More on Google and Patents
daringfireball.net
daringfireball.net
"What I’m complaining about isn’t Google playing the game, but rather their insistent whining about their competitors only after they lost the game."
It's easy to redefine the game as whatever suits your outcome. And it's perfectly reasonable to complain about an unfair game that you're losing because it's unfair.
And anyway, by this logic, you could simply call the PR battle 'part of the game' and say Google is just playing on the rising anti-patent sentiment in the industry.
Oh it's so meta isn't it?
Also the rules haven't changed a bit, Google got in the game knowingly. Though one can argue the patent system is broken and needs urgent adjustment. Nortel IP incident is more of bidding war and Google played its hand spectacularly badly plain and simple. There is nothing illegal and shady about Apple/Microsoft/RIM's win. Last I checked, throwing money at things is a perfect good strategy at owning them.
For example: But the bottom line is that they wanted to use these patents competitively.
Why is that the bottom line? That's in fact clearly not the bottom line, since it completely elides the distinction that Google is making. And calling it the bottom line is misdirection.
Some people seem to think that Android doesn’t really violate any existing worthy patents. That’s all just a bunch of bogus patents that never should have been granted, and companies like Microsoft and Apple are just tying up Android handset makers in court out of dishonest competitive spite. If that’s the case, then I suppose you can argue that Google’s pursuit of these patents was out of the goodness of their corporate heart.
But if Android does violate worthy patents, Google’s actions here are just as competitive as any other companies. You can guess which side I’m on, I suppose.
This is maybe the most disingenous part. The same could be said of anyone afraid of getting sued by patent trolls like Lodsys/Intellectual Vultures. 'If you're not really violating any "existing worthy" patents, then you have nothing to worry about.'
"But these are the laws we have." Indeed.
Patent Trolls do not have any product that can be counter-sued.
A powerful weapon against frivolous patent claims whether they are brought up by patent trolls or litigious competitors is simply trying to invalidate such patents, or proving that you in fact does not violate patents in dispute. And it can be done. Smaller developers and individuals may not have the means to fight the battle, which is a serious problem in itself. But it is so not a problem for Google I would assume.
Let me say that I completely agree. However, this assumes that pursuing such a defense is less costly than cross-licensing or other settlement options. Moreover it misses the fact that owning patents almost certainly deters competitors from suing in the first place. That's what mutually assured destruction is all about.
I think there is definitely something very wrong about the current system including the legal procedure. First we should try to eliminate (or at least reduce if you are pessimistic like I am) nonsensical patents from being granted for starters. Then I strongly support reducing the period of exclusive rights especially in fast evolving field like software and telecommunication etc. And then again there should be a simplified and less expensive (both monetary wise and time wise) legal channel to at least preliminarily determine the validity of patent dispute, I can go on.
If a VP of one $190B public company can whine like a spoiled brat and be considered a good PR move. Perhaps we hit a new low much lower than Gruber's obvious bias.
No, Google's blog post rightly points out that Microsoft and Apple haven chosen to fight against Android by litigation rather than invention. If Google where "whining" that Microsoft and Apple were building cooler stuff into their phones, it would be laughable. But that isn't what Google is saying. Suggesting that Google wants MS/Apple to "[sit] back and [allow] Android to destroy their business" is an obvious and clumsy strawman.
Gruber isn't arguing the merits of the platforms. He's arguing that the patent system as-is does work, and that Microsoft and Apple shouldn't be criticized for using it. The problem is, they aren't merely using it, they are abusing it, which seems to suggest that it doesn't work nearly as well as Gruber says it does.
[EDIT: Minor grammatical cleanup]
http://daringfireball.net/2010/03/this_apple_htc_patent_thin...
From the post: "But for software the system, in practice, is undeniably broken. There’s an argument to be made that software is inherently different than other fields of invention, different in such a way that patents should not apply — or, should apply for a significantly shorter period of time before expiring. You can’t (or at least shouldn’t) be able to patent mathematics, and there are good arguments that programming is a branch of mathematics. But because software patents are granted, concede at least for the moment that certain kinds of software innovations ought to be patentable. Even with that in mind, clearly the U.S. Patent Office is and has granted patents for things which ought not be patentable. Not just silly frivolous things, but patents that have been granted for concepts alone, rather than specific innovative implementations of said concepts. Ideas in the abstract, rather than implementations of ideas."
To me this sounds like a well-reasoned post that acknowledges the patent system is broken. I'm not sure if I would validate software patents at all but it's a far better system than what's in place now.
Also: "To me, “user interface” patents are hand-in-hand with “business method patents” as examples of things which, no matter how innovative or original, ought not be patentable. They’re idea patents."
This is just something to point out that this where Gruber and Apple do seem to stray paths. Gruber may be an Apple fan but it doesn't go beyond all reason.
Regarding the situation with Google, I do think he is mostly right. I would have liked to have seen Google publicly lobby against software patents in general, with the consumer and Congress. That is not the path they chose. Instead they chose to become an investor in Intellectual Ventures and play the game of mutually assured destruction with MS, Apple & Oracle. Doing so makes them equally complicit in the process. Winning the battle against these three companies does not protect the indie dev. It only serves Google's end which means their motives are ultimately selfish. If they can play selfish why can't others who currently have the law on their side?
Why not point us to such a worthy patent, then? All the patents that have been mentioned publicly so far have clearly been worthless and trivial.
To make his case, a single worthy patent would suffice.
Relatedly:
Google seems to feel entitled to copy whatever it wants. Android copies the UI from the iPhone. Places copied data from Yelp. Google+ copies from Facebook. Their coupon thing is a clone of Groupon. And yet it’s Google that acts as though it has been offended when these competitors fight back.
For a man who is so in love with Everything is a Remix [1], this strikes me as an odd position. Once things like this are up for grabs, you can start pointing fingers all the way back to the first transistor. There's a thick line between "remix" and "ripoff" and I've yet to see Google cross it in a significant manner.
Can't say I disagree.
Google believes that a cartel of competitors formed to combine resources with the main purpose of using those resources to bid on IP to use against Android. The winning bid didn't reflect any individual competitor's valuation of the asset, but rather the aggregate of their valuations given that they all plan to use the asset as leverage against Android. Google thinks this is anticompetitive.
From the original Google blog post.
From the update to the original google blog post. Maybe you should read the whole thing. It's not that long. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-a...
I'm of the opinion that there aren't really any true winners, at least in the public's eye, in patent bidding wars. But Google has definitely stumbled through the post-bidding PR.
If Google wanted to buy Novell's patents and use them as defensive patents - it makes little sense for them to go in partnership with the company it's trying to defend themselves against.
And about the Novell ones - is it still not clear why Google did it? They did it to get defensive patents against Microsoft. How would they have used those patents to counter Microsoft, if Microsoft had them, too?
The whole point of buying patents now is to use them to keep Microsoft and the others from attacking the Android manufacturers. If they buy them together with Microsoft, they can't stop Microsoft's other patents.
a. Google complains that these companies were colluding against them in the Novell deal. b. Microsoft shows that they were not in fact colluding against them in the Novell deal.
Whether or not it would have made business sense for Google to join that pool (it clearly wouldn't have) doesn't matter within the narrow scope of whether they're entitled to complain using the specific words they've chosen to make their complaint, which, for whatever reason, people seem to really enjoy discussing on the internet this week.
One piece of patent reform that might be nice is that you can't acquire IP, unless you have a majority of the people who created the IP under full-time employment (or something to that effect).
This is extremely disingenuous. It is likely that Google would need to obtain defensive patents whether it believes it violates any patents at all.
The one sited source is extremely shallow, and the rest is both not sourced and laughable. Gruber is making quite the leap after his hand waving and backpedaling.
Places copies Yelp data? Beyond the shallow article and the sites themselves, it is not obvious for the places I frequent. We are not given details about what Google was allowed to crawl, scrape, or otherwise. Google has millions, for any given site, of records that it will display through its search or otherwise.
Gruber's claims against Google Plus and Offers are him merely grasping at straws and trying to paint Google as bad guys. What exactly is he or "his audience" claiming against these properties?
I'm not saying that his audience is making any claim. I'm saying that his audience knows what claims Gruber is referring to. I do agree that sources rarely hurt, but in this case it doesn't seem crucial.
With that said, Gruber is the guy who did a crusade against Ina Fried because she only linked to a source and didn't spell out the author's full name. So given that, it's probably fair to stretch Gruber for his ommission of sources.
And notice folks no Apple sues MS even though there is some UI copying..
Look, I'm not saying Apple is not an innovative company. It is. But what exactly does an innovative company mean? Does it mean their product is 100% based on their own technology? 90% based on their own technology?
I doubt it even comes close to that. Take the iPhone for example. Did Apple re-invent the the 2G tech in it? The 3G one? Did they invent the processor in it? What about the GPU? Did they invent the whole multi-touch panel? Was the invention 100% based on their knowledge and technology if it was? I'm sure the UI can be de-constructed the same way, too, to prove most of it is not "brand new".
If they invented so much in the iPhone, why is it that they can only win against HTC with patents from 1994 and 1996, that aren't even related to smartphones, let alone the iPhone?
It really bothers me to see how everyone treats iPhone as if 100% of its technology was invented by Apple, and 100% of Android's technology was "stolen" and "copied", because that's completely false.
Perhaps, the iPhone has 10% of its technology that is actually new, and perhaps Android only has 5% of it that is brand new, and because of that I suppose you can call Apple more innovative than Google, but let's not pretend that Apple doesn't copy anything, or let's turn a blind eye to the things Apple copies, just because they're a little more innovative than Google.
People need to wake up and see that ALL companies copy and base their technology on something else, but even when they do copy it, it's usually not a 100% carbon copy, but a derivative technology (think iOS 5 notification system), and that's how technology evolves.
I like how Gruber conflates patents in general with software patents: as if you can't have one without the other.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
They should have pooled these billions to create a massive patent reform campaign. It probably would have been cheaper and more effective in the long run.
To me, Gruber is being consistent here: he doesn't like software patents (see his commentary on Lodsys and other NPEs), but the fact is that they exist and the way they're used now is as he describes. Google is being disingenuous about Android and patents; Google's lawyer lied about the Novell patents and the lie has been called out by Microsoft. Google may have good reason to have not wanted to go into a co-purchase agreement of the Novell patents (as Gruber outlines in this post), but to complain of unfairness now that you lost a bidding war? That's childish.
Google would actually have a moral high ground if they hadn't even bid for the Novell patents. Not bidding for them would have been a remarkably stupid move given the current patent/legal landscape, even though it meant that Google gave up the moral high ground.
Patents in the U.S. are badly broken, and I despair that software patents were ever granted in the first place. One of the things that I suspect that most people who oppose software patents forget, though, is that even if software patents were taken off the table tomorrow, the existing patents wouldn't go away. The government wouldn't retroactively invalidate any software patent ever granted (it'd be a hard enough fight just to get software patents blocked for the future), and courts examining the patents tend to look at whether the patent was (or could have been) valid at the time of its granting, not whether it makes sense now.
Funny that he doesn't say that in this post. Nothing like "I'm against software patents, but Google seems to play the software patent game when it suits them". Instead he says 'there are some who will argue that there are no “worthy patents”' which 1) implies he's not one of them and 2) conflates software patents with all types of patents.
>Google would actually have a moral high ground if they hadn't even bid for the Novell patents.
Google has the moral highground because, unlike Apple and others, they have not been suing people over software patents.
If you only read Gruber's posts that make it to HN, you're missing context because he may have made other posts that provide background (and, while Gruber's fairly good about linking back to what he's said in the past, he's not perfect).
If you only read Gruber's posts, you miss context that may have been building in comments he makes in his linked list entries. In fact, Gruber has mostly avoided saying anything about Lodsys because he has been linking to others that he feels have said what he believes more eloquently, adding a small paragraph of commentary.
I'm not claiming that Gruber's "perfect" by any means. I'm simply saying that Gruber has a narrative to what he writes that shouldn't be subjected to soundbite treatment.
With respect to Google, we must simply agree to disagree that they have a moral high ground on this and other matters. Gruber contends (and I mostly agree) that they do not for various reasons.
[1] I'd originally said remarkably consistent, but the only thing remarkable about that is that so many other journalists/bloggers aren't. This consistency, by the by, is also ignored by anyone who suggests that Gruber is an "uncritical fanboy". Over the last year, I can think of a number of posts where Gruber has criticized Apple fairly harshly over decisions that have been made, including the removal of "store" buttons from the Kindle and Kobo apps, etc.
I think it's pretty normal to base criticisms of a blog post on the blog post itself rather than a complete reading of all of a blog's posts.
The thing is, with a title like "More of Google and Patents", I can't quickly tell that a link in my RSS feed is headed to daringfireball.
There is a nice Chrome plugin I just found called "Blocker", however, so that just put a final end to that.