used by many developers without precluding anyone else from using them at the same time, so there’s no fundamental need for government to manage it.
Edited 2011-07-31 19:41 UTC
Yes it is being denied. It’s being denied to the probable benefactor of said innovation.
PS: Please let the jokes about “free market” be left for other occasions… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0