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.

(The Verge)   Google says patent wars "not helpful to innovation", as it launches its latest patent lawsuit   (theverge.com) divider line 37
    More: Ironic, Google, software patents, innovations, cognitive dissonance, rocket launch, policy institute  
•       •       •

926 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Aug 2012 at 10:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-21 09:12:31 AM  
This is absurd.

/Patently so.
 
2012-08-21 11:01:15 AM  
At least they're not still suing small mom and pop shops in texas to get an advantage..
 
2012-08-21 11:01:30 AM  
Are you retarded subby? Google has no choice but to get involved in these expensive patent suits. Google would obviously rather not engage in them and save some money but has no choice. If you wanna play the game you have to play by the rules, doesn't mean you can't biatch about how stupid the rules are.
 
2012-08-21 11:02:41 AM  
ct.fra.bz
 
2012-08-21 11:07:08 AM  
It's one lawsuit against a very aggressive patent troll (Apple). I claim this legitimate self defense and let it slide. Apple's been suing anything Android and people that made rectangles with round edges. Until Google go suing anything under the Sun, they're still ok in my book.
 
2012-08-21 11:12:22 AM  
Google is a good company and all, but they sure know nothing about the patent game or how to get boatloads of lobbyist before going to war with others.
/They were shocked as hell to see the ISP's had brought the entire Congress years back
 
2012-08-21 11:12:37 AM  
They are in the middle of things with Apple... you think they should just drop everything with regards to Apple because of their new stance? They need to fight patents with patents until this shiat is done.
 
2012-08-21 11:13:27 AM  
The patents in question:


5,883,580 - "a method and apparatus for receiving messages having a relevancy status (e.g., a location identifier) and processing the messages when the relevancy status changes."
5,922,047 - "an apparatus and method for providing control functions over multiple and diverse media applications, preferably operating at more than one designated node or location."
6,425,002 - "a message manager program for accepting and dispatching messages, application program(s) for handling and presenting messages, and message client program(s) that receive messages from the message manager program and provides them to the application program."
6,493,673 - "providing prompt element including an announcement to be read to a user, and an input element that allows an audible user input to be converted into a text string."
6,983,370 - "the ability to sync the messaging capabilities of multiple devices."
7,007,064 - "an apparatus and method for obtaining and managing wirelessly communicated content."
7,383,983 - "a system and method for pausing content in one device and resuming playback of the content in another device that may be in a different domain."


All software, and thus should be invalidated, since software should not be patented. Thus, Google/Motorola shouldn't win the lawsuit.

Software and vague Design Patents are what are stifling innovation. Small companies can't enter the market without stepping on someone's toes due to sketchy patents, which hampers their ability to compete.
 
2012-08-21 11:13:45 AM  

Masso: It's one lawsuit against a very aggressive patent troll (Apple).


"Patent troll" has an actual meaning, and it's not "anyone doing anything with patents that I dislike."
 
2012-08-21 11:22:24 AM  

tgambitg: The patents in question:


5,883,580 - "a method and apparatus for receiving messages having a relevancy status (e.g., a location identifier) and processing the messages when the relevancy status changes."
5,922,047 - "an apparatus and method for providing control functions over multiple and diverse media applications, preferably operating at more than one designated node or location."
6,425,002 - "a message manager program for accepting and dispatching messages, application program(s) for handling and presenting messages, and message client program(s) that receive messages from the message manager program and provides them to the application program."
6,493,673 - "providing prompt element including an announcement to be read to a user, and an input element that allows an audible user input to be converted into a text string."
6,983,370 - "the ability to sync the messaging capabilities of multiple devices."
7,007,064 - "an apparatus and method for obtaining and managing wirelessly communicated content."
7,383,983 - "a system and method for pausing content in one device and resuming playback of the content in another device that may be in a different domain."

All software, and thus should be invalidated, since software should not be patented.


What makes you think any of those patents claim software, particularly when you've never actually read any of them? I mean, those "quotations" of yours don't even appear in the actual patents. It's apparent that you copy-pasted it from somewhere, without doing any verification of it, and are basing your conclusions on what someone else said.

Software and vague Design Patents are what are stifling innovation. Small companies can't enter the market without stepping on someone's toes due to sketchy patents, which hampers their ability to compete.

Pff... Small companies don't get sued*, because litigation isn't free. If you're seriously concerned about being sued for patent infringement, then it's because you've got revenues of a few million per year, and might have to pay a few tens of thousands in royalties, and perhaps you should cry yourself to sleep on your giant bed of money. The garage inventor just starting out with $100 in sales? He's not even going to get noticed, much less a cease and desist.

*except as a procedural tactic to force a particular venue, such as suing Microsoft in Washington and Fred Smallguy in Florida in the same suit, and then saying that Texas is a good compromise that's halfway between them. And that's no longer allowed, thanks to the patent reform act. And even back then, Microsoft's lawyers would cover Fred Smallguy, since they don't want him hampering their defense.
 
2012-08-21 11:22:59 AM  

Masso: Until Google go suing anything under the Sun


Why would they sue Sun Systems?
 
2012-08-21 11:32:56 AM  

Theaetetus: The garage inventor just starting out with $100 in sales? He's not even going to get noticed, much less a cease and desist.


Unless he tries to sell his invention to one of the bigs. Then they tell him no and swipe the design.
 
2012-08-21 11:41:07 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Theaetetus: The garage inventor just starting out with $100 in sales? He's not even going to get noticed, much less a cease and desist.

Unless he tries to sell his invention to one of the bigs. Then they tell him no and swipe the design.


And then he takes his documentation of those negotiations and his patent and gathers investors who want in on his suit against the big guy. Worked for i4i for the tune of almost 300 million. Or if the little guy just wants to cash out and run, he can sell his patent and negotiation documentation to a patent troll.

Honestly, the "small inventor vs. big company" situation can be great for the inventor.
 
2012-08-21 11:45:33 AM  

Masso: It's one lawsuit against a very aggressive patent troll (Apple). I claim this legitimate self defense and let it slide. Apple's been suing anything Android and people that made rectangles with round edges. Until Google go suing anything under the Sun, they're still ok in my book.


Google bought Motorola specifically so that they would have some patents to sue Apple for. That's a real patent troll, you brainwashed half-wit.
 
2012-08-21 11:52:07 AM  

Theaetetus: HotWingConspiracy: Theaetetus: The garage inventor just starting out with $100 in sales? He's not even going to get noticed, much less a cease and desist.

Unless he tries to sell his invention to one of the bigs. Then they tell him no and swipe the design.

And then he takes his documentation of those negotiations and his patent and gathers investors who want in on his suit against the big guy. Worked for i4i for the tune of almost 300 million. Or if the little guy just wants to cash out and run, he can sell his patent and negotiation documentation to a patent troll.

Honestly, the "small inventor vs. big company" situation can be great for the inventor.


I somehow doubt this is the common outcome.
 
2012-08-21 11:52:19 AM  
Masso

It's one lawsuit against a very aggressive patent troll (Apple). I claim this legitimate self defense and let it slide. Apple's been suing anything Android and people that made rectangles with round edges. Until Google go suing anything under the Sun, they're still ok in my book.

This is exactly how I see it. Apple is being ankle biting biatches by going after Samsung, HTC because they know damn well going directly after Google would not be in their best interest. I think this is a big poke in the chest of Apple letting them know that they are aware of their childish games and fed up with their bullshiat.
 
2012-08-21 11:53:58 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Theaetetus: HotWingConspiracy: Theaetetus: The garage inventor just starting out with $100 in sales? He's not even going to get noticed, much less a cease and desist.

Unless he tries to sell his invention to one of the bigs. Then they tell him no and swipe the design.

And then he takes his documentation of those negotiations and his patent and gathers investors who want in on his suit against the big guy. Worked for i4i for the tune of almost 300 million. Or if the little guy just wants to cash out and run, he can sell his patent and negotiation documentation to a patent troll.

Honestly, the "small inventor vs. big company" situation can be great for the inventor.

I somehow doubt this is the common outcome.


No, the more common outcome is that the small inventor never bothers talking to investors or getting legal advice and ends up posting on internet forums years later about how he totally had a great idea but got screwed over by "the man".
 
2012-08-21 11:58:10 AM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: Masso

It's one lawsuit against a very aggressive patent troll (Apple). I claim this legitimate self defense and let it slide. Apple's been suing anything Android and people that made rectangles with round edges. Until Google go suing anything under the Sun, they're still ok in my book.

This is exactly how I see it. Apple is being ankle biting biatches by going after Samsung, HTC because they know damn well going directly after Google would not be in their best interest. I think this is a big poke in the chest of Apple letting them know that they are aware of their childish games and fed up with their bullshiat.


Yup, the lawsuits have farked up some HTC delivery schedules (Apple had customs seizing shiat at one point) and really hurt their stock prices. I'm left holding on to my HTC stock and hoping after all this all resolved, they can rebound. I really just want Google to use its Motorola portfolio to make Apple their biatch at this point.

/I keep hearing rumors that MS is going to preemptively take some shots at Apple to discourage any iPad/MS Surface releated patent trolling
 
2012-08-21 12:03:59 PM  
Suits from non-practicing entities amount to $30 Billion/year lost revenue, according to research at Boston U Law. Half small business, many "nuisance suits", like the one Drew was hit with, which are frequently settled for hundreds of thousands.

Of course, there will always be shills who defend NPEs and the ridiculous patent system with its retarded examiners.
 
2012-08-21 12:05:29 PM  

ha-ha-guy: /I keep hearing rumors that MS is going to preemptively take some shots at Apple to discourage any iPad/MS Surface releated patent trolling


Unlikely. One of the things that came out in the Samsung-Apple trial is that MS has licenses to many of Apple's patents, with explicit conditions that they not duplicate the look and feel of the iPad or iPhone.
They wouldn't want to either - MS still has a strong enough brand that they'd want to be visually distinguished from the iPad. Hence, Metro.
 
2012-08-21 12:05:38 PM  
Meanwhile Google patents the Powerglove Link
 
2012-08-21 12:10:41 PM  

Theaetetus: HotWingConspiracy: Theaetetus: HotWingConspiracy: Theaetetus: The garage inventor just starting out with $100 in sales? He's not even going to get noticed, much less a cease and desist.

Unless he tries to sell his invention to one of the bigs. Then they tell him no and swipe the design.

And then he takes his documentation of those negotiations and his patent and gathers investors who want in on his suit against the big guy. Worked for i4i for the tune of almost 300 million. Or if the little guy just wants to cash out and run, he can sell his patent and negotiation documentation to a patent troll.

Honestly, the "small inventor vs. big company" situation can be great for the inventor.

I somehow doubt this is the common outcome.

No, the more common outcome is that the small inventor never bothers talking to investors or getting legal advice and ends up posting on internet forums years later about how he totally had a great idea but got screwed over by "the man".


Thank you for bringing sanity to this thread, Theaetetus. Holy crap people, if you want to read about a real patent troll in action, look up the history of SCO Linux.
 
2012-08-21 12:15:03 PM  

Bacontastesgood: Suits from non-practicing entities amount to $30 Billion/year lost revenue, according to research at Boston U Law.


... but according to the same paper, R&D spending dwarfed that by an order of magnitude, hence any claims about lawsuits stifling innovation seem unfounded.

Half small business, many "nuisance suits", like the one Drew was hit with, which are frequently settled for hundreds of thousands.

The paper also defines "small business" as "less than 100 million in annual revenue". Specifically, with a median of $10.8 million in revenue, they identified a mean of $420k in legal costs.

Of course, there will always be shills who defend NPEs and the ridiculous patent system with its retarded examiners.

Preemptive ad hominem aside, you're attacking three different things here, which just muddies your point: NPEs; "the patent system" in general; and the quality of examination. You haven't even presented any arguments against two of them.
 
2012-08-21 12:16:52 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Meanwhile Google patents the Powerglove Link


A recently granted patent hints at a potential glove-based controller, with references to a pair of detectors that record "images" of an environment, and then determine gestures based on the calculated movement between them.

Hey, now, that's pretty cool.
 
2012-08-21 12:22:16 PM  
Pablo Chavez spoke out at the Technology Policy Institute's Aspen conference today, arguing that broad, abstract software patents serve only to stymie innovation

Bolded to help you out, subby. One is not like the other.
 
2012-08-21 12:28:15 PM  
Shill, baby, shill. Tell us again how Drew was wrong.
 
2012-08-21 12:48:06 PM  

Bacontastesgood: Shill, baby, shill. Tell us again how Drew was wrong.


Uh, okay, Ms. Palin. But to save everyone from your off-topic threadjacking, I'll merely refer you to the thread on Drew's talk and the discussion I had with Drew in it about where he was wrong and where he was right.
 
2012-08-21 01:09:07 PM  
They're absolutely right. The constant lawsuits are incredibly stifling to innovation.

That said, if you're in a crowd of people knife-fighting, and you think that violence is wrong, you're probably not going to put down your knife.
 
2012-08-21 02:14:15 PM  
Fark Google, these evil bastards bought Motorola specifically so that they could sue Apple.

Google, the eBay of information.
 
2012-08-21 02:20:29 PM  
You know what this isn't being hypocritical. You HAVE to play by the stupid rules to survive. This is really a case of don't hate the player hate the game.


/I wonder if I'll be attacked as a google apologist
 
2012-08-21 02:31:08 PM  

Captain_Ballbeard: Fark Google, these evil bastards bought Motorola specifically so that they could sue Apple.

Google, the eBay of information.


Oh my god, Google file one lawsuit against Apple after Apple filed gazillion lawsuits against Google's partners. Total evil incarnate.
 
2012-08-21 03:04:11 PM  
The worst patent ever was when Nintendo patented cross-shaped d-pads on controllers, leading to 20 years of controllers with those shiatty circular d-pads that you can never hold in one of the primary directions properly.

And I'm pretty sure every computer program or website on the planet is in violation of multiple bullshiat software patents.
 
2012-08-21 03:33:12 PM  

XMark: The worst patent ever was when Nintendo patented cross-shaped d-pads on controllers, leading to 20 years of controllers with those shiatty circular d-pads that you can never hold in one of the primary directions properly.


Actually, that's a great patent. Previously, people had been using independent direction buttons which required much more hardware and corresponding manufacturing costs. Nintendo's cross-shape d-pad was a huge step forward in controllers.

But plenty of companies worked around it without using a shiatty circular d-pad. For example:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-08-21 05:07:55 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Honestly, the "small inventor vs. big company" situation can be great for the inventor.

I somehow doubt this is the common outcome.


It is, if the small inventor is persistent, makes good claims, and doesn't try to screw the pooch.

When presented with $50k per year for ten years versus $2M litigation, corporate IP lawyers do the cost-benefit analysis very quickly.

NPEs that show up with bogus claims or who demand insane licencing fees are treated differently.
 
2012-08-21 05:10:44 PM  

thrasherrr: When presented with $50k per year for ten years versus $2M litigation, corporate IP lawyers do the cost-benefit analysis very quickly.


Yah. That's also why you don't hear about them while the bogus claims or insane licensing fees stories get blasted on the front page of every paper. "Small company signs small contract, large company reportedly nonplussed" simply doesn't make headlines.
 
2012-08-21 05:28:39 PM  

zelachang: Are you retarded subby? Google has no choice but to get involved in these expensive patent suits. Google would obviously rather not engage in them and save some money but has no choice. If you wanna play the game you have to play by the rules, doesn't mean you can't biatch about how stupid the rules are.


Came for this.
 
2012-08-21 06:04:35 PM  

Masso: Captain_Ballbeard: Fark Google, these evil bastards bought Motorola specifically so that they could sue Apple.

Google, the eBay of information.

Oh my god, Google file one lawsuit against Apple after Apple filed gazillion lawsuits against Google's partners. Total evil incarnate.


THIS. Fark Apple. I hope Google destroys them.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report