Patent war goes nuclear: Microsoft, Apple-owned “Rockstar” sues Google

Apple used to be careful not to alienate hackers. And Microsoft has been gradually digging itself out of a hole in that respect for several years. Now in my mind they are both the enemy.

Most of these companies depend on you hackers (I do not write code) to be successful. If you decide to pull your apps from the app store, stop buying their products and write a post telling everyone why you made the move, they will be hurt. Even if the embargo is for one year only!

But of course that will not happen. No one likes to be inconvenienced personally. It will mean loosing revenue. Other people (the EFF)should fight the battle. You donate your $10 to EFF and believe you have fought the good fight.

Nothing will come out of this. Google will band with a few chaps on the other side (Facebook Twitter etc), a few hundreds of millions will be spent on lawyers and they will settle in one way or the other. After all, they are working together on other schemes (just like the politicians).

Of course, Facebook will one day eliminate all privacy settings, or Google will put ads in our inbox and there will be outrage again.

Of course nothing will come out of it.

I try to limit my outrage these days. I suggest you should too.

- writing to your representatives

- donating to the EFF or other organizations

- by not donating another $2k to Apple for a new Mac*, implicitly endorsing these bullshit tactics

- not developing for those platforms (App Store, etc)

Leaving comments here expressing outrage isn't really helping.

>When Wired visited Rockstar's Ontario headquarters, it found 10 reverse-engineering experts, working daily to take apart products and find patent infringement.

>With just a few dozen employees, Rockstar is hoping to convince more than 100 technology companies to pay it patent licensing fees for a huge array of products. "Pretty much anyone out there is infringing," said Rockstar's CEO, John Veschi.

Oh fuck these guys.

I used to get really angry and outraged when reading stories like this, but now I'm just resigned. Patent reform isn't going to happen and this kind of predatory and unethical abuse of the system by sharks and parasites will continue as the cost of doing business.

One can only hope for karmic retribution one day.

Just one... I'll shut up then.

Patents were supposed to encourage innovation, now they are doing the opposite (at least for software and business processes) and causing billions of wasted dollars and fat bonuses for patent lawyers.

This move seems a bit desperate to me. To avoid fair competition on products, MSFT and Apple are using patents that they did not even invent. Pathetic and despicable.

To be honest patents don't protect shit and their only value is in protecting oneself from pointless litigation by losers. The only way to protect your margins from attack by the competition is to have a naturally defensible product that derives it's value from the very nature of its use. Google search is naturally defensible. No one has their code (NDAs FTW!), and no one has the cash or the competence to build the computing infrastructure to serve that code. Microsoft Office/Windows was naturally defensible thanks to the network effects generated by third party applications on the platform, until the Internet/Linux destroyed that by being cheaper and faster. The iLine of products from Apple was naturally defensible for the same reasons as Windows, until Android ate their lunch, just like Windows ate Apple's lunch back in the 1980s. Apple also cried like a bunch of babies way back then and sued Microsoft for eating their lunch using GUI patents.

> History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

-- Mark Twain

If you're in the tech world you’re mantra should be: innovate don't litigate.

Apple and Microsoft, you have just shown that you'd rather litigate than innovate.

Whenever that happens in the tech world that means that you are done.

Well, that's pretty damning. If it's true, then it indicates that the patents never should have issued in the first place. If the overwhelming majority of "Anyone out there" managed to independently re-invent these alleged "inventions" without reference to the patent, then that seems to point out that whatever inventive step may have been involved was obvious.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/03/microsoft-just-kicked-googl... http://technologizer.com/2011/08/04/google-shows-how-not-to-...

Take everything with at least a boulder of salt before turning to an emotional being.

If things go nuclear and they start hemorrhaging even more legal fees, they may begin to exert more pressure to change the system.

Given some of the recent proposed legislation, hopefully the tide is turning against filing patent lawsuits as a business model.

Patents were meant to protect the innovator, instead software patents are being used to legally harm competition they can't compete against technically - hurting everyone except the status-quo.

I feel like with those initials, they could've operated as "REAMS" instead. From Wiktionary, ream: "(slang, vulgar) To sexually penetrate in a rough and painful way..."

It actually doesn't mention what Rockstar is suing Google for (i.e., whether it's monetary compensation, banning the sale of products, etc.) The article seems designed to get fans of these companies to react.

I think this will play out as a much more boring, lengthy, and anti-climactic fashion than this article implies.

I'm going to get a lot of negative posts about hyperbole, but no, I legitimately get red in the face and get a headache whenever I think too hard about the patent wars. It is our fucking JOB to build things, to move technology forward, that is at least, my entire reason for being what I am.

so in my eyes at least; fuck the patent system; fuck the american built system for repressing innovation for "corporate protections." We all argue about whether it's a "better or worse" solution but at this point, when I spend 99% of my time hearing about the billions spent on suppressing innovation rather than supporting it, it makes me realize I want little to no part in the system that motivates this.

I will have no part of it. My code will be open. I will build things that I care about, and give them to the world, and hopefully work at a place that repays me for that (as I have found now.) Consider this my very ill-placed manifesto to in my own endeavors, support innovation, not the ill-gotten-gains of the future holder of my patents.

(I'm not sure if I put this here to get it out there; or for comments; or for thoughts; I think mostly I just feel that it needs to be said, although perhaps unnecessarily alongside an ocean of similar replies :P)

Well with earth-shaking innovative patents like that I hope they succeed.

I would never have thought of an integrated message center for anything.

The tablet + phone. Firefox phone; I'll get one of those. Tablet? Are there any which you can buy now?

I really would just like to see Ubuntu on everything; tablet, phone and laptop, but I guess that's not really an option. I say Ubuntu because it's the most obvious; when Ubuntu is on there I know I can replace it with another Linux and I can customize it at least.

Like someone said; we cry here, but we all buy macbooks anyway. While a lot of us have the power to actually change things. If 100.000 people ask Lenovo for a Linux laptop, it'll probably come. Besides MS pressure (which is probably 100% of the reason) I wouldn't see why they wouldn't all offer the choice. It's just not popular enough; check any video on any startup site on HN: everyone has macbooks.

We live in a world where inventors can't build anything that get's them noticed by large established competitors without risking frivolous patent lawsuits on obvious concepts.

I keep explaining the same thing: I know Apple makes the best stuff. I don't avoid Apple because of quality considerations. I avoid Apple because they're screwing up the industry, an industry I use for both my career and my hobbies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_controversies

Given (a) Google's inexorable rise and domination of more and more parts of the Internet & mobile [0], and (b) the unwillingness or inability of regulators around the world to apply any kind of checks to its scary clout, could this - Rockstar - be a kind of defensive mechanism from the industry itself?

I'm not saying that Apple, Microsoft, RIM etc. are suing Google out of a greater sense of responsibility towards consumer choice, but can we not - as external observers - view their action as a countermeasure to one competitor's overwhelming clout?

[0] http://blog.launch.co/blog/googlewinseverything-part-1.html

The real pickle stems from all of the money feeding the patent trolling business. That industry needs to die a quick death, and instead it is getting fed by the buckets. Who knows where it will spill to next (killing fledgeling hardware/internet of things firms?).

Looking at this situation from a very meta- perspective, I find it fascinating that what's effectively happening is that the patent system is seeking to undermine the very technological forces that have made it less relevant. Almost like watching two different species compete against each other in nature.

And that's the single best reason provided to end software patents once and for all.

When everyone is "infringing" without even knowing it, without reading the patent or without trying to copy someone else's work, you should stop, take a step back, think about things, and realize the entire system is fundamentally broken.

Or if you have no soul, file a lawsuit and hope to make lots of free monies.

I feel like there's at least a bunch of "companies" on the software side of the equation who I don't feel shitty about supporting, but I think the problem will be with hardware.

1) For all the talk of Microsoft and Apple "abusing patents", it was actually Google that had to pay 14 million in damages for actually doing just that. Let's just not forget that before deciding who should be "alienating the tech community". However, Google's PR really is very good, and unfortunately, most people here accept it without critical thought because it confirms their biases.

2) This is business, and business is war. Giving away Android for free was a direct attack on Microsoft's and Apple's business model. They are simply responding in kind. Most people here root for Google simply because they give away tons of really cool stuff for free, and/or because they seem to be "more aligned" with free/open source, which appears to be the dominant religion 'round these parts. However, people elsewhere would see this as perfectly natural.

3) Google is very weak on the patent front, and they know it. So while they hustle to buy up patents from all sorts of sources, they simultaneously try to spin the patent system as "broken" and their own moves as "defensive" in an attempt to reduce their disadvantage in the long term. It may seem counter-intuitive: why simultaneously buy patents and work to weaken their value? Because buying patents is just a short term defensive move. In the long term, Google would be perfectly happy to not have a patent system at all because all their competitive advantage is locked away in their data centers. This is a luxury Apple and Microsoft do not have. They put out products that anyone anywhere can copy, so they would prefer having a patent system.

4) As mentioned below, Google had an option of joining the consortium, but decided to go it alone. Drummond's blog post says it would not have helped Android, but that is very shallow reasoning. They could have always joined in and negotiated the rights to indemnify Android vendors in exchange for contributing a lot more towards the winning bid. Maybe the consortium would not have agreed to it -- we'll never know, because Google peremptorily declined to join in. But I have no idea why they though they could outbid a consortium of multiple giants in the space.

5) As mentioned in TFA, there is some truth to the argument that Rockstar is actually independent of Microsoft and Apple. I know of patent trolls that have funding from e.g. hedge funds, but operate entirely independently. Heck, IV is a perfectly good example. They have funding from Google themselves, and yet they turned around and sued Motorola!

Now, allow me to address your theory: You posit that this may invoke the ire of the "tech community" and this would be a disadvantage to Apple and Microsoft. Some questionable assumptions:

1) The tech community in general has a similar world view as the HN (or is it SV?) bubble. Trust me on this, HN is an enormous echo chamber. If you ask software engineers outside this bubble -- which is, you know, most of the world -- about patents, you'll get three responses:

a) "What's a patent?" (No, really.)

b) "I don't mind patents."

c) "Having a patent as an achievement!"

2) The tech community, even if it does by some remote chance share your world view, won't care. This is business as usual, and has historically always been so.

Now you may move the goal posts and say that by "tech community" you mean "the good ones", the "hackers". Again, I'm not so sure. Consider the NSA revelations: All the comments on HN are rife with outrage. Yet would you believe, even for a minute, that the NSA does not have the best of the best?

Edit: I really do not wish to come across as supporting one company over another, and hope to maintain a neutral tone. I think all the companies involved are perfectly good companies to work for, and perfectly justified in what they're doing. I'm just trying to present a perspective that is somewhat lacking in most comments so far.

How is it acceptable for companies with big pockets to simply buy 6,000 patents and then sue the shit out of whomever they don't like?

I mean, to some degree, I accept that patents in the health-care industry are helping, because research labs spend years and enormous amount of money on research, with results that can be easily copied. And so they need the first mover advantage in bringing the product they researched on the market. It's not perfect, but at least it has some economical and moral ground.

But how in the world is it acceptable for patents to be transferred, like they are assets? If you weren't the one doing the research, then you shouldn't be the one that benefits from a government-granted monopoly, no matter how much money you have.

And by lobbying seriously I don't mean a couple of million that were spent on some other activities - if such companies are eager to spend amount such as 4 billion or 12 billion on purchases that include zero benefit to their products&customers, but simply as patent war ammunition&defense; then I'd expect that they can easily spend hundreds of millions in campaign contributions to extuinguish the patent war as such.

We don't need bigcorps accumulating frivolous patents to ensure mutually assured destruction - it doesn't work that well as a deterrant, and it is used against smaller corporations. We need disarmament.

Also, pretty much all these companies were invited to join Rockstar to buy the patents, including Google: http://www.techradar.com/... . Except Google decided that they wanted it all for themselves and went against the group, in the end they lost. The only reason to hold these patents are to basically sue other companies, the fact that Google bid against the group over and over again implies that if Google had gotten these patents they would have done exactly the same. So lets not pretend Google is a victim.

Sigh. Where are my anti-depressants.

I'm about done with, "You can't do it because I did it first."

The world wants to move forward. Your outsized self-interest, simply doesn't interest me.

If "pretty much anyone out there" is breaking a law, that tells us there's something wrong with the law.

Google bid $4.4Bn for this portfolio so they must have see value and/or danger in these patents. I disagree with the article's statement that "Google has plenty of patents" as this doesn't seem to the case in the current battles with Apple and Microsoft. The Motorola purchase doesn't seem to have helped much in this area either.

In other words, the law is totally useless and needs to be modified if not totally revoked ASAP.

Especially small companies won't have a chance in a patent battle against a Apple, Microsoft or Google proxy.

That is the biggest problem, and the solution has to be political, it won't be reached in the courts or on the market but in parliament.

Now Google's mates are only Samsung and telecoms which seems really not helpful on these kind of lawsuit or Google's image.

See now what's happening. Apple-Microsoft alliance against Google, Samsung and telecoms…? Am I alone feeling former team looks nicer?

I'll be happy when I see they've expired.

Just as a side note: Because English is not my mother tongue I have problems to understand what the title actually wants to say, though. To me it sounds like Apple owns Microsoft, and Microsoft is Apple's "rockstar" because it sues Google. So I wonder if some mother tongue speakers could verify that the title is actually understandable to them and explain what the title wants to say. Thanks!

- Their time will come and when it does it will be painful.

- Any system that's inherently corrupt is bound to collapse.

But most importantly: lol software patents.

The twisted part in me hopes every single startup will get sued for all the amazing one-click patents and whatnot that they infringe upon as soon as they secure their first round of financing at some point. Maybe then something will change but I doubt it.

Imagine for a second that Google will have to turn over a portion of the ads revenue from the past 10 years? It makes up 97% of their revenue...

It's totally ridiculous to be sued for offering free software.

I hope google has the guts to use the "invalid patent" argument in court and rule this sort of nonsense invalid in future.

Out of all these companies RIM (BlackBerry) is the only one up for "sale".

How long until Google tries to buy itself a backdoor into the alliance?

I give them a couple of months.

Some pieces protected by patents. Others patentable but never claimed.

They're not protecting 'their material', they're stiffing innovation.

This is battle stations and given Google doesn't use shell companies they either make one or declare all out war.

I'm not sure what else might actually motivate Congress to change the law.

Now, its Google versus the rest, we'll see how this goes :)

Isn't that the definition of a broken system of selection?

Rockstar is not just a patent troll, it's the Patent Troll King. It's much larger, and has vastly more financial backing, most notably from Apple and Microsoft. It's nearly invincible (as it can't be counter-sued). Plus the case is filed in Eastern Texas, known to side with patent holders. Both companies have much cash in their coffers, and both are feeling the heat from Android. For Apple, the high-end Android devices eat into their margins. While Apple still is very profitable, Android's break-neck pace forces them to come up with their own new features or risk looking dated, coupled with Android's often better-specced phones that are cheaper than the iPhone. Although brand loyalty is shielding Apple from large shifts, it can't afford to sit still. Microsoft on the other hand, is playing catch-up in Mobile after missing the boat miserably, and while the focus should be on making their own products better, they largely seem to have been industrious in harassing Android hardware manufacturers, plus employing some questionable PR-tactics to smear its competition. They'd both be relieved to see Android wither and die.

The tactic at the heart of the battle against Android seems to be the following: increasing Android Total Cost of Ownership by drowning it in patent licenses. This in an attempt to make it toxic to any OEM or potential Android partner (as they have to pay license fees, or could be sued to oblivion if they refuse), all in a bid to make Android less attractive (vis-a-vis e.g. Windows). I don't know the might of Android/Google, nor how much strength it'll need to face off against the now teamed arsenals of both Apple and Microsoft. If Rockstar can string Android up with enough patent licenses, OEMs will bail, developers will leave and Android revenues will dry up. It'll make a Windows license look cheap and safe in comparision. Then Microsoft can return to pointing and laughing at the open-source community, sit back and let their software rot once more as they just eliminated their direct competition. They'll have some air fist-fights with Apple to seemingly 'compete'.

What more is Rockstar than a hired gun they can sic on any software outfit that might prove competitive? What if Microsoft feels that Valve's SteamBox is getting a little too much traction for their comfort, why wouldn't they just send their bully after them? What if Ubuntu can cling on to some larger marketshare when it can smoothly switch between phone and desktop software? Why shouldn't Microsoft try and hobble innovative efforts by letting Rockstar make the developers' lives a living hell? It's more than sickening that some Microsoft/Apple fans are already reacting all indignant and holier-than-thou now that their patent lackey has a Nortel patent on search, as if Google stole web-search from them all along, and they only just noticed it.

What can counter Rockstar? At what point is this hulking giant too big for the market it's trying to disrupt? What stops this beast from going after any open source project that proves slightly popular? How can a developer rest easy at night, knowing that any day a Rockstar lawyer might be knocking on his/her door, and that financial ruin lies ahead? Whether by lawyer fees after a Pyrrhic victory or after being shut down because he/she was found to infringe on something so very basic a child of five years old could have figured it out? John Vesci himself said that 'Pretty much anybody out there is infringing', meaning that any company name that gets in their sights, they can take apart.

Is that furthering the sciences? Is that what passes for innovation nowadays? As a developer, this makes me sick to my stomach. But the system allows it, and there's been too much financial profitability to get this genie back in the bottle, so the odds of reform happening before this warhead hits are slim. Even if it were to happen, it'll be thoroughly undressed and defanged before being applied to any case worth its salt.

As a developer there is nothing more destructive than to be be told you can't do that... it is similar to what I did.

Could you imagine what would happen if someone put a patient on breathing?

http://images.wikia.com/random-ness/images/3/34/Michael_Jack...