If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy) Interesting What do Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, eBay and British Telecom have in common? Probably lawyers and certainly a hatred for all things Google   (fosspatents.blogspot.com) divider line 18
More: Interesting, British Telecom, eBay, Google, United States patent law, Peter Lougheed Centre, Android, Google products, Android Market  
•       •       •

1396 clicks; posted to Business » on 19 Dec 2011 at 9:00 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



18 Comments   (+0 »)
   
 
meyerkev
2011-12-19 09:20:13 AM
Ok, I know that the names/description of a patent is not the same as the patent itself, but wow, those patents seem broad.

a "service provision system for communications networks" - "For example, a Google Android user can choose his or her settings to allow downloading of a file in Browser and Android Market only when the user is located in a WiFi hotspot and his or her device is connected to that hotspot."

"navigation information system" - "a navigation system which includes a fixed part and at least one mobile part to provide guidance information to a user". So every GPS in the world is in violation of this patent?

And that's just the first 2. How are patents this broad allowed?
 
mauricecano [TotalFark]
2011-12-19 10:28:57 AM
meyerkev:

And that's just the first 2. How are patents this broad allowed?

Because nobody challenged it during the application process and it was granted. However now they will have to defend it against Google and they have a very nice track record in getting patents thrown out.
 
teknishn [TotalFark]
2011-12-19 10:33:30 AM
The one thing they all have in common is that they've all been ripped off by Google. I expect that list will continue to grow since Google refuses to license anything.

I love how people read the one sentence summary of a patent and claim its overly broad..... without reading the following 20 pages of finer details spelled out.
 
t3knomanser
2011-12-19 11:05:37 AM
meyerkev: And that's just the first 2. How are patents this broad allowed?

Because they aren't that broad, because the patent itself is composed of a series of very specific claims that detail what the patent actually is. The abstract is just a capsule summary- they're all extremely broad, or "abstract".

teknishn: The one thing they all have in common is that they've all been ripped off by Google. I expect that list will continue to grow since Google refuses to license anything.

Apple's litigation makes sense and totally fits within the realm of patent cases. This BT one looks the same. Oracle, on the other hand, is just insane. They're trying to completely eradicate Java. Sure, they're within their legal rights to do so, but what are they thinking? Just today I learned that they're revoking the OS manufacturer license, which means Ubuntu has to remove Java from all of their systems.
 
tomcatadam
2011-12-19 12:03:31 PM
meyerkev: And that's just the first 2. How are patents this broad allowed?

They aren't broad. If they were granted, they were (by definition) Just and Right and You Just Don't Understand (tm).
Or so a certain Farker will probably jump in to say.

(Of course, abstracts and summaries are supposed to be a bit broad. They give a base idea of the overall direction of a patent to make it easier to piece together. That said, MS has patents which literally straight-up copy specifications for implementations that existed long before said patents were filed)

t3knomanser: Just today I learned that they're revoking the OS manufacturer license, which means Ubuntu has to remove Java from all of their systems.

That's just the old Sun java. Ubuntu and most Linux distros have been using OpenJDK for a while now.
 
Magorn [TotalFark]
2011-12-19 12:36:08 PM
mauricecano: meyerkev:

And that's just the first 2. How are patents this broad allowed?

Because nobody challenged it during the application process and it was granted. However now they will have to defend it against Google and they have a very nice track record in getting patents thrown out.

That's the real reason Google bought Motorola: They don't want to make phones, Google is an advertising company, not a hardware OR software one. So they bought it as a defensive move, basically to get thier hands on Motorola's gigantic, and ancient (they've been around since the 1920's after all) patent portfolio and stop their licensees from being patent trolled to death. And The consortium is terrified that the DOJ will let Google buy it because for every ridiculous and overbroad patent Apple et al. can assert against Google and Android phone makers, Motorola probably has 3-5 that Apple & co is infringing on.

That's how patent-trolling plays out among the big boys these days: Both sides whip out thier patent portfolios and measure. The one with the shorter file pays minor royalties to the one with the longer and they "cross license" each other's patents
 
Theaetetus
2011-12-19 02:13:48 PM
meyerkev: Ok, I know that the names/description of a patent is not the same as the patent itself, but wow, those patents seem broad.

And that's just the first 2. How are patents this broad allowed?

It's because the name/description of a patent is not the same as the patent itself.

For example: 42,000 hits for patents titled 'Engine'.
 
Theaetetus
2011-12-19 02:16:18 PM
Magorn: That's how patent-trolling plays out among the big boys these days: Both sides whip out thier patent portfolios and measure. The one with the shorter file pays minor royalties to the one with the longer and they "cross license" each other's patents

It was ever thus. See, e.g., the auto industry.
 
bravian
2011-12-19 02:17:56 PM
Magorn: That's the real reason Google bought Motorola: They don't want to make phones, Google is an advertising company, not a hardware OR software one. So they bought it as a defensive move, basically to get thier hands on Motorola's gigantic, and ancient (they've been around since the 1920's after all) patent portfolio and stop their licensees from being patent trolled to death. And The consortium is terrified that the DOJ will let Google buy it because for every ridiculous and overbroad patent Apple et al. can assert against Google and Android phone makers, Motorola probably has 3-5 that Apple & co is infringing on.

Yes - Motorola has been around for a while and has been on the brink of bankruptcy a couple of times. Thus they sold a huge chunk of their patent portfolio some time ago. Its doubtful what they have left is really that useful for litigation.

And while the bulk of google's revenue is all things advertisement (the product they sell is you) - I personally believe they want to be something else. Google has invested in a lot of things non-advertisement related lately for better or for worse. Unlike Apple they have a problem with focus.
 
Theaetetus
2011-12-19 02:25:19 PM
meyerkev: "navigation information system" - "a navigation system which includes a fixed part and at least one mobile part to provide guidance information to a user". So every GPS in the world is in violation of this patent?

Nope. Here's claim 1:
1. A navigation information system for providing information to a mobile user dependent on the location of the mobile user, the system comprising:
a mobile communications system having a fixed part and a plurality of mobile parts for communicating with the fixed part,
each mobile part including means for transmitting to the fixed part of a request for guidance information relating to a destination specified by the user of the mobile part, and for receiving such guidance information from the fixed part, and
the fixed part including:
means for determining the location of a mobile a requesting guidance information,
means for generating guidance information according to the present location and specified destination of the mobile part, and
means for transmitting the guidance information so generated to the mobile part,
whereby information dependent on the location and specified destination of the mobile part is transmitted to the mobile part,
means for determining the location of the mobile part in relation to a geographical overlay comprising a plurality of discrete predetermined overlay areas, and
means for transmitting guidance information associated with an overlay area which includes the location of at least one mobile part,
whereby mobile parts within that overlay area simultaneously receive the same guidance information associated with that overlay area.

Most GPS systems don't have mobile receivers that transmit to the satellite requests for directions. The satellites don't have capabilities for determining the location of all of the receivers or generating device-specific directions.

Without looking further, I can't say it's novel, but I can say that this isn't GPS. It's location services. The strange bit is at the end there, with the overlay areas. Sounds kinda like Google Latitude and some strange sort of group directions.
 
Why Would I Read the Article
2011-12-19 02:28:15 PM
NPR had a really nice piece about patent trolls not too long ago. I'll try to find the link, but I'm on my phone and could be tough sledding. I urge the curious to search the googles themselves though, it's a very good article.
 
Theaetetus
2011-12-19 02:54:53 PM
Why Would I Read the Article: NPR had a really nice piece about patent trolls not too long ago. I'll try to find the link, but I'm on my phone and could be tough sledding. I urge the curious to search the googles themselves though, it's a very good article.

Not really. One of their primary criticisms, like meyer's above, is that many patents have similar titles and are therefore all obvious and overlapping. Worse yet, the ones they were specifically singling out were continuations of the same patent. By definition, they had to have the same title. It shows that the producers didn't bother actually researching what they were saying.

Alex Blumberg
And then, there were three different patents with three different patent numbers, but that all had the same title quote, "system and method for backing up computer files over a wide area computer network."

Laura Sydell
David Martin says that when he first started looking into this stuff and saw all these patents that were granted for essentially the same thing--

David Martin
We thought that would be an anomaly. And then we were told, oh no, it's not an anomaly. That happens. So that's what got us into the rabbit hole you're about to see. Which is to say, well, let's see how many times that happens. And as I've testified in Congress, that happens about 30% of the time in US patents.

Google Patents (new window)
And yeah, it's not an anomaly for there to be continuation applications. Probably about 30% of the time, in fact.

For reference, it was This American Life. (new window)
 
Barakku
2011-12-19 06:31:39 PM
teknishn: The one thing they all have in common is that they've all been ripped off by Google. I expect that list will continue to grow since Google refuses to license anything.

I love how people read the one sentence summary of a patent and claim its overly broad..... without reading the following 20 pages of finer details spelled out.

Google's patent violations run in the billions.
Patent 35343453: Using blue text for links
Patent 3423523: Using buttons on web pages
Patent 435: Making money

These are EXPLICIT and creative patents, I am outraged that Google continues to violate them so blatantly.
 
Theaetetus
2011-12-19 08:59:35 PM
Barakku: teknishn: The one thing they all have in common is that they've all been ripped off by Google. I expect that list will continue to grow since Google refuses to license anything.

I love how people read the one sentence summary of a patent and claim its overly broad..... without reading the following 20 pages of finer details spelled out.

Google's patent violations run in the billions.
Patent 35343453: Using blue text for links
Patent 3423523: Using buttons on web pages
Patent 435: Making money

These are EXPLICIT and creative patents, I am outraged that Google continues to violate them so blatantly.

www.yourfunnystuff.com
 
meyerkev
2011-12-19 09:06:28 PM
Barakku:
Patent 35343453: Using blue text for links
Patent 3423523: Using buttons on web pages

Aren't these actual patents?

/And isn't there one for having links on a webpage?
 
gozar_the_destroyer
2011-12-20 12:08:55 AM
meyerkev: Barakku:
Patent 35343453: Using blue text for links
Patent 3423523: Using buttons on web pages

Aren't these actual patents?

/And isn't there one for having links on a webpage?

I know there is one for collecting links to news articles and allowing users to make comments on them, but it didn't survive that last big court case it went through.

\thank Fark for that
 
Theaetetus
2011-12-20 10:54:44 AM
meyerkev: Aren't these actual patents?

No.
 
Jake Havechek
2011-12-20 12:28:05 PM
It should have Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto.
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
From the Fark Shop:
More from the Fark Shop »