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.

(Slashdot)   Google has effectively turned Moto into a patent troll that would make even Steve Jobs blush   (tech.slashdot.org) divider line 44
    More: Sad, Moto, software patents, ITC, NDA, market cap  
•       •       •

3672 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Nov 2012 at 12:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-14 01:11:37 PM  
Motorola Mobility has competing products consumers can buy. They aren't a patent troll unless you change the definition of the phrase.
 
2012-11-14 01:11:56 PM  
Being co-located with a Motorola facility in my building... fark them. They suck as neighbors.
 
2012-11-14 01:30:18 PM  
www.rifuture.org 

Obligatory
 
2012-11-14 01:30:55 PM  
Percentage royalties on surface? I'd go for a fixed amount. They'll be making as much from Surface as Ballmer and Sinofsky spend on haircuts.
 
2012-11-14 01:31:40 PM  

Carth: Motorola Mobility has competing products consumers can buy. They aren't a patent troll unless you change the definition of the phrase.


While I agree with you, I think that ship has sailed. The new definition of patent troll is "anyone doing anything with patents that I don't like".
 
2012-11-14 01:34:35 PM  

Theaetetus: Carth: Motorola Mobility has competing products consumers can buy. They aren't a patent troll unless you change the definition of the phrase.

While I agree with you, I think that ship has sailed. The new definition of patent troll is "anyone doing anything with patents that I don't like".


Well there's gotta be another term for a company that says "don't worry this patent is clearly essential and we won't stop people from using it" and then suing for using it anyways. That's what Microsoft is claiming anyways.
 
2012-11-14 01:39:09 PM  
I love how people on FARK think Apple is the only company that sues on patents. Google does it and all the other companies do it too. But you'd never now based on FARK headlines and threads until now.
 
2012-11-14 01:41:21 PM  

almandot: Theaetetus: Carth: Motorola Mobility has competing products consumers can buy. They aren't a patent troll unless you change the definition of the phrase.

While I agree with you, I think that ship has sailed. The new definition of patent troll is "anyone doing anything with patents that I don't like".

Well there's gotta be another term for a company that says "don't worry this patent is clearly essential and we won't stop people from using it" and then suing for using it anyways. That's what Microsoft is claiming anyways.


Honestly, both this and the Apple-Motorola suit are interesting because of the effect they could have on FRAND licensing, the main question being "is it non-discriminatory to discount royalty rates of a standard-essential patent in exchange for cross-licensing?"
But that question has a whole lot of follow-on questions: do you have to offer the standard rate first, and then explicitly discount it based on the cross-licensing, or can you request a lower rate with an explicit cross-license and if so, what does that mean for the "standard" rate? How do you determine what discount the cross-license is worth? Does that discount bind the other party into an explicit valuation of their patents that can be used against them in other suits (e.g. if you cross-license 100 patents for a 2.5% royalty discount, are those 100 patents now worth a .025% royalty)? How do you pay taxes on an offset cross-license?

Frankly, I'm pro-FRAND, and I think it's being abused with a bunch of accounting tricks to benefit different industry factions, so I'm happy to see some of these questions hashed out.
 
2012-11-14 01:44:19 PM  

Theaetetus: Carth: Motorola Mobility has competing products consumers can buy. They aren't a patent troll unless you change the definition of the phrase.

While I agree with you, I think that ship has sailed. The new definition of patent troll is "anyone doing anything with patents that I don't like".


I think you're right. I am starting to feel like arguing against the wrong use of patent troll is like fighting for the word literally. The ship has sailed and I missed it.
 
2012-11-14 01:59:13 PM  

farkeruk: Percentage royalties on surface? I'd go for a fixed amount. They'll be making as much from Surface as Ballmer and Sinofsky spend on haircuts.


New keyboard, etc.

Even in the 80s... not so much.
cdn.ttgtmedia.com
 
2012-11-14 02:10:10 PM  
Where the hell is the DOJ and their anti-trust / anti-competitive practices people?

/Probably all quit to work in East Texas as patent trolls.
 
2012-11-14 02:13:09 PM  

Corvus: I love how people on FARK think Apple is the only company that sues on patents. Google does it and all the other companies do it too. But you'd never now based on FARK headlines and threads until now.


Yes, I'm starting to wonder if these threads are "sponsored" in some way.
 
2012-11-14 02:17:48 PM  

bingethinker: Corvus: I love how people on FARK think Apple is the only company that sues on patents. Google does it and all the other companies do it too. But you'd never now based on FARK headlines and threads until now.

Yes, I'm starting to wonder if these threads are "sponsored" in some way.


I am wondering where is the thread that the Apple Samsung ruling is going to be overturned because of the jury foreman.

I also wonder how much Apple pays you.
 
2012-11-14 02:25:58 PM  

Carth: I think you're right. I am starting to feel like arguing against the wrong use of patent troll is like fighting for the word literally. The ship has sailed and I missed it.


the fact that the guy who invented the term patent troll, Peter Detkin, now works IV, which is usually the company people think of when they use the term, also suggests that we have divided by Patent Troll and now gotten rain on our collective wedding days.
 
2012-11-14 02:26:04 PM  
Don't some of the Android companies already pay Microsoft per device for this exact same reason? They would be insane to not take the same opportunity with the situation reversed.
 
2012-11-14 02:26:17 PM  

bingethinker: Corvus: I love how people on FARK think Apple is the only company that sues on patents. Google does it and all the other companies do it too. But you'd never now based on FARK headlines and threads until now.

Yes, I'm starting to wonder if these threads are "sponsored" in some way.


Almost all of the others are seen as companies; companies sue each other. Apple went out of their way to brand themselves as a culture/lifestyle. It's worked out very well for them, but that combined with being one of the biggest players seems to make them more newsworthy.

That's why the article frequencies pretty much go, Apple > Google > Microsoft. Why those three specifically? Well, you may have noticed: mobile computing is sort of a big thing lately.

/Apple [fans] 'culture' is the
//corporate equivalent of a punchable face
 
2012-11-14 02:29:44 PM  

Tourney3p0: Don't some of the Android companies already pay Microsoft per device for this exact same reason? They would be insane to not take the same opportunity with the situation reversed.


Sadly that's the state of the industry, everyone cross liscenses and it is just one big farking mess. The Apple things were more noteworthy in they tried to get entire lines of products banned from markets. Poking each other with a stick and demanding a dollar or two per device sold is regretably standard.

/Google seems to be using MotoMobility more to settle scores, going after people who sued their Android hardware partners back when Google didn't have a lot of mobile patents
 
2012-11-14 02:31:38 PM  
IT'S STILL APPLE'S FAULT!!! IT'S OKAY WHEN GOOGLE DOES IT!!1!!
 
2012-11-14 02:35:24 PM  
Yes, and Google admitted as much when they bought them, but they are using thier troll only to go after the people lIke MSoft and Apple who went on thier OWN patent-buying spree to try to litigate Android out of existance. This surface lawsuit is payback for the Microsoft-Samsung settlement that makes Samsung pay MS $10 per device to "license" some utterly BS patents they bought at auction.

Google's goal is to create so many "you pay us , but we have to pay you" arrangements that the whole sector just says "Fark it" , declares a truce and signs a general cross license of all applicable patents.

The hang up is that Apple and MS' interests do not align here. Google is a search company that wants to push out smart devices as cheaply as possible on the theory that the more hands they put mobile internet in the more traffic google gets so the more ad revenue they make

Apple and to a lesser extent, MS are device makers and derive their income from getting a premium price for the sale of thier gadgets and want to make sure competitors can't undercut their prices.
 
2012-11-14 02:37:53 PM  

Corvus: I love how people on FARK think Apple is the only company that sues on patents. Google does it and all the other companies do it too. But you'd never now based on FARK headlines and threads until now.


Apple kind of creates those headlines. Trying to get your competition's entire product line banned globally will earn some attention.
 
2012-11-14 02:43:22 PM  

Magorn: Yes, and Google admitted as much when they bought them, but they are using thier troll only to go after the people lIke MSoft and Apple who went on thier OWN patent-buying spree to try to litigate Android out of existance. This surface lawsuit is payback for the Microsoft-Samsung settlement that makes Samsung pay MS $10 per device to "license" some utterly BS patents they bought at auction.

Google's goal is to create so many "you pay us , but we have to pay you" arrangements that the whole sector just says "Fark it" , declares a truce and signs a general cross license of all applicable patents.

You hit the nail on the head. Google had no choice buy to acquire Motorola for their patents, to use them as a defense to protect their android partners. They literally have to fight, fight fire with fire.

There is no biblical "turning of the other" cheek.

The hang up is that Apple and MS' interests do not align here. Google is a search company that wants to push out smart devices as cheaply as possible on the theory that the more hands they put mobile internet in the more traffic google gets so the more ad revenue they make

Apple and to a lesser extent, MS are device makers and derive their income from getting a premium price for the sale of thier gadgets and want to make sure competitors can't undercut their prices.

 
2012-11-14 02:47:22 PM  

Magorn: Yes, and Google admitted as much when they bought them, but they are using thier troll only to go after the people lIke MSoft and Apple

Don't be evil

doesn't have exceptions. But then, most of us knew it was marketing bullshiat when Google spouted it. No public company can avoid being evil: it's shareholders will demand it.
 
2012-11-14 02:50:03 PM  

CheatCommando: Magorn: Yes, and Google admitted as much when they bought them, but they are using thier troll only to go after the people lIke MSoft and Apple

Don't be evil doesn't have exceptions. But then, most of us knew it was marketing bullshiat when Google spouted it. No public company can avoid being evil: it's shareholders will demand it.

Don't be evil

doesn't mean take it in the ass when other companies want to litigate you out of the market. Fighting back is not evil.
 
2012-11-14 02:56:08 PM  
2.25% of all Surface sales?

What's that, like $3.50 total or so?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-14 03:07:38 PM  

fuhfuhfuh: CheatCommando: Magorn: Yes, and Google admitted as much when they bought them, but they are using thier troll only to go after the people lIke MSoft and Apple

Don't be evil doesn't have exceptions. But then, most of us knew it was marketing bullshiat when Google spouted it. No public company can avoid being evil: it's shareholders will demand it.

Don't be evil doesn't mean take it in the ass when other companies want to litigate you out of the market. Fighting back is not evil.


How you fight back certainly can be.
 
2012-11-14 03:21:57 PM  

bingethinker: Corvus: I love how people on FARK think Apple is the only company that sues on patents. Google does it and all the other companies do it too. But you'd never now based on FARK headlines and threads until now.

Yes, I'm starting to wonder if these threads are "sponsored" in some way.


I don't think that. But there is a big geek echo chamber that is pro-google and anti-Apple.
 
2012-11-14 03:22:39 PM  

Surool: IT'S STILL APPLE'S FAULT!!! IT'S OKAY WHEN GOOGLE DOES IT!!1!!


Apple isn't involved in this particular case.
 
2012-11-14 03:28:22 PM  

OriginalGamer: 2.25% of all Surface sales?

What's that, like $3.50 total or so?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x159]

 
2012-11-14 03:53:44 PM  

Corvus: I love how people on FARK think Apple is the only company that sues on patents. Google does it and all the other companies do it too. But you'd never now based on FARK headlines and threads until now.


While I don't care for software patents period, there is a difference between suing to get a portion of the revenue from the competing product, and suing to remove the competing product from the market.
 
2012-11-14 04:01:24 PM  
Sauce. Goose. Gander. Book it. Done.
 
2012-11-14 04:05:44 PM  

Corvus: I love how people on FARK think Apple is the only company that sues on patents. Google does it and all the other companies do it too. But you'd never now based on FARK headlines and threads until now.

At least Google is suing over actual tech and asking for money, instead of "take it off the market, they coppied all the design choices that we copied from PDA's"
 
2012-11-14 04:07:49 PM  

sjmcc13: Corvus: I love how people on FARK think Apple is the only company that sues on patents. Google does it and all the other companies do it too. But you'd never now based on FARK headlines and threads until now. At least Google is suing over actual tech and asking for money, instead of "take it off the market, they coppied all the design choices that we copied from PDA's"


It would probably blow your mind if you found out that Google's very first patent was on the design of their home page.
 
2012-11-14 04:25:53 PM  

wildcardjack: Where the hell is the DOJ and their anti-trust / anti-competitive practices people?


Both Google and Samsung are already facing anti-trust investigations in the EU for using patents they made FRAND guarantees on as legal weapons.

In the EU, if found guilty, they would face fines of at least ten percent of their total worldwide profits.

In the US, Google is also on the cusp of an anti-trust lawsuit for this behavior and also for using their monopoly in the search field to unfairly promote their other lines of business.
 
2012-11-14 05:02:26 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Corvus: I love how people on FARK think Apple is the only company that sues on patents. Google does it and all the other companies do it too. But you'd never now based on FARK headlines and threads until now.

Apple kind of creates those headlines. Trying to get your competition's entire product line banned globally will earn some attention.


Well, they probably shouldn't have copied the iPhone in every possible respect then. While I have some sympathy for the "rectangle" argument, it falls at the wayside when every single aspect of the device is a blatant copy.
 
2012-11-14 05:26:24 PM  

Theaetetus: sjmcc13: Corvus: I love how people on FARK think Apple is the only company that sues on patents. Google does it and all the other companies do it too. But you'd never now based on FARK headlines and threads until now. At least Google is suing over actual tech and asking for money, instead of "take it off the market, they coppied all the design choices that we copied from PDA's"

It would probably blow your mind if you found out that Google's very first patent was on the design of their home page.


You've got to be shiating me. How is that even possible given that elements like text-box and buttons display different in different browsers. Please tell me that "logo, text box and two buttons center-aligned" wasn't enough. Please? Was it because the search button was UNDER the text box on not on the right? Pants-on-head territory ahoy.
 
2012-11-14 05:38:16 PM  
You know who else said that they weren't doing evil?
 
2012-11-14 05:38:24 PM  

justtray: HotWingConspiracy: Corvus: I love how people on FARK think Apple is the only company that sues on patents. Google does it and all the other companies do it too. But you'd never now based on FARK headlines and threads until now.

Apple kind of creates those headlines. Trying to get your competition's entire product line banned globally will earn some attention.

Well, they probably shouldn't have copied the iPhone in every possible respect then. While I have some sympathy for the "rectangle" argument, it falls at the wayside when every single aspect of the device is a blatant copy.


Most of the planet disagrees.
 
2012-11-14 06:00:01 PM  

justtray: HotWingConspiracy: Corvus: I love how people on FARK think Apple is the only company that sues on patents. Google does it and all the other companies do it too. But you'd never now based on FARK headlines and threads until now.

Apple kind of creates those headlines. Trying to get your competition's entire product line banned globally will earn some attention.

Well, they probably shouldn't have copied the iPhone in every possible respect then. While I have some sympathy for the "rectangle" argument, it falls at the wayside when every single aspect of the device is a blatant copy.


I think you're confused. This is not a Samsung product:

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-14 06:07:07 PM  
They should follow the Hollywood model and offer a percentage of the profits, then zero it all out. "None of our products make money, so you get NOTHING. You lose. Good day, Sir!"
 
2012-11-14 06:14:24 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: sjmcc13: Corvus: I love how people on FARK think Apple is the only company that sues on patents. Google does it and all the other companies do it too. But you'd never now based on FARK headlines and threads until now. At least Google is suing over actual tech and asking for money, instead of "take it off the market, they coppied all the design choices that we copied from PDA's"

It would probably blow your mind if you found out that Google's very first patent was on the design of their home page.

You've got to be shiating me. How is that even possible given that elements like text-box and buttons display different in different browsers. Please tell me that "logo, text box and two buttons center-aligned" wasn't enough. Please? Was it because the search button was UNDER the text box on not on the right? Pants-on-head territory ahoy.


Link
img.gawkerassets.com

Bear in mind that this was filed back in 2004, when other search engine home pages looked like this:
www.neubertweb.com
 
2012-11-14 06:28:01 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Surool: IT'S STILL APPLE'S FAULT!!! IT'S OKAY WHEN GOOGLE DOES IT!!1!!

Apple isn't involved in this particular case.


You're new here, aren't you?
 
2012-11-14 06:30:04 PM  

Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: sjmcc13: Corvus: I love how people on FARK think Apple is the only company that sues on patents. Google does it and all the other companies do it too. But you'd never now based on FARK headlines and threads until now. At least Google is suing over actual tech and asking for money, instead of "take it off the market, they coppied all the design choices that we copied from PDA's"

It would probably blow your mind if you found out that Google's very first patent was on the design of their home page.

You've got to be shiating me. How is that even possible given that elements like text-box and buttons display different in different browsers. Please tell me that "logo, text box and two buttons center-aligned" wasn't enough. Please? Was it because the search button was UNDER the text box on not on the right? Pants-on-head territory ahoy.

Link
[img.gawkerassets.com image 500x633]

Bear in mind that this was filed back in 2004, when other search engine home pages looked like this:
[www.neubertweb.com image 510x354]


Oh, in 2k4.

Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: sjmcc13: Corvus: I love how people on FARK think Apple is the only company that sues on patents. Google does it and all the other companies do it too. But you'd never now based on FARK headlines and threads until now. At least Google is suing over actual tech and asking for money, instead of "take it off the market, they coppied all the design choices that we copied from PDA's"

It would probably blow your mind if you found out that Google's very first patent was on the design of their home page.

You've got to be shiating me. How is that even possible given that elements like text-box and buttons display different in different browsers. Please tell me that "logo, text box and two buttons center-aligned" wasn't enough. Please? Was it because the search button was UNDER the text box on not on the right? Pants-on-head territory ahoy.

Link
[img.gawkerassets.com image 500x633]

Bear in mind that this was filed back in 2004, when other search engine home pages looked like this:
[www.neubertweb.com image 510x354]


Oh, in 2k4. That's a bit more reasonable, I guess. I was thinking of this gem:
2.bp.blogspot.com

/hot
 
2012-11-14 07:05:04 PM  

HeartBurnKid: justtray: HotWingConspiracy: Corvus: I love how people on FARK think Apple is the only company that sues on patents. Google does it and all the other companies do it too. But you'd never now based on FARK headlines and threads until now.

Apple kind of creates those headlines. Trying to get your competition's entire product line banned globally will earn some attention.

Well, they probably shouldn't have copied the iPhone in every possible respect then. While I have some sympathy for the "rectangle" argument, it falls at the wayside when every single aspect of the device is a blatant copy.

I think you're confused. This is not a Samsung product:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 599x503]


Ya, once you have decided to go touch screen and maximize screen size (both common sense and demonstrated back in the PDA days) you will always come up with something resembling an iPhone. Not because you are copying apple but because apple made so few choices to make their product distinct.
The problem is people are not competent enough to be able to tell the difference. they just look at the shape that pre-existed and assume it is an iOverpricedOverhypedPieceOfTech.
 
2012-11-14 08:27:48 PM  
Why is subby implying that Steve Jobs was a patent troll? I've used Apple computers exclusively for 28 years because they invented all of it, except for a computer by IBM that was like a video typewriter or something.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report