Are Google's Patents Too Weak To Protect Android? 257
An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian published an opinion piece written by former-NoSoftwarePatents-activist-turned-controversial-patent-blogger Florian Mueller. He lists 12 patent lawsuits instigated against Android last year, says there are many more to come, and believes that Google's portfolio of only 576 US patents is dwarved by those of Apple, Microsoft, Oracle and others. So Google can't retaliate against aggressors such as Oracle. Consequently — he argues — Android makers will have to remove functionality or pay high license fees, and the operating system will become unprofitable for handset makers. Even the app ecosystem could suffer, he says. Since Google received only 282 new US patents in 2010, the gap between Google's portfolio and those of its competitors is widening further: Apple produces about twice as many, and Microsoft gets more than 3,000 new ones a year. Let's discuss this: is Android really in for so much trouble? Can't Google find other ways (than owning many patents) to defend it than countersuing? How about its vast financial resources?"
Hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
How much does anyone want to bet that this supposed "anonymous reader" is Florian himself?
Re: (Score:2)
Many more than just him are fed up with the patent nonsense.
I for one don't do anything but kvetch, but then, it's not like submitting a /. story is much more work. And the article (judging by the blurb, of course) seems to be pretty interesting.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are better indications that the story is bollocks.
Argument: Google is being sued a lot because it doesn't have a big enough patent collection to counter-sue.
Evidence: 12 suits.
Let's see... 8/12 are suits by patent trolls or companies in completely different industries. No size of patent pool would dissuade them as they do not produce *anything* in the same industry. 4/12 are relevant.
Conclusion: The size of Google's patent warchest is irrelevant in 66% of cases and the author is an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I thought four, or five, were patent trolls and two or three were just companies in another area. But in neither case would a warchest of patents dissuade them - they are only a deterrent against companies selling products in your own industry.
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:4, Funny)
I look at this whole patent wars thing and have the distinct feeling that lawyers and executives are playing their own exclusive, worldwide, and expensive version of Starcraft.
"OMG PATENT TROLL RUSH!"
"SC_EASTTEXASCOURT IS A CRAPPY MAP!"
"SUMMARY JUDGEMENT BITCH, GG NO RE"
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, but it's a fair question to ask. Personally I regard Google's legal team as very sharp, and unlike many other companies they are quite happy going for the throat with patent invalidation rather than seeking detent. And the trolls know it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The author forgot the flip side of the sword; Google doesn't have a lot of patents, so anyone that patent trolls them risks Google spending tons and tons of dollars to get that patent invalidated. They don't have to worry about it affecting their own patents.
I can imagine that that would scare off quite a few potential lawsuits....knowing the Google might make your patent absolutely worthless.
Re: (Score:3)
If he's managed to get it published in the Guardian, openly under his own name, then it's hard to see why he'd want to go to special eforts to sneak it onto Slashdot.
First, the special effort isn't that special. It's just a couple of minutes of effort Second, Slashdot has a large technologically aware readership which mostly doesn't overlap with the Guardian. It would increase Mueller's exposure and future business prospects considerably.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no "story".
From the "question":
So Google can't retaliate against aggressors [guardian.co.uk] such as Oracle.
There's the link to the story.
Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
SuperPatent (Score:5, Interesting)
These articles bother me. Google called a couple of colleagues and asked "Hey, how many patents you got?" They got the answers back, and still decided "No problem. Let's go make a mobile OS."
One month's work by a Chief Strategist has already dealt with this ages ago. These articles are like stones chewing up open spots on the bloGOsphere. Just put an article down, and now it's there. Some combination of them "decides" the "mood of the consumers".
Articles speculating about someone sinking Android are trying to block the key points in a Life-Or-Death problem for Google. They're trying to create negative self fulfilling prophecies.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a related question is what is the value-per-patent?
Microsoft might be getting tons of patents, but if most of them are about web-enabled toilets that send alerts when not flushed or other stupid technologies then maybe Google is ahead.
Re: (Score:3)
Quality vs. Quantitity.
Some companies file lots of patents, many of which are VERY specific or just plain weak, in order to have "my stack is bigger than yours" bragging rights, and also for PR purposes. It seems to have succeeded in this case.
Someone I know used to work for a company that had a HUGE patent stack. Some were very strong and made the company quite a lot of money, but many were for PR/"my stack is bigger than yours" purposes. They had a patent rating system for applications, from 1 (busines
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Quantitity"
What's on your mind, exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
On strong, broad patent is far more valuable than 100 weak, easily avoidable, narrow patents.
Not true at all. It's much easier to make your opponents defense much harder if you just barrage them with a flurry of patents rather than just a singular one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes almost 600 patents too small a number?
I think the point is that if Google had a large number of relevant patents - enough that Microsoft might drool over them - then Microsoft would be inclined to enter into a cross licensing agreement as they have with Apple. Without that option, it's better for Microsoft pursue licensing fees or just protect its intellectual property.
Personally, I think MS and Apple are more interested in creating FUD in the Android market than anything else, so the point may be moot. But if Google had a large patent portfo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On top of this, if provoked far enough who's to say that the big G won't push GDocs to compete with Office 365,
They already do push that.
or put its might behind an open source database to aim at cannibalising SQL sales etc?
Google already sponsors development on both MySQL and PostgresSQL.
Re: (Score:2)
And I don't really see much advertising for it either.
That's because their customers for Google Docs are enterprise customers, not you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kinect didn't come from Microsoft research.
Let me think.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Android runs on... oh... ...Samsung phones and ...Sony-Ericson phones and ...creative device and ...sharp devices and ...benq devices and ...motorola devices ...NEC devices ...LG devices.
If these conpanies put together a paten pool to protect android, then its enough to sue Apple and Microsoft together to Hell and back (not to mention Oracle is not goiung to make these customers angry). All of the companies sold mobile devices long before Apple thought about it. Even Nokia should fear such a consortium when it comes to patents regarding mobile devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me think...
MOST of those companies also have devices that run some microsoft OS, or plans for one....
Maybe not Nokia...
Argument Fail.
Re: (Score:2)
And? Explain how being prospective customers for Microsoft, who are desperate to push their OS into the mobile market weakens their position?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let me think.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is simply to say that it is unclear whether anyone other than HTC is 100% committed to Android as the primary stack. I think it is also instructive to note that HTC at one time was a developer of MS phones. It may be that the best way for MS to gain market share is to scare phone makes into not using Android.
It is a complicated relationship. Apple is being sued because it is not part of the club, and entered successfully into a market it is not wanted. The lack of phone experience meant it likely did step on some patents. Google is being sued because in it's arrogance it tried to do OSS independently, not using existing tech and experience. In the search market, which was immature, that was fine. But in the mature phone market, with an old incumbency, MS included, Google and Apple as upstarts are trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Well.. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not the number of patents, but the likelihood of a patent being actionable, and/or enforcible.
In any case, if there is a court judgement that sufficiently harms innovation because of the escalating war in software patents, you will be sure that there will be a change in the direction in jurisprudence with regards to these "soft" patents. You have to remember that most of hte world don't have software patents, and many places (like Europe) would like to keep it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost half their patents *this year* (Score:2)
So according to the article, nearly half Google's patents (282 of 576) were granted in 2010... that's quite a change in attitude towards patents at Google then if they are suddenly getting so many!
"This year" (Score:3)
So google has less patents (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Come back with another analogy for when the spider has eyes the size of your face.
Re:So google has less patents (Score:4, Interesting)
You are significantly larger than any spider.
And, taken together, the companies that own Android -- the Open Handset Alliance (13 mobile operators, 20 handset manufacturers, 20 semiconductor companies, 16 software [the use of this term seems to include online services] companies including Google, and 10 commercialization companies) -- are significantly larger than any likely challenger to Android.
There is a reason that Google organized the OHA and transferred Android to it immediately after they purchased Android.
Google resources (Score:5, Interesting)
Plus the Google ecosystem can effectively fight off alot of threats simply by the fact that they are have no obligation to play nice when it comes to search engine trafficking/optimization and/or investments.
For example, picture what happens if Google puts resources into Postgres, MariaDB, or any of the other major database platforms that would cut into the profitability of Oracle or Microsoft. Or takes up the banner of Open Office to free it from the clutches of Sun, further weakening Microsoft profit margins. What people are learning is that Google at least so far tends to be a very worthy adversary. So far we also like Google more than the billionaires clubs as run by Gates and Ellison.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus the likely scenario that IBM would rather see Google succeed than the other three, and their patent portfolio in the form of prior art assistance to Google would change the game entirely
No bones to pick with the rest of your post, but I'd like to point out that patents - being published - are prior art already. You don't need the assistance of the patent owner.
Re: (Score:2)
So far we also like Google more than the billionaires clubs as run by Gates and Ellison.
Yeah, because Sergey, Larry and Eric are just paupers. It's not like they are billionaires too or anything. Oh wait...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much about how much money they have, but what they do with it. Google does much nicer things with their money than Oracle.
Re: (Score:2)
But Oracle now owns Sun, but Google could throw in with Libre Office. The problem with that it would compete with their cloud office suite.
But basically Google could increase market share by paying phone providers to use Android. If they had enough market share and did whatever it took to keep people happy, then Microsoft, Apple and Oracle could be perceived as evil for taking away snowflakes neat PDA.
This isn't like the argument for patents on business operating s
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I would like to suggest that Google's main approach and threat would be to counter the whole software is patentable paradigm in ways that the big three (Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle) will not want to defend against.
I would like to suggest that Google's main approach would be to counter the threat by assuring that Android, instead of being owned by Google, is owned by a "alliance" of companies that include people with, collectively, lots more patents than Google alone.
Re: (Score:2)
As I recall, the majority of voting shares are owned by Larry, Eric and Sergey.
So what? Stockholders can still file suit regardless of whether they make up a majority or not.
We are in the midst of software patent armageddon (Score:3)
Hasn't anyone noticed? Over the past few years, the rate in which software patents result in legal action has increased dramatically. Where previously "non-aggression agreements" were the norm and the nuclear patent arms race was all about deterrence. Starting with patent trolls (some of which were owned and/or controlled by big players in the background) testing the waters by filing suits to extract money from others and being successful, the big players themselves are now feeling increasingly comfortable with the idea of nuclear patent assaults.
I think it would be a rather nice gesture if Google were to enlist a large partnership for the purpose of having ALL software patents revoked. Software is simply not worthy of patent protection. What's more, the rate in which software changes and evolves makes the term of software patents highly inappropriate -- entire markets for software can rise and fall before a patent associated with it can expire making a software patent "life long" rather than the temporary monopoly in exchange for disclosure. In fact, the fact that software source code for a software patent is not a requirement should also make software patents invalid as this is necessary for disclosure of the "invention's details."
Google should simply work to kill all software patents in the U.S. to protect themselves but also to bring peace to the land.
Re: (Score:2)
Hasn't anyone noticed? Over the past few years, the rate in which software patents result in legal action has increased dramatically. Where previously "non-aggression agreements" were the norm and the nuclear patent arms race was all about deterrence. Starting with patent trolls (some of which were owned and/or controlled by big players in the background) testing the waters by filing suits to extract money from others and being successful, the big players themselves are now feeling increasingly comfortable with the idea of nuclear patent assaults.
Well, bear in mind that the current "nuclear patent assault" over smartphones is almost certain to never see the inside of a trial court. This is about the establishment of a new patent pool, with players trying to position themselves to get a larger share of royalties. Same story has occurred in many different industries over the past hundred and fifty years.
And that said...
Software is simply not worthy of patent protection.
Why not? How is software unlike any other industry? If you're going to go on that old exception about algorithms and "all software
Re:We are in the midst of software patent armagedd (Score:4, Informative)
If you're going to go on that old exception about algorithms and "all software is math," then that argument has lost many times and is unlikely to ever succeed.
It succeeded in part in In re Abele. It also succeeded in cases focused more on formalistic hoops, like In re Warmerdam or In re Lowry, and we never did find out whether Beauregard claims would pass judicial muster. SCOTUS avoided the question in Bilski v. Kappos, and AFAIK, has yet to address the question directly.
Re: (Score:2)
B/c simply adding the phrase w/ a database or on the internet to existing activities is not novel ergo not worthy of patent protectio
Re: (Score:2)
B/c simply adding the phrase w/ a database or on the internet to existing activities is not novel ergo not worthy of patent protection.
Yeah, thing is, no patent actually claims that just that is worthy of patent protection. You're confused and looking at some of the dependent claims.
There is a doctrine called "claim differentiation," which is based on the fact that each claim in a patent is claiming a different scope. So, if claim 1 says, "A method for X, comprising blah blah blah blah, via a network," and claim 2 says, "the method of claim 1, wherein the network is the internet," that doesn't mean that they're claiming to have patented t
Re:We are in the midst of software patent armagedd (Score:4, Insightful)
How is software unlike any other industry?
* Extremely low barrier of entry. When you can essentially develop a product for free, filling a patent is often unfordable. Hence, they benefit large established players against small competitors - especially those who don't seek a commercial gain (see multiple Open Source projects)
* Fast paced development. For many industries, 20 years is a limited period of time. For software, it's an eternity. Patents are supposed to convince inventors to open up their inventions in exchange for a limited monopoly. 20 years from now, how will the H.264 patents benefit society?
* Patents are not a inalienable right - they're a right designed to promote innovation. Anyone who knows the software industry knows its completely absurd to say that patents are a condition for innovation.
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."
--Bill Gates (1991)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How is software unlike any other industry?
* Extremely low barrier of entry. When you can essentially develop a product for free, filling a patent is often unfordable. Hence, they benefit large established players against small competitors - especially those who don't seek a commercial gain (see multiple Open Source projects)
Small electronics also have an extremely low barrier of entry. Should they also be unpatentable as a field?
Additionally, I think a blanket judgement that all software development has an extremely low barrier of entry is a bit broad. There's a lot of money that gets spent on software development - is your position that it's all wasted, since you could essentially accomplish the same for free?
And finally, there's no requirement that someone get a patent, and since the patent system is supposed to encourage
Re:We are in the midst of software patent armagedd (Score:4, Interesting)
Small electronics also have an extremely low barrier of entry. Should they also be unpatentable as a field?
Compared to 'free', it's damn high.
Additionally, I think a blanket judgement that all software development has an extremely low barrier of entry is a bit broad. There's a lot of money that gets spent on software development - is your position that it's all wasted, since you could essentially accomplish the same for free?
Dumping money into a project merely accelerates it - it's not a barrier to entry. And that acceleration provides the advantage you need - reaching the market sooner. There's no need for patents.
And finally, there's no requirement that someone get a patent, and since the patent system is supposed to encourage public disclosure as opposed to keeping trade secrets, it's really irrelevant to open source.
Except that many patents are 1) bad (too broad, for example) or 2) have prior art, and OSS projects don't have the funds to fight them.
But for many other industries, 20 years is an eternity. But no one's calling for the abolishment of patents on, say, dermatological products, or nanotechnology. In fact, while 20 years may be a short time in mature industries, when those same industries were young, development was very fast.
Maybe they shouldn't. That's not really an argument for patents.
The Wright Brothers made their first powered flights in 1904. 7 years later, there were dozens of different types of planes of myriad designs in operation in WWI. But no one was calling for the abolishment of patents on airplanes.
Are you kidding?
The creation of the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association was
crucial to the U.S. government because the two major patent holders, the
Wright Company and the Curtiss Company, had effectively blocked the building
of any new airplanes, which were desperately needed as the United States was
entering World War I.
http://www.essentialdrugs.org/edrug/archive/200203/msg00040.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war#Patent_war [wikipedia.org]
Yes, lots of people did. And it was extremely prejudicial to the industry. The only reason it wasn't more, it's because nobody respected them and the courts failed to uphold them.
Actually, they're designed to promote efficient innovation. People innovated before patents existed: they just kept everything as a trade secret. As a result, people had to keep re-inventing the same solutions since they never got shared.
Which is irrelevant for software, since by the time they can be used, they're already useless and have been re-invented.
As for the claim that patents aren't needed in the software industry, because look how innovative it is... you do realize that there are software patents, right? So, it's a bit odd to claim "see how fast this industry with patent protection is developing? Therefore, it doesn't need patent protection."
That would be true if 1) all innovative soft. companies had many patents, which is clearly not true 2) there existed no countries without software patents.
How about the full quote? Deliberately clipping off the contradictory clause is not just misleading, it's lying.
I'm sorry, I got it in that form. On the other hand, I don't see how it takes away from my point. Just because Microsoft specifically (which had the luck to enter the "patent market" very soon) has a solution for themselves, doesn't mean it doesn't hurt the industry as a whole, as my part of the quote says.
Re: (Score:3)
Say you have a brand new invention, that is completely unknown and stunningly revolutionary... you should be able to get a patent on it if it's in any field except software? That makes no sense.
Do you think authors should be able to patent novel plot points? Or mathematicians novel proofs?
If not, why not?
Re: (Score:3)
Except, once you've spent all that money accelerating your project to get to market sooner, someone else can quickly reverse engineer or rewrite it without violating your copyright and, absent patent protection, you just wasted a ton of money reaching the market sooner since they're only a week or two behind you.
Thus, people wouldn't spend tons of money accelerating their research, and innovation...would...draggggggg. Good thing we have patents, huh?
No, it wouldn't, because it wouldn't suddenly become unprofitable to sell new devices to consumers. And if it only takes "a week or two" for your competitors to catch up with one of your features, then was it really so innovative it deserves a patent?
No, it's not, because bad patents are inevitable in the current patent sys
Re: (Score:3)
No, if you want to make an argument that we could advance faster without patents, then you either have to look to the pre-patent era for evidence of rapid technological development, or to countries without patent law for the same. And neither evidence exists.
It does exist for software. The software field exploded before software patents applied to it. Networking, graphics, all kinds of programming languages, all kinds of operating systems, databases, all kinds of applications -- all of it was created without software patents and forms the bedrock of software today.
Now we have all this red tape and worries over patent lawsuits. Where's the patent-inspired innovation? The vast majority of software patents are rubbish. To quote more from that Bill Gates memo: "In
Re:We are in the midst of software patent armagedd (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not? How is software unlike any other industry? If you're going to go on that old exception about algorithms and "all software is math," then that argument has lost many times and is unlikely to ever succeed. You're going to need a really good policy argument to explain why we should strip IP protection from a multi-trillion dollar industry, particularly in this economy.
Software isn't inherently undeserving of patent protection, but it is presently inappropriate to grant patents in that field.
The purpose of patents is to encourage the invention, disclosure, and bringing to market, of patentable inventions (i.e. novel, nonobvious, useful, etc.) which otherwise would not have been invented, disclosed, and brought to market. It's an artificial subsidy, and should only be applied where it is necessary, and never where it is redundant, because there are costs involved. In most cases it's not really possible to tell, particularly on the level of a specific patent for a specific invention. However, the software industry is fabulously inventive, is very good at bringing things to market, and almost inevitably seems to involve disclosure, at least to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Frankly, the software industry doesn't need patents. It isn't being spurred on to greater heights of inventiveness, etc. by the availability of patents. In fact, the costs of patents (read broadly; not just the cost of getting one, but the minefield) are probably dragging it down. We'd better achieve the desired goals of the patent system if we didn't grant patents in that field. At least not for the time being. Eventually, the industry may settle down, and it would become appropriate to grant patents in the field, but that time isn't now. Business methods are the same sort of thing; patents aren't acting as a necessary incentive, and aren't doing more good than harm.
So one of the reasons we should strip those protections is to turn a multi-trillion dollar industry into something even bigger. We don't need to chain ourselves to anchors in this economy.
Re: (Score:2)
The simple rule with patents is "would this happen without patents". Drugs simply won't happen without patents, and I suspect things like video compression improvements might not happen with it. But some of Apple's patents are just ludicrous. There's one which is little more than about making windows minimise and maximise in a pretty way, and people have been doing things about prettiness in computing without patents for decades.
Re: (Score:3)
You're going to need a really good policy argument to explain why we should strip IP protection from a multi-trillion dollar industry, particularly in this economy.
Software is covered by copyright; removing the ability to patent it would not strip the industry of IP protection.
Re: (Score:2)
You're going to need a really good policy argument to explain why we should strip IP protection from a multi-trillion dollar industry, particularly in this economy.
Software is covered by copyright; removing the ability to patent it would not strip the industry of IP protection.
I didn't say all IP protection. Software can also be covered by trademarks. This is because copyright, patent, and trademark law all have different scope of protection and apply to different aspects. Contrary to the "software doesn't need patents, it has copyright" crowd's belief, they do not overlap.
Re: (Score:2)
While you are it, why not ask for a pony as well ?
Re: (Score:3)
I patented the 'button' a few years back. (both hardware and software buttons) Proving no prior art was tough, but our government is easily bribed. I like Apple so I went ahead and let them in on it. That's why apple devices have so few buttons. I get $25 for each button they use.
Anyway, lookout google... I see you're using a lot of my buttons.
Google has LOTS of power (Score:2)
All Google has to do is say to Oracle, or IBM, or anyone that tries to sue them for violating their ridiculous patents is this:
"Okay. How about we de-list all of your sites from our search engine, and block all of your IP space from using our search engine, or any of our other sites, like YouTube? Oh, and we'll renegotiate all of our peering agreements, so that we don't route any traffic from your networks over our network, too."
I mean, Google isn't *required* to index anybody's site, or offer service to an
Re: (Score:2)
i think it would could be measured in days how fast the DOJ and company respond. Given Google's large market share, making its competitors effectively 'disappear' from the internet won't sit well for them.
i can't recall which side of the water but some regulatory agency is investigating whether Google is altering companies search rankings based on how much business they're doing with them.
So yea threatening companies like Oracle, IBM, MS, and Apple won't get Google anywhere but under further scrutiny.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
All Google has to do is say to Oracle, or IBM, or anyone that tries to sue them for violating their ridiculous patents is this:
"Okay. How about we de-list all of your sites from our search engine, and block all of your IP space from using our search engine, or any of our other sites, like YouTube? Oh, and we'll renegotiate all of our peering agreements, so that we don't route any traffic from your networks over our network, too."
Yeah, and buy themselves and instant ticket to an anti-trust lawsuit? The people running Google aren't that dumb because their lawyers would be telling them the same thing.
I mean, Google isn't *required* to index anybody's site, or offer service to anyone it doesn't want.
What are you are and aren't allowed to do changes quite dramatically when you are the dominant player in the market. Such a move is clearly anti-competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
*facepalm* ISPs are not common carries and never have been. It's amazing how many idiots keep parroting this crap when a simple Google search would show you how wrong it is. The FCC long ago stated, and reaffirmed in 1998, that ISPs are not common carriers during what is called the "Computer Inquiries". The FCC stated that ISPs fall within a category called "enhanced services" which are unregulated.
wait and see what is infinging (Score:2)
Another example would be if your product restricted users to run a handful of apps which you deem appropriate, or locked up their content in DRM,
Why doesn't Google push to abolish software patent (Score:3)
That would put more parasite IP lawyers out of a job, and free up money to hire people who actually make stuff like scientists, engineers, and technicians.
Re: (Score:3)
That would put more parasite IP lawyers out of a job, and free up money to hire people who actually make stuff like scientists, engineers, and technicians.
So long as most laws are written by lawyers, they won't be queueing up to eliminate the laws that keep them in jobs just so that non-lawyers can make actual stuff that produces actual wealth without fear of being put out of business by a patent that should never have been issued.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't have a problem with abolishing software patents -- at least until it appears that it would be more beneficial to the industry to have them, than to not have them -- but you're quite wrong about much of the rest. First, lawyers don't really care about work for other lawyers. The professional courtesy joke is just a joke. Second, there is a reason that laws tend to be written by lawyers; that's the field we work in. You'd probably want an architect to design your house, an engineer to design your brid
Patent Lag Times - Especially Software (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason that Google has comparatively fewer software patents issuing every year is because there's often a massive lag behind filing a patent and having it issued. I've seen software patents that have taken as long as 6 or 7 years before it gets issued due to the amount of prosecution done on it. 6 or 7 years ago, Google was a much smaller (and newer) company with much less resources to file software patents. In comparison, the reason Apple gets 3000 patents a year is because they've been in business for over 20 years.
Send in Google Goons (Score:2)
Nice patent portfolio you got there. Sure would be a shame if anything were to happen to you because of it.
Google has deep pockets (Score:2)
Not all patents are equal. And more importantly PATENTS ONLY BENEFIT THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD TO GO TO COURT.
Google has a big enough warchest to take on any patent claims.
Interesting Change of Attitude (Score:3)
Now here's an interesting change of attitude on Slashdot.
With regards to Other Companies: They have too many patents! Patents are evil! Death to the infidels! Grrr!
With regards to Google: Do they have enough patents? Maybe they need more.
Re: (Score:2)
The ARTICLE may *infer*
No, the article may not infer.
You may infer. The article may imply.
The USPTO is no help in this (Score:2)
As they find ways to process MORE applications, and approve them at breakneck speed.
Google may have to defend Android and other stuff by defeating patents. Somehow, for instance, I wonder if anyone has ever built a similar architecture to Android and if they did it before the Java patents were applied for. Prior art is their best defense.
IANAL, so I can't tell if failing to defend a patent against infringment is a defense against selective prosecution. Google may be a target for several reasons, but othe
Google Patented Late (Score:2)
Apple was filing patents on handset software and hardware as far back as before 2004 at the latest and has first mover advantage.
The question is the significance of the patents in question. Just because you get a patent doesn't mean it is so basic, that it precludes accomplishing the task another way.
The article is not done by a rigorous patent attorney team that analyzes things in enough detail to understand significance of each patent.
What does this mean for other OSes, like MeeGo? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've got to be honest here. I really liked the idea of MeeGo, but I'm almost beginning to feel embarrassed to even talk about the OS given the fact that the project was announced 9 months ago, was based on two existing OSes that were usable, and still doesn't have any handset hardware shipping with it. Heck -- as far as I know the functionality of MeeGo on the n900 isn't even up to par with Maemo.
Anyhow, getting back to the point of this post, I wonder how the Oracle/Google kerfuffule is affecting Meego. If MeeGo were mature enough to ship on hardware, I could see a persuasive argument being made against Android. The uncertainty around the Java base of Android might convince some hardware manufacturers to try building their next toys on top of MeeGo. The problem is that I don't get the perception that we're going to see anything shipping w/MeeGo soon, and by the time that comes to pass, Google and Oracle will likely have worked out some kind of deal in mediation -- Groklaw has already noted that the two parties have agreed to hire an external mediator to sort out their issues.
Of course, there's something even worse than MeeGo missing this opportunity to grab a little marketshare: Android losing marketshare. Looking out at the landscape right now, Android is the only thing standing between you and a completely proprietary OS running on your mobile device. Think about it.
Sure, I was okay running whatever dinky OS they wanted to put on my old cell phone. It didn't even take pictures, and I only made calls and sent txts with the thing. But the problem is that our cell phones are now being used to store tons of private data. I'd wager that, Megabyte for Megabyte, for a large number of people there is more personal data stored on their cell phone than on their laptop. Just as I run FOSS on my laptop, I'd really like to run FOSS on my mobile devices.
So while I don't expect Nokia to go bail-out Google, it's worth considering the fact that Google is holding its own here. Hopefully Nokia and Intel can crank on MeeGo and bring another powerful FOSS mobile OS to the party. We're all waiting with baited breath.
size (Score:2)
It's not the size of the patent portfolio that matters, it's its quality.
Furthermore, nobody other than google knows how many patents they have, since the USPTO info just doesn't tell you.
Re:Nah. (Score:4, Funny)
China is nothing compared to an army of Patent-lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
ffmpeg method
When your shit is the best, they won't sue for fear of the consumer backlash.
Also, being in hungary helps.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget that it's not just google that can't let andriod go. All of the members of the open handset alliance would be hurt to some degree if android were encumbered. I don't expect the carriers that have the iPhone to care much but Motorola and Samsung should.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is exactly why Google's patent portfolio isn't all that relevant. Anyone going after Android would be facing opposition from the entirety of the OHA, which between them have a massive portfolio. I also think it's a bit ridiculous to measure the strength of someone's patent portfolio solely on number of patents; in these kinds of patent standoffs all that matters is how much each side infringes on the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if you have 10,000 patents and 9000 of them are bullshit that would be invalidated under real scrutiny, you only really have 1000 patents that are worth a damn. My money's on Google's patent portfolio consisting predominantly of genuine, specific innovations that would hold up in court. Google is hardly perfect but they employ a ton of very bright people. I'd be surprised if they had any more than a tiny fraction of "selling cookies on the Internet"-type patents.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like patents in general, and part of me is definitely happy that an innovative company like Google ignores this stupid patent arm's race. But with the way the US legal system often works, I'm still worried. It often looks like quantity (money, patents or lawyers) is a lot more important than quality (are the patents any good, are the lawyers right, are you actually legally in the right?).
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer it if patents were vetted more thoroughly in the first place, but in the absence of that I'll take market leaders like Google focusing on legitimate, quality patents and working to invalidate bogus ones. It may not serve a major business purpose for them but it's a good public service, and good on Google for doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviousness and prior art are barely even factors in granting software patents. The law itself doesn't seem to be a factor anymore -- supposedly, you cannot patent math, yet somehow peopl
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting approach. According to TFS, Google got 282 new patents in just the last year, Apple got approximately 550, and Microsoft got 3000. So as a developer, in order to avoid violating anyone's patents I must now read and comprehend just under 4000 patents. Just for those three companies. Just for last year. Given that patents last for what? 12 years? I figure, conservatively, that in order to be reasonably sure that I'm not violating any software patents on my next project I just need
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is they're suing the manufacturers as well, so they might decide it's more profitable to sell WP7 phones. Microsoft has already said that the greatest feature of their phones is that they fully stand behind their OS and will protect manufacturers in case of lawsuits. So WP7 carries with itself the promise for patent protection.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft has a patent on a phone crashing. If any Android app ever crashes, they'll have to pay royalties to Microsoft, remove the bugs (the offending functionality), or pull that app from market.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah.. seems kind of odd all the screaming heads angry about "regulation" have no problem with patents...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He's now working for Microsoft using his old reputation as an anti-swpat campaigner to lobby for patents in open standards, and to attack Google with pieces like this. Florian Mueller is a whore, has always been, and everything he writes should be taken with a pound of salt.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, he has reconsidered his stance and considers the abolition of software patents futile. That does not, however, mean he is not anti-software patents, just that he doesn't think pushing for software patents to be abolished is going to do any good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Any cases that go to court will already be dwarfed by the massive sums of money Android will have earned Google.
That's funny because I'm looking at Google's financial statements right now and a little over 7 billion in their revenue (or about 96.5% of all total revenue) comes from their Adsense programs and revenue generated from Google-owned websites. The other 3.5% of their revenue or about 254 million is in a category marked "other" and the bulk of that "other" revenue is from interest from investments. So, no, you are very much wrong about how Android is making them "massive sums of money" by Google's own finan
Re: (Score:2)
GOOG does not seem to have any revenue model for Android.
Google doesn't own Android directly, either, it only did for a very brief moment before transferring it to the OHA. Google bought Android and transferred it for, AFAICT, one main purpose -- to promote its existing web-based services (especially advertising) revenue sources by assuring that they weren't locked out in favor of walled gardens in the mobile computing market that was supplementing and to a certain extent displacing traditional PC-based computing.
There's quite a lot of Google revenue at issue, th
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, Google develops Android internally, then spits out versions every so often, kind of like laying an egg.
What part does the OHA play?
Re: (Score:2)