6 ms·

oh so it's good if Google's buying the patents? the hypocrisy.

glassx 15y ago
I might get some down votes for that, but I really wonder when people will realize that Google is just a company, not a religion of sorts. (same applies to everyone else btw)
- MrUnknown 15y ago
  I don't think people are taking them as a religion (at least I hope not). It is more along the lines that it seems the people at Google are still mostly trying to make the Internet and technology a better place rather than only worrying about profits. Of course, they do care about profits, but it isn't their only agenda. This is why Google owning the patents isn't a major deal. There is no history of using the patents to get rid of competitors or to make a quick buck. They pull them out of the closet to defend themselves from other patent lawsuits. I am certain that if Google started going after various companies over mundane patents, the view of them will change very quickly and you wouldn't see very many people defending them.
  - technoslut 15y ago
    Google, Apple & MS have all done good and bad. I'm still wondering why Google sided with Verizon against net neutrality. It certainly didn't seem like they were looking out for the best interests of the consumer. These companies are still businesses and, when faced with the choice of what is better for them or for the greater good, I expect them to choose themselves.
    - moultano 15y ago
      >I'm still wondering why Google sided with Verizon against net neutrality. They didn't. They got Verizon to agree to a compromise position on net neutrality.
      - technoslut 15y ago
        I didn't take it as much of a compromise on Verizon's part and very few, if any, did at the time. Looking at the effects of this legislation today, the only winner has been the carriers.
        mantrik00 15y ago
        In fact what Google and Vrizon put forward was only a proposal far from being a binding agreement. Their joint proposal was intended to bring more clarity in the area of net neutrality as opposed to void in the absence of any law in that respect.
  - MikeCapone 15y ago
    " It is more along the lines that it seems the people at Google are still mostly trying to make the Internet and technology a better place rather than only worrying about profits." I'd rephrase that slightly: Google's has interests that are aligned with an open, diverse, and free Internet. They'll make the most money if the Internet thrives. Companies like Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft would make more money if they had a controlled walled garden under their control. That's why Google is different, IMO.
- wtallis 15y ago
  It's not about whether Google is good or bad, or doing good or bad things. In the US, patents are allowed for the sole purpose of encouraging innovation. In the case of Android, Google's work is in danger of being halted, and in a way that does not clearly make it easier for their competitors to innovate more with less competition. Thus, the software patents being used against Google are likely to have the opposite of their intended effect, unless Google can force a stalemate by gathering their own patent war chest. If we didn't have all these software patents, all the money going to litigation could be invested in the real business of making products, which would be a net win as long as there are market forces spurring innovation. (Another way of looking at it is that software is cheap enough to develop that companies don't need decades of market exclusivity to recoup their costs. The fundamental computer science R&D needed for a cell phone software platform is negligible compared to the QA costs of making it production-ready, and those QA costs are already well-protected by copyright.)
cageface 15y ago
Has Google filed any offensive patent lawsuits yet? If so, I missed it.
Hostile 15y ago
To my knowledge Google has never used a patent offensively. I assume that your comment is referencing things like the recent nortel patents with Apple and Microsoft. Well, you can't even remotely say that those companies haven't used patents offensively. I really don't think it's hypocrisy until Google starts behaving like Apple and Microsoft when it comes to patents. Do you really not believe there to be a difference?
- rwmj 15y ago
  If they go through a rough patch and get acquired or there is a change of management, it could happen. Patent reform is what we need, NOT anti-competitive patent stockpiling.
  - sek 15y ago
    The Google Trio holds over 50% of the voting stocks.
- teyc 15y ago
  Neither has MS, until their backs were against the wall.
  - RexRollman 15y ago
    How was MS had a back against a wall? They went after Android phones for patent infringement. They extorted money from Amazon for Kindle. And now they suing Barnes & Noble as well. And they have spread FUD about the Linux kernel violating their patents but have so far refused to be specific about what patents they are talking about. It seems to me that MS is as much predator as prey.
    - teyc 15y ago
      Their share price has been going badly. Employee stock options are no longer an effective way to retain people, and they are losing long term employees to the likes of FB and G.
dannyr 15y ago
It was never about buying patents but about how a company uses those patents. To my knowledge, Google was never in the offensive with their patents. They are stocking up to defend themselves.
- berntb 15y ago
  To put on the Devil advocate's horns: Those patents will be used to protect Google from a company suing them, when Google arguably copied their product (iPhone, iPad) which was totally new under the sun. Yes, the patent system is fscked but there must be some protection for companies inventing new ways of doing things.
  - bergie 15y ago
    Ideas are worth nothing. Execution is. Touchscreen phones were nothing new, it was just that Apple built the first one that was actually fun to use. And as their reward they've made quite a bit of money.
    - berntb 15y ago
      There must be some form of intellectual protection for books, painters and user interfaces. Every manufacturer had failed for many years to build something really good -- and the ones without internal problems (Nokia, Microsoft) copied Apple's ideas to compete. So ideas aren't "worthless". The ones doing the copying might end up eating Apple's lunch. You can make an argument for that real innovation (not moving libraries from IE into the operating system) should have some form of protection. (-: I'm doing a Devil's advocate here, thanks for the down votes, people... :-)
      - bergie 15y ago
        Again, iPhone is a great example on how execution matters. It was introduced in 2007, and only now other companies are starting to catch up. Not having a monopoly means Apple also has to keep improving their stuff.
  - 15y ago

I might get some down votes for that, but I really wonder when people will realize that Google is just a company, not a religion of sorts. (same applies to everyone else btw)

MrUnknown 15y ago
I don't think people are taking them as a religion (at least I hope not). It is more along the lines that it seems the people at Google are still mostly trying to make the Internet and technology a better place rather than only worrying about profits. Of course, they do care about profits, but it isn't their only agenda. This is why Google owning the patents isn't a major deal. There is no history of using the patents to get rid of competitors or to make a quick buck. They pull them out of the closet to defend themselves from other patent lawsuits. I am certain that if Google started going after various companies over mundane patents, the view of them will change very quickly and you wouldn't see very many people defending them.
- technoslut 15y ago
  Google, Apple & MS have all done good and bad. I'm still wondering why Google sided with Verizon against net neutrality. It certainly didn't seem like they were looking out for the best interests of the consumer. These companies are still businesses and, when faced with the choice of what is better for them or for the greater good, I expect them to choose themselves.
  - moultano 15y ago
    >I'm still wondering why Google sided with Verizon against net neutrality. They didn't. They got Verizon to agree to a compromise position on net neutrality.
    - technoslut 15y ago
      I didn't take it as much of a compromise on Verizon's part and very few, if any, did at the time. Looking at the effects of this legislation today, the only winner has been the carriers.
      - mantrik00 15y ago
        In fact what Google and Vrizon put forward was only a proposal far from being a binding agreement. Their joint proposal was intended to bring more clarity in the area of net neutrality as opposed to void in the absence of any law in that respect.
- MikeCapone 15y ago
  " It is more along the lines that it seems the people at Google are still mostly trying to make the Internet and technology a better place rather than only worrying about profits." I'd rephrase that slightly: Google's has interests that are aligned with an open, diverse, and free Internet. They'll make the most money if the Internet thrives. Companies like Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft would make more money if they had a controlled walled garden under their control. That's why Google is different, IMO.
wtallis 15y ago
It's not about whether Google is good or bad, or doing good or bad things. In the US, patents are allowed for the sole purpose of encouraging innovation. In the case of Android, Google's work is in danger of being halted, and in a way that does not clearly make it easier for their competitors to innovate more with less competition. Thus, the software patents being used against Google are likely to have the opposite of their intended effect, unless Google can force a stalemate by gathering their own patent war chest. If we didn't have all these software patents, all the money going to litigation could be invested in the real business of making products, which would be a net win as long as there are market forces spurring innovation. (Another way of looking at it is that software is cheap enough to develop that companies don't need decades of market exclusivity to recoup their costs. The fundamental computer science R&D needed for a cell phone software platform is negligible compared to the QA costs of making it production-ready, and those QA costs are already well-protected by copyright.)

cageface 15y ago

Has Google filed any offensive patent lawsuits yet? If so, I missed it.

Hostile 15y ago

To my knowledge Google has never used a patent offensively. I assume that your comment is referencing things like the recent nortel patents with Apple and Microsoft. Well, you can't even remotely say that those companies haven't used patents offensively. I really don't think it's hypocrisy until Google starts behaving like Apple and Microsoft when it comes to patents. Do you really not believe there to be a difference?

rwmj 15y ago
If they go through a rough patch and get acquired or there is a change of management, it could happen. Patent reform is what we need, NOT anti-competitive patent stockpiling.
- sek 15y ago
  The Google Trio holds over 50% of the voting stocks.
teyc 15y ago
Neither has MS, until their backs were against the wall.
- RexRollman 15y ago
  How was MS had a back against a wall? They went after Android phones for patent infringement. They extorted money from Amazon for Kindle. And now they suing Barnes & Noble as well. And they have spread FUD about the Linux kernel violating their patents but have so far refused to be specific about what patents they are talking about. It seems to me that MS is as much predator as prey.
  - teyc 15y ago
    Their share price has been going badly. Employee stock options are no longer an effective way to retain people, and they are losing long term employees to the likes of FB and G.

dannyr 15y ago

It was never about buying patents but about how a company uses those patents. To my knowledge, Google was never in the offensive with their patents. They are stocking up to defend themselves.

berntb 15y ago
To put on the Devil advocate's horns: Those patents will be used to protect Google from a company suing them, when Google arguably copied their product (iPhone, iPad) which was totally new under the sun. Yes, the patent system is fscked but there must be some protection for companies inventing new ways of doing things.
- bergie 15y ago
  Ideas are worth nothing. Execution is. Touchscreen phones were nothing new, it was just that Apple built the first one that was actually fun to use. And as their reward they've made quite a bit of money.
  - berntb 15y ago
    There must be some form of intellectual protection for books, painters and user interfaces. Every manufacturer had failed for many years to build something really good -- and the ones without internal problems (Nokia, Microsoft) copied Apple's ideas to compete. So ideas aren't "worthless". The ones doing the copying might end up eating Apple's lunch. You can make an argument for that real innovation (not moving libraries from IE into the operating system) should have some form of protection. (-: I'm doing a Devil's advocate here, thanks for the down votes, people... :-)
    - bergie 15y ago
      Again, iPhone is a great example on how execution matters. It was introduced in 2007, and only now other companies are starting to catch up. Not having a monopoly means Apple also has to keep improving their stuff.
- 15y ago