[switch]

It's interesting how people are choosing to first pick what company they want to be right, and then bending things to suit their desired reality.

Why can't people just say - Here's a situation and a company that I think is the Do'est No'est Evil'est company of all time is being a sore loser.

Google bid on the patents and it lost. It's a bit ridiculous to now claim some sort of divine right to be above patent law.

Also, FYI, google has a patent on their doodles. It's the height of hypocrisy to claim that patents for telecom technology aren't fair and at the same time patent a set of doodles.

[bandushrew]

Im not choosing the company I want to be right, I am choosing the opinion. Any company that argues against software patents is on my side. Any company that argues for them, or uses them offensively, is on the other side.

When Microsoft argued against patents, they were on my side. When they use them against other companies, they are on the other side.

Honestly, I dont care a whit what the company is, software patents are bad and if they want me on their side, they will say so, loudly.

[mstepniowski]

This time Microsoft was on your side, as they've banded with several other companies in order to buy Novell (and Nortel) patents cheaply, making sure that patent trolls won't acquire the patents and minimalising their effect on the industry (assuming that the new patents would then be only used for "defense", as there is no reason to think otherwise).

The plan would have worked, if not for Google which made the price of patents skyrocket.

[bandushrew]

I dont really care much who owns those patents to be honest, I care about those companies who consistently, loudly and vocally oppose software patents.

To me, this argument looks like: <some stuff I dont care about in the slightest> Google: Software patents are bad and are going to be used against us.

That puts me, in this fight, squarely on the side of google.

But I am not fussy, if Microsoft comes out again and vocally declaims the evil of software patents, they can be on my side again as well.

What I really want to see is large software companies consistently and actively working against software patents in every direction, putting the patents they control into a pool that everyone can join on the agreement that they never sue anyone for patent infringement, and giving everyone in the pool equal ownership of the patents in there. While also working to lobby for overriding reform of the patent system.

that would be a good start, and I dont see anyone doing it at the moment.

So really, sod them all.

[jeroen]

I care about those companies who consistently, loudly and vocally oppose software patents.

That's not Google. They tried to play the game just like the others. The protesting seems to have started after they lost.

[lukeschlather]

Google isn't extracting patent licensing fees from anyone, nor are they a part of pools that do so like MPEG LA.

Until they do so, Google is playing the game honorably, because they have no choice - they are not playing the game just like the others.

[vammok]

Just a novice posting...if Google isn't extracting patent licensing fees from anyone, is it because it chooses to do so or is it because it wants to but can't, owing to a lack of patents?

I don't know enough to take sides, but I do know that non-specific software patents are 24-carat BS as 'defensive use' is super subjective. I just think that Google could and should have stayed away from Nortel bidding, or at least voiced concern before losing out to a consortium. That ways, it could have avoided the 'sore loser' argument entirely.

[Peaker]

> putting the patents they control into a pool that everyone can join on the agreement that they never sue anyone for patent infringement, and giving everyone in the pool equal ownership of the patents in there.

That's an interesting idea! And they might even put some funds/legal help in there to help protect any member companies from patent suits by others. Then, if anyone is in this pool, they're protected by this NATO-like pact.

This kind of thing could kill software patents, if companies can join easily enough (e.g: Even without contributing patents).

This doesn't solve the problem of patent trolls, though.

[bluedanieru]

They've banded with several other companies to buy these patents to ensure that their most successful competitor is defenseless against baseless patent litigation now and in the future. They're on the wrong side.

And before you start, the reason they're on the wrong side when they buy the patents, and Google isn't, is that they have a history of abusing the patent system, and abuse it currently, and Google does not.

[mstepniowski]

Just a quick note here: using != abusing.

I agree that the patent system is broken as is, but there needs to be a mechanism protecting the intellectual property that allows companies to share their innovations with the world without fear of them being stolen (copying is cheap).

[bluedanieru]

Are any of the patents currently being used in litigation against Android not bullshit? Really, is there even one?

[chrisbolt]

Why do you so easily let Microsoft switch sides?

[bandushrew]

because I desperately need allies.

[oflannabhra]

Rtfa. The main premise is that the issue Google is raising is one concerning antitrust law, not patent law.

[bagacrap]

there's a line between holding patents for (ostensibly) defensive purposes and actively using them for litigation against your competitors. The article that you didn't bother to read makes this point somewhere in the middle.

[rodion_89]

I'm curious as to what Google's history of active patent litigation has been. A lot has been said about them wanting to hold patents for defensive purposes and I wonder how that holds up against their legal history as I have no idea myself.

[gaius]

Yes, everyone seems to have forgotten that Google isn't some scrappy freedom-loving underdog. They've 20,000 engineers, some shady tax practices and are happy enough to play IP games when it suits them. They are just another corporation (now).

[SwellJoe]

I'd like to see a reference on Google playing IP games, that was not in response to another company starting an IP war.

[kenjackson]

SkyHook for one: http://gigaom.com/2010/09/15/skyhook-sues-google-in-a-locati...

Another example is their book scanning: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2008/10/googl...

Although the way Google does it is differently than other companies. Since Google makes their money by giving away information they aren't so much about enforcing patents, but rather in blindly infringing. Their modus operandi is to do run all over your IP and then try to back you into a corner if you try to assert your IP.

If you don't believe in IP, of course you'd side with Google. Because neither do they. But if you believe companies actually have legitimate IP then you'll tend to see Google as one who simply copies or steals and then says, "What? Patents are bad. You're being mean to us -- we're the good guys!"

It's not in their best interest to respect IP. Their best interest is to make everything public -- except for all the data they've collected. That of course is holy.

[SwellJoe]

You're right. I side with Google. At least on the patent issue and the fair use issue. I'm not sure about the anti-competitive shenanigans against SkyHook, as I don't know the facts.

My opinions are not because I "don't believe in IP", but because I believe that IP has been abused to the detriment of human advancement. I believe in fair use, I believe software patents are evil, and I believe making information available (within the bounds of fair use) is good for the world. I make my living off of IP. I'm a software developer, a published author, and a songwriter (I don't make any money on that, but I still like the protections copyright provides), but Google has a history of not being evil when it comes to wielding patents and IP against competitors, and your examples don't change my opinion on that. They're the company being sued in both cases.

[kenjackson]

They're the company being sued in both cases.

Of course. Because they're the ones who generally break the law. Google is like the guy who says that in a free society, everything belongs to the people. And then breaks in my house to steal my stuff. Of course I have him arrested and press charges. Your the guy who subscribes to this "free society" and argues in Google's support by saying that Google never has anyone arrested, people only arrest them. Indeed -- no one breaks into their house to steal things, but they're always stealing from others.

As a supporter of this "free society" you take the fact that they always steal and get arrested for it as a sign of their purity. I see it for less than that. Especially since they haven't come right out and denounced the patent system. At the very least they should buy PageRank from Stanford and make it open -- at least a symbolic gesture. The next step would be to open their search algorithms and make use of them free. Not likely to happen though. Even for Google, they believe in IP protection -- just not yours.

[SwellJoe]

Because they're the ones who generally break the law.

Allegedly. The courts have not yet decided whether the allegations are true or not.

Google is like the guy who says that in a free society, everything belongs to the people. And then breaks in my house to steal my stuff.

I can't believe I even try to have a conversation with you at this point. You're such a ridiculous extremist that your arguments don't even make sense.

Are you actually a software developer or are you a "business guy"? I just don't understand how a programmer could have such screwed up notions of IP and believe in such bizarre analogies for IP law. Copyright infringement is not theft. It is copyright infringement. Patent infringement is not theft. It is patent infringement. IP and physical property are very different concepts with very different case law defining them, and it's disingenuous to conflate the two.

The next step would be to open their search algorithms and make use of them free.

This is a specious argument, and I assume you're smart enough to know it. No one in this discussion is arguing against trade secrets, or insisting that everything anyone ever thinks of be Open Source.

[nitrogen]

Since Google makes their money by giving away information they aren't so much about enforcing patents, but rather in blindly infringing. Their modus operandi is to do run all over your IP and then try to back you into a corner if you try to assert your IP.

In a proper world, blind infringement and independent invention should be proof that a patent is obvious, and therefore, invalid.

[kenjackson]

That assumes that infringement and innovation happens in a vacuum for Google. I think we both know it doesn't.

For example, a mouse and a GUI dekstop with file folders seems extremely obvious to me. But it's because I've been exposed to it. A phone with a capacitive screen, appstore, multitouch, and an actual web browser seems like an obvious way to design a mobile phone now. Using a mobile OS on a tablet seems obvious now. Calculus, the periodic table, and DNA all seem obvious to me now too.

Google has already been exposed to innovation. If Google came out of a rain forest in South America and just happened to have produced an iPhone with no human exposure in 2008 -- then sure I'd say maybe it was obvious. But given they fundamentaly changed their design to largely copy it, after seeing the success of the iPhone, leads me to believe it wasn't independent invention. But it was likely blind infringement (meaning they take no care to know if the IP is protected or not -- they copy everything with no sense of due diligence and just wait for the lawsuits).

[SwellJoe]

"Look and feel" has been tested in court and found not to be something you can protect via IP, a couple of decades ago, and on a few occasions since. Just as a steering wheel is not something car makers could lay exclusive claim to, a touchscreen UI or a windows and mouse UI are not ideas that can be protected via patents; though, currently specific implementations could be (but, I'm opposed to that).

All of your arguments in this comment are about look and feel, and not about patentable technology.

So, you believe current patent law is not broad enough and should cover even more? I don't see how you could defend such a position, if you're a software developer...if you write any non-trivial software, you're already violating dozens, if not hundreds, of patents. How could you possibly believe adding more scope to software patents could be a positive force for good in the world?

[nitrogen]

That assumes that infringement and innovation happens in a vacuum for Google.

If Google came out of a rain forest in South America and just happened to have produced an iPhone with no human exposure in 2008 -- then sure I'd say maybe it was obvious.

Innovation doesn't happen in a vacuum for anybody. Apple didn't come out of a rain forest in South America and make an iPhone. They were exposed to previous innovation by MITS Altair, Xerox Star, Bell Labs Unix, Microsoft, Acorn, Commodore Amiga, Palm, Motorola, Nokia, and even some of their own previous work (NeXT, Newton). Innovations are judged as obvious or not in the context of the innovations that came before, not in the context of a primitive tribe. Besides that, functional patents don't cover

Patent discussions frequently get out of hand because a lot of issues get conflated. Some of the issues that should really be considered separately:

1. Overly-broad patents that effectively cover general ideas rather than specific inventions.

2. Non-novel patents that cover topics essential to computer science, covered by expired patents, and/or previously documented by academic papers whose authors are not associated with the patent.

3. Obvious patents that cover simple techniques used by everyone but nobody else patented because actual practitioners considered them public knowledge and/or too trivial to patent.

4. Patent terms that are ridiculously out of sync with the pace of technology.

The arguments I've read that led me to my current position on software patents are far too lengthy to summarize in a single post, but if you want to understand where I'm coming from, read What Technology Wants[0] by Kevin Kelly, along with the collected works of Pamela Jones, et. al. on Groklaw.

[0] Kelly makes some untenable logical leaps in nonessential arguments in the first few chapters, but the core ideas (that innovation does not occur in a vacuum, that most inventions are independently invented in parallel, and that innovation practically has a life of its own) are well-presented and defended.

[bluedanieru]

Exactly, if they are routinely but independently producing infringing work that is evidence that the patent system is broken, not that they have a poor attitude toward IP.