Gruber is no Google-lover, but in this case he is right on the money for calling out Google's hypocrisy. What if Google won the Nortel patents with their pi billion dollars bid?
Here are all the patent cases in which Google was a plaintiff. They appear to all be declaratory judgments against NPE defendants.
4:2004-cv-04922 Google Inc. v. Skyline Software Systems Inc.
5:2005-md-01654 In re Compression Labs, Inc., Patent Litigation
5:2004-cv-03934 Google Inc. v. Compression Labs Inc et al
4:2008-cv-04144 Google Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.
3:2009-cv-00642 Google Inc. v. Traffic Information LLC
1:2011-cv-00175 Microsoft Corporation et al v. GeoTag Inc.
1:2011-cv-00637 Google Inc. v. Sourceprose, Inc.
4:2009-cv-01243 Google, Inc. v. EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Technology, LLC et al
Sidebar question: how did you find these? I'm researching a related topic and need to perform bulk searches for patent related litigation data. Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated.
Being a plaintiff doesn't always mean you're the one suing. It could be an appeals court case where the positions are reversed. Also, you could sue an NPE in order to invalidate their patent(s), or to seek an injunction.
But what if Google had won the bid and was using these patents (they hadn't developed) defensively to defend against the fact they have violated patents developed by others companies, would it more fair? I don't think so.
No, but you can play "what if" games to death. You can't be slighted as being hypocritical for something you haven't done yet, which is what Gruber is claiming.
Complaining about huge bids that are more than what these bogus patents are worth is pretty hypocritical if you yourself bid over $3 billion for them.
I think Google is whining because they didn't win, and they know communities like this are anti-patent and will automatically side with them if they portray it a certain way. It's hypocritical to complain about the patent system and that competitors won patents you also wanted and were bidding on.
Sure, maybe it'd be unfair (in your view). However, Gruber paints it as hypocritical, which it's not. Google's actions (and the blog post under review) reflect a cohesive ideology: software patents are bunk.
The problem is, everybody infringes countless software patents because the system is broken. What matters is how you play the game from that starting point. Google wants to be able to defend itself, while others seem to want to gang up on Google and attack it.
I don't think Google wants to follow Sun's example of developing amazing tech and going out of business anyways because the folks in charge don't know how to run a business.
Not that non-assertion of patents was necessarily a contributing factor to Sun's demise.
They are being hypocritical by saying that Apple and Msft bid many more times than what those patents are really worth, when Google itself bid upto 4 billion dollars. And what gaurantee does Google provide that they wouldn't sue competitors aggressively? Dont tell me its because their 'motto' is Dont be evil.
The difference is that even if Google were to try to use those patents offensively against Apple and Microsoft, they probably wouldn't have much of an impact- Google's motivation was defensive, and they pretty much had to try for those patents.
On the other hand, Apple and Microsoft are /already/ having an impact on Android and these patents would only strengthen them- their motivation was offensive and they were the ones who inflated the prices just to hurt Google.
Then it would be perfectly fine, they would be able to stop Microsoft and its elk from extorting patent fees, but the whole issue lies in that the patent went to Microsoft and Apple and others like them for the sole purpose of extorting Android.