- This topic has 10 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-android.html
If you don’t read such cyber-rant Techdirt articles like I do, you probably wouldn’t know this is happening. Here is a blog post directly from Google outlining what Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle are doing to stifle innovation through patents.
I think the patent system is long overdue for an overhaul.
Google has been suing Microsoft for years. Google can’t get butthurt now that MS has a valid claim against them. If Android phones use a patent that MS, Apple, whoever owns then by law they have to pay whatever licensing fee the owner charges. Google could have purchased the patents when they were put on public auction but chose not to do so. Google has an absolutely insane amount of cash, letting such a deal slip through their fingers was just stupid. Keep in mind Google could have turned around and charged Microsoft and Apple for the rights to use mobile-device related patents. At that point Google would have won the mobile market, no contest.
Microsoft has been on the receiving end of patent infringement lawsuits for years and I’m glad to see them finally using the system to their advantage, rather than getting drunk and letting the system take advantage of them in a cheap hotel room.
Apple and Microsoft ganged up to pay more than Google alone. It didn’t have a choice. They ended up going for over 5 billion dollars which is over 5 times what the patent portfolio was estimated to be originally.
Google bid 3.14 Billion. It’s hardly giving up.
Lemm said:
Apple and Microsoft ganged up to pay more than Google alone. It didn’t have a choice. They ended up going for over 5 billion dollars which is over 5 times what the patent portfolio was estimated to be originally.
What the article you posted conveniently ignores is the fact that Google partnered with Intel shortly after Apple partnered with RIM, EMC, Ericsson, Sony, and Microsoft. That’s a little lopsided, but not by much. Keep in mind, Google could have just as easily teamed up with Microsoft et al but chose not to even consider it. They also completely ignored RPX which could have tapped its member companies and gotten an incredibly large sum of cash very quickly.
As to the “5 times larger” thing, Google placed an opening bid of $900 million which was right at what the estimated value was. Not only is this stupid but it also tipped their hand. They let their competitors know three things that will destroy you in RL bidding: that you really want it, that you think it’s valuable, and that you’re willing to pay alot for it. When your direct competitor thinks something is valuable, and that something can actually be used against you, you *edited* well better buy it before they do. Several tech articles state that the existing patent licenses would have been honored, don’t believe it for a second. If that were true the winners wouldn’t be able to start charging patent licensing fees for Android devices.
What I find interesting is that the DoJ had determined that if Google won that the deal would be ok but they had to investigate Apple’s patent portfolio before approving them to enter the bidding. We’re talking about over 6000 patents, why would ANY auction of this magnitude be legal?
Also, if Google had won it would be doing the exact same thing. And I quote: “If successful, we hope this portfolio will not only create a disincentive for others to sue Google…” In other words, with this portfolio, if Microsoft or Apple were to sue Google over whatever Google would be able to leverage the patents and force them to back off out of fear of patent license revocation.
Unlike the Novell auction, where the DoJ forced most of the patents to be given back, I don’t think this one will be overturned. The DoJ pre-approved every bidder before the auction started and thus placed their seal of approval on any of them winning. I wouldn’t say it’s entirely out of the realm of possibility but if the DoJ is asked to pre-approve all bidders and then later reneges on that I can’t imagine any company placing any faith at all in their ability to monitor these things in an unbiased and impartial manner.
Microsoft has received 5 times more income from Android than Windows Phone 7.
Update:
Microsoft Responds back stating that they offered Google a chance to be in a joint venture and Google turned them down with a corroborating e-mail.
Source: http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/03/google-slams-apple-and-microsoft-claims-hostile-organized-cam/
This new information certainly changes things.
Yeah if Google was offered a part in it and turned it down no one should have any sympathy for them. It obvious what they were trying to do and it backfired.
I do think that particular deal is just one example of the new patent battles. I agree with you on the Nortel Patents, but it seems like Apple and other companies are making a lot of bogus patent filings and getting them approved.
The real problem is current patent law and how it relates to new technologies and the fact that Judges don’t know enough about technology to make good decisions in these cases.
This only encourages companies to make a patent request for anything and everything, sue for anything, and drive the price up on patents which shouldn’t even exist in the first place.
There should be a better compromise between patents and healthy competition.
It’s not judges that make the decision, it’s the people at the US patent office. They’ve been approving illegal and conflicting patents for decades, mostly due to a lack of care. Perfect example, Blackboard filed a patent that gave them a monopoly on the online education market, even though what they patented had been invented prior to their formation as a company. It took years of court proceedings to get those patents tossed out and they’re still working on it to this today.
Like everything else having to do with our government, the US patent office needs a house cleaning of personnel.
MasterP said:
It’s not judges that make the decision, it’s the people at the US patent office. They’ve been approving illegal and conflicting patents for decades, mostly due to a lack of care. Perfect example, Blackboard filed a patent that gave them a monopoly on the online education market, even though what they patented had been invented prior to their formation as a company. It took years of court proceedings to get those patents tossed out and they’re still working on it to this today.
Like everything else having to do with our government, the US patent office needs a house cleaning of personnel.
Let me clarify, I meant the judges in patent lawsuits. They do have the ability to say the patent is bogus. You are also correct about the patent office.
Yeah but you can challenge a patent without even going to court. If your reasoning is compelling enough a simple request for re-examination will suffice. The problem is that these corporate giants DON’T have a compelling reason to challenge the validity of a patent aside from the desire to either acquire it themselves or avoid licensing its use.
If a patent truely was over-reaching or stifling innovation and progress the USPTO would be required to remove it upon re-examination. The problem is that the patents in question typically required millions of dollars in research and the USPTO is not in the mood to take that away from companies on a dime.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.