[joebadmo]

The convolutions continue.

"What I’m complaining about isn’t Google playing the game, but rather their insistent whining about their competitors only after they lost the game."

It's easy to redefine the game as whatever suits your outcome. And it's perfectly reasonable to complain about an unfair game that you're losing because it's unfair.

And anyway, by this logic, you could simply call the PR battle 'part of the game' and say Google is just playing on the rising anti-patent sentiment in the industry.

[AllenKids]

Then Gruber's piece can be considered a rebuttal of such PR move.

Oh it's so meta isn't it?

Also the rules haven't changed a bit, Google got in the game knowingly. Though one can argue the patent system is broken and needs urgent adjustment. Nortel IP incident is more of bidding war and Google played its hand spectacularly badly plain and simple. There is nothing illegal and shady about Apple/Microsoft/RIM's win. Last I checked, throwing money at things is a perfect good strategy at owning them.

[joebadmo]

Yes, that's generally what smart people do when they're losing an argument: deny all terms and definitions. That's my point: once you render it all meaningless, it's easy to argue whatever you want, as Gruber demonstrates.

For example: But the bottom line is that they wanted to use these patents competitively.

Why is that the bottom line? That's in fact clearly not the bottom line, since it completely elides the distinction that Google is making. And calling it the bottom line is misdirection.

Some people seem to think that Android doesn’t really violate any existing worthy patents. That’s all just a bunch of bogus patents that never should have been granted, and companies like Microsoft and Apple are just tying up Android handset makers in court out of dishonest competitive spite. If that’s the case, then I suppose you can argue that Google’s pursuit of these patents was out of the goodness of their corporate heart.

But if Android does violate worthy patents, Google’s actions here are just as competitive as any other companies. You can guess which side I’m on, I suppose.

This is maybe the most disingenous part. The same could be said of anyone afraid of getting sued by patent trolls like Lodsys/Intellectual Vultures. 'If you're not really violating any "existing worthy" patents, then you have nothing to worry about.'

"But these are the laws we have." Indeed.

[AllenKids]

Patent trove is not a defense against patent troll.

Patent Trolls do not have any product that can be counter-sued.

A powerful weapon against frivolous patent claims whether they are brought up by patent trolls or litigious competitors is simply trying to invalidate such patents, or proving that you in fact does not violate patents in dispute. And it can be done. Smaller developers and individuals may not have the means to fight the battle, which is a serious problem in itself. But it is so not a problem for Google I would assume.

[stanleydrew]

A powerful weapon against frivolous patent claims whether they are brought up by patent trolls or litigious competitors is simply trying to invalidate such patents, or proving that you in fact does not violate patents in dispute.

Let me say that I completely agree. However, this assumes that pursuing such a defense is less costly than cross-licensing or other settlement options. Moreover it misses the fact that owning patents almost certainly deters competitors from suing in the first place. That's what mutually assured destruction is all about.

[AllenKids]

Oh, I agree with you too!

I think there is definitely something very wrong about the current system including the legal procedure. First we should try to eliminate (or at least reduce if you are pessimistic like I am) nonsensical patents from being granted for starters. Then I strongly support reducing the period of exclusive rights especially in fast evolving field like software and telecommunication etc. And then again there should be a simplified and less expensive (both monetary wise and time wise) legal channel to at least preliminarily determine the validity of patent dispute, I can go on.

[nextparadigms]

Well, Gruber definitely sounds like he's part of Apple's undercover PR team. Why send your messages through official channels and put yourself out there like Google does, and then risk the backlash on the company, when 3rd party PR agents can do it for you.

[AllenKids]

Gruber certainly has his vested interest and POV. Is there anything wrong and unethical about it?

If a VP of one $190B public company can whine like a spoiled brat and be considered a good PR move. Perhaps we hit a new low much lower than Gruber's obvious bias.