Google Reaffirms Stance Against Software Patents 197
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."
sounds a lot like Jeff Bezos (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No Kidding.
Talk is cheap. If they really feel that way they will offer a FRAND license on their software patents....... anytime now..... right??
Re: (Score:2)
So what do you propose? not having patents, then be sued the everlasting shit of by any lawsuit-happy competitor with an axe to grind? *cough*Apple*cough*.
It's one thing to be against software patents, and another one to be suicidal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fairness... (Score:2, Insightful)
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:In fairness... (Score:4, Interesting)
entirely secret?
Have you ever even heard of open source?
Granted, there are things they don't open source, but they do release a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
What parts of the google empire are open source? Parts which are "castle", or parts which are "moat"?
Hint: an open-source browser counts as "moat" when your castle is "search"
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Little Debbies! You guys are total bastards because you refuse to give me your exact recipes! ARRGGGHHH!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Just because they have a patent with the title "page rank" doesn't mean that they have divulged all of their secrets.
Re: (Score:3)
I should also point out that even if they do rely 100% on patents today, then they wouldn't have much to lose if no new software patents were granted. That's because they could keep future developments secret, because they don't depend on publishing their code (as many other software companies do).
So, we can quibble over the details (and I still think they keep the current core algorithms secret), but it's really irrelevant to my point: Eliminating software patents is nearly all upside for Google.
Re: (Score:2)
So, just to clarify, Google has to give away everything they create of any value in order for you to consider them "open source friendly"? That seems a bit...extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
i bet if someone stole the algorithms they keep secret they would be suing under trade secret laws and taking out mafia hits to keep the information secret
Re: (Score:3)
Who cares about protecting jerks who steal and copy? That's not what the hate about software patents is all about.
Software patents are hated because they limit the personal freedom of any person to independently write his or her own code.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
You're subject to patent law even if you only use your creations internally. Obligatory car analogy: if a computer patented a type of diagnostic equipment, Ford can't use it in their factory without clearing it with the patent holder - even if Ford never distributes their infringing, internally-built equipment.
WTF?? (Score:2)
>> Google keeps all of it's software entirely secret
Of course. All 442 articles listed on this blog are nothing but utter bullshit - http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
Now if you are done with your ignorant google-whining, can you please fuck off?
Re: (Score:2)
I am not going to bother reading that, because the existence of a patent doesn't refute my claim that most of their core business algorithms are secrets (which is an educated guess; I certainly don't know first-hand). The patents are probably just there because they feel like they should have some patents, and they are probably watered-down or old versions of what they actually care about.
Other companies that release their software actually are releasing many of their core secrets, so they patent them becau
Google wants patent reform (Score:5, Informative)
The statement isn't strong enough (by far) (Score:5, Interesting)
There are some things to like about Google's statement, but let's be realistic: this isn't a clear statement against all software patents including their own PageRank and Google Doodle patents. They complain about "low-quality software patents". That's absolutely not the same as being against all software patents. It means that they just believe many of those patents aren't good enough. However, the answer that politicians give then is to provide more funding to the patent offices of the world, not to abolish software patents.
I've done a lot of work on patent policy (with my NoSoftwarePatents campaign in 2004/05 and otherwise) and I know that the difference between saying "some [or even 'many'] software patents are bad" and saying that "all software patents must be abolished" is like a difference between night and day. Actually, lobbying entities working for Microsoft also call for more patent quality all the time. That's definitely not a sufficient statement to be interpreted as a call for the abolition of all software patents no matter how "good" they may be relative to other software patents.
It's like saying "we are against unjust wars" as opposed to saying "we should never go to war."
I also analyzed Google's amicus curiae brief in the Bilski case [blogspot.com] and found that it advocated higher patent quality and raised issues but didn't go far enough to really demand the abolition of software patents.
They can afford it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They can afford it (Score:4, Insightful)
Lack of patents does not mean you're unable to charge money for software.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Red Hat relies on software for their money as well. And they give it away.
Re:They can afford it (Score:5, Interesting)
Google's point of view deserves to be heard because it informs the debate. They are an example of a big software company innovating and making money without relying on software patents. This weakens the argument for software patents being absolutely necessary for economic progress in this sector. Moreover Google can make a compelling case for how they could innovate/produce more if software patents were not standing in their way.
Of course just because Google has a business model that doesn't rely on software patents doesn't mean that all software companies will be in the same position. (Certainly not all software companies can become advertising companies!) But that's fine, too: we hear the opinions of those companies who "rely" on software patents to remain viable. But Google's opinion is not invalidated just because they don't need patents; that is the very crux of why their opinion is relevant!
Besides, let us not forget that the primary question in this debate shouldn't be "what makes companies the most money?" We should be asking about what kind of wealth we want to generate in our society (money? innovation? health? happiness?), and then optimizing laws to achieve said goals. No matter what laws we enact, there will be some losers and some winners. The idea is to find the balance where the overall social gains are maximized. If we got rid of software patents, there would be losers (e.g. Microsoft), but possibly more winners (Google, all the small-time businesses, open source, etc.). Even within a "loser" things might not be so bad: some parts of Microsoft's business would suffer, but others might flourish (e.g. there is certainly a cost for Microsoft to have to defend itself against other's patents).
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're mixing up patent infringement with copyright infringement.
Not that, as a sibling has stated, any of these "intellectual" property rights or the lack thereof preclude them from charging for their software, or making a business out of it. Sure, they might not necessarily make as much money, but boo fucking hoo.
Re: (Score:2)
> Microsoft, on the other hand, relies on its software to make money.
MS doesn't often engage in legal patent action. For a giant company its pretty rare. They're much more likely to be the victims of submarine patents by firms that do nothing but buy out patents.
MS has spoken against the patent status quo a lot, especially when it is sued monthly for some obvious patent and often loses because a jury in the most conservative part of the country doesn't give two shits about technology nor will they ever u
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy for Google to call software patents junk when their primary source of income is advertising. They can afford to give all their software away (or provide access to it online, whatever) for free. Microsoft, on the other hand, relies on its software to make money.
You have conflated Software Patents and Copyright.
LK
Sound weird (Score:2)
The only way to avoid being assimilated by the Borg is to become Borg ourselves.
After spending miilons in "defense", how much willing you will be in trying that it bercomes obsolete?
No Patents (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You had me with most of your post, except that.
In programming--as in life--hindsight is 20/20. There are many times where a problem can be solved in many ways, but often times the best way presents itself after someone else solves it. Look at the implementation of many duplicate UNIX/Linux services to see this.
Even so, "exact" matches would still represent some sort of breac
Not so fast... (Score:5, Informative)
These days, when Microsoft, Apple, and others are abusing software patents, it's nice to see one large company calling them junk.
Before you call them 'junk' in the courts of law, where it matters, things might not be in agreement with your line of view.
I will quote Gosling...
"In Sun's early history, we didn't think much of patents. While there's a kernel of good sense in the reasoning for patents, the system itself has gotten goofy. Sun didn't file many patents initially. But then we got sued by IBM for violating the "RISC patent" - a patent that essentially said "if you make something simpler, it'll go faster". Seemed like a blindingly obvious notion that shouldn't have been patentable, but we got sued, and lost. The penalty was huge. Nearly put us out of business. We survived, but to help protect us from future suits we went on a patenting binge."
So it's not over yet...not even close.
Now they realized they need defensive acquisitions (Score:2)
Any reward at all? (Score:3)
Okay, going against the flow a bit, I think that those people who take the time, effort, money and energy to create complicated software algorithms should be rewarded. Surely, the potential compensation is partially what motivated them to create it in the first place (as would be the case with in-house company research anyway).
Granted, really stupid, short patents should be given a miss entirely, though thankfully, often there's prior art to the rescue to invalidate those.
And it should also be a lot easier to use another company's patent easily and cheaply when appropriate. But they still deserve something, no matter how small.
Re: (Score:3)
often there's prior art to the rescue to invalidate those
Which might mean something, if the patent office actually cared about prior art. They don't, so you'll still spend a fortune paying ransom money either to lawyers or patent trolls instead of doing something useful.
The "something" people deserve for coming up with an idea is "first mover advantage". That is what keeps people doing further innovation. If an idea is simple enough to be easily copied, it's also obvious enough it shouldn't qualify for patent protection in the first place. A discriminating pa
Re: (Score:2)
Which might mean something, if the patent office actually cared about prior art. They don't
Actually, we care a lot more about prior art than most Slashdotters do, because we actually have to read the stuff, at which point we find out that the prior art (at least, the prior art we have access to) doesn't have sufficient detail to reject the claims we're examining.
On Slashdot, you can just read the abstract and say, "WTF! That's obvious!" but in the real world, we have to follow the law.
Re: (Score:2)
For a well-known example, the age-old bar tab should have invalidated Amazon's "One-Click". That was well publicized and still got approved. You can claim to be following some set of guidelines, but that just shifts the blame to whoever is making the idiotic guidelines that adding 'on the internet' or recently 'on a mobile device' is somehow a non-obvious extension of prior art. This is an ongoing problem of having the bar set way too low. I don't care whose fault it is, I just want it fixed.
But to coun
Re: (Score:2)
I can't (there may be some in cryptography, optimization or image identification types of areas, but not in run of the mill applications that we all use).
And don't take this as egotistical, but myself and other skilled developers churn out these solutions in our sleep and we don't think anything of it because to a skilled developer it's almost all "average", it's just what we do.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that those people who take the time, effort, money and energy to create complicated software algorithms should be rewarded.
Nobody is against that. It's called salary.
Or wait a minute....you don't really think that the people that made all the fancy patented algorithms get rewarded for the patent or that they even hold the patent for their work themselves, do you? Because that is definitely very rarely the case.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, replace the word 'people' in my first sentence with 'companies'.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that those people who take the time, effort, money and energy to create complicated software algorithms should be rewarded.
Why do you hate mathematics? Specifically, why do you wish Newton (or Leibniz) had exclusive rights to their algorithms so that no one could build upon them? Why do you wish that Einstein was able to patent his theory of relativity so that physics could be put on hold for 30-years-or-however-long? What do you hate so much about cosmology that you wish Hawking was the only one legally allowed to do it?
I will never understand the level of hatred and contempt for science you'd have to have to truly believe tha
Google should create a YouPatent.com site (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not PriorArt.com?
The anonymous submitter is confused (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Most laws have a underlying intention, that's where the whole concept of "letter of the law" vs. "spirit of the law" comes from. When someone/corporation is technically following the law but undermining the intention of the lawmakers, I think it's perfectly fair to call that an "abuse". GE paying $0 in taxes through creative bookkeeping may be legal, but it's also an abuse. Companies spamming the patent office with crap IP just to bolster their legal threats is also an abuse.
And yes, I can call it an abu
Re: (Score:2)
Very astute observation on "spirit" vs "letter" of the law. Plus one (+1) insightful virtual mod points for you.
pardon my rant (Score:4, Informative)
Software patents?
Patent/copyright abuse goes way beyond that including the genes in your own body which may be the property of some corporation. And how can a corporation copyright a 400 year old music score and extort money from those who simply want a look? And when taxpayers fund a discovery made by university employees and students, why does a corporation get to take the patent and all the profit?
Patents and copyrights are critical to drive research and new ideas but there has to be a sensible limit. With software patents in particular and the outrageous lawsuits, patents are serving to stifle innovation. Only a very well funded corporation can afford to cope with the problems, and the small inventor/programmer is at the mercy of attorneys.
I defer to Don Lancaster, an early protester of patents who offers thought provoking ideas on the subject:
http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp [tinaja.com]
Thanks for your patience with this rant
Re: (Score:2)
Why ? I'm pretty sure when fire and the wheel were invented there were no patents or copyrights, so they are not critical.
I think there may very well have been something to the effect, that is the inventors of fire burning infringers, and inventors of wheel mowing down infringers with chariots.
The scary thing is, modern software patents and lawyers hunting down infringers doesn't sound much nicer or any less arbitary than the above (pre-)historic methods...
make them public (Score:2)
Buy the portfolio and make all patents public domain.
Add a clause that makes them unavailable to companies that sue over software patents.
Unless they're made freely available and public, they're not helping the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Your first two sentences are contradictory. It looks like you're trying to create an "unpatent" that is to patents as "copyleft" is to copyright. I like the idea. However, I don't think you understand what you're talking about in implementation. Public domain means you *can't* put any restrictions on it. You can only restrict something if you have any control (for property, typically ownership is required) over it. Public domain means relinquishing all control. The only restriction on public domain is that
Summary = misleading (Score:2)
Summary is exaggerating. Google are not calling software patents 'junk'. They want "patent reform", as the current system is broken, but that's not quite the same thing is it.
This below paragraph quoted from their previous entry summarizes their position much better and is also interesting in and of itself, because it seems like a big factor of exactly HOW the software patent system is so brain-deadingly broken:
The most pressing of those is ensuring fair damage awards. The current system too easily allows damages to be assessed based on the value of the whole product often containing many features — not just the value of the innovation of the allegedly infringed patent — which means the threat of potentially massive awards forces defendants to settle. Balance should be restored by requiring damages to be based on the value of the innovation's contribution to the product.
Re: (Score:2)
There's been a major controversy going on the last two weeks about Google withholding the source code to Honeycomb... Yet if you visit Slashdot, not a word of any of this has been mentioned
Try again. [slashdot.org] Slashdot has more important things to do than conform to your agenda. Deal with it.
Ban All Smart Phones (Score:2)
Every single smart phone violates patents for which the manufacturer and network has failed to license. This situation will never change either, if you look at the patent thicket involved, and all the lawsuits currently in play.
You want patent reform, then pass a law that no lawmaker can use a product that the lawmaker knows infringes on a patent. This would either result in patent reform, or the removal of all smart phones, tablet computers, laptops, and desktops from Washington D.C. No matter how unli
In other news (Score:2)
All I'm trying to say is that's easy to attack something that is not part of your own business model. Google doesn't sell software for a living. Of course they don't care about software patents. Even more so, they profit the most if everything is "free". Well not really free, but paid through ads.
Bloomberg says a comletely different story.... (Score:2)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-04/google-enters-pact-to-buy-nortel-networks-patents-for-900-mln.html [bloomberg.com]
Relevant quote:
“One of a company’s best defenses against this kind of litigation is (ironically) to have a formidable patent portfolio, as this helps maintain your freedom to develop new products and services,” Google General Counsel Kent Walker said in a blog post today.
if you define "reaffirm" .. (Score:2)
Abusing patents, nah (Score:2)
My take on the whole software patent debate is that the law allows such actions to take place, and that is the problem. If you can create something and make money off it, why would you not? Unless you are a good Samaritan type person. There have been a myriad of articles detailing all types of ridiculous patents that have been granted. Next up- "A process to determine the amount of licks needed to get to the middle of a Tootsie roll." It's a broken system, but since it makes money for the gov, no one i
So they do like the communists... (Score:2)
...collect all the money so the rich capitalist bastards won't get their hands on them.
(s/money/patents/)
Bullshit (Score:2)
Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not (Score:5, Informative)
See Microsoft suing Android users...
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/microsoft-sues-barnes-noble-foxconn-inventec-over-android-e-readers/46314?tag=nl.e589
Microsoft has already said that Linux infringes on "multiple" patents. They are only not suing because Linux is "small" threat, but if it ever becomes significant threat for Microsoft, lawsuits will start flying!
Re: (Score:2)
Linux already is a significant threat to Microsoft, otherwise they wouldn't care. Not on the desktop mind you, but server side.
Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not (Score:5, Informative)
Now, your statement that MS isn't a patent troll is, of course, true. MS hasn't sued people over patents that MS isn't using in devices of their own. 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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 witho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Usually defensive here means using patent lawsuits in defensive way (against other companies suing you); not so much defending patents themselves. There is no need to defend patents, per se, unless someone is specifically trying to get them invalidated. As in not initiating the court process, but responding.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh look, another quickly-posted reply that attempts to paint MS in a positive light. What are the odds.
EABOD, astroturfer.
Re: (Score:2)
EABOD
Eat A Bluescreen Of Death?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
Shhh, if he says it often enough it becomes true. Magically. Like unicorns.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A band-saw, a glue gun, a horse and an antelope will solve your unicorn problem faster than wishing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We are the government. By 'we' I mean us corporate interests who want to securitize every activity the public engages in. And have the money to convince Congress to pass laws to that effect.
'You' are just a bunch of peasants who need to learn your place and shut the hell up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well there's also the "duh" fact that the people running corporations are also citizens... and they happen to the be effective ones with abilities and resources. Shock! They run things, not the lazy whiners who want everything handed to them. Crazy, I know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. We (corporate America) will just slip our astroturfers in groups like the Tea Party a few bucks to get the masses running off in a different direction screaming about something inconsequential.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, they'll be benevolent, right up until you refuse to let them access some aspect of your personal data to tailor your 24x7 in-home ad display in your own "best interests."
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. "Hey Google, we want to ship a new location API inside your open OS, you mind?" "Sure, thats cool, go ahead, and we will even certify the devices since it passes our tests. Oh, wait, you convinced two manufacturer to ship this? STOP SHIP!!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you know that the objection was to the software (apparently intentionally) breaking the equivalent Google API, not to its being created or shipped on actual phones.
Re: (Score:2)
It was intentionally replacing the Google location API, a component that was considered on the open side of the OS. The phones with Skyhook passed all of Google's certification procedures, and several phones have it today. Only over time did Google get pissy about it, likely because they wanted to own the location API for ad revenue reasons.
Just as Microsoft got pissy with OEMs for making deals to bundle Netscape Navigator, since it meant people might not use Internet Explorer.
Re: (Score:2)
It was intentionally replacing the Google location API, a component that was considered on the open side of the OS.
There was no reason for them to have to remove the Google API instead of installing along side it, except that Skyhook wanted to harm their competitor by depriving them of location data. No one is even stopping them from doing that on a non-Google-branded phone, but they wanted to do it on a Google-branded phone. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Only over time did Google get pissy about it, likely because they wanted to own the location API for ad revenue reasons.
Google's entire business model is to supply ad supported services. All they're doing is saying that you can't have the services without the ads. I mean what
Re: (Score:2)
From a business standpoint, I can see why Google did what they did in regards to Skyhook. However, they could have handled the situation better. Instead of throwing a fit only after "Company X" in the complaint had already shipped phones, they could have raised the issue ahead of time. Their inaction earlier, and green light probably cost Company X a decent bit of engineering time. Their touting of "open" led Skyhook to believe they could replace the location API, and Motorola and "Company X" were also
Re:Yet they still file them. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
not really, if you can prove prior art then the patent is worthless. google just needs to announce whatever they patent without patenting it
Re: (Score:2)
Under the USA's first to invent system, some other company can still claim they invented whatever product before Google announced it even though they only filed the application after Google announced it. I'm sure there's lots of incentive to lie and make the invention date earlier in order to defeat prior art, or even steal prior art.
Under the S.23 reform to change us to first to file, prior art can be considered from the filing date, rather than the invention date, and publishing instead of patenting will
Re: (Score:3)
Under the USA's first to invent system, some other company can still claim they invented whatever product before Google announced it even though they only filed the application after Google announced it. I'm sure there's lots of incentive to lie and make the invention date earlier in order to defeat prior art, or even steal prior art.
You can't simply lie to get an earlier date of invention, you have to be able to show some evidence to support your claim. There may be incentive to fabricate such evidence, but the penalty for getting caught would be pretty substantial.
Re: (Score:2)
patents are both offensive and defensive tools
if you can prove prior art then the patent is worthless.
Big companies often like to take the counter suit approach, where if you sue me for violating your patents I'll sue you for violating mine. (like http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/11/motorola_countersues_microsoft/ [theregister.co.uk]) The mutually assured destruction is the deterrent to a lawsuit in the first place. Otherwise, the prosecuted company may have to spend hundreds of thousands on researchers and lawyers to try to prove prior art on the possibly dozens of frivolous patents they are accused of violating. So comp
Re: (Score:2)
google just needs to announce whatever they patent without patenting it
The problem is that not all patents can be easily invalidated. If Microsoft sues Google over the FAT32 patents, Google isn't going to have any internal prior art -- they didn't even exist when Microsoft filed for that patent. But if they patent a bunch of search-related stuff, Bing will be infringing it. So then if Microsoft comes after them for FAT32, they can go after Microsoft for Bing, and in the end it all cancels out. And since both companies know that, they don't generally sue each other. But if Goog
Even better...They buy them (Score:2)
Here is the evidence: [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't read the article, did you? They are rebelling within the system. The best defense is a good offense.
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA; Google's not trying to stifle that detail
...we’ve decided to bid for Nortel’s patent portfolio...In the absence of meaningful reform, we believe it's the best long-term solution for Google, our users and our partners.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess we're supposed to forget that they're a multi-billion dollar advertising company with a history of violating privacy rights
Google gets plenty of shit for privacy violations, and most of it is well deserved.
But most of the anti-Google propaganda, isn't. The WiFi data collection thing is a perfect example. The real privacy problems Google has are to do with collecting everything you do with their services, but all their main competitors do exactly the same thing so they have no room to complain. But as soon as Google does something that isn't anywhere near as serious, like capturing unencrypted WiFi traffic on unlicensed spectrum
Re: (Score:2)
Google gets plenty of criticism on privacy issues (though lately Facebook seems to be the worst offender). But that's completely irrelevant on Google's stance on software patents, which is praiseworthy. Unless you love patents, of course, in which case I can understand you're upset that there's a big player that doesn't serve the Dark Side.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No problem. The enemy of my enemy is my friend!
Obviously you never heard of the book formely know as "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates" (now called "The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries" after a cease and desist from FranklinCovey. How appropriate). Rule 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.