Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Google working to build a larger patent pile
Google has announced
that it is bidding for Nortel's considerable pile of software patents.
"If successful, we hope this portfolio will not only create a
disincentive for others to sue Google, but also help us, our partners and
the open source community—which is integrally involved in projects like
Android and Chrome—continue to innovate. In the absence of meaningful
reform, we believe it's the best long-term solution for Google, our users
and our partners."
(Log in to post comments)
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 4, 2011 18:46 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Back in January I blogged about Google being patently too weak to protect Android and got bashed by a number of people (such as on Slashdot). Today Google has conceded that it has a problem to solve in this regard. Google's blog post on this attributes its weak portfolio to the company's young age. However, that's just one of various reasons. A more important reason is that Google just doesn't do the same broadbased, serious R&D that companies like IBM, Microsoft and Apple do, and that Google is a one-trick pony, which is why a large part of its patent portfolio relates to search engine (and closely related) technologies. I think Google's statement is also directed at the open source developer community. Google wants to sort of apologize for bidding so aggressively for more patents. Unfortunately, Google's statement complains only about "low-quality software patents" instead of advocating the abolition of all software patents. That's consistent with Google's amicus curiae brief in re Bilski. The problem is that even the proponents of software patents consistently argue for more quality. If that's the demand, then the answer politicians give is to provide more funding to the patent offices of the world.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 4, 2011 19:09 UTC (Mon) by eean (guest, #50420) [Link]
Do you have a pony in this race?
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 4, 2011 19:15 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
I don't. I analyze what's going on and if Google concedes it has an issue in an area in which I said it has one, then I wish Google luck in addressing that issue successfully. Simple as that.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 4, 2011 23:55 UTC (Mon) by forlwn (guest, #63934) [Link]
"I wish Google luck in addressing that issue successfully."
How poignant...
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 17:55 UTC (Tue) by eean (guest, #50420) [Link]
Ok, fair enough.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 4, 2011 19:22 UTC (Mon) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] Oh he has a pony; just not the obvious type.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 4, 2011 21:29 UTC (Mon) by zonker (subscriber, #7867) [Link]
A non-obvious pony?
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 2:13 UTC (Tue) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]
Perhaps a particularly puny pony.
Come on, folks Posted Apr 5, 2011 7:07 UTC (Tue) by oldtomas (guest, #72579) [Link]
It seems "Florian bashing" has become a fashionable sports lately.
I think it's sad, because Florian has a lot of valid points (one doesn't have to agree with all of them), has a clear way of reasoning, is polite -- what do we expect more?
Granted, he often argues "by exhaustion" (of the opponent ;-), but that comes partially from the fact that he has accumulated a lot of knowledge in his fight (remember?) against software patents.
While I sometimes feel uneasy when he (imo) unfairly beats the likes of Groklaw, he definitely has a point in that e.g. IBM isn't the White Knight (only!) in things patent law.
I haven't yet seen any convincing evidence that he is a submarine paid by Microsoft. So please, stop the FUD until there is some evidence to show.
And be polite. Florian has done more for us than some seem to remember.
Come on, folks Posted Apr 5, 2011 10:30 UTC (Tue) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
> I think it's sad, because Florian has a lot of valid points (one doesn't have to agree with all of them), has a clear way of reasoning, is polite -- what do we expect more?
First of all, I don't care whether he does what he does because he means well, or because he is paid to do so, as long as he presents interesting stuff. Just for the same reason that I don't care if Pamela Jones of Groklaw is a paid IBM shill as long as she gets the facts straight and backs her assertions up with evidence.
But there is a reason for the bashing. FM rehashes the same old tiresome stories over and over again. I got his point by now. Why is it interesting to read on LWN "See I said in January Google has too few patents and people on Slashdot bashed me for it". He can post that to Slashdot, not here.
He might be polite, but he is also stubborn and repetitive on a single topic. So I find his comments more often than not don't add much value once you get the point. (For the same reason I am happy that RMS doesn't comment here)
I am filtering about a dozen people here on LWN and in general my life has been much more pleasant since then (I admit, I skim some of the filtered posts from time to time).
Come on, folks Posted Apr 5, 2011 19:10 UTC (Tue) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]
I was mostly just responding with amused alliteration to the notion of a "non-obvious pony", which struck me as funny.
Come on, folks Posted Apr 5, 2011 22:06 UTC (Tue) by jthill (guest, #56558) [Link] I don't think it's polite to repeatedly refer to Groklaw as "Groklie" (google it). I don't think it's polite to accuse the FSFE of dishonesty by putting false claims in their mouths. I don't think it's polite to accuse IBM of making threats and reneging on promises when they didn't (chase links; I won't give his blog more myself). I don't think it's polite to perseverate on weaknesses and dangers that turn out to be exaggerated and ugly fantasies. That there are companies out there run by the breed that really do believe their only purpose is to extract cash, that really don't much care what they do to get it, that will bring lawsuits not to correct any injustice but only to inflict damage and cart off the loot -- everyone knows all that. But it seems it's all he wants to talk about: how ugly or defenseless everyone and everything is. And in the world he portrays, it's mostly Google and the FSF and the rest of those who support F/L/OSS that are ugly _and_ weak. The rest of the ugliness in what he talks about is simply presumed, a necessary precondition to make his posts worth any attention at all. And in the end, so what? Literally: "so, therefore, what?". A quick reading, getting just the parts he so helpfully puts in bold type or otherwise highlights, often suggests to me the safe answer is "stay away from XYZ's products". The ones above, a vastly overblown scare story about the GPL and patents. another vastly overblown scare story about the GPL and copyright, that's about all I've seen of him. Perhaps it's not enough to fairly represent his contributions. But I find the posts of his that I have seen generally at least two of unpleasant, ill-founded or inconsequential. I wish _those_ contributions would just stop.
Come on, folks Posted Apr 6, 2011 6:09 UTC (Wed) by jmm82 (guest, #59425) [Link]
He sometimes shows insight but is so often just flat out bias and pushing a personal agenda with links to his blog. over the last six months he has been running a smear campain on google and Android. Just search google news for his name. No one is denying his knowledge, rather how he presents it to others.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 4, 2011 19:59 UTC (Mon) by ofeeley (guest, #36105) [Link] Just out of interest, so that I can understand where your interests might lie: does a portion of your revenue come from contracts from Microsoft, Apple or Oracle?
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 4, 2011 21:39 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
His interests are no different from anybody elses:
self-interest.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 6, 2011 16:46 UTC (Wed) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] True dat iz. However, even Rob Enderle does not attempt to hide his affiliations and alliances.
When you just know that you have scraped the bottom of the barrel :-) Posted Apr 6, 2011 22:11 UTC (Wed) by SilverWave (guest, #55000) [Link]
A negative comparison to Rob Enderle....
OMG _tears of laughter_ that is the funniest thing I have heard in ages!
When you just know that you have scraped the bottom of the barrel :-)
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 3:33 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
> does a portion of [Florian's] revenue come from contracts from Microsoft, Apple or Oracle?
I have many criticisms for Florian, but I don't think he's taking money from any such company to push a pro-swpat agenda.
I think he's honest. The problem is that he's misinformed on some really crucial issues, and he damages the anti-swpat movement because he's associated with us and he believes, and then promotes, too much of the propaganda of the pro-swpat cartel.
But in criticising him, I recommend sticking to specifics rather than character attacks. Sometimes his posts are accurate or contain interesting info, even if it's mixed with stuff I hope no one reads.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 5:34 UTC (Tue) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link] It's a perfectly valid question to ask when you know that you're dealing with a professional lobbyist.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 10:03 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
The point still applies. If you skim Florian's blog and count articles, you will find that he published 19 articles in march. The subjects were:
1 about EU patent legislation 1 about the Oracle-Google suit 1 about Red Hat 2 about Nokia vs Apple 3 about GeoTag vs the World (the spotlight being on Microsoft and Google) 4 about LG vs Sony 7 (yes, 7) about Android
Google appears in 11 out of 19 articles, more than half of them. One would think, by reading Florian's blog, that Google is really a litigious company.
My question is: is this percentage really representative of what's happening out there?
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 14:30 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
> The point still applies.
It's a valid question, agreed. But as for the answer, I'm pretty sure it's: no.
> is this percentage really representative of what's happening out there?
No, but I don't think bloggers have any obligation to represent what's happening. Newspapers have some kind of obligation along those lines, as do public service broadcast news channels, but bloggers blog about whatever they want. (Bloggers do have other obligations, such as to check their facts and not misrepresent things.)
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 14:32 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
> I'm pretty sure it's: no.
(FWIW, I'm basing that on my occasional, limited contact with Florian over the past seven years.)
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 4, 2011 22:04 UTC (Mon) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]
>A more important reason is that Google just doesn't do the same broadbased, serious R&D that companies like IBM, Microsoft and Apple do,
[citation needed]
>and that Google is a one-trick pony, which is why a large part of its patent portfolio relates to search engine (and closely related) technologies.
Google has a couple of operating systems, a multitude of applications, some programming languages. They also have a popular search engine. Maybe you meant to say they only have one profitable venue, or that so far they've only protected their core business with software patents ?
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 4, 2011 23:44 UTC (Mon) by lakeland (subscriber, #1157) [Link]
[research by Google, IBM, Microsoft and Apple]
In the field I work in there is extensive serious research by Google, IBM and Microsoft. I have never seen any serious research by Apple, but I do not know if that's because of the field I'm in or because they don't engage in any.
[one-trick pony]
I read an interesting article about this the other day. Oversimplifying, Google has a single profitable area (search) and produces various products for their side-effect of ensuring the long-term profitability of search. So for instance Android benefits search revenue because it prevents say Apple transitioning the iPhone to Bing from having a crippling impact on Google's search market share.
This somewhat supports Florian's statement, though like you I don't see how this relates to his main argument.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 1:50 UTC (Tue) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
Were you referring to the "economic moat" observation?
http://abovethecrowd.com/2011/03/24/freight-train-that-is...
Every year commentators come up with quirky new ways to describe Google's behavior, and every year people (not you, just unspecified "people" in general) treat the observation as somehow revelatory. But Google has always been up front about what they're doing: bringing people to the WWW and keeping it open and unencumbered. The only practical way to beat Google is to close off the web and create walled gardens where Google can't compete. One day someone might (will?) beat Google head-on in search or web advertising, but it won't be anytime soon. They'll continue to press their advantage (momentum, size) as long as they can.
Google will continue to experiment with all kinds of ways to promote and support an open (from Google's perspective) web, and though the vast majority of those experiments do not ultimately bear fruit, they're not wasted effort, and many are quite innovative in themselves, though clearly not "market innovative". Google doesn't want to change the existing market dynamic; they want to preserve it. But because of intense competition and rapid evolution of technology (much more intense overall than in, say, the operating system market alone) one can't argue that they're resting on their laurels; it takes quite an effort--beyond simply throwing around money--to maintain the status quo.
Google's biggest worry now is probably Facebook. How do they beat Facebook? Well, it's too late to buy them. Like Google themselves Facebook is already too far ahead to compete head-on. So what Google will do is make everything _outside_ of Facebook more enticing. The only way for Google to beat Facebook now is to increase the size of the pie, and that means pumping out cool new things to do on the web that Facebook can't keep up with.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 2:51 UTC (Tue) by lakeland (subscriber, #1157) [Link]
Yes, that is the article I was referring to.
I think you're right that the key concern is Facebook - though if I were them I would try both making the outside more enticing and competing directly.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 2:52 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]
[research by Google, IBM, Microsoft and Apple]
Thanks for letting me see why the word 'broadbased' and 'serious' were used in the original. As you show, google is involved in serious research in your particular subfield, but by that very statement it's not 'broadbased'. To make it 'broadbased' one would need to collect accounts of various practitioners in various fields, and by the time one would have diligently researched whether it's true or false that google is involved in 'broadbased and serious' it's old hat.
[one-trick pony]
The original statement contains a very subtle use of the three-term fallacy, of which the purpose seems to be to enable the writer of the original to use the slighty derogatory term "one-trick pony". There's no real reason given as to "why a large part of its patent portfolio relates to search engine technologies" in the statement.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 14:28 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>I'm willing to believe IBM is larger when it comes to broadbased research, but in the case of Microsoft and Apple I'd like to see some references.
Microsoft do a huge amount of R&D - probably more than IBM. Apple not so much but it's certainly not peanuts.
See eg: http://gizmodo.com/#!5486798/research-and-development-app...
See, I'm telling you now. Posted Apr 4, 2011 23:22 UTC (Mon) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]
FlorianMueller, it's becoming habit that should LWN headlines contain the string "Google" we're certain to find your negativity and blog advertisements. Your blog, ironically, is hosted by the very company you write so often about.
Would you please give it a rest?
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 4, 2011 23:23 UTC (Mon) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link] Damn, I fell for it again. I reply. I guess, you refer to something like the absolute R&D spending as has been shown in this 2000-2005 chart? Look at more recent numbers and compare R&D spending as a percentage of company turnover: -2008: "Googles R&D spending now eats up nearly 13 per cent of its revenues" -Google R&D spending compared to Technology Sector:
-Also of interest, the R&D spending per employee (and the market capitalization), which shows Google WAAAY ahead of everyone else. You can blame Google for a lot of things, but not lack of R&D. Also note that internal R&D is only one way to acquire innovations, the other is to acquire companies that innovate(d). A very common pattern in e.g. the pharmaceutical industry. Google purchased around 70 firms till 2010, including non-lightweight such as Doubleclick, Youtube and Android. These bills won't show up in the R&D stats. But you know that just as well as I do...
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 4, 2011 23:37 UTC (Mon) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link]
Posts like these make me feel sad that there is no way to upvote a post on LWN. So, consider this my +1 Insightful/Interesting.
Given Google's 20% time for side projects, it is not surprising that they have a high R&D spending (I would guess a lot of this 20% time goes to what could be counted as R&D), and I find it quite interesting that the value you found happens to be near 20%. I would not be surprised if it were not a coincidence.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 4, 2011 23:51 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
It's too bad that people are still equating patents with innovation and true R&D expenditures. They really have little to do with each other.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 4, 2011 23:58 UTC (Mon) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
> It's too bad that people are still equating patents with innovation and true R&D expenditures. They really have little to do with each other.
Astonishingly enough are R&D expenditures and numbers of new patents quite solidly correlated. (e.g. http://www.springerlink.com/content/722004238v847328/ and http://www.springerlink.com/content/n4112p8846q13878/ ).
Not that I believe that this automatically translates into innovativeness though :) Search for how many patents RIM has (if you really want to compare to Google).
Someone smart said innovation=invention + (commercial) exploitation. I believe patents don't capture the first aspect well, but they probably proxy the will for commercial exploitation (and propriatory) protection well.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 2:36 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Money being spent on acquiring patents is going to get counted at R-and-D even if it not actually going to research. They are expensive to acquire, but it is very easy and cheap to figure out the "invention" that goes into the patent.
Inventions are relatively cheap and plentiful. Anybody can have a idea. Taking that idea and developing it and turning it into a working product is hugely expensive.
How much of that R-and-D do you suppose really went to engineers, developers, and ultimately usable products... versus bureaucrats and lawyers? Does that paper keep track of that?
As Nortel illustrates oh-so-much R&D money spent gaining patents quite often results in a bankrupt company with lots of patents to sell.... and very little in the way of actual innovative products.
This is 900 million dollars potentially being blown to otherwise worthless pieces of paper. No innovation, just government certificates of monopoly being acquired for the sole purpose of fending off legal vultures from corporations that Google has already out-innovated.
Its a economic disaster and a tragedy that this money couldn't be spent on something that would actually be productive.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 11, 2011 12:08 UTC (Mon) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
I so much agree... A huge waste of money indeed, just keeping lawyers busy. I know, they need to earn a bit now and then too, but I doubt anyone considers them to be among the poor and helpless, yes?
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 2:40 UTC (Tue) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
That is the argument I've heard (invention + exploitation), and I suppose it holds up well in most industries. But in software both the foundations of invention and exploitation are shaky. True invention (i.e. inspiration) in software, like the discovery of a new algorithm, isn't itself patentable. "Innovative" application to real problems and commercial exploitation are patentable, but all three things--invention, application, exploitation--would likely occur at the same rate or more without patents. Capital costs and barriers to entry in the software market are low to non-existent; and in truth any valuable patent is merely borne and defined by market necessity. In an intensely competitive market someone somewhere will respond to those pressures appropriately.
Frankly, though anti-software patent people keep arguing that software patents are like patents on math--and thus morally reprehensible in our scientific culture--I think it makes more sense to argue that software patents are like patents on abstract business methods--useless and counter-productive in practice. Like software, all one really needs to devise and exercise a new business method is knowledge of a market and a modicum of imagination. There are no substantial barriers to either of those things, so there's no necessity for artificial incentivization. Monopoly rights just increase the likelihood of a return on expenditure--and thus incentive to make the expenditure--but where capital expenditures are low to non-existent, and likelihood of success is merely a function of the intense competition--where someone, somewhere will inevitably have a go at exploiting an idea whether they eek out a profit or not--there's no added social benefit to granting monopolies.
Sweat-of-the-brow arguments have no place in a reality where the next guy down the block experiences the same incentives--i.e. profit motives--and on average is just as capable as the next guy in responding to and exploiting those incentives. Just because some guy is the first in devising an innovative application is of no moment; *somebody* has to be first, and there's little evidence that in software we would have a lower rate of "firsts" absent patents.
That Microsoft and Google each spend billions on R&D is not evidence that patents are necessary. They each spend billions because they're competitors in fast paced, cut-throat markets. They likely would continue to spend billions without patents. Indeed, there's little reason to believe that those billions are productive. They probably spend that much just because they can, with little to no marginal return on most of that money--it's just that they're so rich the marginal value of that money is equally low.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 8, 2011 19:36 UTC (Fri) by magnus (subscriber, #34778) [Link]
Nice and clear summary, thanks!
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 1:11 UTC (Tue) by jeroen (subscriber, #12372) [Link]
You're indeed right that Google's position wrt software patents isn't what it should be if Google wants to be considered a good Open Source/Free Software citizen or wants to adhere to the not evil thingie (the same thing can be said about IBM and other companies). But I think the reason is more that they are misguided than that they are evil. I remember from the 2004/2005 lobby against swpats in the EU that the Google position was that software should be patentable to protect innovation and that the quality of patents should be improved, just what it seems to be now (don't have the time to look it up, I don't know what you remember or can find about their position back then). But what I do remember is the feeling of being amazed that such brilliant people failed to understand how the software patent game works.
And to me it looks like they totally underestimated this game and didn't understand that patents aren't about about innovation, but about filing the right thing at the right time and having done so 15 years ago. You're critical about Red Hat, but they seem to understand the game better (including paying swpat holders and keeping it secret, that's just part of the game and IMHO you can't blame Red Hat for being a player). Google is doing enough R&D, but they used to keep a lot of their R&D secret (ironically the goal of the patent is system is to make such things public in return for a monopoly, but we don't have to argue that doesn't really work in practice). And you should really know better than to equate R&D and patent filings, because those things only relate in a very vague way with each other (I'm tempted to say they don't relate, but that's not totally true of course. But a good example for the lack of relation is the high number of patents Intellectual Ventures has while not developing anything.)
To conclude: IMHO Google shouldn't apologize for bidding, but should apologize for being so dumb to think that software patents are a good thing and change their position wrt software patents.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 2:27 UTC (Tue) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
Another Florian Mueller blog link?
Are all your posts essentially just excuses for self promotion?
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 5:20 UTC (Tue) by jthill (guest, #56558) [Link] lwn doesn't tag links rel=nofollow.
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 5:36 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Actually, we do put rel=nofollow on links - except when they are posted by subscribers. It's a heuristic that works most of the time...
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 11, 2011 12:14 UTC (Mon) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Worked fine imho. Many people might've disagreed with FM in this thread but it has lead to interesting comments and insights - so I'd gladly give him the link credit :D
See, I told ya so (in January) Posted Apr 5, 2011 10:42 UTC (Tue) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
I don't think that 'broadbased, serious R&D' is truly necessary to make a defensive software patent portfolio. You just need a big collection of poor-quality software patents - to deal with weaker opponents who won't want the trouble of challenging all of them - preferably combined with a few which are about one specific protocol or interface, so harder to challenge with prior art, although they may not involve any new discovery.
If you have a patent on the latest cool speech recognition algorithm or arithmetic coder, that's great, but it's unlikely to be much use in countersuing a company like Nokia or Sony. They probably aren't using anything that advanced, and if they are, they have their own patents covering it.
Google working to build a larger patent pile Posted Apr 4, 2011 18:51 UTC (Mon) by mlobo (subscriber, #72557) [Link]
Did Nortel really have "a considerable pile of software patents"? Since they were an equipment manufacturer, wouldn't hardware patents be more likely?
Google working to build a larger patent pile Posted Apr 4, 2011 19:12 UTC (Mon) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link]
Nortel also bought various companies. Nortel itself was originally Northern Telecom (telephony); they became "Nortel" after buying Bay Networks (which was itself a "merger of equals" between Wellfleet and Synoptics); those were data companies competing against Cisco. They had a lot of software running on that hardware. They also bought other Silicon Valley companies like Shasta etc.
Even Northern Telecom wanted to be the "Bell Labs" of Canada and did a bunch of software development. They did spin off some companies (for example Klocwork). They were big into optical switching and had other similar interesting tech. I wouldn't be surprised if they had some patents that were worth something.
Google working to build a larger patent pile Posted Apr 5, 2011 7:28 UTC (Tue) by tarjei (guest, #29357) [Link]
The main patent war going on at the moment is between makers of handsets or handset operating systems.
I would guess that as long as a patent may hit any of the other players in that field it is valuable.
Google working to build a larger patent pile Posted Apr 4, 2011 19:11 UTC (Mon) by Hausvib6 (guest, #70606) [Link]
Isn't it supposed to be "short-term solution"?
I think the best long-term solution is the eradication of software patents.
Google working to build a larger patent pile Posted Apr 5, 2011 11:03 UTC (Tue) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
Actually, just because you see the most blatant breakdown of the system in the field of software-patents, it doesn't mean the system is otherwise sound.
Which it actually is not. It's broken, totally, all over every field of business.
In most fields the legal costs are much higher than any royalties collected: http://researchoninnovation.org/dopatentswork/ So it's not only useless, but damaging to any national economy.
And the one field where that's not the case, where the patent system seems to work as intended, in Pharma, all kinds of shenanigans are happening. Like increasing drug-prices by a factor of 150 http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/14/10-drug-becomes-1500... or http://www.palgrave-journals.com/biosoc/journal/v6/n1/abs... inflating R&D costs to a) increase prices and b) justify a patent-system.
Google working to build a larger patent pile Posted Apr 5, 2011 14:00 UTC (Tue) by brunowolff (guest, #71160) [Link]
I don't think things really work in pharma. Because of insurance, market discrimination enforced by government and laws (at least in the USA) preventing government from negotiating drug prices, puts little pressure on prices. This allows the monopolistic rents to be set very high. Other than people who own stock in big pharma companies, people would be better off if we used a different system for doing drug research.
Google working to build a larger patent pile Posted Apr 11, 2011 12:18 UTC (Mon) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
+1
Interestingly enough, a large proportion of the costs of medicine research is *already* paid for by the government through universities and the like (at least in Europe). The pharmacy companies then can run with the patent. Just eliminating them would not be very harmful I'd say. Especially because *they* pressure universities to focus research on commercially interesting stuff (like anything to do with old age, erection issues, inconveniences etc) instead of diseases which actually kill people (just not in the rich world) like Malaria.
Google working to build a larger patent pile Posted Apr 4, 2011 19:13 UTC (Mon) by sebas (subscriber, #51660) [Link]
If Google decides to turn evil (which arguably, they are in the process of with regards to their Android development model), this will only make it worse.
Frankly, I don't buy this "we pile up sw patents to protect Free software" talk, it just makes me feel even more uncomfortable about Google, it's at best apologetic, but to me not convincing at all.
Google would help me to innovate if they took a strong stance against patents. This way, they just make me feel more uncomfortable about what will happen when another one of those behemoths changes strategic direction with respect to their Free software role in the ecosystem.
Google working to build a larger patent pile Posted Apr 4, 2011 19:15 UTC (Mon) by Hausvib6 (guest, #70606) [Link]
Well... they have an obligation to their shareholders to make lots of money. Let's see which way is more profitable.
Google working to build a larger patent pile Posted Apr 4, 2011 21:42 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
The patent system is the problem and until it goes away there is never going to be a acceptable solution found. Just a series of stop-gap solutions designed to work around ever larger and more idiotic stumbling blocks designed to limit progress and competition. It's a system that rewards a small amount of people to direct expense of everybody else.
Google working to build a larger patent pile Posted Apr 7, 2011 0:43 UTC (Thu) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] There wouldn't be a game if there were no players.
Google working to build a larger patent pile Posted Apr 4, 2011 19:27 UTC (Mon) by Hausvib6 (guest, #70606) [Link]
From the article:
"...Today, Nortel selected our bid as the stalking-horse bid," which is the starting point against which others will bid prior to the auction. If successful, we hope this portfolio will not only create a disincentive for others to sue Google, but also help us, our partners and the open source community..."
So, what happens if Google lose to, hmmm, a company which is going after Google right now, like, Oracle? I think Oracle has a big incentive to outbid Google. Oh, I don't want this to happen.
Google working to build a larger patent pile Posted Apr 5, 2011 15:17 UTC (Tue) by andrel (subscriber, #5166) [Link] The stalking horse typically has a privileged spot in the bidding process, as seems to be the case in this deal.
Google working to build a larger patent pile Posted Apr 5, 2011 7:04 UTC (Tue) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]
I wonder...
How many of those patents, as in: the inventions described therein, will be actually incorporated into Chrome etc.? Or are these patents describing things already implemented i.e. obvious and/or uninteresting?
That would be an interesting metric, methinks.
But who will calculate it? Posted Apr 5, 2011 9:26 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] The fact is: you don't buy patents to use them. Ever. You buy patents to use in lawsuits (or countersuits). It's just too hard to implement something from patent (rare exceptions like Einstein refrigerator are mostly historical curiosities). The only case when you can easily say that this or that patent is used byt this or that piece of hardware or software is when you've bough some kind of technology with the accompanying patents. And it does not look like what happens in this auction at all.
But who will calculate it? Posted Apr 5, 2011 13:47 UTC (Tue) by Hausvib6 (guest, #70606) [Link]
I agree, patents are some kind of weapon. Patents can be used as deterrents or can be used to destroy/minimize/stiffle competition.
But who will calculate it? Posted Apr 5, 2011 17:20 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] That comment is devastating to the overt reason for patents in the US, which is to get an inventor to publish their invention for others to study and use in exchange for a limited time monopoly.
It's not as devastating as you think Posted Apr 5, 2011 21:44 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] It's not as bad as you portray. Patents do work as advertised - just not raw patents. Usually "inventor" publishes patent and separate set of documents related to patents (articles in magazines, technical documentation, standards, manual "for dummies", etc). Raw patents are only useful for lawsuits and countersuits, but all that secondary documentation is significantly easier to understand and use - and it's clear that at least in some cases it's developed and written because it's covered by the patents and so it's easier to sell it. Of course the recent trend of creating patents solely for obtaining rent for ideas (often quite simple ones) is crazy, but it does not mean that all patents are evil.
It's not as devastating as you think Posted Apr 5, 2011 21:52 UTC (Tue) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
> Of course the recent trend of creating patents solely for obtaining rent for ideas (often quite simple ones) is crazy, but it does not mean that all patents are evil.
Right, patents aren't evil because they're broken. They're evil because they cannot function without threatening force against non-aggressors. Copyrights have a similar problem, but patents are even worse in that they threaten independent inventors as well as copiers.
It's not as devastating as you think Posted Apr 6, 2011 5:07 UTC (Wed) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
You must be an Anarchist. I can smell our own ;)
|
|||||||||||||