Patents and innovation
googleblog.blogspot.com
googleblog.blogspot.com
1. Google is definitely not "anti-patent," either philosophically or otherwise. At the heart of its business is the PageRank patent, which is assigned to Stanford with exclusive license to Google. Even within the last month, Google got a patent for its "Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site," i.e., its "Google Doodle" (see http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/03/25/google-patents-the-google-d... for an overview on this). And, of course, the blog post involved here very carefully delineates and distinguishes patents that foster innovation (presumably good) and others that are primarily gained to foment litigation, in particular "low-quality software patents."
2. Of course, Google is involved in a current, major fight involving Oracle's assertion of both copyright and patent Java-related claims against its Android technology. Google is a powerful adversary to take on, and it is blasting away quite skillfully seeking to invalidate the Oracle patents in that suit on Bilski grounds that they constitute "abstract ideas" and not bona fide patentable subject matter (see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1899156 for a summary of relevant issues in that case). But no powerful litigant ever bets solely on how a court might interpret some nebulous body of law such as what constitutes patentable subject matter. As matters now stand, should Google lose on that issue, it has very little in the way of defense against such claims. Perhaps the patents upon which it is bidding will give it a practical way to attack Oracle so as to bolster its defense but, again, I don't know about the immediate portfolio or whether it even relates to the Java-related claims. That said, however, I am certain that the Oracle litigation, at a minimum, has spurred Google to consider this issue very carefully and to determine that it needs these tools very badly so as not to be exposed in the future to patent broadsides to which it has no answer other than to point out how weak the relevant patents are - which may be no answer at all in the real world of patent litigation. Hence, this patent portfolio bid has either an immediate aim in mind (Oracle litigation) or a long-term aim with the same strategic view in mind (cover yourself against flim-flam patent claims that might hinder Google's future ability to innovate).
3. The FTC recently issued a comprehensive report on the need for patent reform, and one of its main points concerned so-called "non-practicing entities" or what it has chosen to call "patent-assertion entites" (PAEs) or what is commonly known as "trolls" (see HN discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2303980). These are patent holders who do not use their patents to produce things but rather use them solely for licensing and the concomitant litigation that inevitably follows against those who decline the licensing "offer." In reality, the PAE idea is much more complex than merely that of a shakedown racket. All sorts of large tech companies routinely gather up all sorts of patents for which they have no plans to innovate but which are vital to their business strategies, either to be used to attack rivals or to defend against them and whether for good or for bad motives. In making this bid, Google is basically acknowledging that it needs to arm itself in this department. This is neither inherently good or bad and could be used strictly for protecting Google's ability to innovate or it could be abused down the road, all depending on future choices to be made by the company's management. It is certainly a double-edged issue.
Groklaw recently ran a piece answering the question "what's blocking innovation in America" and answered it with "IP laws" - this in turn led to some sparks flying here at HN as some, like me, defended IP in general while saying that it needs to be reformed and (many) others taking the more radical view that IP laws generally are to be castigated (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210469). In my view, the case for IP laws generally is made by companies such as Google, which uses such laws effectively and powerfully but which, at least to date, has not abused them. In this sense, Google has been an exemplary company on this issue. What the future may bring on this front, of course, remains to be seen.
They've just bid a billion dollars for a patent portfolio, which they claim is a necessary defensive move. If you accept that, then applying for patents is a valid defensive strategy too.
Yes, if you define "defensive" to mean that they want to guard their proprietary forms of innovation against others who might seek to use them during the period of the temporary monopoly they hold on them. But not defensive in the sense of having been obtained in anticipation primarily of being used in litigation defense when others sue Google (which, I think, is how "defensive" is normally used on this topic).
I am no special authority on Google's thinking in this area. Its public actions and comments, though, suggest that it is a company that dislikes and even despises low-quality patents used primarily to foment litigation while supporting the types of patents (like PageRank) that reward innovation. That is pretty much how I read this piece. By the way, I also have an antipathy to flaky patents and strongly believe that the patent system needs reform, but I am not opposed to IP generally, nor to patents (when done properly) in particular.
On the other hand, whilst they haven't [yet] tried to enforce it, the recently-awarded "Google Doodles" patent is the definitive example of a junk patent - ludicrously vague, of no value whatsoever in advancing human enterprise and preceded by prior art that covered broad swathes of the contemporary internet before Google existed, including some companies they really would have been paying lots of attention to[1]. Really, the patent lawyer that persuaded them to apply for that deserves a slap.
Whilst I'm sure Nortel actually have done a lot of worthwhile research in the process of building up their portfolio, Google is also in the process of giving people 900 million more reasons more to apply for patents for anything and everything.
[1]Rudolf wishes you Merry Christmas from Yahoo 1996 http://replay.waybackmachine.org/19961223150621/http://www8....
I agree with you that they've made some clever moves, but Google owns no spectrum (and this was before Android, right?) and almost no patents. It's hard to argue that they are abusing their dominant position in those fields - people are scared of what they could do, but "potential monopolist" is not a strong basis for an antitrust case.
That's like saying the red cross is abusing its dominant position since it earns so much donations that it can afford to send people pretty much everywhere while other orgs can't.
(I am in no way implying a relation between google and the red cross, just the first exemple to pop in my mind)
You are suggesting that they mustn't find a way to protect their interests from patent suits because otherwise they are abusing their position?! that doesn't make sense.
On the other hand, it could also mean that the eventual winner has more incentive to seek higher licensing fees, and to sue those who won't buy licenses, in order to make up for the higher amount they paid to get the patents.
Or not.
"Our Promise does not extend to any party who institutes patent litigation against Red Hat..."
The whole point is to free up your patent collection so anyone can use it, without devaluing it as ammunition to defend yourself from other patent claims.
However, there are problems with the current patent system. Why Innovation is stifled. Why trolls and litigation are likes wildfires. They all come down to one root cause. The current patent system treats all patents the same and does not factor in that the speed of the innovation in each industry is different.
If we just look at the innovation speed of the software industry and the 20 years patent length, the problems mentioned earlier become obvious. Say if the software patent only last 5 or less than 10 years, the problems become mitigated. Trolls will need to justify the litigation costs vs revenue generated in less years. Many paper patents will become no value at all.
Also, because the patent length is shorten to less than 10 year, it’ll force inventor to wait until implementation or commercialization of the patent is mature before filing the patent application. Otherwise, by the time implementation or commercialization is ready, the patent will most likely due soon.
(I am in no way implying I agree with this, just that I understand.)
Still, I might like to see a strictly defensive patent pool between equally powerful players.
They just spent 1 billion acquiring patents that they would then turn around and support reform that invalidates most of them. I call BS on that!
No company is going to throw away a billion dollars for the greater good!
For example, I disagree with marijuana laws, but I am not about to light up in front of a cop.
Yes, they have been pretty considerate business up to now. But future is not merely a direct projection of past.
A portfolio of patents is as much an obligation as an asset. You cannot arbitrarily enforce patents only against certain competitors, lest you risk the patent in question being shot down in arbitration or court case.
The only one who can stop that is you -- by voting, lobbying or donating money to the EFF or similar organizations that are fighting against software patents.
If enough people did this, we wouldn't have this conversation -- but the truth is, most people accepted the status-quo and/or have other priorities, so after a little bit of hand-waving, life goes back to normal and it's business as usual.
And companies have the obligation to defend themselves -- they can't afford to just bitch-and-moan about this issue. And even companies acting in good-faith (if such a thing exists for companies) -- will choose the path of least resistance (i.e. building a patents portfolio). Otherwise, to make a (bad) analogy, it would be like going to war with "make love" signs.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
In this particular case, my bat-sensor isn't really detecting anything malevolent afoot. They and their partners have been getting hammered on all sides by patent lawsuits and Google has more than enough cash to come out swinging, and this is a major show of muscle to let people know they're not going to get pushed around like some two bit small company.
They're just a big public tech company. They're no more good/evil than Apple, Microsoft or anyone else and it's really frustrating watching otherwise intelligent adults behaving as though they were somehow different.
I think we are too little and insignificant to hypothesize about the effects of net-neutrality (or the lack of it), and what will happen with the Internet ecosystem going forward; but personally I think net-neutrality is bad news for consumers, which would be ironic given how it was pushed forward. If anything, I blame Google for sticking their nose into this business, but I don't blame them.
About "closing Android" -- their behavior has been consistent. The very first version of Android has been released in binary-form only. Android was never more open than it currently is, and as far as openness goes, it's not a black&white issue.
Bidding on Nortel's patents makes sense, and I'm actually glad they did it, as companies like Oracle, Microsoft and Apple have the power to kill Android by means of their fat patents portfolio. And personally I care much, much more about a healthy smartphones ecosystem that has plenty of competition, rather than about ideological issues that may or may not have value.
No, they aren't a small company anymore. Small companies in the same situation either sell-out or die.