Hacker News Reader

>"If Google can't even get patents to protect themselves, because all the others keep banding together and not letting them win any auction, then something is very wrong here."

There may be more than one thing wrong, and one of those things is Google may not be appropriately organized to operate in some of the markets it has chosen to enter - e.g. the mobile phone industry. Their corporate strategy for the search and advertising services upon which the company was built is centered around trade secrets - and that makes a lot of sense given the sausage factory model upon which they have built those services.

Unfortunately for Google, telecommunications doesn't work that way and never has - that's why Nortel had such a big patent portfolio and why Bell Labs did things like patent Shockley's work on the transistor. This is why it takes longer for more mature companies to bring competitive products to a new market segment - e.g. HP felt it prudent to acquire WebOS before head to head competition with the iPad and Microsoft's WP7 doesn't look and feel like iOS.

In a nutshell, Google's problem is that in the telecommunications industry, they did not innovate through a traditional R&D process. Instead, they appear to have rushed the development of Android without proper due diligence in order to be first to market with (operational and technical merits of Android aside) what could be called an "iPhone knockoff". Now that lack of due diligence is coming back to bite them.

<speculation>Could it be that senior Google leadership's fascination with the Sidekick which led to Android lead developer Andy Rubin's being brought onboard led to the damn the torpedoes approach to IP surrounding Android? And could it be that the patents upon which Microsoft's license strategy for Android is base came from their acquisition of Rubin's former startup, Danger, which he left in order to found Android? </speculation>

What should they have done differently? Wait 10 years until they amass their own patent portfolio? Android could have been less similar to iPhone, but up against tens of thousands of bogus patents, would that really make a difference? Anything that was competitive would have provoked an attack.

Frankly, it should be ok to enter the market the way Google did.

Irrespective of should or shouldn't, it isn't. And Google knows it now, and should have known it then. They could have licensed the relevant patents - after all, that appears to be what Apple did in the case of Loadsys and the reason they are not being sued, and it appears to be what Microsoft did with portions of the Nortel portfolio which is why they were concerned enough to participate in its purchase.

With Android Google stepped into a mature market for the first time and appears to have committed rookie errors - it's not the stuff in the Nortel or Novell portfolios which is generating income for Microsoft - and a lot of Microsoft's patents were created through old fashioned in-house R&D - exactly the sort of innovation which should be protected.

<cynical_speculation>It may have been in Google's interest to turn Andorid into Open Source in October of 2008 due to the liability incurred when Microsoft acquired Danger's patent portfolio earlier in the year. Particularly in light of Google's antipatent corporate culture and Andy Rubin's role in creating Google's phone software.</cynical_speculation>

...a lot of Microsoft's patents were created through old fashioned in-house R&D - exactly the sort of innovation which should be protected.

Only if that "innovation" is actually novel, non-obvious, specific, and useful, and certainly not for 20 years (roughly 13 generations in tech years).

It may have been in Google's interest to turn Andorid into Open Source in October of 2008 due to the liability incurred when Microsoft acquired Danger's patent portfolio earlier in the year.

If Android was always based on the Linux kernel, then they probably had an open source plan from the beginning.

Edit: With Android Google stepped into a mature market for the first time and appears to have committed rookie errors

This sounds like code for "Google stepped into our territory and didn't pay its protection money."

Well I, for one, am glad that Google recklessly does business in ways that they should have every right to, rather than quietly submitting to shakedowns and bullying. If they are willing to get nailed to a cross to spread awareness of these problems, kudos to them.

...one of those things is Google may not be appropriately organized to operate in some of the markets it has chosen to enter...

Uh, Google is organized enough to create a profitable OS which well on the way to becoming the dominant smart phone OS in the world.

"Appropriately" here would mean that "organized to join the patent mafia"?

There may be more than one thing wrong, and one of those things is Google may not be appropriately organized to operate in some of the markets it has chosen to enter - e.g. the mobile phone industry.

This really irks anyone who, like me, believes that the only limitations on a tech company should be from the laws of physics, the current state of technology, and basic ethics (e.g. don't blatantly rip off competitors).

Instead, they appear to have rushed the development of Android without proper due diligence in order to be first to market with (operational and technical merits of Android aside) what could be called an "iPhone knockoff".

Android was under development years before the iPhone was announced. Google bought Android before iPhone development started. The Openmoko project was also announced before the iPhone was announced. The iPhone is simply a single (very good) implementation of an idea that had been brewing in the mind of the Technium.

Look at Apple, they are winning with patents not related to smartphones.

I am tired of this straight out lie. See this article:

http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analys...

Lets look at what Apple is using against Samsung:

Trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 and Federal trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 -- both of these are directly related to the physical design of the iPhone and iPad.

Trademare infringement on logos: •No. 3,886,196 is the iOS phone app icon. •No. 3,889,642 is the iOS messaging app icon. •No. 3,886,200 is the iOS photos app icon. •No. 3,889,685 is the iOS settings app icon. •No. 3,886,169 is the iOS notes app icon. • No. 3,886,197 is the iOS contacts icon. •Pending No. 85/041,463 is the iTunes icon, which is a riff on U.S. Registration No. 2,935,038, the desktop iTunes logo.

All of those are iOS logos, except an iTunes logo.

Now you might be saying, those aren't patents. True. So lets look at the patents:

D627,790: Graphical User Interface For a Display Screen or Portion Thereof -- filing date: 2007. It's a design patent for their home screen on iOS

D602,016: Electronic Device -- filing date: 2010. This is the design of the shell of the 3g/3gs.

#D618,677: Electronic Device -- filing date: 2008. This is the design of screen and buttons of the 3g/3gs.

Patent #6,493,002: Method and Apparatus for Displaying and Accessing Control and Status Information in a Computer System -- filed 1997. This is really the only patent used against Samsung that is a direct result of their work on MacOS, rather than iOS. I'd argue that this is the only patent in support of your thesis.

Patent #7,469,381: List Scrolling and Document Translation, Scaling and Rotation on a Touch-Screen Display -- filing date: 2003. One of the first patents presumed to be part of their iOS portfolio.

Patent #7,669,134: Method and Apparatus For Displaying Information During An Instant Messaging Session -- filed 2003, although not strictly an iOS patent.

Patent #7,812,828: Ellipse Fitting For Multi-Touch Surfaces -- filed 2007. A very iPhone focused patent.

Patent #7,844,915: Application programming interfaces for scrolling operations -- filed 2007. This is about user feedback during gesture based scrolling operations.

Patent #7,853,891: Method and apparatus for displaying a window for a user interface -- filed 2008. This is related to their iOS window management.

Patent #7,863,533: Cantilevered push button having multiple contacts and fulcrums -- filed in 2008. This is a utility patent on their volume rocker in the 3g/3gs.

My point? The VAST majority of the claims against Samsung are directly smartphone related. The VAST majority a direct result of their work on the iPhone.

As I've noted in other posts, Jobs telegraphed his intention back in 2007 at the iPhone unveiling. See http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/live-from-macworld-2007-s.... Quoted from Engadget, but I'm sure paraphrased from Jobs, "So let's not use a stylus, we're going to use the best pointing device in the world -- our fingers. We have invented a new technology called multi-touch. It works like magic, you don't need a stylus, far more accurate than any interface ever shipped, it ignores touches, mutli-finger gestures, and BOY have we patented it!"

There's no reason why Android shouldn't have built up similar IP protection in this time. This is why I say whoever ran their IP strategy should be shown the door. This is a firing offense to find yourself in a position where the only way to protect yourself is not to assert your own IP, but to have to resort to buying IP you didn't create.

You gotta love the downvotes, with no actual argument against it. Heck, I'd even love a post to show that I'm violating some HN ettiquette (maybe there's ettiquette on HN now that its frowned upon trying to use data to back up your claims?). I suspect this has more to do with ideology/fanboyism than actual content, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

You don't seem to understand. Apple is, by definition, a patent troll. Therefore, whatever it is that they are doing is, by definition, patent trolling. Hope that clears things up.

I would have thought "patent troll" typically describes patent owners who produce no actual products, and only hold patents with the intention of extracting money from others. Apple clearly does produce actual products.

Too subtle, I guess.

I Vote down poorly formatted walls of text, regardless of contents. If I can't read it without my eyes bleeding, then it isn't any use to me.

Most important is visually indicating in some fashion what text you are quoting and which text you have written yourself.

http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc

actually if you look at the patents (not the trademark claims), they are not "mobile". Touchscreen != mobile. IM != mobile. Etc.

From your first post: There's no reason why Android shouldn't have built up similar IP protection in this time. This is why I say whoever ran their IP strategy should be shown the door. This is a firing offense to find yourself in a position where the only way to protect yourself is not to assert your own IP, but to have to resort to buying IP you didn't create.

This is one of the many things that I (and probably many others) find fundamentally broken with the patent system. If I'm creating my own mobile operating system from the ground up, I shouldn't have to patent anything if I don't want to. Actual innovation comes in the form of lines of code, not numbers of patents. "IP" as you put it is orthogonal to the actual productive work of a company.

Patents, in my view, should be used strictly to prevent a competitor from producing a direct ripoff of a highly specific invention.

"... find yourself in a position where the only way to protect yourself is not to assert your own IP, but to have to resort to buying IP you didn't create."

True to a point. But isn't it telling that Apple had to resort to buying IP it didn't create? What does that tell you?

Interesting link...

#4, #6, #8 and #9 are Open Handset Alliance members. I'm surprised they don't use their IP collectively to protect the platform.

Patents are not used for crushing other companies. They are used for getting a fair recompensation for the IP you have created. That usually means licensing fees. Apple has acquired several licenses for their use in iOS (well-known example: h264) and, guess what, they are not whining about it.

Acquiring "bogus" patents in order to defend from legitimate ones you infringe upon is plainly evil as it twists the whole patent system (and is one of the reasons why our current patent system is broken). Incidentally, that's what Google planned to do. That doesn't automatically mean they are now an evil corporation, but it's not fair to describe the whole scheme as righteous. It's just business.

I dont understand how you can tell bogus patents from legitimate ones? legally speaking, they all look the same to me. could you give me a run down on the differences?

I trust Google when they say that patents they wanted to buy from Novell and Nortel were "bogus".

hmm? they cant be bogus from a legal POV, or they would be no good for defence.

Maybe google just meant that they didn't like them very much?

Even bogus patents are valuable from a legal POV. The cost of defending oneself from a bogus patent is the same as the cost of defending oneself from a valid patent, and that cost is very high, in the millions of dollars and years of wasted time.

Patents are being used as blackmail or a protection racket on the offense and as a MAD on defense. They are effective at both simply because the cost of litigation to defend against or invalidate even bogus patents is insanely high.

This is what makes patent trolls so frustrating. There is no MAD defense since they make nothing, and thus have no exposure to countersuits. On the other hand, the cost of settling is an order of magnitude less than the cost of defeating against them, bogus or not, so the logical response is to "roll over" and pay the license fee. Unfortunately, that just encourages them.

No, they did not say the Novell and Nortell patents were bogus. They said most of the 250,000 patents that a typical smart phone "infringes on" are bogus.

1. The number 250,000 is clearly a made up number, but the real number is in that ballpark (order of magnitude).

2. The Novell patents numbered ~800, a very small fraction of 250,000.

3. The Nortel patents numbered ~6000, still a small fraction of 250,000.

While some of the Novell and Nortel patents likely are bogus, as a whole they are very likely to be higher quality than the other 240,000 smart phone-threatening patents out there.

You're right. Google (in David Drummond words) called these patents "dubious", not "bogus": http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-a...

""" This anti-competitive strategy is also escalating the cost of patents way beyond what they’re really worth. The winning $4.5 billion for Nortel’s patent portfolio was nearly five times larger than the pre-auction estimate of $1 billion. Fortunately, the law frowns on the accumulation of dubious patents for anti-competitive means — which means these deals are likely to draw regulatory scrutiny, and this patent bubble will pop. """

> Patents are not used for crushing other companies. They are used for getting a fair recompensation for the IP you have created.

That's the idea, but not the practice. Nathan Myrhvold comes to mind.