This I didn’t expect. While we’ve had individual people high up Google’s chain of command speak out, there wasn’t yet any form of official response to the patent shenanigans surrounding Android. For the first time, the company has posted on the official Google Blog about the issue, and the company is clear. Several companies, including Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle, are working together to attack Android through patents. Google is not going to sit back and take it, though. Update: Stuff just got real. Popcorn! Or better yet, coffee!
I wasn’t actually supposed to write for OSNews for a few days due to an insane workload for finishing up my masters’ thesis (no more school ever again ever and ever!), but you didn’t really think I’d let this opportunity pass me by, right? I’m a little ahead of my schedule anyway, so here it goes.
The post is written by David Drummond, senior vice president and chief legal officer at Google. He notes pretty much the same things many of us have been saying: Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle are working together to litigate against Android instead of competing with it.
“But Android’s success has yielded something else: a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents,” Drummond writes, “They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the CPTN group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the Rockstar group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them; seeking $15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android (which we provide free of charge) than Windows Mobile; and even suing Barnes & Noble, HTC, Motorola, and Samsung.”
“Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it,” Drummond continues, “A smartphone might involve as many as 250000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a tax for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation.”
This is about as harsh as Google has ever been about this issue, and is almost a verbatim copy of everything I (and others on OSNews) have been saying. Which, coincidentally, makes me feel a little dirty. I hate it when I agree with a large company – since that usually happens right before I magically spend another €500, but alas.
Google has been quite passive about the various anti-Android lawsuits, and this left many of us wondering: is Google just letting device makers take the hit? Well, as it turns out, it appears Google is working behind the scenes to subvert this coordinated Android attack. Drummond refers to the various antitrust investigations concerning these patent cartels – I’m sure Google had its lobbyists nudge and wink at the US DoJ. Google is also working on strengthening its own patent portfolio.
“Unless we act, consumers could face rising costs for Android devices – and fewer choices for their next phone,” Drummond concludes.
Of course, Google is by no means a saint (can we still count the various search/advertisement-related antitrust investigations on one hand?), but when it comes to patents, Google is clearly on the receiving end of a whole lot of dirty and shady back room cartel-esque deals. It’s sad Google now has to patent up as well, but did any of you seriously expect Google had the clout in US Congress to change the patent system?
They woke up the G-iant. They won’t be evil, but they gonna be b-a-a-a-a-d. They are gonna go all Mapreduce on those goonies. Snapple, Orajel and Mygosoft will be searching for their behinds, becuase they done been chewed off.
Where’s my popcorn!!
39 manufacturers and 231 carriers could not outbid #Apple, #Oracle and #Microsoft ? or they just didn’t want to invest ? they make money with android but don’t wanna give back!
But google made SUN more cheap for Oracle by not want to pay Java licenses! now the shit comes back.
I hope Android stays there where it is, and I hope that more people should develop Software in Europa or somewhere else and stop selling it in the USA, this could incentive the government to change the Patent politic.
That is indeed going to be the obvious outcome. Software developers are going to move to Europe, and several products may simply never arrive in the US out of fear of patent suits. At which point Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and others will try and buy the European Parliament the same way they bought US Congress to bring software patents to Europe.
And we, the people, are too busy caring about celebrities.
I think, it will not be so easy, the EU cares a lot about Software and they will not change that quick! we have a lot of european moving to the use to develop Software there. It hurts me that Nokia (the last european Platform Software & Hardware House) is just dying
; Europa, Asia und the world has a lot of great mind, but they believe they can only be successful in the USA, even though the immigrant-Politic just got real bad
I should sleep, it getting to political
I can’t agree with this statement more. I shall print it on a T-Shirt.
Fat chance. I’m not an analyst but I’m pretty sure the United States is the largest market for the software industry. Though if Europe’s patent system proves to be (and stays) that much better it may be a good idea for small business to start by selling over there.
if Eric Schmidt hadn’t decided to get in the cell phone business and base his company’s operating system and interface on concepts he learned about while on the board of directors at Apple I might have some sympathy for him.
However, because his company developed an OS with full knowledge of the fact that it would infringe several software patents that he would have been fully privy to while on that same board of directors causes me to not give him any benefit of the doubt.
When you’re not aware of the theft you’re making… while trying to create a new product. That’s unfortunate however it is the law.
When you are aware of that theft while trying to create a new product… that falls within the genuinely illegal by all ways of understanding (no matter how you feel about software patents)
When you are aware of that theft while trying to create a new product all while you are being paid VERY well to offer guidance and retain that company’s secrets from whom you’re stealing from that is the epitome of evil which Google claims not to be.
The third example is what Eric Schmidt and thus Google are guilty of.
Edited 2011-08-03 22:14 UTC
[citation needed]
Are you kidding me? You’re saying you’re not aware that he was on Apple’s board during the iPhone’s development which coincided with Google’s OS development?
[citation needed]
Or, to make it clearer to you: Android was started in 2003, and acquired by Google in 2005. iPhone development began in 2005. There is AS MUCH evidence to support the idea Apple stole stuff from Google via Schmidt as there is evidence the other way around: absolutely none.
Edited 2011-08-03 22:18 UTC
Thom, he was on Apple’s board of directors. That means he is privy to all dealings relating to development and protection of that development. It’s part of the job.
You’re really showing your colors by being so dismissive of these facts.
Edited 2011-08-03 22:20 UTC
Yet you show lack of knowledge what a member of the board of directors does and what access to information he has.
The only facts are:
– He was on the BoD for 3 years
– He resigned when appropriate
– He was praised by Steve Jobs
– 2 years on, and only paranoid loons are saying something bad about Schmidt’s role as a member of BoD of Apple
“Eric has been an excellent Board member for Apple, investing his valuable time, talent, passion and wisdom to help make Apple successful,†said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple’s Board.â€
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/08/03Dr-Eric-Schmidt-Resigns-f…
More than enough time to change a company’s mobile direction
Yes after he stole
Only to deride him privately and later publicly
2 years on and only delusional idiots are denying that copying occurred.
“This don’t be evil mantra: – It’s bullshit.” – Steve Jobs
“Jobs hates Eric.” – CNBC inside source
http://seoblackhat.com/2010/01/31/jobs-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-bulls…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/34956650/
Edited 2011-08-03 22:51 UTC
It’s called industrial espionage and it makes me wonder why Apple has not done anything about it. Maybe because it something they know didn’t happen?
Direct quotes from Jobs only please. Mine are direct and official quotes, yours are not.
“This don’t be evil mantra: – It’s bullshit.” – Jalexoid.
However, that does not say anything about Eric’s work as a member of BoD of Apple.
Did I ever imply that no one copied?
EDIT – PS: If you ever want to have a rational discussion please make sure that you first defend your claims with relevant facts or concede that point before moving on to another point. Otherwise you fail the “principle of reason”.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rational-discussion-flowchart/
Edited 2011-08-03 23:11 UTC
“- He was praised by Steve Jobs ”
So was Internet Explorer. So were the members of the board of Apple in 1997 who left at the request of Steve.
And in 1998 IE deserved praise.
So you agree with Jennimc that Schmidt engaged in industrial espionage?
In any case, it’s a fact that Jobs praised Schmidt. It’s not a fact, unlike Jennimc is saying, that Schmidt engaged in industrial espionage.
Android was started in 2003, and acquired by Google in 2005. iPhone development began in 2005.
You’re really showing your colors by being so dismissive of these facts.
Google was in the process of making a phone operating system. Here is the first fruits of that effort:
http://d2o7bfz2il9cb7.cloudfront.net/main-qimg-4e33ce3cab7d71d087f6…
http://d2o7bfz2il9cb7.cloudfront.net/main-qimg-3ff56b963075e98a5738…
Shortly before the release of those phones, Schmidt was asked to join Apple’s board of directors. Almost immediately after the release of the iPhone, Google released this:
http://random.andrewwarner.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/incredibl…
These things don’t get created that fast without prior knowledge.
It was obvious from those initial pictures that Google’s goal was to compete with blackberry. When Schmidt saw the iPhone, he changed Google’s corse immediately for obvious reasons.
Edited 2011-08-03 22:30 UTC
You’re basing your ENTIRE argument on that one single Android build? Honestly?
And other than that – you realise that iOS is based upon decades of other products, right? PalmOS, for instance? Myorigo? You’re making it seem as if iOS and the iPhone were developed in a vacuum and that Apple invented it all – typical Apple fanboy behaviour. Since iOS was built upon decades of research and products from others, why can’t Android? Why do you consider iOS a vacuum product, but not Android?
Every product available for sale builds upon technology that preceded it. The iPhone is no different yet it was dramatically different from many other phones on the market… so much so that every major phone manufacturer mocked Apple and claimed their efforts would fail.
Google is allowed to create a product with the same knowledge that Apple had before they developed their phone. They’re NOT allowed to copy a company’s product based on information acquired while hired at that same company to retain secrets.
The difference in direction based on the former and latter is obvious where they garnered their phone’s overall direction. To toss out fanboy (fangirl???) accusations whole protecting the wrong deeds of a preferred company is the prime example of fanboy. You sir are exactly that.
Again, [citation needed].
You provide zero evidence for your claims. None. Yet, you present them as fact. THAT is why you are labelled fanboy on this board.
It is just as likely that Apple stole all the ideas for the iPhone from Google. Both were developing a mobile phone operating system in the same timeframe, and they both ended up with siilar results BECAUSE THEY WERE BOTH WORKING WITHOUT LEGACY BULDING ON THE SAME PRODUCTS AND RESEARCH THAT CAME BEFORE.
[citation needed].
Looks like you provided zero evidence for your claims None. Yet, you present them as fact. THAT is why you are labelled fanboy on this board.
If an Apple staff member was on Google’s board of directors you might have a point but they weren’t so you don’t.
You’re neglecting that Google showed their cards. Then Apple showed theirs. Suddenly Google’s cards changed. It couldn’t have been a reactive measure as those type of efforts take time. No, they changed course at a key moment in development while completing their existing development.
Edit: I am on neither Apple’s nor Google’s “side” in this. Just obviously not yours. I’m allergic to fanboism and idiocy.
The iPhone itself was largely based on a particular model of touchscreen Nokia that preceded it (I can’t remember the model right now), it was the model of phone Steve Jobs personally preferred at the time.
Look and feel patent suits should be thrown out of court, in the mobile space. Limited amount of room, touch screen device. Obviously need large clear buttons on screen to press. What else are you going to do? Make your phone a weird shape just for the hell of it? There’s not much to work with in the appearance of a touchscreen device. The interface of Android is hardly stolen from Apple either, they’re both crippled versions of the desktop paradigm, adapted because people are familiar with the concept, and not creative enough to come up with something better. Android is perhaps MORE desktop-like for the inclusion of desktop folders, the ability to arrange your icons as you please, and the task switcher looks suspiciously like pressing Alt + Tab in Windows. Apple’s mantra for the past few versions of iOS seems to have been “steal steal steal”. Have you seen Apple’s innovative new notification area? Or the REVOLUTIONARY ability in iOS 4 to create folders? Never seen either of those anywhere else, before, no sir. Most of the networking technology in either OS is probably heavily adapted from similar roots (Google uses Linux for almost everything, Apple abused the open source community with Darwin), so they’re bound to end up at similar results. I fail to see how any of the patents in question don’t in some way have prior art, that neither company is responsible for – hell, right now I’d love it if a patent troll showed up and said “*cough* excuse me, you BOTH owe me A TRILLION DOLLARS!”
Edited 2011-08-03 23:37 UTC
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim, because I found this article from Engadget, dated 8/29/2007.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/29/nokias-iphone-no-seriously/
Quote from the article:
Edited 2011-08-03 23:58 UTC
Nokia 7710 maybe? With UI from most Symbian dumbphones from 2005.
I’ve been watching some demonstrations of it on YouTube. To use it effectively, you need the stylus that comes with it. It’s like the Compaq iPaq PDA I used to own. And…the Nokia has a few hardware buttons. The iPhone is pure finger and multitouch. I don’t see a strong enough connection between the two products.
Like Nokia 7710 has the same LCD screen? 3.5″ 640*320 TFT LCD.
In 2005 capacitive touchscreens were the weight of gold, so no wonder Nokia 7710 had the cheaper resistive. Resistive touchscreens aren’t good for finger touch inputs.
So far, the only thing that iPhone brought into the mainstream smartphone market is the capacitive all touch input(I have not found a good predecessor).
In all other aspects iPhone took the ideas from Nokia mobiles from 2004-2006, BB’s and some desktop. The home button looks awfully like Nokia’s “joysticks”. The grid of icons on a mobile is the same as my 2005 Nokia.
BTW: I’m quite thankful to Apple for driving down the prices of new technology in the market for the last year. Tim Cook is just a supply chain god to me, as a former procurement manager.
I’m sorry. I looked at 3 different demonstrations of the Nokia and it has more in common with my Compaq iPaq then it does with the iPhone.
Yup. In the end, it probably all just comes down to keeping the shareholders happy, regardless of tactics, etc. They don’t care how the profit comes in or what makes the stock prices climb, as long as it does and they do. And if not, they slip away like low tide.
Thom, don’t be an idiot. Apple saw working with Google as a great partnership built with promise and what did Google do? Raped them. They encouraged Apple to open source Webkit and then Google says hey we got this great new browser thats way better than that old crappy Safari, Hey we have a great new OS built on that , and guess what we are doing phones too! And oh yeah, we’ll have App stores and music and everything, just like our partner Apple.
Webkit = khtml. It was already open source.
You fail.
kHTML is licensed under LGPL, so Apple had no choice but to release the source…
Are you a moron? Webkit is based on KDE’s Khtml which already was open source. Stop pulling sh!t out of your ass and slinging it all over this page please.
Tired and fallacious argument. WebKit was forked from the LGPL-licensed KHTML component from the KDE project. Apple had a moral (if not legal, IANAL) responsibility to contribute their improvements back. You can tell when comment authors haven’t been around on OSNews for long.
I’m confused. Are you claiming that Android (and then Google) got all the way to the point of building test hardware that looks like a Blackberry clone and acted like a Blackberry clone when, in fact, they were actually going to release an iPhone clone all along? Just no one knew it until a year after the iPhone was released?
Test hardware. Not release hardware. You can iterate through hardware models in development.
See: EVERY PROTOTYPE DEVICE EVER.
“Every product available for sale builds upon technology that preceded it.”
“Builds upon” and “duplicates” are two different concepts. The patent system is designed to prevent one company from doing the innovating and all the others merely duplicating those innovations.
No one had a phone like the iPhone when it was introduced.
LG Prada…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_%28KE850%29
No one? I had one better, it was 2 years old and had native installable apps… SE p910i
Did you even see the Prada ? It was created independantly from the iPhone too:
http://www.osnews.com/story/24997/Standing_on_the_Shoulders_of_Mobi…
Did you see my comment about “The Myth of the Sole Inventor” ?:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?483269
When the hardware manufactures were able to produce products like that, other manufactures obviously jumped on it.
The only reason the iPhone did so well was because it was more affordable than the Prada and they were early on the market. Before a lot of competitors.
citation needed
I’m sorry… But, do you live in a time bubble? Android touch orientated UI change came about no earlier than 12 months after iPhone was demoed. The first actual touchscreen device was out a year after OG iPhone was released(G1). And the picture you’re giving is of a device(HTC Incredible) that is 3 years older than original iPhone release to public…
If he was really engaged in industrial espionage, like you imply, then they would have had a touch oriented device from day one…
They previewed a nearly complete version within as little as 6 months of the iPhone’s release.
The first actual touchscreen device was out a year after OG iPhone was released(G1). And the picture you’re giving is of a device(HTC Incredible) that is 3 years older than original iPhone release to public…
He (probably) didn’t set out to copy Apple upon jointing the board of directors. He would need time to garner the information for which he would utilize in the first release based on the concepts he acquired while employed at Apple. Lets say 6 months before the light went off in his head to do the same. That would allow for a year and a half of development time then one more year on Apple’s board after Apple releases the iPhone.
Edited 2011-08-03 22:57 UTC
A great phone interface could be done without touchscreen. Not as simply, but it is possible. Clearly touchscreen is not sufficient, either, for a great interface as anything that predates iPhone were garbage.
Actually he helped Apple steal Google’s advertising technologies and methods. Before he joined Apple’s board they had none.
Ridiculous ? RDF induced claims sound the same.
Do you really think that sleight of mind is going to fool anyone?
That Schmidt was on the Apple board is widely known and verifiable, but that’s not the case with your claim that he somehow used that position to “steal” iPhone IP. Sorry, but a wild BS claim doesn’t magically become true just because you attach it to the coattails of a known fact.
It’s also interesting to note that, in all the posts where you’ve made that claim, you’ve consistently failed to back it up with anything other than circular reasoning. “Schmidt was on the Apple board, therefore he must have stolen iPhone IP, because he was on the Apple board, therefore…”
I’m guessing you’ve never heard the phrase “post proof or STFU”?
So I take it you agree that Steve Jobs actions can be classified as evil right? After all Apple just lost a lawsuit against Nokia for stealing Nokia’s “Intellectual property” The court found they were guilty. So Apple is a convicted thief and Steve Jobs is evil right?
Yes. Oh wait… which Apple staff member is on Nokia’s board of directors?
A general question about this though… how can you steal from someone’s intellectual property if you are not even aware you are doing it?
The law assumes that, basically, you cannot do that. It’s as if you are caught using infringing technology that you practically must have willingly stolen it from someone else.
Ley me start by saying I don’t agree with the current patent system in the U.S. and it needs to be changed. So saying that let’s take this from a point of view that maybe the patents in question are legit.
If Google knows they are in violation with Android but don’t really care then the best way to fight this is through public opinion. By Google saying that these companies are bullying Android through patents that aren’t legit (whether or not they are) then they start to get the public on their side. Then the public turns their back on the other companies and then even if they are ruled against the public has already made their choice.
To me, by Google making this statement, they are trying to get this tried in the court of public opinion.
Once again I think was is happening is wrong, just trying to provide another viewpoint.
So I guess Google wanting to buy the Nortel patents by placing the stalking horse bid (http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/04/google-makes-900-million-stalking-…) was cool because they are all about innovation not patent fights?
What about the uh, 100 or so patents purchased from IBM(http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/30/business/la-fi-google-paten…)? All about innovation huh?
Google has some nerve.
Defensive moves. Totally logical after being attacked by Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle. If I hit you, you should be able to defnd ourself.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-29/apple-lawyers-up-for-pa…
“Apple has been the most-sued technology company since 2008, the year after the iPhone was introduced, topping Microsoft Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co. and Dell Inc., according to LegalMetric Inc., a compiler of litigation data based in St. Louis.”
“Apple was a decade late to market for mobile phones,†Patrick Flinn, a lawyer at Alston & Bird who represents Nokia, said in opening arguments today in Washington. “You can undercut competition when you use the inventions of others.â€
There’s a crapload of hypocrisy on both sides. However, based to the patent battle-chests of the others an their litigation history, Google is the least hypocritical there…
LOL, when I first got my hands on Android, my first thought was, ‘this interface was obviously inspired by iOS’… it’s so obvious that I’d be willing to bed even a blind person can see this.
Now, I’m not sure if Google is in violation of any patents, and Apple has clearly been copying from Android (esp the new notification system). But if you’re not convinced that the Android OS is a blatant ripoff of iOS in design, you’re clearly not paying attention.
Then in that case the iPhone UI is a blatant rip-off my 2005 Nokia…
I have a bit higher standard on what constitutes a blatant rip-off. iOS5 notification system is not a rip-off by my standard. The Chinese HiPhones are blatant rip-offs. Samsung’s TouchWiz is bordering on that.
In all seriousness though, you can’t progress without copying ideas. “If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants”
Yet with a lot of patents these days the ideas are being protected like they were inventions – “Dreams are 10 a penny…”
But Android’s success has yielded something else: a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents,
Presumably if the patents in question are bogus then Google doesn’t have a problem?
But of course Google does have a problem because the claims are far from bogus. The statement from David Drummond is just part of Google’s ongoing PR campaign to paint itself as the saintly victim of a nefarious conspiracy. In reality it appears that Google behaved in an utterly reckless fashion during the design phase of Android when it openly discussed internally that it would need a Java license and then didn’t bother getting one. It was also reckless by not taking care to make sure Android was legally bullet proof before distributing and thus exposing third parties to risk, although Google did remember to indemnify itself against any risks from doing so (odd that they did remember to do that bit isn’t it?).
The judge’s remarks about these internal Google emails appear very condemnatory. He said of them:
“You know what they used to say about Joe Alioto,†Alsup said, referring to the successful antitrust attorney. “In a big case like this, he only needed two documents: He needed a document like this, the one I just read, and the Magna Carta. And he won every case. And you are going to be on the losing end of this document with Andy Rubin on the stand. … If willful infringement is found, there are profound implications for a permanent injunction. So you better think about that.â€
http://allthingsd.com/20110727/old-email-may-bite-google-in-java-pa…
The usual practice in patent disputes is to reach an agreement that either involves a one way licensing agreement involving payment (one off or recurring) or some sort of cross licensing deal (or a mix of the two). Cross licensing is quite common as the large well established tech companies have built up a large portfolio of patents so patent retaliation is a real threat and cross licensing offers an often mutually beneficial way to resolve disputes.
Clearly one of Google’s main problem is that it has a very weak patent portfolio, far smaller than the tech companies making patent claims against Google directly or against OEMs who are using Google distributed software. So Google finds it hard to offer any sort of cross licensing deal and because it has distributed the software being challenged in the patent dispute so widely it’s possible exposure in relation to any payment for licences is very high. Many of the recipients and OEM users of Google’s Android distributions have weak or irrelevant or ageing patent portfolios and so they too are vulnerable.
Apple’s position is different again. Apple is not suing Google directly because Google wisely restrained itself from incorporating features that it knew Apple had a legal claim over in it’s own limited number of directly produced Google designed phone models. The Patent No. 7,469,381 referenced below (with a link to an explanatory article) is good example of where Google decided to stop short of infringing Apple IP, it’s Android OEM partners were not so careful.
Apple is utterly disinterested in making money from licensing its intellectual property. Apple is interested in product differentiation. Apple has only settled for a cross licensing deal where the other side, Nokia, clearly have a strong portfolio of highly relevant patents and are not producing products which are competing with Apple products through the use of what Apple considers to be copied features based on it’s design work. Generally Apple wants the other product makers to stop incorporating features which it believes are it’s intellectual property. Apple will not be swayed from this position. Apple has a long memory and remembers how badly it managed its intellectual property in the past. It does not intend to make the same mistakes again.
That is why Apple was determined to prevent the Nortel patent portfolio from falling into the hands of Google who would have used it to fend off Apple’s legal actions against Android OEMs. Apple’s view is that it can beat the opposition as long as they don’t illegally copy Apple original designs.
A good example of Apple’s approach is it’s defence of it’s U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 on “list scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display”. The technical intricacies of what this patent covers, why it is important, why Apple have a strong case and why it will have an impact is explained very clearly here:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/apples-favorite-make-androi…
Linking to Florian Muller’s site is a good way to discredit your claims. Try not to do it again.
Also the patent regarding screen orientation is saddled with prior art. That patent claim will not hold up to re-examination.
Or if you clicked through to the “discredited” site:
“Moreover, the Patent Office confirmed the validity of all twenty claims of this patent in a reexamination initiated by Nokia, which included the best prior art references Nokia could find.”
In other words the ‘381 patent has already been reexamined and all 20 claims made it through.
I hate to tell you that Compaq developers had a rotating screen and accelerometer YEARS before Apple. While it was never released commercially, several hundred or more were demo’ed at conferences and shipped to universities for development. The people at Compaq created xrandr specifically for this reason. Link below to the guys page. There is also some useful info there about gestures.
http://gettys.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/apple-patents-portrait-lands…
That would be awesome information if it had anything to do with the patent being talked about.
While the author of the blog I mentioned doesn’t think it has anything to do with the patent, I think he is wrong. I think the difference between the two technologies is not something that should be patentable. Even Mueller admits that:
“You get the same result either way, but Apple’s patent covers the only way that looks and feels intuitive.”
So we patent something on look and feel? That’t not what patents are suppose to cover. The main point I was making is that Apple didn’t invent most of this technology. They may have put some polish on it, but at the end of the day they steal just like everyone else. If Compaq had a patent on the whole screen turn technology they built, Apple would surely be infringing on it.
Perhaps you should click through to the “discredited” site to see exactly what patent we are talking about. Pro tip: it has nothing to do with screen turn technology and it has already been through a patent reexamination at Nokia’s request, there is no question it will stand up
And maybe you should learn how to read. The name of the patent is:
“List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display”
Yes, Apple’s patent covers different specifics than just rotation. And while I understand that Apple’s patent may have been upheld, its also very obvious that the technology was heavily influenced by the work done at Compaq and other places. Why should Apple get to patent work that was half done by someone else?
And the auther of that blog even admits he is in error, that he misinterpreted the patent.
I’ll stick with the vigorous challenge by Nokia and upholding by the legal system versus some blog post that is updated shortly after that it was completely wrong.
Edited 2011-08-04 03:35 UTC
Ah, so you live in a magical fantasy land where defending yourself against lawsuits doesn’t cost anything just so long as you’re in the right?
Thom said: (can we still count the various search/advertisement-related antitrust investigations on one hand?)
Its important to note that most of the antitrust investigations against Google were initiated by Microsoft. Whether by leading a list of companies (partners) to complain or urging companies to complain to regulators behind the scenes. It is a two pronged attack against Google from Microsoft. File and urge others to file antitrust complaints against Google and stir up a patent hornets nest for any Open Source software that competes with Microsoft in the marketplace. Plain and simple.
http://twitter.com/#!/BradSmi/status/98902130412355585
Edited 2011-08-04 02:26 UTC
Folks, nobody should be shedding a tear for Google. They can moan all they want about patents (oh, the horror, the horror…), but patents are how business is done in the United States. Don’t like it, Google? Work to change the law. Congress has the ability to change patent law.
What I detest here is Google’s hypocrisy. It tries to get every possible advantage that it can — skirting tax laws, cutting out competitors, working actively to undermine privacy, pimping the open source community for sympathy — while moaning when it’s lagging behind in some area (e.g. patents).
Android grew as quickly as it did precisely because it leveraged innovations that were patented by other companies. You may not like that fact, but it’s true. That won’t stop Google from continuing to push Android to higher and higher heights. But it WILL require Google to license patents — just as Apple, Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, and others license patents from one another — and actually spend some of that huge bankroll that it’s been building. That shouldn’t upset anyone but Google.
Google is playing you for rubes.
Edited 2011-08-04 03:20 UTC
“Android grew as quickly as it did precisely because it leveraged innovations that were patented by other companies.”
And BANG! we’re right back to that old ‘definition of innovation’ problem. So many of those user interface patents are complete bollocks – completely “obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art”. And I appreciate in the fullness of time many of them will likely (hopefully) be invalidated on review, but in the meantime obscene amounts of time and money will be spent on patent attorneys, court wrangling and wasted human capital. It’s all so nauseatingly inefficient.
What non-software types don’t always seem to appreciate is that by enforcing these ludicrous software patents, you devalue the patent system generally – you risk justifying the behaviour of manufacturers in (euphemistically) ‘non-patent-enforcing’ countries ripping off genuine design and innovation without license.
As the micro-fab boom builds steam and industrial design becomes just another form of digital art, I fear it’s already inevitable that we’ll see similar levels of piracy to those in the music, film and now ebook industries. Why buy an iPhone 13, when you can torrent the design and print it off at your local fab?
What you might not realise, is that it’s part of the PR to change the system.
No, they’re going to make lame assertions in court, and get their asses handed to them, before they eventually break down and pay the patent license fees which they should have paid in the first place.
This is what happens when you let devs run your company.
Time to appoint an adult.
Edited 2011-08-04 03:24 UTC
Google’s blog post looks like nothing more than propaganda that isn’t rooted in reality…
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-google-email-2011-8?op=1
Edited 2011-08-04 03:47 UTC
Same goes for Microsoft in 1998. Politically they were on the losing side from the beginning just because their political meddling arm was non-existent. And the most valuable lesson Microsoft learned as a result of 1998 trial was “If you don’t meddle in politics, politics will meddle with you”.
Google just needs to spend some of their hard earned “speech” in contributions to some party.
“Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle are working together to litigate against Android instead of competing with it.”
When you come up with ideas and produce products from them, that is innovation. When others copy those ideas and then use them to make money, that is theft. When you litigate to stop others from stealing your innovations to make money for themselves, that is _not_ anti-competitive, but simply defending your property.
Let Google innovate and produce an Android with ideas they haven’t simply looked at in other’s products, and then they won’t get sued.
In essence, you can’t own an idea. However it’s a rather involved subject.
Edited 2011-08-04 03:51 UTC
So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK. But when others acquired them, it’s a “hostile, organized campaignâ€. It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s for-pay OS licensing business by giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?
Thom argues that Google only wants to use patents defensively. But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?
How is Google’s argument here different than simply demanding that Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, et al should simply sit back and let Google do whatever it wants with Android, regardless of the patents they hold? And, let’s not forget, give Android away for free.
Dude, your comment is borderline copyright infringement. Don’t copy/paste someone without giving its source (Gruber).
The point regarding the problems using “questionable” patents to litigate other companies into submission is well known. Read a little. Inform yourself. Just because a company takes another to court – or worse yet, WINs in court – does not make that patent any more or less valid. This is a systematic problem with the patent system.
Google is not taking these companies to court with patents (and Google has plenty of “questionable” patents it could use for this purpose). These companies are taking Google (whether it be indirectly via Samsung) to court. There is a clear aggressor here and it is not Google.
Edited 2011-08-04 09:51 UTC
If nothing else, I have to give Google credit for pulling off one of the most impressive trolls in trolling history. Why, it’s so epic that they’ve even managed to get Apple fanboys defending Microsoft!
Not that it should be any surprise, since Apple has been doing everything in their power to become the new Microsoft (by emulating the old Microsoft from the 1990s).
P.S.
If you’re going to post comments defending IP trolls, you might want to avoid, ya know, out-and-out plagiarism *coughcough* http://daringfireball.net/2011/08/google_patently_absurd *coughcough*
Edited 2011-08-04 17:26 UTC
Via Daring Fireball:
https://twitter.com/#!/BradSmi/status/98902130412355585
Hmmm… I guess Google is up to its old tricks, trying to play the victim.
Wow, imagine how similar Google and Apple are in that respect.
Sorry…but I think deliberately saying no to a partnership, then complaining that said partnership was trying to keep patents away from you…well…that merits immediate induction into the Victims Roleplay Hall of Fame.
In related news, people make mistakes and sometimes place their foot in their mouth.
How exactly would Google bidding with MS help them? They need patents to defend themselves against MS. This is not possible if the patents are jointly owned by MS.
Or is the argument here that if Google bid on these patents, the lawsuits would go away? Even though there’s patents in the lawsuits that are not from this particular portfolio?
Indeed. Jointly sharing patents with MS will not counter a patent threats, merely neutralize the threat of these particular patents.
Guess what? US DoJ agrees with Google on Novell:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/April/11-at-491.html
Nortel is not part of that retort(the $4.5bn deal). Novell != Nortel.
Really, Google is against patents because it favours them to not have them. Just like why Apple/Microoft etc wants to keep things they way they are because it favours them. It’s not like there’s any altruism involved here.
Still, for the common man it’s better to side with Google in this particular case since the current system grossly favours those with massive financial backing rather than individuals or small teams of inventors.
absurd myth
Thom, good luck with your thesis. I hope you do well. 🙂
edit: Sorry for being off-topic
Edited 2011-08-04 07:13 UTC
Google were the ones who put in a $3.5 billion bid and drove the price above the market value… Then Google were asked if they wanted to join the Apple/Microsoft/oracle/rim/etc bid… They refused. I used to like Google, and still use plenty of their products, but they are just as bad (if not worse in this case) than the older tech companies, who are joining together so that they can purchase patents and share them.
Thom throws a wobbly about companies playing the patent game, well I also get my panties in a twist when companies try and play the PR game, but screw up
If you are gonna spin, you need to be good at it!
google say they wanted the patents to protect themselves against others.
I am not aware of google using any of its patents to go after anyone, do you?
Microsoft on the other hand is using patents to go after companies that compete with them.
Apple on the other hand is using patents to go after companies that compete with them.
Google’s interests are not in alignment with those of Apple’s and Microsoft and it can reasonably be argued that this is why they refused the offer.
Would you rather these patents be with somebody who has stated they will not use them to attack others and have no history of doing so or with somebody who is going to use them to attack others? others who are not as big and strong and who can not easily defend themselves?
Nortel != Novell… It would be nice if people knew the difference.
No one asked Google to join the Nortel bid(the last one with $4.5bn pricetag). At least no evidence was ever floated.
Google were asked to join the Novell patent bid, but they declined.
The update certainly gives credence to the theory that Google are trying to gain a favorable ruling in the court of public opinion. My suspicion is that this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to these tactics on Google’s behalf. Only time will tell.
Certainly from independent feedback and discussions I’ve had with small business people about Google’s methods in the advertising space it’s pretty obvious they aren’t the knight in shining armor they like to portray themselves as.
Off topic (maybe), but also from Ars on the same day (yet strangely not linked here), is this:
http://feeds.arstechnica.com/~r/arstechnica/everything/~3/Q0mtFeEi0… Study: Android is least open of open source mobile platforms
Still more open than iOS, but then I suppose Apple doesn’t try to spin iOS as being open either.
Search results for:label:osnews-submission ourcomputerbloke > No messages matched your search. You can broaden your search to look in “Mail & Spam & Trash”.
More the selected posting.
Pro Google. Boo Apple or anyone else who hates or threatens Google.
There, fixed it for you.
Confused users giving the above a 0 rating.
osnews comment section is being spoiled by trolls.
Please cite Google’s history of using patents offensively.
I see careful constructed arguments here just having no influence on them. I cant help but feel they have vested interests.
What did the canadian minister of industry thought about Apple, Microsoft, Oracle (AMO) buying Nortel patents.
http://www.mobiledia.com/news/97075.html
What the the American Justice Dept. thought of AMO buying the Nortel patents.
http://us.generation-nt.com/patents-nortel-justice-department-inves…
Don’t confuse the issue by presenting facts.
And here is what US DoJ thought of Novell patents:
The department said that, as originally proposed, the deal would jeopardize the ability of open source software, such as Linux, to continue to innovate and compete in the development and distribution of server, desktop, and mobile operating systems, middleware, and virtualization products.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/April/11-at-491.html
As if these lawsuits would destroy Google’s business. Phone market is far larger than USA. Android being cheaper also helps it beat others in emerging eastern markets. Even if they manage to charge licenses, it only covers handsets and tablets sold in the USA. Others are still off limits to MS, Apple, Oracle etc.
I hope that American consumers get footed the bill for the patent system. But unfortunately, US is in the position to devalue the global economy, by devaluing current world reserve currency.
For a country that fought unelected head of state for independence to become the unelected financial ruler of the world, is just too ironic…
The patent racket outcome depends on the agreement. If the agreement includes “per unit produced” versus “per unit sold in the US” then your paying a licence fee for each phone regardless of what market it’s produced and/or sold in.
I think Microsoft just got another of these with the latest manufacturer strong-arming against Android. The company is paying per unit produced not per unit sold in the US.
In past, they’ve had similar agreements over Windows licensing. OEM’s paying for a Windows license even when the hardware was sold without Windows.
While I do absolutely not defend software patents, I find it bit silly to claim that those to sue only compete by litigation. I think it is fairly obvious that they are doing both: suing based on stupid patents and improving their products.
Of course, the ideal would be if they only were improving their products.
Edited 2011-08-04 12:26 UTC
We don’t know any of the details of the proposed MS/Google partnership but lets just assume Google flippantly declined a virtuous offer.
We do know that Google is trying to buy patents as a defensive strategy but lets just wilfully ignore that (along with the company’s history) and call them hypocrites and insinuate that, if they had acquired the Nortel patents, they’d be picking fights with them.
I’m not a great fan of the company but I still can’t see how some people develop such an overt bias against them. Does it come from a general distrust/dislike of advertisers?
It’s also weird how the above also poisons attitudes towards Android. If Google closed up shop tomorrow, Android would live on. Even if you dislike the company backing it, the product is solid and damn good for consumers. You’re practically voting against your own interests.
For sane people, yes, it comes from a dislike of advertisers. This is a relatively small group, however, and conflates with privacy advocates.
For the most part, though, the people railing against Google in this particular debate are Apple fanatics, and the only reason they rail on Google is because Google poses a major threat to Apple. That’s how you can have folk like Gruber claim they are against software patents, yet at the same time, have no issues with Apple and Microsoft asserting these same software patents against Android.
I wouldn’t want to call these people crazy, but odd they are indeed.
[citation needed]
That seems to be a common passtime in the US and other voting nations.
I am simply amazed by the amount of stupid assertions that you post. I have never ever seen such display of irrational thoughts and comments. To quote a movie phrase:
“No where in your rambling incoherent response did you come close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. We are all dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.”
At this moment I am mad at myself for having read your comments and even angrier for feeling the need to publicly state that you are:
1- Stupid
2- Liar
3- Profoundly disrespectful of the intellect of the members of this site
4- Deliberately twisting the truth (as opposed to not knowing it)
All of the above render any discussion with yourself useless, which makes me wonder why are you still allowed to post here?
Those points can describe any number of people on this site or any other site.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/03/microsoft-just-kicked-google-in-th…