[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?