5 ms·

It's interesting how people are choosing to first pick what company they want to be right, and then bending things to suit their desired reality. Why can't peo

by switch 15y ago

It's interesting how people are choosing to first pick what company they want to be right, and then bending things to suit their desired reality. Why can't people just say - Here's a situation and a company that I think is the Do'est No'est Evil'est company of all time is being a sore loser. Google bid on the patents and it lost. It's a bit ridiculous to now claim some sort of divine right to be above patent law. Also, FYI, google has a patent on their doodles. It's the height of hypocrisy to claim that patents for telecom technology aren't fair and at the same time patent a set of doodles.

bagacrap 15y ago
there's a line between holding patents for (ostensibly) defensive purposes and actively using them for litigation against your competitors. The article that you didn't bother to read makes this point somewhere in the middle.
- rodion_89 15y ago
  I'm curious as to what Google's history of active patent litigation has been. A lot has been said about them wanting to hold patents for defensive purposes and I wonder how that holds up against their legal history as I have no idea myself.
oflannabhra 15y ago
Rtfa. The main premise is that the issue Google is raising is one concerning antitrust law, not patent law.
bandushrew 15y ago
Im not choosing the company I want to be right, I am choosing the opinion. Any company that argues against software patents is on my side. Any company that argues for them, or uses them offensively, is on the other side. When Microsoft argued against patents, they were on my side. When they use them against other companies, they are on the other side. Honestly, I dont care a whit what the company is, software patents are bad and if they want me on their side, they will say so, loudly.
- chrisbolt 15y ago
  Why do you so easily let Microsoft switch sides?
  - bandushrew 15y ago
    because I desperately need allies.
- mstepniowski 15y ago
  This time Microsoft was on your side, as they've banded with several other companies in order to buy Novell (and Nortel) patents cheaply, making sure that patent trolls won't acquire the patents and minimalising their effect on the industry (assuming that the new patents would then be only used for "defense", as there is no reason to think otherwise). The plan would have worked, if not for Google which made the price of patents skyrocket.
  - bandushrew 15y ago
    I dont really care much who owns those patents to be honest, I care about those companies who consistently, loudly and vocally oppose software patents. To me, this argument looks like: <some stuff I dont care about in the slightest> Google: Software patents are bad and are going to be used against us. That puts me, in this fight, squarely on the side of google. But I am not fussy, if Microsoft comes out again and vocally declaims the evil of software patents, they can be on my side again as well. What I really want to see is large software companies consistently and actively working against software patents in every direction, putting the patents they control into a pool that everyone can join on the agreement that they never sue anyone for patent infringement, and giving everyone in the pool equal ownership of the patents in there. While also working to lobby for overriding reform of the patent system. that would be a good start, and I dont see anyone doing it at the moment. So really, sod them all.
    - jeroen 15y ago
      I care about those companies who consistently, loudly and vocally oppose software patents. That's not Google. They tried to play the game just like the others. The protesting seems to have started after they lost.
gaius 15y ago
Yes, everyone seems to have forgotten that Google isn't some scrappy freedom-loving underdog. They've 20,000 engineers, some shady tax practices and are happy enough to play IP games when it suits them. They are just another corporation (now).
- SwellJoe 15y ago
  I'd like to see a reference on Google playing IP games, that was not in response to another company starting an IP war.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    SkyHook for one: http://gigaom.com/2010/09/15/skyhook-sues-google-in-a-location-battle-royale/ http://gigaom.com/2010/09/15/skyhook-sues-google-in-a-locati... Another example is their book scanning: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2008/10/google_settles_book-scanning_l.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2008/10/googl... Although the way Google does it is differently than other companies. Since Google makes their money by giving away information they aren't so much about enforcing patents, but rather in blindly infringing. Their modus operandi is to do run all over your IP and then try to back you into a corner if you try to assert your IP. If you don't believe in IP, of course you'd side with Google. Because neither do they. But if you believe companies actually have legitimate IP then you'll tend to see Google as one who simply copies or steals and then says, "What? Patents are bad. You're being mean to us -- we're the good guys!" It's not in their best interest to respect IP. Their best interest is to make everything public -- except for all the data they've collected. That of course is holy.
    - SwellJoe 15y ago
      You're right. I side with Google. At least on the patent issue and the fair use issue. I'm not sure about the anti-competitive shenanigans against SkyHook, as I don't know the facts. My opinions are not because I "don't believe in IP", but because I believe that IP has been abused to the detriment of human advancement. I believe in fair use, I believe software patents are evil, and I believe making information available (within the bounds of fair use) is good for the world. I make my living off of IP. I'm a software developer, a published author, and a songwriter (I don't make any money on that, but I still like the protections copyright provides), but Google has a history of not being evil when it comes to wielding patents and IP against competitors, and your examples don't change my opinion on that. They're the company being sued in both cases.

by switch 15y ago

bagacrap 15y ago

there's a line between holding patents for (ostensibly) defensive purposes and actively using them for litigation against your competitors. The article that you didn't bother to read makes this point somewhere in the middle.

rodion_89 15y ago
I'm curious as to what Google's history of active patent litigation has been. A lot has been said about them wanting to hold patents for defensive purposes and I wonder how that holds up against their legal history as I have no idea myself.

oflannabhra 15y ago

Rtfa. The main premise is that the issue Google is raising is one concerning antitrust law, not patent law.

bandushrew 15y ago

Im not choosing the company I want to be right, I am choosing the opinion. Any company that argues against software patents is on my side. Any company that argues for them, or uses them offensively, is on the other side. When Microsoft argued against patents, they were on my side. When they use them against other companies, they are on the other side. Honestly, I dont care a whit what the company is, software patents are bad and if they want me on their side, they will say so, loudly.

chrisbolt 15y ago
Why do you so easily let Microsoft switch sides?
- bandushrew 15y ago
  because I desperately need allies.
mstepniowski 15y ago
This time Microsoft was on your side, as they've banded with several other companies in order to buy Novell (and Nortel) patents cheaply, making sure that patent trolls won't acquire the patents and minimalising their effect on the industry (assuming that the new patents would then be only used for "defense", as there is no reason to think otherwise). The plan would have worked, if not for Google which made the price of patents skyrocket.
- bandushrew 15y ago
  I dont really care much who owns those patents to be honest, I care about those companies who consistently, loudly and vocally oppose software patents. To me, this argument looks like: <some stuff I dont care about in the slightest> Google: Software patents are bad and are going to be used against us. That puts me, in this fight, squarely on the side of google. But I am not fussy, if Microsoft comes out again and vocally declaims the evil of software patents, they can be on my side again as well. What I really want to see is large software companies consistently and actively working against software patents in every direction, putting the patents they control into a pool that everyone can join on the agreement that they never sue anyone for patent infringement, and giving everyone in the pool equal ownership of the patents in there. While also working to lobby for overriding reform of the patent system. that would be a good start, and I dont see anyone doing it at the moment. So really, sod them all.
  - jeroen 15y ago
    I care about those companies who consistently, loudly and vocally oppose software patents. That's not Google. They tried to play the game just like the others. The protesting seems to have started after they lost.

gaius 15y ago

Yes, everyone seems to have forgotten that Google isn't some scrappy freedom-loving underdog. They've 20,000 engineers, some shady tax practices and are happy enough to play IP games when it suits them. They are just another corporation (now).

SwellJoe 15y ago
I'd like to see a reference on Google playing IP games, that was not in response to another company starting an IP war.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  SkyHook for one: http://gigaom.com/2010/09/15/skyhook-sues-google-in-a-location-battle-royale/ http://gigaom.com/2010/09/15/skyhook-sues-google-in-a-locati... Another example is their book scanning: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2008/10/google_settles_book-scanning_l.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2008/10/googl... Although the way Google does it is differently than other companies. Since Google makes their money by giving away information they aren't so much about enforcing patents, but rather in blindly infringing. Their modus operandi is to do run all over your IP and then try to back you into a corner if you try to assert your IP. If you don't believe in IP, of course you'd side with Google. Because neither do they. But if you believe companies actually have legitimate IP then you'll tend to see Google as one who simply copies or steals and then says, "What? Patents are bad. You're being mean to us -- we're the good guys!" It's not in their best interest to respect IP. Their best interest is to make everything public -- except for all the data they've collected. That of course is holy.
  - SwellJoe 15y ago
    You're right. I side with Google. At least on the patent issue and the fair use issue. I'm not sure about the anti-competitive shenanigans against SkyHook, as I don't know the facts. My opinions are not because I "don't believe in IP", but because I believe that IP has been abused to the detriment of human advancement. I believe in fair use, I believe software patents are evil, and I believe making information available (within the bounds of fair use) is good for the world. I make my living off of IP. I'm a software developer, a published author, and a songwriter (I don't make any money on that, but I still like the protections copyright provides), but Google has a history of not being evil when it comes to wielding patents and IP against competitors, and your examples don't change my opinion on that. They're the company being sued in both cases.