Apple, Microsoft, and others, a little over a month ago in a letter to the EU, warning that the EU’s new proposed unified patent law could lead to more patent trolling:
To mitigate the potential for abuses of such power, courts should be guided by principles set forth in the rules of procedure to assess proportionality prior to granting injunctions. And PAEs should not be allowed to use injunctions for the sole purpose of extracting excessive royalties from operating companies that fear business disruption.
A new front opened today in the patent wars between large technology companies, as a consortium that owns thousands of patents from the Nortel bankruptcy auction filed suit against Google and other manufacturers alleging infringement. Rockstar, which is owned jointly by Apple, Blackberry, Ericsson, Microsoft, and Sony, filed suit in US District Court in Texas. In addition to Google, the consortium has alleged infringement by Asus, HTC, Huawei, LG, Pantech, Samsung, and ZTE.
They’re not just scumbags – they are lying scumbags.
Well, duh.
Yeah, anybody who buys stuff from those guys is stupid PERIOD
By your logic you should never buy anything from any big company. Or conversely, everyone alive today is stupid.
Edited 2013-11-02 21:15 UTC
😉
“From these guys” (i.e. Microsoft and Apple), not “from any big company.”
Put words in other people’s mouths/keyboards, much?
What’s the difference between those companies and Google or any other large tech company these days? It seems rather difficult to highlight a subset of these companies as being particularly worse than the rest.
I won’t say there is; neither will I say there isn’t. I’m only pointing out that the respondent was answering what he wanted the parent comment to say, not what the parent comment actually said.
No, I think his response wasn’t responding to what he wanted the parent to say, but was himself broadening the scope to point out that there were no good options if they wanted to boycott companies on that basis. Its what’s refereed to as a leading question.
Like:
Mike: Hi Dave.
Dave: Hi Mike. Did you beat your wife last night?
In that example Dave isn’t implying that anything in Mike’s comment suggested that he was beating his wife, his question is suggesting that he commonly does this based on information outside their current conversation.
If all is correct it would not be lying, but being hypocritical.
Rockstar is owned by a number of companies, but they (can) act independent.
I guess it’s up the media and journalists to figure this one out before people start screaming.
Or maybe we could make up our own minds.
You’d first need one.
Most people do some wild guessing based on their own preferences and prejudices. They come up with a conclusion first and then work their way back to an explanation.
But what makes you think media and journalists would do any better?
Journalists used to investigate stuff, make calls, talk to people, consult experts.
These days they just copy ‘n’ paste from others and add their own thoughts, if any.
Not sure why but you forgot to include Google in the title.
Google bought Motorola for it’s patents, they even put it in words: http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/supercharging-android-goog…
Since then they’ve been continuing to sue companies, while abusing FRAND licenses. This is essentially the same as what Rockstar is doing, if not worse considering that they’re using FRAND patents for their dirty work.
Non-trivial hardware patents = GOOD stuff, requiring investment, motivates companies to do costly research and yet whole industry may profit thanks to licensing.
Trivial software patents = BAD stuff, used for trolling other companies who came up with the same ideas independently and in most cases some solutions are basically so basic that no thinking is necessary to devise them.
Let’s patent arithmetic operations, rendering ALUs unusable…
Kochise
Arithmetic is an art prior to the patent system.
Patents are a case of royal tax concessions,
conceded preferably to allies and supporters.
(Corollary: A patent in the wrong hands
is worth nothing).
Edited 2013-11-03 04:11 UTC
Off topic, but why do you always sign your posts?
Its clearly obvious that they are from the logged in user kochise.
So, if “offending” company comes independently to the same non-trivial tech, with the same investment, they should be sued?
Typically the patent is just a bunch of generic phrases. Also, patents are based on common knowledge. The knowledge, freely given to the world by it’s inventors. This is not fair.
Why do you think hardware (or any industry) patents are non-trivial? They can be as simple as software.
Edited 2013-11-03 06:12 UTC
Whose FRAND licenses are they “abusing” ? Those of the same Microsoft that makes Google pay for each Android sold because abusing of a FRAND licenses, yet without hearing you being offended ?
Kochise
Edited 2013-11-02 19:04 UTC
Microsoft DID NOT sue Google over SEPs (Standards Essential Patents) that come under FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non Discriminatory) rules. Whoever is spreading that crap is just plain wrong, including you.
It amazes me how people still don’t fully grasp the concept of SEPs.
It probably explains why the blind eye os turned to Google’s actions. If people stopped to think the destructive effect of undermining commitments made to standards bodies they’d be more alarmed.
Suing over SEPs is going thermonuclear in patent warfare.
In the case of Samsung, the ITC determined that Samsung offered FRAND terms, but that Apple refused to accept them and refused to negotiate. Wouldn’t surprise me if the same happened with Motorola. SEP does not mean you may never sue – if FRAND terms are rejected – as Apple did – suing may still be an option.
Unless you have the president’s ear, of course.
Edited 2013-11-02 23:49 UTC
Actually, that’s NOT what the ITC found.
The ITC found that Samsung was due a license fee. The ITC found that Apple had not paid the license fee.
The ITC did NOT rule that Samsung’s license demands were fair. The ITC did not rule that Apple’s failure to agree to Samsung’s demanded fees was unfair.
The ITC instituted an import ban based upon some extremely simple and brain dead facts:
Samsung had patents.
Apple was making products and importing those products into the U.S. that utilized the patented technology.
Apple was not paying any license fees to Samsung.
Hence a ban in Samsung’s favor.
The ITC did not take into account that the patents were Standards Essential Patents (SEPs) and must be licensed under Fair, Reasonable, and Non Discriminatory (FRAND) rules. The ITC did not compare Samsung’s demands with the rates Samsung was charging everyone but Apple (the Non Discriminatory part).
The Obama Administration looked at those additional circumstances and ruled that the import ban was improper because it did not take into account the fact that the patents are SEPs to be licensed under FRAND rules. The Obama Administration did NOT say that Apple didn’t need to license those patents. (In fact the Obama Administrations ruling explicitly says that Apple MUST pay license fees to Samsung.) The Obama Administration just overturned the ban because patent holders of SEPs must follow FRAND rules and Apple must pay FRAND fees!
You’re talking in circles. The ITC was very clear: Samsung did not violate any FRAND commitments during the negotiations. Yet, Apple did not agree to any licensing fee. So, the ITC hands out a ban.
The president overruled the ITC not because Samsung failed any FRAND commitments – he overruled because a ban based on SEPs should not happen.
So, the course of events is that Samsung and Apple were negotiating, that Samsung was making proper FRAND offers, but that Apple refused to accept, despite the offers being FRAND. So, a deadlock.
Apple fanatics believe that the FRAND system means that Apple can just take whatever standards essential technology it wants, and that FRAND patent holders cannot do anything about it. The precedent that has been set here is clear: Apple can continue to use standards essential technology without paying a single dime, since Samsung has no means to stop them. Apple can drag out the negotiation forever – something they’ve been doing for years now.
With this, the FRAND system has effectively ceased to operate, since *even if Apple refuses proper FRAND terms, there’s nothing a SEP holder can do to force Apple to accept them*. This is a very dangerous precedent.
Edited 2013-11-03 00:20 UTC
The ITC ruling is a red herring. The European Commission found Samsung to be breaking competition rules in the EU because of their abuse of FRAND patents.
The abuse of FRAND patents is more insidious than anything Apple has done.
Simple question.
Company A violates company B’s SEPs. They enter negotiations. Company B offers proper FRAND terms. Company A refuses to accept them, but continues to violate the SEPs. What is company B to do?
According to Apple fanatics, the US president, and the EU, company B cannot do anything at all. Company B is not allowed to sue over SEPs, is not allowed to ask for an injunction, is not allowed to do anything at all whatsoever.
This effectively means that the FRAND system has collapsed, because there is no possible way for SEP holders to punish companies unwilling to accept proper FRAND terms. Company A has found a loophole in the system: it can violate SEPs without any fear of repercussions, and without ever having to pay a single licensing fee.
If you do not understand the dangers of these recent developments, let me spell it out for you. First, it will make companies more reluctant to contribute patents to standards setting processes, because that would mean anyone can employ the loophole and just violate them for free. In turn, this will discourage companies from working together on grand, multi-corporational projects like wireless communication standards.
This is going to come back to bite us in the ass.
Companies are free to seek monetary compensation like Motorola did from Microsoft. Seeking injunctions is off the table.
A good example is iCloud Push in Germany that Apple had to remove due to a preliminary ruling on an SEP that was later thrown out.
The act of tying, requesting non-SEPs in reciprocation for SEPs is NOT FRAND and pretty much the only ruling supporting your position is an ITC which overstepped its authority and was remanded by its boss.
Samsung cannot request Apple’s crown jewel patents in exchange for a license to a patent they promised to make broadly available. How do you not get this?
You are ignoring virtually everything I said in my post. So, I’ll just repeat the question in the faint hope you might actually reply for once: what if FRAND terms are offered, but not accepted? They are not allowed to sue over SEPs, so what other options does that leave?
Exactly: none. SEPs can be freely violated, since SEP holders have no way to enforce them. Apple knows this, and abuses this loophole considerably.
Except – they can. The ITC made it very clear that asking for cross-licensing is NOT a violation of FRAND commitments. How do you not get this?
I answered it clearly — they are free to seek monetary compensation through the court system. Not seek injunctions through quasi judicial agencies like the ITC.
A good example is Motorola which got its rate set by the courts and which received compensation from Microsoft.
If the goal of an SEP is to get compensation for IP, and a court mandates that the infringing party do so (Microsoft), then why is that not an adequate remedy?
http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/4/4696086/microsoft-wins-patent-tria…
Motorola was awarded $14.5 million dollars for their SEP.
Its much less than the outrageous $4 BILLION a year demand, but it is higher than Microsoft’s offer.
This is an example of a case that was adjudicated in the courts and where a remedy for an SEP was deemed appropriate.
Another example, and (you’re going to like this one) it comes from the USTR’s veto of the Samsung case at the ITC.
The USTR did not rule out future SEP based injunctions at the ITC, but he did set a higher bar for them. He instructed the ITC to do more due diligence in building a factual record of the case.
So SEP injunctions are possible, they just won’t sail through the ITC. You should be happy, this is more than a Judge is willing to grant.
Because what you’re doing is akin to arguing that the decision of a lower court stands on higher legal ground than the decision of an appellate court.
The ITC answers to the USTR, the USTR deemed the ITC was wrong and threw out the injunction because an adequate factual record had not been established. The problem was that the ITC deemed the economic impact of a FRAND injunction to be too severe to stomach without more public interest fact finding on behalf of the ITC.
On the other hand, a district judge has found that Motorola has abused its FRAND commitment. US an EU regulators have said that Google/Moto’s FRAND abuse is anti competitive as well.
The ITC’s ruling was from the moment it came out highly unusual and controversial, especially when you look at existing case law and past rulings by other judicial apparatuses.
The ITC was wrong. The ITC is the only court “in the world” that thought it was OK for SEPs that were supposed to be made available on FRAND terms to be tied to a demand for non-SEP patents.
You should not let your bias in this case cloud your judgement. Samsung is rightly being investigated on anti-trust grounds. Samsung was abusing its SEPs and most sensible jurisdictions have been finding against such behaviour.
So it seems you’re the one talking in circles. SEPs and FRAND are inseparable. You absolutely CANNOT have one without the other. AND the ITC did NOT rule that Samsung’s demands follow the spirit of FRAND rules or that Samsung’s demands follow their commitment to the legal contract that Samsung has with the standards body.
The reality, which you choose to ignore, is that the ITC refused to do their homework. The ruling by the ITC ignored (or, at best, the regulators were just unaware) of the facts presented in multiple cases about the world. It is somewhat amazing that you choose to ignore the full facts and exactly what was in the ruling on the band and the ruling that overturned the ban.
It has been very well documented in multiple court cases that Samsung was NOT making proper FRAND demands. It is also well documented that Apple did offer to pay FRAND fees. (Hell, at one point Steve Jobs flew to Korea to try and negotiate the issue personally.) As I’ve mentioned elsewhere here, Samsung was demanding that Apple pay as much as 12 times what others were paying to Samsung for those licenses PLUS Samsung wanted a cross licensing deal that included Apple’s non SEP, non FRAND patents. Those are in the court records of multiple cases. Why do you try to dispute that?
This issue has absolutely NOTHING to do with “Apple fanatics”. It has to do with upholding the FRAND rules. Samsung has been smacked down in multiple countries — not just the U.S. — for attempting to abuse SEPs and demanding non FRAND licensing fees. Samsung is facing a possible fine in the EU because of this (so is Google).
Even the Obama Administration’s ruling that killed the import ban explicitly stated that Apple had to pay Samsung FRAND fees on Samsung’s SEPs. The Obama Administration upheld the system. What it stopped was Samsung’s attempt to leverage SEPs for improper market control.
If Samsung were to come to court and say, “We are charging AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE, FFF, etc., etc. companies the following fees for these patents. Apple refuses to pay what we are charging everyone else.”, then Samsung would have a very clear and strait forward case in the courts. Samsung would win. Apple would have to pay. Samsung has NOT been doing that. They have, as has been well documented, demanded fees that were NOT in line with the FRAND requirements.
Personally, I believe that a separate licensing authority must be set up for each standard. They did this with MPEG. Each company using the MPEG standard pays a fee to the MPEG-LA. That group then distributes the relevant fraction of the overall fee to each license holder. Everyone pays the same. It’s an international standard that is fair and open to all for the exact same fees. Companies are then one step removed from the standards licensing process. There is no realistic means of abuse. Everyone pays the same and everyone with a relevant SEP gets their fair share. DONE.
All standards bodies should move to this system.
You are showing a bit of desperation here. Read the ITC ruling that THom posted. OR go read the whole thing. They ruled that Samsung’s offer was fair. You fail.
Its great that you cite the ITC, as they’re pretty much the only judicial apparatus in the country who didn’t recognize tying as an affirmative defense.
And what do you know, the USTR vetoed it.
Actually the jury verdict between APple and Samsung, which Apple won, also declared Samsung’s actions as fair. Lets face it, Apple has a history of not paying for patents until they get dragged to court. Nokia, Samsung, Motorola (and I don’t mean the chip ones, there are others Apple has not paid for yet).
Apple was found not to infringe so its a moot point. I wonder if you accept the rest of the Jury’s verdict, or if you just take this piecemeal approach to fit your views..
Its not a moot point on whether or not Samsung is worth coming with their FRAND licensing. All evidence says they are. The fact that the negotiations weren’t needed after all has little bearing on whether or not they were fairly conducted.
It does when its dropped from the appeals post trial, it was essentially left as is.
Do you accept the Jury’s ruling as the final say in the matter? If so, do you accept their entire ruling where Samsung willfully infringed a handful of patents?
Let’s face it: in order to be able to make Apple the bad guy, you see only what you want to see.
There are thousands of SEP patents concerning the 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth etc. belonging to dozens of companies. Did you ever hear about Apple not paying for a licence for all these patents except for Nokia, Motorola and Samsung?
And considering that Nokia, Motorola and Samsung are all smartphone manufacturers, is it so difficult to understand that all of them were very interested in getting a licence for non-SEP Apple patents? And that they actually did try to force Apple to licence their non-SEP patents as part of the “FRAND” licence they proposed? And that Apple did actually refuse to accept these terms because they are actually not FRAND?
In the Apple vs Nokia case, Nokia never asked for an injunction however which is the right way to proceed. The final judgment did actually tell Apple to pay a fair licence fee, which they did, but Apple didn’t have to cross-licence non-SEP patents which was what make the proposed terms un-acceptables.
In the Motorola and Samsung vs Apple cases, we also know that they both asked about 2.5% fee of the whole iPhone price which has been considered as ridiculously high by several EU and US judges.
And I don’t know any “other” patents Apple has not paid for yet, but I am sure you know that it is the common practice for ALL manufacturers to sell products without having paid all patents fees (because it is impossible to know which patents are actually involved) and then wait for patent holders to come ask for money.
Edited 2013-11-04 11:59 UTC
Most of the SEP patents are owned by a very small group of companies and because they are SEP, they are all known about. Apple doesn’t have to wait to see who comes knocking, there is a predefined list of all the patents around each technology.
And as for being such a supporter of FRAND, why are you upset that Samsung and Motorola asked for 2.5%? They ask EVERYONE for 2.5%, even though no one ends up paying that much. What Apple is actually doing is asking for special consideration which is not FRAND. Just because Apple thinks 2.5% is too high doesn’t make it discriminatory if Samsung and Motorola treat everyone the same. Apple is just a whiny brat who doesn’t have any SEPs of its own. Thats the whole reason for this charade. They could reach a reasonable deal if they wanted to. Everyone else in the world managed to secure those patents, even Microsoft. But Apple would rather use this as a excuse to attack SEP patents and weaken everyone elses position at the bargaining table.
I was talking about non-SEP patents in this case.
No, this is just plain wrong. Usually, the fee is part of the 3G chip and the chip provider has a licence to sub-licence FRAND patents to anyone.
2.5% of a $600 device = $15 only for a few 3G patents by Samsung and Motorola. Considering that there are 2000 3G patents and also a 4G, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth chip inside a smartphone, you cannot seriously think that 2.5% is fair or reasonable.
Considering that the 3G chip cost about $30, how a $15 fee for Motorola and $15 fee for Samsung only would make any sense?
You clearly don’t know what you are talking about: usually the fee is part of the 3G chip price sold by Qualcomm or Infineon. In Apple case, Motorola and Samsung decided to modify the licence they have with Qualcomm (or Infineon, I don’t remember which one) in order to explicitly exclude Apple from the standard licence, it is the reason only some iPhones models are concerned by patent infringement, only the one which use the Qualcomm (or Infineon) chip.
But they don’t. In the Motorola vs Microsoft case Motorola was also asking 2.5% fee for a few H.264 patents concerning the Xbox and Windows which would correspond to about $4 billions annual fee (!!) for Microsoft. A judge did consider their claim as ridiculous and decided of an actual FRAND term based on what Motorola did ask to other manufacturers which was magnitudes lowers that what Motorola initially asked.
http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/07/29/motorola-vs-microsoft-and-the-fu…
“Motorola initially requested a royalty rate that Microsoft claimed would require it to pay as much as $4 billion a year for the use of the Essential Claims (a number that seemed absurd to me, as well as to many others). By the time litigation ensued, the demand had been lowered to $400 million – an order of magnitude reduction. The final number determined by Judge Robart to be consistent with a FRAND commitment was a mere $1.8 million per year.”
Motorola asked 2.5% = $4 billions and lowered it to “only” $400 millions just before the trial, but they actually get a FRAND fee of about 2000 times less: this is what a FRAND term is and what they ask to other manufacturers.
How can you be blind enough not to see how Motorola and Samsung abuse their SEP patents?
Apple has 400 SEP patents acquired from other companies as Google have SEP patents coming from Motorola.
You are just a blind hater.
Edited 2013-11-04 23:14 UTC
Your red herring about frand patents is falling on deaf ears and rightfully so. You see. MS and Apple decided to attack Google and its partners with frivilous dubious software patents. All Google is trying to do is defend themselves with the frand patents.
It is most definitely not a “red herring” as it is relevant.
The two different sets of patents come under different rules. SEPs come under FRAND rules and must be licensed to all comers for effectively the same fees and conditions.
Non SEP (and thus non FRAND) patents are licensed purely at the discretion of the patent holder. IF (truly, IF) the patent holder wants to license the patent they can charge virtually anything they want.
That’s the system. For Samsung, Google and the rest to try to use SEPs as legal leverage to force the cheap licensing (or cross licensing) of non SEPs is 100% improper. It certainly violates the spirit, and likely the letter, of the SEP contracts the patent holders have with the standards bodies where the patent holders explicitly sign up to the FRAND rules.
The simple fact that Google (Motorola) and Samsung are attempting to use SEPs to counter non SEP based lawsuits directly ties the two together. It’s not a “red herring” at all.
Microsoft and Apple are smart enough to NOT make their standards open, but make them defacto standards using their OS dupoly (for example, try formating a USB stick in anything else than FAT32 or exFAT in Windows without downloading third-party tools).
Defacto standard = no obligation to FRAND the patents = potential to gouge anyone who implements said standard to interface with your OS.
Want more? Microsoft exchange, WMV, iTunes/UnFairPlay, Quicktime…. the list goes on.
PS: Anyone knows those “anti patent troll” acts are intended to screw small investors who can’t bring their inventions to the public. Are you big enough to make products? Patent troll at will. Essentialy the big companies want to have the whole patent trolling business their own, not eliminate it. (what did you expect, really?)
Edited 2013-11-03 12:09 UTC
Samsung, Moto, et all willingly made FRAND pledges. They did not have to.
Formatting in NTFS works easily, just an option in the menu.
The problem isn’t the large corporation abusing laws, it’s the laws themselves. Fix the laws so that these corporations can’t abuse them and we’ll stop having these monstrous entities who seem to can’t innovate so they litigate.
Definitely agree with you but the continuous and intentional omission of Google in these cases by the author is hilarious to say the least.
bowkota,
Give Thom a break already, he’s stated very recently that he’s no fan of google for allowing motorola patent offensives to continue.
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?575992
I’m not a fan of the google corporation, but keep it in perspective. Insofar as these patent lawsuits go, frankly google doesn’t hold a candle to the other corps with flamethrowers and the legal machines designed to inflict the most damage to others.
Edited 2013-11-02 20:20 UTC
I think you need to do a little research. Last year one of the major business magazines (I don’t recall which one at the moment) did a bit of in depth research on all these “high tech lawsuits’ with regard to Apple.
What they found was that over 60% of the time Apple was the company GETTING sued. Over 15% of the time (a large fraction of that remaining 40%) Apple was just counter suing. It was less than 20% of the time that Apple sued first!
Now, admittedly, that was as of late summer 2012, but the pattern has unlikely changed dramatically in the last year.
Shadowself,
You should find the citation your referring to, however even taking your recollected figures at face value doesn’t say anything about how apple compares to google or ms or anybody else.
I suspect the raw numbers would show that all the big players are being sued more than they sue themselves, simply because there are more IP holding companies who want to sue them than visa versa. But at the end of the day it certainly doesn’t excuse any of their behaviors.
its called apple refusing to pay or even talk about a license and stone walling it while making billions off stolen tech. that is not frand abuse at that point.
Do some research. The official record of the court cases contradicts your statements.
Apple never refused to license Motorola’s (Google’s) or Samsung’s patents. What Apple refused to do was agree to a deal that was WAY beyond what the license holders charged other companies.
When a company agrees to have its patents as part of an international standard and the standards body agrees to include that technology in that patent in the standard, the company with the patent agrees in a written contract with the standards body that they will license the patents (called Standards Essential Patents, or SEPs) to ALL COMERS on a “Fair, Reasonable, and NON DISCRIMINATORY” basis. The patent holder per the contract cannot refuse to license the patent to anyone, and the patent holder cannot demand inflated rates from one or more companies beyond what they charge everyone else.
For example, it’s part of the court records that Apple offered to pay FRAND rates to Samsung for Samsung’s SEPs. (Samsung did not even try to refute this fact.) However, Samsung demanded that Apple pay 12 times what they were charging other entities PLUS Samsung was demanding that Apple license to Samsung Apple’s NON SEP patents — patents for which there was no requirement that Apple license to anyone.
When Apple rebuffed Samsung’s extortion attempts, Samsung sued in several countries. In each and every case Samsung’s suits based upon SEPs ultimately has been killed.
The cases with Motorola suing Apple over SEPs are similar. Motorola signed a contract with the standards bodies to license SEPs under FRAND rules. Google, through Motorola, is attempting to use SEPs as leverage with Apple. It’s not working.
The bottom line is that virtually every major tech company wants a license for Apple’s patents. Apple has a very large cross licensing deal with Microsoft. Apple has a much, much more limited one with HTC. That’s it. There is no legal basis for Apple to license its patents to anyone else. They may. But they don’t have to.
The bottom line is that Apple has never refused (and no lawsuit has shown that Apple has refused) to license SEPs at FRAND rates.
Read the actual ITC’s words. The ITC was clear in that Samsung’s offer was FRAND. It was not an unfair offer at all.
Here’s the ITC’s opinion – and the ITC actually studied the entire negotiation (you have not):
Edited 2013-11-03 00:01 UTC
You sir failed to mention that Google did not file suit against anyone. They are merely countersuing the people that attacked them. Your attempt to misinform has crashed and burned.
And you, sir, forgot to mention that Motorola, AFTER being bought by Google, did sue. Yes, Google did not sue, but that is because Motorola is still a separate company that is just owned by Google. Thus, Motorola, as the patent holder, did the suing. But only a fool would believe that Googld did not pull the strings (as Motorola did not sue until after Google bought them).
If I remember correctly, Motorola sue because the opposite sue first.
Edited 2013-11-04 05:07 UTC
Then you don’t remember well: in the Motorola vs Apple case, Motorola did sue first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars
“2010, Oct 06: Motorola sues Apple over 18 patents, and files an ITC complaint against Apple over 6 of them.”
Google can end this if they want. Just buy BBRY for 4-5 billion.
They’ll pay one way or another.
Nelson,
“Google can end this if they want. Just buy BBRY for 4-5 billion.”
I suspect google could afford to buy a larger patent arsenal that would help them in court against opponents. However I doubt many of us would think that that would be the end of it. Patent litigation is an endless cycle that perpetually continues to escalate, with more and more wasteful spending for no good reason other than to ensure the next company can’t obliterate you in the courtroom.
The laws are absolutely to blame for this, and in turn so are the corporations who bought them. Meanwhile the lawyers are loving all of it.
“They’ll pay one way or another.”
True enough.
I suspect Google felt that way when they bought Moto, but as they’ve learned not all patents are made the same.
They paid over twice as much for a useless trove of patents.
I don’t think the laws will change anytime soon, so in the meantime they have to play ball intelligently.
BTW the reason I suggested buying BBRY is because they’re a consortium member, so it’d grant Google a license.
Edited 2013-11-02 22:15 UTC
What should Google “pay” for, precisely? Do you think patents are some sort of divine retribution?
A patent license or an acquisition charge to buy BBRY and themselves into the consortium.
I meant “pay” in a purely financial sense.
Oh yeah, pay for protection, it is perfectly fine, like people are supposed to do when approached by mafia.
Really, the difference between some ridiculous patents, and not all of them are so, and mafia practices is that, “somehow”, villains are allowed by law to use the former to sell you something you really do not need to extract money and the latter is rightfully appointed by most of the society as an unacceptable exercise of power.
I don’t understand why you’re replying to my comment as if your emotionally charged thicket of equivocal bullshit mattered to me.
I think Google made serious strategic missteps and offered a way they could fix it. Your response has nothing to do with my point and everything to do with your delusion.
First of, my argument was really simple, the attack path they chose to carry on Google, at least as of now and from what I read, is based on patents so generic that they should not be granted. So, they want money from something Google really should not need as they are asking money from trivial generic things. This is not far from “protection” mafia sells in the way that they try to force you to buy something that does not carry a real value.
Second, I come here to read different “opinions” about technology and other things I like, I don’t have a “need” to agree or see things the way most do. Sometimes I think my arguments stand and sometimes I fell luck to get corrected and learn something new. I rarely feel personally attacked like you so frequently do when someone disagree with you, grow up and try, at least, to understand that people may have a different view of the world, we are not talking about math here, in which case, a Q.E.D would be easier to provide.
And finally, most of your comments seems to fulfill your agenda, your very own interests and, at least to me, they lack the needed detachment and logical argumentation that would entitle them to carry any value. Not that you should be “worried” about it, of course.
My comment stems from yours having absolutely nothing to do with the central part of my argument and being largely an aside.
Even if you had carefully examined all of the asserted patents in question (you have not) and cited exactly where they were broad, trivial, or had prior art (no, no, and no), it would’ve been unrelated to anything I was talking about.
Your personal opinions do not matter because you are not the Judge presiding over the case. The reality is that there are rules of the road with patents, rules industry players must abide by.
Your distaste for such rules is utterly irrelevant and non constructive, whereas my suggestions have everything to do with the realities of the impending litigation and operate within that statutory framework.
I’d probably be less annoyed if you were saying something that others haven’t already regurgitated many times, bur you aren’t. There’s nothing new of value here.
We have to wait and see if your argument is really valid. US$ 4,5 billion is a lot of money. Oracle thought that they could make more than US$ 7 billion and got nothing, so to speak.
Granted, the case here is different and, of course, I based my opinion on what was vented by news sites. People here are labeling Google as amateurs on legal bases, I don’t believe on that. Lets wait and see how it will develop, though.
So now you have Blackberry shares?
I’m actually shorting a ton of BBRY shares. At first I was underwater like 8% on my investment, but recently that almost broken even (-0.65%)
I don’t think BBRY will survive to be quite frank with you, and with the Fairfax deal seeming to have trouble finding participants…things could get ugly really soon.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-11-01/fairfax-said-short-of-b…
If the deal falls through (which I expect), shares will plumment and I’ll walk away with a smile and a fast buck.
My NOK shares are pretty much amazing right now though, I recently opened up a new position with them and I’m up almost 14%. Expecting that to continue through the close of the Microsoft deal — the shareholders meeting where they approve of the deal should send that up pretty nicely.
Edited 2013-11-03 14:09 UTC
LOL BBRY shares just tanked today, the Fairfax deal fell through. I shorted at 7.70 and its currently about a dollar under that.
Q.E.D.
The EU probably doesn’t trust Microsoft anyway. They did violate the browser ballot agreement.
I appreciate that OSNews isn’t strictly a news site (despite the name), but these last posts have seriously blurred news and opinion.
I come to OSNews to learn things, form my own opinions, and possibly discuss them; not to get your opinions. Ideally you should have a personal blog where you post that kind of thing, but at the very least put this kind of editorial in a specific (and clearly labeled) opinion piece.
Agree completely, unfortunately it is safe to assume that the OS in OSnews is silent.
This piece really isn’t that blurry. He posted actions from the same parties that contradict each other. His opinion that they are lying scumbags is really inconsequential.
In which case the two quotes speak for themselves. I don’t wan’t Thom’s opinion, I want to make up my own. The same with his “I told you they were patent trolls” comment in a previous story.
If OSNews is to be Thom’s personal soapbox, then I want no part of it. It just feels like OSNews lost its way.
To be fair, every news site, tv news anchor, and pretty much every other source of information has an opinion attached to it. Thom does nothing to hide that its his opinion. And since he is the editor, its his choice as to the format. Why do you act like Thom shouldn’t put his opinion here?
Edited 2013-11-04 04:28 UTC
I disagree, traditional journalism may have an opinion in the selection of news, it is supposed to maintain an objective viewpoint, and clearly separate news and opinion.
I don’t argue that it is Thom’s right to do anything he wants with OSNews, I am saying it isn’t a good idea. If Thom wants to write an opinion piece, then go for it and label it as such.
I’m so sick of all this patent crap. ALL these companies are “patent trolls” and they ALL do the same thing to each other. That’s not what bothers me though. Until the laws are changed, this is what happens. If they want to play musical chairs in one big game of reach-around or butt-f*ck, so be it. It’s the constant whining & crying about the whole thing that’s really annoying imo. If people are truly that upset about it then they should be pro-active in getting the laws changed. Instead of posting a constant stream of whining, how about posting a constant stream of ways to actively participate in getting things changed?
and all this will go away.
Companies have a fidicuary duty to maximise shareholder value. This includes going after IP violators hence the litigation. Whilst there is a legal avaune to persue then litigation like this is no suprise and will contiue.
Back in a past life I was one of seven named inventors on a patent relating to video RAMDAC’s (long expired). We filed not for the money but for the personal kudos it would give us on our CV’s. We worked for a pretty ethical company long since defunct.
So, is changing the law going to be plain sailing?
Not really. Big corporations pay millions of $$$ to Politicians so called ‘re-election campaigns’ just to stop this reform.
If I had my way, anyone who had received more than say $5k from a company should be unable to vote on any legisltation that affected said company in any material way.
Don’t just blame the owners of RockStar. Eveyone including Google is partially to blame. Do you really think that Google will sit idly by while someone infringes their patents? Dream on sunshine.
Rambus?
No wait…holy hell!. Rambus is still around. That must constitute some kind of catastrophic failure for the capitalist model.
Nah it wasn’t Rambus. The patent was applied for in 1980 so it predates even the 1st IBM PC.
Hold the Presses
Google to file suit against Microsoft, Apple, every man and his dog for wilfull violation of about a thousand patents.
I know that this is speculation but is it all that unlikely?
Google have (so far) kept their powder dry. I can see a couple of reasons for this suit.
1) to get Google over a barrel and hurt them bad.
2) to get Google to get down off the fence and decide if they want to fight Rockstar or continue to let the likes of Samsung do their battles for them?
I know the above is a generalisation and a simplification but the words ‘smoking them out'(them being google) come to mind.
Google should have (IMHO) taken on MS over the claims that MS has over Android several years ago. I am of the opinion that if they had done so, this action might have been avoided.
Or: if they could have, they would have.
It seems the plan was to buy Motorola and sue over SEP/FRAND patents and that didn’t work. That move proved to be a (financial) blunder (so far).
If they had other and better options, why not use those instead of wasting 12 billion on Motorola?
The move is a blunder because the one suing is google. Contrarily (the one suing is Apple or Microsoft), it will work, I guess. These companies (APPL, MS) are experts in this kind of fields.
If they are experts Google should have taken notice that Apple and Microsoft don’t tend to sue over SEPs.
Google’s problem, with regards to anything they do be it legal, products, privacy, etc…, is that they do before they think.
Like suing over SEPs, breaking privacy and then paying the judge off, providing us services and then canceling them, buying Motorola and then trying to figure out what to do with them, etc…
Isn’t this site about technology? I think that all this anti-Apple animosity isn’t really good for it. Please Thom, write about technology and OS, and from a technical point of view. I know you hate Apple, but keep it for yourself and your close friends…