Amazon, Apple, Cisco, eBay, Microsoft, etc. are also investors but they are not acting like whiny babies and acting all high and mighty going around preaching about how patents are destroying innovation.
Amazon, Apple, Cisco, eBay, Microsoft, etc. are also investors but they are not acting like whiny babies and acting all high and mighty going around preaching about how patents are destroying innovation.
Fact 1:
-------
Google was willing to pay for $3-$4 billion for the same Nortel patents.
Fact 2:
-------
Google's page rank algorithm is patented. if you don't believe in patents then why the hell do you own patents?
Fact 3:
-------
Let me quote another commenter on another blog: "How many small and innovative companies has Google killed off by replicating what they do and making it available for free? Great way to keep the next Google from springing up."
Message to Google:
------------------
You can use other people's technology, you just have to pay for them. You are being sued left and right not because there's some organized propaganda against you, it's because you STOLE from other companies.
Also, some of these companies, including Google and Cisco, have been investors for many years, and in the early years IV had a very different tone. Back then, the giant patent-holding company, which was founded by ex-Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold, billed itself as a “patent defense fund.” (Clearly, it hasn’t turned out that way. )http://paidcontent.org/article/419-giant-patent-holder-intel...
IV was founded in 2000 and they didn't file their first suit until 2010. Companies certainly change their business model ("pivot," if you will).
Regardless, I'd like to see Google (and many others) divest themselves of their interest in IV.
The thing about Intellectual Ventures is there seems to be a fine or maybe non-existent line between companies-investing-in-IV and companies-strong-armed by IV.
I'd agree it would be even better if Google never gave a dime to patent trolls but there's a little more to the story than just Google investing in IV.
Indeed. And once Google stocks up on thousands of purchased patents (humorously they just bought a bunch of database patents from IBM, which I have no doubt they're going to start leveraging against Oracle), you will be fully supporting it as they start demanding injunctions and stoppages against Apple and Microsoft products. Right?
Those products that, to put in your don't-understand-software-patents way, STOLE from other people's innovations?
Because it's coming, and it's going to be ugly for everyone. The patent nuclear war approaches.
Your facts seems to opine that Google should simply suffer the system. They didn't make the game, but they are a young company in a industry of longstanding titans. Apple nor Microsoft nor anyone else has a right to billions in quarterly profits for perpetuity.
Once Google has the patents to start injunctions and stoppages, they can get their competitors to the table. That's not nuclear war.
Google is a young company, but it's been in the phone industry at least since it bought Android in 2005. Apple created its iPhone and released it in 2007, so in the phone industry, Google's the senior.
No one has a right to billions of quarterly profits, but no one has a right to violate others' intellectual property, either. Apple and Microsoft are profiting at these levels despite the infringement of other companies.
"What we've actually been asked to do by Larry and Sergey is to investigate what technology alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome," Google engineer Tim Lindholm wrote in the Aug. 2010 e-mail, referring to Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. "We've been over a hundred of these and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java."
The e-mail's contents were revealed last week during a hearing on whether the findings of Oracle's damages expert should be set aside.
"You are going to be on the losing end of this document" if its contents are revealed to a jury, Judge William Alsup told Google's attorney during the hearing.
"That's a pretty good document for you," Alsup said earlier to Oracle's lawyer. "That ought to be big for you at trial."
Google, however, doesn't want such a potential smoking gun to make it that far.
The context is very important (and not appearing in the email, right). The HTC Dream (G1) came out in late 2008. It was running Dalvik then.
I think what is more likely is this: Tim Lindholm was asked to figure out how to run standard Java programs on Chromebooks and Android tablets without Dalvik or recompilation. They wanted to gain some backwards compatibility but concluded it was impossible without a licensed JVM. Android and Chrome still lack the feature.
They'll turn eventually. Google is great at the moment and will continue to be such for some time I think, but once a company gets big enough lawyers and HR types start to infect the organization and the clock starts ticking.
And when they do, they'll have all these patents!
edit: To clarify, I think it was a good idea they got these patents, but as for being used offensively I think the question is "how long until" rather than "if".
IBM, with over 45,000 patents, could easily and completely shut down every single aspect of the technology industry if they wanted. The fact that they haven't in its 100 years is a testament to the clearly more superior way of competing in the market to win out.
And on the other hand Intellectual Ventures set out to provide a mechanism for preventing patent abuse by letting small companies use IVs patents to protect themselves yes have turned out to be the biggest trolls going.
It's all supposing and it could go either way but early intentions only count for so much.
I'd like it if Google held their principals but it's hard to look at them and not see their principals eroding just a little bit over time and wonder if this might be one of them.
After all, they have a relatively weak portfolio right now and you could argue that their lack of offensive action to date is as much a case of them bringing a knife to a gun fight as a matter of principal.
Call me an optimist, but I don't see it happening with Larry in charge. Sure, they'll countersue Apple/Oracle/whoever, but I honestly don't see a Larry-run Google attacking competitors with patents outside of countersuits.
Those patents will be used to protect Google from a company suing them, when Google arguably copied their product (iPhone, iPad) which was totally new under the sun.
Yes, the patent system is fscked but there must be some protection for companies inventing new ways of doing things.
"... (iPhone, iPad) which was totally new under the sun."
No, the iPhone and iPad and all of Apple's products have been built upon ideas and inventions created by others outside of Apple. If I was made of time and money, I'd wander through the patents held by Microsoft, IBM, Cisco, Intellectual Ventures, Nortel (Apple only recently got rights to their patents), HP, HTC, Samsung, Nokia, and the hundreds of other companies (trolls and product companies alike) and document the thousands upon thousands of patents that cover aspects of the Phone and IP
Then I would go through all the public records and and to the best of my ability guess how many of these patents were actually licensed by Apple prior to selling the IPhone and IPad.
My guess? (It is nothing but a guess, but still) I'd expect Apple incorporates 100,000's of thousands of patented features. And I would be shocked if they licensed anything over 50 percent of these patents.
Why do I think their license rate would be that high? I would guess they have a cross license agreement with IBM, TI, and Microsoft, which might cover nearly that many of the infringing patents.
Anyway, I had to respond when someone claims these products were "totally new under the sun".
>>No, the iPhone and iPad and all of Apple's products have been built upon ideas and inventions created by others outside of Apple.
They also incorporated steel -- an invention centuries (millennia?) old...
Point was, they did something new with the iPhone. The same thing with the iPad, when they invented a way to make tablets which people would pay money to use.
>>I had to respond when someone claims these products were "totally new under the sun".
Apple did not invent the tablet computer. Tablet computer's existed even before the iPad. Even a start up by the name Fusion Garage launched joojoo before Apple launched the iPad. Just because Apple's tablet has succeeded in cornering a large part of the market doesn't mean they were the first at it. In fact, Apple has no manufacturing capacity. It outsources all of its manufacturing. It is just a marketing and retailing company.
Ideas are worth nothing. Execution is. Touchscreen phones were nothing new, it was just that Apple built the first one that was actually fun to use. And as their reward they've made quite a bit of money.
There must be some form of intellectual protection for books, painters and user interfaces.
Every manufacturer had failed for many years to build something really good -- and the ones without internal problems (Nokia, Microsoft) copied Apple's ideas to compete. So ideas aren't "worthless".
The ones doing the copying might end up eating Apple's lunch.
You can make an argument for that real innovation (not moving libraries from IE into the operating system) should have some form of protection.
(-: I'm doing a Devil's advocate here, thanks for the down votes, people... :-)
If they go through a rough patch and get acquired or there is a change of management, it could happen. Patent reform is what we need, NOT anti-competitive patent stockpiling.
How was MS had a back against a wall? They went after Android phones for patent infringement. They extorted money from Amazon for Kindle. And now they suing Barnes & Noble as well. And they have spread FUD about the Linux kernel violating their patents but have so far refused to be specific about what patents they are talking about.
It seems to me that MS is as much predator as prey.
Their share price has been going badly. Employee stock options are no longer an effective way to retain people, and they are losing long term employees to the likes of FB and G.
no offense taken. This is the problem with defensive patents. A company would be remiss to their shareholders if they didn't deploy it offensively when things don't go their way.
I might get some down votes for that, but I really wonder when people will realize that Google is just a company, not a religion of sorts. (same applies to everyone else btw)
I don't think people are taking them as a religion (at least I hope not). It is more along the lines that it seems the people at Google are still mostly trying to make the Internet and technology a better place rather than only worrying about profits.
Of course, they do care about profits, but it isn't their only agenda. This is why Google owning the patents isn't a major deal. There is no history of using the patents to get rid of competitors or to make a quick buck. They pull them out of the closet to defend themselves from other patent lawsuits. I am certain that if Google started going after various companies over mundane patents, the view of them will change very quickly and you wouldn't see very many people defending them.
" It is more along the lines that it seems the people at Google are still mostly trying to make the Internet and technology a better place rather than only worrying about profits."
I'd rephrase that slightly: Google's has interests that are aligned with an open, diverse, and free Internet. They'll make the most money if the Internet thrives. Companies like Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft would make more money if they had a controlled walled garden under their control.
Google, Apple & MS have all done good and bad. I'm still wondering why Google sided with Verizon against net neutrality. It certainly didn't seem like they were looking out for the best interests of the consumer.
These companies are still businesses and, when faced with the choice of what is better for them or for the greater good, I expect them to choose themselves.
I didn't take it as much of a compromise on Verizon's part and very few, if any, did at the time. Looking at the effects of this legislation today, the only winner has been the carriers.
In fact what Google and Vrizon put forward was only a proposal far from being a binding agreement. Their joint proposal was intended to bring more clarity in the area of net neutrality as opposed to void in the absence of any law in that respect.
It's not about whether Google is good or bad, or doing good or bad things.
In the US, patents are allowed for the sole purpose of encouraging innovation. In the case of Android, Google's work is in danger of being halted, and in a way that does not clearly make it easier for their competitors to innovate more with less competition. Thus, the software patents being used against Google are likely to have the opposite of their intended effect, unless Google can force a stalemate by gathering their own patent war chest.
If we didn't have all these software patents, all the money going to litigation could be invested in the real business of making products, which would be a net win as long as there are market forces spurring innovation.
(Another way of looking at it is that software is cheap enough to develop that companies don't need decades of market exclusivity to recoup their costs. The fundamental computer science R&D needed for a cell phone software platform is negligible compared to the QA costs of making it production-ready, and those QA costs are already well-protected by copyright.)
Google is a major investor in patent troll firm Intellectual Ventures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/05/intellectual-ventur...
Amazon, Apple, Cisco, eBay, Microsoft, etc. are also investors but they are not acting like whiny babies and acting all high and mighty going around preaching about how patents are destroying innovation.