
Google and Microsoft make patent peace - tanglesome
http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-and-microsoft-make-patent-peace/
======
proksoup
"What we do know is that Microsoft makes approximately $3.4-billion a year
from its Android patent licening deals. " [sic]

I guess this might be good news for Google?

From my perspective, patents are a toxic drain on
morale/intelligence/innovation that we have no hope of curtailing in my
lifetime.

~~~
doubt_me
I have always had this feeling that patent wars are only around to make the
lawyers more money.

Imagine how many firms would lose millions if the major tech companies worked
together

EDIT: (nothing against lawyers in general since they are obviously just doing
their jobs)

~~~
throwawaykf05
Not a big fan of lawyers (personally seen people screwed by them twice) but
there's this weird meme that lawyers can make lawsuits happen as they please.
The cases where this can happen are very rare as far as I can see, yet the
meme persists.

~~~
rhino369
In some situations you actually can essentially create lawsuits out of thin
air. In class actions, you can pick and choose people to be "class
representatives" and file a suit.

Patent trolling is a pretty good example too. You buy some patent you find and
then start suing anyone under the sun.

But this sort of competitor patent battle isn't easy to start by a lawyer.
You'd have to convince your client to start it. But a huge F500 doesn't just
have one lawyer, they have their own in house lawyers who make the choices.
And then go find a firm to carry it out.

~~~
throwawaykf05
I was thinking more of the corporate warfare type of lawsuits, but I would
still say, given the litigation landscape, that lawyer-initiated lawsuits are
rare. Both class-action and patent trolls, despite the disproportionate media
attention they garner, appear to be statistically a small fraction of the
total litigation activity.

------
shmerl
So will MS stop demanding money from various Android manufacturers now? In
general I hope they'll change their attitude from patent aggression to patent
disarmament. We need more changes like this.

------
znemz
So does this mean the next nexus will get an micro-sd card slot? Cause this is
has kept me away from one due to this meaningless feud.

~~~
doubt_me
They completely avoided this question in their reddit AMA

[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3mzrl9/hi_im_hiroshi_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3mzrl9/hi_im_hiroshi_lockheimer_here_at_google_with_the/)

------
ewzimm
Definitely a move in the right direction. Software companies have operated
with a war mentality for too long, despite their common interests. They trade
employees pretty often too, exposed no-poaching agreements aside. Competition
isn't going away any time soon, but I think everyone appreciates more
interoperability and cooperation. Will the Internet communities following them
be able to follow this example?

~~~
drdaeman
I find it the opposite. In my perception, the patent hatched buried was
actually a good thing for everyone else, because the patents were fought
_against_ (with the likely outcome to be revoked as non-patentable bullshit
that software patents are). With that peace treaty, nothing is against those
patents and they are actually strengthened, which is not something to
celebrate.

Of course, would the announcement contain something about dropping the patents
(and not the lawsuits), my opinion would be surely different. But all I've
read is that two giants won't touch each other and it's not something I do
care about.

~~~
ewzimm
I see your point. But there will be a lot of opportunities for software
patents to be tested in court. When people look at history and see companies
agreeing not to sue each other, what direction will that push the argument? I
hope a good one.

------
jupiter2
"Google and Microsoft agreed to work together against patent trolls in the
European Union." I hope the irony of this isn't lost on anyone - especially as
it relates to Microsoft.

------
michaelwww
I wonder if Apple enabling ad blocking in iPhones and iPads had something to
do with this. Many see it as a direct shot at rival Google, which makes most
of it's money from advertising. Days later and suddenly Microsoft and Google
are besties. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

------
utuxia
Google is slowly becoming the next Microsoft.

------
ycitera
They make patent peace with themselves but not with the small guys?

------
nobrains
Do you think this handshake was partly due to the CEOs of both Microsoft
(Satya Nadella) and Google (Sundar Pichai) having the same roots (India)?

------
mtgx
> Earlier this week, Microsoft re-signed an Android patent-protection pact
> with I-O Data for an undisclosed amount.

You don't say? A patent _protection_ pact. So they don't even try to hide the
fact that it was a mafia-style protection racket all along now?

"Such a nice business you got there. You wouldn't want it to be dragged in
Court and lose millions or hundreds of millions of dollars? Why not just pay
us this tiny $5 fee per phone, forever, instead, for an OS we never
participated in creating?"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket)

------
throwawaykf05
TFA (perhaps unsurprisingly) does not mention this particular Microsoft-Google
case:

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/appeals-court-
uph...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/appeals-court-upholds-
microsofts-legal-win-over-motorola/)

Of all the patent lawsuits that happened in all the smartphone wars that
nobody won, this was the _only_ case where a company was actually sanctioned
for, essentially, abusing patents. And this happened on Google's watch. For
all the rhetoric Google spewed about how their competitors were abusing
patents, ironic that they were the one company that was actually found to be a
bad actor. I always thought Google for too much of a free pass on that one.

Interestingly the Ars article I linked does not mention Google at all. Guess
it's not so surprising they got a free pass.

~~~
nemothekid
Did you link the right article - the referenced article references a court
case between Motorola and Microsoft - one that started before Google's
acquisition of Moto.

It seems the patent battle was Microsoft abuse of its own patents to take a
percentage of all Android sales (and Moto's revenue).

Edit: Motorola vs Microsoft, not Google

~~~
throwawaykf05
It started a couple months before the acquisition but largely went through and
ended (I.e. with the 14M verify against) while Google owned Motorola.

~~~
nemothekid
Well I'm not sure how the article backs up your statement. It was _Microsoft_
who started the patent litigation against _Motorola_ , and it was _Motorola_
who decided to not pay Microsoft. Google was only tangentially involved due to
its acquisition which happened after the litigation started, so I'm unsure how
Google is getting a free pass - Google really didn't do anything (as far as
the scope of the article goes).

~~~
throwawaykf05
When you fully _own_ the entity that is involved, you are not "tangentially"
involved.

