Hacker News Reader

Comment by sasidharm | Hacker News Reader

Gruber is no Google-lover, but in this case he is right on the money for calling out Google's hypocrisy. What if Google won the Nortel patents with their pi billion dollars bid?

View on HN

Do you know of any case of where Google has used its patents offensively? I don't.

That's because they don't have any patents of their own to sue with. Before they acquired IBM's patents, they had a total of less than 800 patents.

Exactly, funny how the android fan boys down ranked your comments.

But what if Google had won the bid and was using these patents (they hadn't developed) defensively to defend against the fact they have violated patents developed by others companies, would it more fair? I don't think so.

No, but you can play "what if" games to death. You can't be slighted as being hypocritical for something you haven't done yet, which is what Gruber is claiming.

Complaining about huge bids that are more than what these bogus patents are worth is pretty hypocritical if you yourself bid over $3 billion for them.

I think Google is whining because they didn't win, and they know communities like this are anti-patent and will automatically side with them if they portray it a certain way. It's hypocritical to complain about the patent system and that competitors won patents you also wanted and were bidding on.

then it would be hypocrisy. but they didn't. so its not hypocrisy.

Sure, maybe it'd be unfair (in your view). However, Gruber paints it as hypocritical, which it's not. Google's actions (and the blog post under review) reflect a cohesive ideology: software patents are bunk.

The problem is, everybody infringes countless software patents because the system is broken. What matters is how you play the game from that starting point. Google wants to be able to defend itself, while others seem to want to gang up on Google and attack it.

Here are all the patent cases in which Google was a plaintiff. They appear to all be declaratory judgments against NPE defendants.

4:2004-cv-04922 Google Inc. v. Skyline Software Systems Inc. 5:2005-md-01654 In re Compression Labs, Inc., Patent Litigation 5:2004-cv-03934 Google Inc. v. Compression Labs Inc et al 4:2008-cv-04144 Google Inc. v. Netlist, Inc. 3:2009-cv-00642 Google Inc. v. Traffic Information LLC 1:2011-cv-00175 Microsoft Corporation et al v. GeoTag Inc. 1:2011-cv-00637 Google Inc. v. Sourceprose, Inc. 4:2009-cv-01243 Google, Inc. v. EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Technology, LLC et al

That makes no sense. How can you sue a non-practicing entity for infringing your patents? If they're non-practicing, they're not doing anything.

Being a plaintiff doesn't always mean you're the one suing. It could be an appeals court case where the positions are reversed. Also, you could sue an NPE in order to invalidate their patent(s), or to seek an injunction.

Sidebar question: how did you find these? I'm researching a related topic and need to perform bulk searches for patent related litigation data. Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated.

There is a difference between being a plaintiff in a patent case and using patents offensively. In the Skyline case, it looks like Skyline sued Google over Google Earth: http://googlecopyright.blogspot.com/2007/03/google-prevails-...

Did the soviet union ever used their nukes offensively?

So what? Google is a relatively new company. To say they would spend all that money on patents and then not attempt to enforce them is very naive.

Sun Microsystems did exactly what you are saying, and Google has gone on record, multiple times, saying it would do exactly what you are saying.

It is not without precedent at all.

I don't think Google wants to follow Sun's example of developing amazing tech and going out of business anyways because the folks in charge don't know how to run a business.

Not that non-assertion of patents was necessarily a contributing factor to Sun's demise.

Then they would have unhypocrytically continued to use them only defensively. Can you explain exactly how Google is being hypocritical in this case?

They are being hypocritical by saying that Apple and Msft bid many more times than what those patents are really worth, when Google itself bid upto 4 billion dollars. And what gaurantee does Google provide that they wouldn't sue competitors aggressively? Dont tell me its because their 'motto' is Dont be evil.

>And what gaurantee does Google provide that they wouldn't sue competitors aggressively?

So they are hypocritical because of something they haven't done? By that logic, everyone is an hypocrite.

Has Google ever actually sued competitors aggressively? Not that I know of.

The difference is that even if Google were to try to use those patents offensively against Apple and Microsoft, they probably wouldn't have much of an impact- Google's motivation was defensive, and they pretty much had to try for those patents.

On the other hand, Apple and Microsoft are /already/ having an impact on Android and these patents would only strengthen them- their motivation was offensive and they were the ones who inflated the prices just to hurt Google.

Then it would be perfectly fine, they would be able to stop Microsoft and its elk from extorting patent fees, but the whole issue lies in that the patent went to Microsoft and Apple and others like them for the sole purpose of extorting Android.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com