Google Reaffirms Stance Against Software Patents

An anonymous reader writes "Google has again publicly affirmed its stance against software patents during an announcement over a potential defensive acquisition. These days, when Microsoft, Apple, and others are abusing software patents, it's nice to see one large company calling them junk."

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[Anonymous Coward]

STFU you MS shill.

sounds a lot like Jeff Bezos

[Anonymous Coward]

pontificating about the evils of software patents. Then he turned around and sued his biggest competitor, Barnes and Noble for infringing his one-click patent. Because when push comes to shove, those who have the weapons will use them.

The proper reaction to Google's statement is a collective eye roll.

In fairness...

[jadavis]

Google keeps all of it's software entirely secret, so they don't really have any use for software patents. It's all upside for them.

Not saying I like software patents, though.

Re:Yet they still file them.

[hedwards]

Because if they didn't file them, clearly nobody else would. Which is the problem, patents are both offensive and defensive tools depending upon the situation.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[pieterh]

"Microsoft never has attacked other companies"

Microsoft files rare patent lawsuit against Salesforce.com [arstechnica.com]
Microsoft Slaps Motorola with Patent Lawsuit over Android [osnews.com]
Microsoft wins big on PND patent lawsuit [linuxfordevices.com]
Microsoft Files Patent Lawsuit Vs TiVo Again [socialbarrel.com]
Patent Lawsuits Filed by Former Microsoft CTO’s Firm [techgenie.com]

Further, Microsoft has lobbied extensively in Europe for a software patent regime, funding numerous attempts to modify the current situation where a patent has to be litigated in each country separately. If they were being defensive, they would not do this, the current European patent system favors defense.

And further, Microsoft has pushed very hard, for many years now, to find a way to extract a toll on Linux, via patents.

They are not a patent troll, mainly because they delegated that job to Intellectual Ventures, a pure patent troll firm. They are repeatedly attacked by firms who hold patents, though often it seems Microsoft stole the technology, and the small firms are justified in seeking compensation. But they do abuse their patents, and they do abuse the patent system in an attempt to fight competitors like Linux and Android that they can't beat on technical merit.

No Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a quote from a soon to be released book by Paul Allen, "Idea Man". looks to be very interesting reading. "In building our homegrown basic, we borrowed bits and pieces of our design from previous versions, a long-standing software tradition. Languages evolve; ideas blend together; in computer technology, we all stand on others’ shoulders." the full excerpt from the book can be found at http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/05/paul-allen-201105?currentPage=all [vanityfair.com] I wonder what would have happened to Micro-Soft (it's first name) had the "borrowed bits and pieces" were covered by a patent. Maybe the patent holder would have sued them out of existence. I am against software patents. I think they are protecting only ideas (which I understand cannot be patented), when they should only protect the implementation. In software engineering, there are a myriad of ways to implement an idea, so patents would be a waste of time. I may be mistaken but I do remember when Fox Pro was first released they had developed a search technique which was very advanced for the day and it was protected as a trade secret not a patent. This is how software IP should be protected, by trade secret, not patent. Patents require that the solution be published, trade secret are not published. If someone comes up with an identically coded solution then it seems obvious to me that the idea was not a very original piece of work. I am against patent trolls as they are not bringing any value to any industry. they just sit on their patents until they see someone implement something that closely approximates their IP and it's off to court. Down with Software Patents.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[torre]

They aren't just an "IP holding company" like your normal patent troll. But they have clearly gone beyond the days of holding patents merely for defense.

I'd just like to point out its not much of a defense if you don't enforce your ownership at some level. If people feel that you won't defend what's your's they'll simply use it especially if they question your right to own an item in the first place. Case in point people who cut across railroad tracks even though there are signs that say no trespassing, people who park in no parking zones, or in the tech side people who take open source material from others and sell them on "App" stores to turn a buck without regards to the original authors. Though I don't agree with the current regime of software patents and think it seriously needs major reforms, I don't hold it against anybody who fires warning shot every now and then to remind people you're stepping on their turf. Don't blame legitimate companies who spent money to research/create products then want to protect them the best they can through patents: they're just protecting their assets, blame the legislators for allowing ridiculous assets (though a broken patent system) to exist in the first place.

Re:They can afford it

[MrMista_B]

Lack of patents does not mean you're unable to charge money for software.

The anonymous submitter is confused

[DavidinAla]

When the anonymous submitter of this item refers to companies "abusing" software patents, what he really means is companies that use software patents in accordance with current law. If the idiot who wrote that submission would like to change the law, that's fine. He ought to work to get the law changed. But companies reasonably work within the framework of the law as its written. Google can make all the noises it wants to in order to try to make the open source fanboys happy, but Google has to work within the SAME framework. It's idiocy to pretend that companies don't have the right (and the responsibility to their shareholders) to protect their intellectual property in ways that are specified in the law.

Re:In fairness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. There is a patent on pagerank and million other search related algorithms. You don't know what you're talking about.

http://tinyurl.com/3u2ymau

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[Surt]

A band-saw, a glue gun, a horse and an antelope will solve your unicorn problem faster than wishing.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[Dishevel]

I am not sure what you are smoking but not only is Microsoft suing android users, but they were financing SCOs fight against everyone using linux.
Microsoft is very much in the software patent offensive game.

Re:sounds a lot like Jeff Bezos

[cavreader]

Google is not a software or a technology company so promoting open source is not hurting their profits. They are a marketing and information collection and management company that just happens to use some of the newest technology available. They are sitting on an advanced and solid infrastructure collecting information from every conceivable place they can get access to. Who really gives a shit about their stance on software patents? Their business model is perfect for the open source development model. They can get access to anyone else's work, improve upon on it, deploy it, and release their changes back to the community. By the time anyone else can take advantage of any changes they contributed Google will have reaped the benefits and moved on to something else. It's their policies on data collection and profiling everyone on the damn plant and using that information for profit any way they see fit that should give you a pause.