
Google: Patently Absurd - joshus
http://daringfireball.net/2011/08/google_patently_absurd
======
joebadmo
It's weird to me that Gruber claims, like he did in a recent episode of his
podcast with Dan Benjamin, that he's not anti-Google. I mean, why deny
something that's so self-evident?

His arguments here are just so disingenuous.

"So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been
OK."

Yes, because Google isn't forming a cartel to stifle competition.

"It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s for-pay OS licensing business by
giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine
Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging
to Microsoft?"

Yes, because Google isn't using an artificial barrier (the patent system). And
because those patents are bogus. Because most, if not all, software patents
are bogus. That's pretty clearly Google's stated position.

"First, the “estimate” of $1 billion was partially set by Google itself."

But there's no denying that this is by several times the largest amount ever
paid for a patent portfolio.

"They’re effectively arguing against the idea of the patent system itself,
simply because Android violates a bunch of patents held by Google’s
competitors."

Yes they are arguing against the patent system, at least for software, as do
many in the industry. There's nothing hypocritical about that.

"Google supporters claim that Google only wants to use patents defensively.
But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents
Android actually violates?"

This argument betrays either a very weak understanding of how defensive
patents work or a deep dishonesty of argumentation. Maybe both. This argument
can be applied to the very idea of defensive patents.

It's conflicting that someone who's so obviously intelligent and often
terribly insightful (not to mention witty) can be so willfully dishonest.

I'm going to back to only reading Gruber's writing on Apple, and ignoring his
writing on anything else.

~~~
danilocampos
"Yes, because Google isn't forming a cartel to stifle competition."

Hmm. I'm not so sure. There's a way to see Google's behavior where what
they're doing is _precisely_ that.

Predatory pricing exists when you try to take over a market by selling
something so cheap, other competitors are driven out – or prevented from
entering, since they couldn't recoup the costs involved in developing a
product.

In league with their manufacturing partners, Google has their own cartel,
attempting to homogenize the smartphone landscape under a single, free OS.

The incentives are obvious: it's much easier for Google to make its ad money
if it controls the next big platform.

They may have dressed it up as pious and open – but for their purposes, it's a
land grab. Is it anticompetitive? I'm not sure. My antitrust scholarship began
and ended with _The Microsoft File_ back in the 90's. But I'm also not sure
it's any better than whatever satanic pact they are intimating has been formed
by Apple and Microsoft.

Google's argument here is summed up as "You could trust _us_ with those
patents. But we didn't get them. You can't trust the guys who did get them."
I'm pretty sure at this scale, with this much cash on the line, business just
doesn't work that way. Google will run over anyone to keep their ad money
flowing, just as Microsoft will run over anyone to keep their license money
flowing. Why should we side with one cause over the other?

~~~
smokeyj
> Predatory pricing exists when you try to take over a market by selling
> something so cheap, other competitors are driven out

This is what happens when innovation threatens dinosaurs. Phrases such as
"predatory pricing" exemplifies a fundamental misunderstanding of how pricing
works, or markets in general.

People forget the whole point of the market is to serve the consumer. The
point of the market is not to protect the interests of old tech giants because
they can't compete with free. They're willing to prevent consumers from
enjoying the satisfaction that Android has to offer because they want money
for doing what Google offers for free. By this logic I should start a search
engine that charges $10 a search, then sue google for anti-competitive
practice.

Everything about business is predatory. Every time a company releases a better
product it is predatory to their competition. Offering an edge your
competitors can't handle is kind of the point. If Google's pricing is so
"predatory", why doesn't the competition do the same? Because they're ethical?

~~~
danilocampos
> Everything about business is predatory.

By that reasoning, Google should have either bought the patents or taken their
lumps when they lost, right? If business is inherently predatory, whatever
predatory groups wish to form are free to do so in the advancement of their
own interests. Why is it for Google to bandy about anticompetitive concerns,
crying "DOJ!" but not their competitors?

~~~
smokeyj
Anti-competition isn't an empirically observable phenomena. In theory it was
supposed to serve the consumer, but there is a disconnect between the alleged
intention and reality. Kind of a big problem. Preventing a company from
offering a free product in no way serves the consumer.

I don't want to imply google is more ethical than the competition, but in this
instance calling for an abolition of patents is in line with my personal
views, which is markets should serve the consumer. I have no unconditional
support for any of these companies.

~~~
triaboat
_Preventing a company from offering a free product in no way serves the
consumer._

In a general context, a company practicing 'predatory pricing' may do so to
drive the other competitors out of business. Once that happens, it's free to
raise prices to monopolistic levels which would end up hurting consumers
eventually.

~~~
smokeyj
> Once that happens, it's free to raise prices to monopolistic levels

These fears are not based on evidence. When has someone released a free
product _only_ until they wiped out all the competition, proceeding to jack up
prices? I mean, once they jack up the prices there is an established market
ripe to pick customers from. Furthermore, the temporary profits, if any, would
only be temporary and would be a greater cost to their corporate image.

~~~
Elepsis
Jacking up prices isn't the only potentially-negative consequence of driving
its competitors out of business, nor is it a requirement to be considered
anti-competitive. The history of Internet Explorer is an interesting
illustration of both.

------
cheald
I'm not sure how to say this without coming across as incendiary, but what the
hell? Is Gruber utterly oblivious to the horrible state of software patents
and their abuses? Is he actually condoning the abominable software patents
that every other sane developer despises?

Yes, Google is trying to ward off being picked to death by a myriad of utterly
worthless (in the market, not legal sense) patents. Yes, Google is likely in
violation of several thousand patents with Android, and all of its other
software products. Guess what? So is _damn near every other developer on the
face of the planet_ , but Google has a big fat target painted on their back
because of Android's success. They would be _crazy_ to not try to acquire a
defensive patent portfolio.

I'll guarantee you that I violated a good half-dozen patents in the course of
my absolutely routine work today. That doesn't mean that I'm a mean nasty
violator out to undermine free enterprise, it means that _software patents
suck_. Apple and Microsoft have both proven that they will use these garbage
patents offensively to drive competitors out of the market, and Google is left
in the position of "acquire means of mutually assured destruction to protect
ourselves with or die by horribly broken patent law". Which do you think is
the sane and responsible course of action?

~~~
pkamb
_"No one other than Nathan Myrvold and his cronies sees the U.S. patent system
as functioning properly, but Google’s hypocrisy here is absurd. Google isn’t
arguing against a handful of never-should-have-been-issued software patents.
They’re not arguing against patent trolls like Myrvold and his shell companies
like Lodsys — companies that have no products of their own, no actual
inventions, just patents for ideas for products."_ \- Gruber

~~~
cheald
That one line doesn't really discount the tone of the whole rest of the post.

 _Google supporters claim that Google only wants to use patents defensively.
But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents
Android actually violates?_ \- Also Gruber.

The implication is that these are legitimate, unassailable patents that Google
has ripped off in some nefarious scheme to steal Apple's good ol' homegrown
American hard work. Software patents are a severe problem that are retarding
innovation and progress, not helping it, and to imply that Google is
hypocritical because they wanted the patents, then railed against them is
intellectually dishonest. Google's extremely obvious goal is to protect itself
and its products from the abuses of the patent system. For Gruber to pooh-pooh
their actions like that is effectively a means of condoning those patents -
and software patents as a whole - as legitimate and worth protecting.

I'll guarantee you that if it were Google holding the patent gun to Apple's
head, and Apple were to post a similar PR statement after a failed bid to
acquire said patents, he wouldn't be singing the same tune.

~~~
tomerico
_The implication is that these are legitimate, unassailable patents that
Google has ripped off in some nefarious scheme to steal Apple's good ol'
homegrown American hard work_

I would argue that android "borrowed" a lot from Apple, and that the iPhone
was truly innovative in many ways. The question whether they copied _too much_
, or whether Apple's idea were innovative in the first place is what the
Patent system is trying to answer.

There is little doubt the current patent system is a big mess. But I see
opposing the idea software patents in the same light as opposing patents in
general. It is likely that allowing companies to copy everything is good for
consumers (at least in the short term), and increases competition.

The question is where you put the line, for example - if Android was an exact
copy of iOS, would you still say that it should be permitted?

~~~
blinkingled
I don't think you can mention Android borrowing from iPhone while ignoring
that iPhone borrows from Android too - iOS 5 notifications being the prime
example.

All complicated systems borrow from each other - there is nothing evil about
it - it's just evolution.

~~~
Caballera
Can you show us the patents Google has on notifications?

~~~
blinkingled
Let's first try to understand what is implied by your question. Is it that
unless an idea is patented it does not qualify as innovation and in that case
if someone else copies it, it becomes acceptable?

------
ender7
Gruber's argument is dependent on the assumption that only people like Nathan
Myrvold hold what I'm going to call "bullshit patents".

 _"Google isn’t arguing against a handful of never-should-have-been-issued
software patents. They’re not arguing against patent trolls like Myrvold and
his shell companies like Lodsys — companies that have no products of their
own, no actual inventions, just patents for ideas for products."_

Unfortunately, just because you actually make products doesn't mean that you
are incapable of holding and/or abusing bullshit patents. Apple owns more
bullshit UI patents than most other companies that I can think of, and they've
made it clear over the years that they think it's morally right, not just
defensively necessary, to patent user interface ideas.[1]

Apple has not, historically, abused its patent portfolio to the same degree
that Microsoft or Oracle have.[2] However, now that they've thrown their hat
into the same ring, they're getting lumped in with these dastardly
anticompetitive badguy companies when this comes up in the tech press. I'm
sure that makes Apple - and Apple fans - uneasy. It seems like they're being
blamed for their newfound parters' bad behavior. Well, I'm sorry. You sign a
deal with the devil, and you better buckle in.

[1] As as someone who designs and builds UIs for a living, I think this is
_complete_ bullshit. Copyright should protect UI; patents should not.

[2] Although they _have_ done so. Just not as much.

~~~
GHFigs
_Copyright should protect UI_

But it doesn't. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_v._Borland>

~~~
falien
um, that is not what that decision says. It says the interface may be covered
by copyright to the extent that it contains expression. That would seem to me
to have a large overlap with look and feel patents.

~~~
GHFigs
You are mistaken.

It is saying that copyright applies to a user interface insofar as elements of
it are subject to copyright on their own, but that "a user interface" is not
itself expression, not itself subject to copyright. If you copied every last
detail of my interface _except_ the icons or other elements subject to
copyright, I would have no valid claim that you infringed on my copyright.

(NB:I am not saying this is bad or wrong at all. Only that it is so, and that
it's relevant.)

The trouble that stems from this is that what we call a "user interface" is
not exclusively or even mostly elements subject to copyright, but consists of
methods and behaviors that are often the product of much ingenuity and
innovation. This is why various parties have sought patents for aspects of the
interfaces they develop--because those things aren't subject to copyright.

~~~
falien
I disagree with your interpretation. The collection of expressive elements
such as icons seems copyrightable in aggregate as much as any of the
individual elements. What that decision says is not copyrightable is an
organization of data (including choice of words that would struggle to qualify
as expressive). If they had allowed the copyright on that then things like
logical taxonomies would also be copyrightable. User interfaces not built with
a platform's standard interface elements are more akin to works of art and can
be expressive and assuming it was copyrightable then determining if a clone
was infringing would depend on if it was a true clone or if there was some
transformative change.

I'm not sure what is accepted case law, but the cited case seems much narrower
to me than you are implying.

------
aristidb
"But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents
Android actually violates?"

Of course Android violates patents. Just like any sufficiently non-trivial
piece of software...

~~~
amartya916
Absolutely spot on. That being said, in this rare occasion, I think John
Gruber is raising points that needed to be raised. If you read Google's
version of the story, it'd seem like Google is the champion of innovation and
it is being targeted due to the success of Android, and crucially, it's in the
customer's interest that these patents shouldn't be used against them. Well
not really; it's basically in Google's interest. To say nothing about their
own 3.14 billion dollar bid for Nortel's patent portfolio and then claiming
that their true worth was 1 billion, being completely disingenuous.

~~~
orangecat
_it is being targeted due to the success of Android, and crucially, it's in
the customer's interest that these patents shouldn't be used against them_

The first is obviously true, and I'd argue the second is as well. An effective
duopoly of iOS and WP7 would be bad for consumers in the short term due to
decreased competition, and even worse in the long term due to the effects of
all mainstream mobile platforms being locked down.

 _Well not really; it's basically in Google's interest._

Not mutually exclusive.

 _To say nothing about their own 3.14 billion dollar bid for Nortel's patent
portfolio and then claiming that their true worth was 1 billion, being
completely disingenuous._

How? Google's claim is that if the patent system were fixed, Nortel's patents
would be worth much less than they are in the current environment.

~~~
amartya916
"An effective duopoly of iOS and WP7 would be bad for consumers in the short
term due to decreased competition, and even worse in the long term due to the
effects of all mainstream mobile platforms being locked down."

I broadly agree with you on this count. However, I think that for us, the
techie community, the fact that a majority of mobile platforms are locked
might be an issue; for the average customer it is not.

"Not mutually exclusive." Again agreed broadly but it can be argued that at
the end of the day Google is a company chasing revenues (just like every other
company) and not having to get involved in patent litigation is going to save
"them" money. While the patent system might be broken, but as long as it's not
fixed, Google has to play along (just like MSFT and AAPL). I just do not see
how they can ever take the higher ground here, other than being miffed at
missing the deal.

The true price of any commodity is not static, it is always dependent on
competition/availability/demand etc. The patents might be worth 1 billion, but
if Google offered in excess of 3 billion, they thought that it was worth the
price "in the current environment". Also Google can claim that the patents
were worth 1 billion, but they have a vested interest in portraying this as
being the case. I am a little cynical of such claims.

------
Terretta
To rewind a bit, Apple didn't open this can of worms.

Several companies, all used to using patent suits as a cross licensing
negotiation tool, got pissed at the lopsided profitability of truly innovative
products in the mobile space, and started to sue. Kodak sued Apple. Nokia sued
Apple. And no wonder -- shipping 5.3% of handsets, Apple's taking in 66% of
mobile industry profits. How do you mollify your shareholders that some non-
handset company is eating your lunch? You try to get a licensing fee.

Apple was new to this game, didn't start by playing it, but thanks to
embarrassingly unprecedented success, got turned on from all sides, and drawn
in to the fray. Now those throwing stones are realizing Apple (with 25 years
of mobile device R&D the phone guys forgot about) can throw back.

I shared the timeline a year ago:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1166321>

_... to put this in context:_

 _\- Apple accuses HTC of iPhone tech theft (2 March 2010)_

 _\- Kodak prompts ITC to consider iPhone ban (18 February 2010)_

 _\- Motorola seeks ban on US BlackBerries (26 January 2010)_

 _\- Nokia sues Apple, says iPhone infringes ten patents (22 October 2009)_

 _One test for patents' validity is whether the company is enforcing them.
With Kodak, Sony, Nokia, Motorola, RIM, and others suing one another as a
business-as-usual step in licensing negotiations, the value of Apple's
defensive patent portfolio at the licensing negotiation table depends in part
on Apple's perceived willingness to stand behind the validity of their
portfolio and enforce their patents._

Kodak got their judgment. The other pigeons will eventually all come home to
roost. In the mobile industry this is how it's always gone -- we're just
noticing it because Apple made phones interesting to the general public so now
the press is involved.

------
rumpelstiltskin
_How is Google’s argument here different than simply demanding that Apple,
Microsoft, Oracle, et al should simply sit back and let Google do whatever it
wants with Android, regardless of the patents they hold?_

And why should it be different? The fact of the matter is that the idea of
Google going after Apple, Microsoft etc for violating Google's patents isn't
even an issue. Wanna know why? Because Google's competing on the merit of the
product. It's letting the customers make the choice b/w the Microsoft OS and
Android.

Whereas if Microsoft had it's way, the customer wouldn't even have a choice.
_Thats_ the real difference.

~~~
doe88
But what about if the "merit" of the product is based on innovation developed
by others?

~~~
rumpelstiltskin
Then it's more choices for the customer. Nothing's stopping the original
'innovator' from bring his product to market as well.

~~~
itg
Then what incentive does the original company have in spending time & money
into R&D to develop new products when some other company can just rip them
off?

~~~
nextparadigms
Why do most people or companies start a new business? Because they acquired
the patent for it? No. It's because of consumer demand or the possibility of
creating a new market, in which case you actually _want_ others to copy you,
because they validate your idea. Usually, new product categories sound pretty
crazy at first, but by having others copy you, they're basically giving you
social proof for your business, and saying you're not crazy for making that
type of product.

~~~
mhw
> Usually, new product categories sound pretty crazy at first, but by having
> others copy you, they're basically giving you social proof for your
> business, and saying you're not crazy for making that type of product.

Ah, of course. Because everyone held off buying the iPad until all these
Android devices turned up and validated the whole product category. You're on
to something there, you know.

~~~
nextparadigms
I don't think there are that many companies out there that can turn a "big
iPod touch" into a success, especially not a startup. People are much more
willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt and try their products than
they would be with a startup or with most other companies.

This is why I want to laugh when companies like HP and others think they just
need their own OS, and then they can be _just like Apple_. Apple has a lot of
other advantages and factors working for them, that the other companies can't
easily replicate.

The whole world spins around copying others and putting our own spin on it.
99% is copying, 1% is innovation. Thinking otherwise will not be compatible
with reality.

<http://vimeo.com/25380454>

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/22380510974/why-
im...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/22380510974/why-imitation-
gets-a-bad-rap-and-why-companies-need-to-be-more-serious-about-copying.shtml)

------
Steko
"anti-Google", "disingenuous", "deep dishonesty", "willfully dishonest". "very
twisted", "oblivious", "shill", "clown"

The Engadgetization of HN comments is nearly complete. Get off your high
horses, Gruber is exactly right that this screed by Google's counsel is
incredibly hypocritical.

Regardless of what you think about patents, Google, Apple, etc. the following
argument is total bullshit:

Group A has a right to bid on X. Group B is an evil cartel for bidding on X.

Regardless of what you think about patents, Google, Apple, etc. the following
argument is total bullshit:

Group A bids 4 billion. Group B bids 4.5 billion. Group B is paying way beyond
what they are really worth! Group B has inflated the value of patents! Group B
has created a patent bubble!

Gruber's conclusion is spot on:

"No one other than Nathan Myhrvold and his cronies sees the U.S. patent system
as functioning properly, but Google’s hypocrisy here is absurd."

~~~
tensor
That argument seems completely fine to me. If you have more funds then you can
block a competitor from competing by buying up all the resources. Another
example of this is cellular providers in Canada. New spectrum opened up, but
somehow the established duopoly managed to by _all_ the new spectrum in Quebec
leaving none for the incumbent providers. They are not even using the
spectrum, but effectively locked competitors out of the market.

Regarding Gruber, your argument may have merit if it wasn't the case that
Gruber _never_ publishes anything seriously negative about Apple, and also
_never_ says much good about competitors. Sadly, I knew the article was going
to be a negative piece about google the minute I saw it was by Gruber.

People are simply calling it as they see it. There is no real favorite here
between Apple and Google that I've ever seen.

~~~
Steko
Gruber is fairly critical of Apple at times but generally takes a "I wish
Apple would do X but I understand why they're doing Y (or ~X)" position when
he does so.

Apple's a company that hasn't missed that often or that big recently though so
it's hard for me to judge where he should have gone hugely negative on them in
your view.

~~~
tensor
MobileMe was a nearly complete failure. The original Apple TV was not a strong
product at all. The new iCal and Contacts in Lion are a huge design failure.
Their server line was pretty much a failure too.

Those are Apple's biggest failures in recent times. Looking at Gruber's blog
archives, I don't think it's a much of a stretch to say that he's a biased
writer.

~~~
Steko
MobileMe was a modest money maker and ok reviewed product. if you grade on a
curve, I guess that's a "complete failure" next to Apple's core products.

The original Apple TV was always seen as a hobby, just as the new, more
successful one is. They still sold what 6-7 million of them, made a bundle of
money. Compare to Google TV 1.0 it was a roaring success.

Cant vouch for iCal and Contacts in Lion but reviews overall are positive. You
seem to be reaching here.

The server line was another well reviewed product and modest money maker.

You seem overall to be grading everything on a huge curve as if anything short
of a home run is a massive failure.

------
darrenkopp
Google can be opposed to patents, but also try to purchase them because at
this point in time, if they don't then they will be crushed by others using
patents against them.

Also, Gruber seems to think that that it's hypocritical for Google to have bid
for the patents and upset that others won them, though he seems to be missing
the part where a consortium of competitors are the people that won them, not a
single company.

------
timack
There's no hypocrisy here. Google had made it clear from the outset they were
only bidding for the patent portfolio as a defensive measure.
[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/patents-and-
innovatio...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/patents-and-
innovation.html)

------
Kylekramer
_But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents
Android actually violates?_

This logic confuses me, and kind of undermines his premise. Seems like the
same logic would say "Why does this accused criminal need a lawyer, if he did
not actually commit a crime?"

------
barredo
What I think:

It's ok for Apple, Microsoft et al to defend themselves if Android violates
_their own patents_.

It's not ok for Apple, Microsoft et al to defend themselves if Android
violates _patents they didn't develop_.

Also, remember that although Microsoft & Oracle claims that Android violated
some of their software patents, Apple claims against Samsung go far beyond
that, this analysis by Nilay Patel is pretty good:
[http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-
analys...](http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/)

~~~
aphexairlines
All patents held by companies were bought from someone else. They're just
usually paid for with salaries.

------
zdw
The distinction made by Gruber here is between two kinds of companies:

\- Apple, MS and similar companies who buy patents and actually use them to
make products.

\- The Lodsys's of the world that use them as revenue sources and don't
actually contribute any value to anyone.

In the blog post, Google is lumping everyone together, whereas Gruber
disagrees.

Apple's patents that they've used against HTC and similar are for things that
are remarkably unique - more unique than the Amazon 1-click patent and
similar. Notably, they're not seeking out patents to use as weapons - it's
likely, if not transparently obvious that they purchased the portfolios in
question to remove the chance that those patents would be used against them.

I'm no friend of patent law (I think it should be reformed to function in a
manner similar to real-estate property law), but I'm thinking that there is
more nuance to this debate than "Gruber is a Google Hater".

~~~
fpgeek
Is this unique? <http://www.google.comn>

_That_ (turning the text of a link into a clickable URL) is precisely one of
the patents Apple is asserting against HTC.

If that patent is truly innovative (which it isn't, I'm sure there were web
browsers and/or mail readers that did similar things well before the filing
date), Google has to worry about the patent situation around _Chrome_ ,
Mozilla has to worry about the patent situation around Firefox and ...

If Apple wins with such nonsense patents against HTC, wemight as well just
shut down the US software industry and send it offshore (like everything
else), since there are plenty of jurisdictions that don't recognize these
bogus patents.

------
dpcan
This patent thing has to come to a head. Something has to happen.

It's not just big companies that are involved here.

Guys like me. A family man in the northwest just trying to make a living doing
pretty obvious things with technology is going to get screwed by all of this
eventually.

I develop on Android and it's a massive chunk of my income. If they go down,
so do I.

All these games have to stop and something has to be decided. The courts need
to look at this, the government needs to look at this, and things need to move
swiftly.

I'm about ready to start painting houses. I've never heard one of them
complain about getting sued for the way they move their arm up and down when
they paint.

------
nextparadigms
In his quest of defend everything related to Apple, Gruber is probably
stepping on a lot of good principles or ideas - like admitting the patent
system is broken. I think he made it obvious before, I don't remember in which
case exactly, probably the one with Apple's new policy of taxing content
distributors, that he would defend _anything_ Apple does, no matter how
absurd. This is no different. I know it's become cliche by now, but I think
Gruber has become too engulfed in Steve Jobs reality distortion field, and as
others have said here, even he might not realize it.

------
b0sk
Since Microsoft, Apple cartel _bought_ the Nortel patents aren't they exactly
behaving like patent trolls ( Intellectual Ventures ) in this context? You
have to be wilfully ignorant not to see the similarity.

~~~
pohl
I would think not having used an acquired patent in offensive litigation is
the salient dissimilarity.

One would have to be willfully ignorant not to see that.

~~~
fpgeek
Doesn't everyone expect that the acquired patents are going to be used against
Android? Doesn't the makeup of the winning consortium argue for that
interpretation?

------
bdhe
Does anyone else feel the word _undermine_ is not appropriate in this quote
(due to which, I'm unable to understand the point behind the comparison):

 _It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s for-pay OS licensing business by
giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine
Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging
to Microsoft?_

[1] <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/undermine>

~~~
lawfulfalafel
First of all, Linux violates 0 patents in my book til Microsoft at least
specifies them. Then maybe we can talk about whether or not the present tense
"violates" and not "potentially violating" is accurate.

Secondly, even if that is true, does Gruber think Microsoft deserves to win
that fight? I mean seriously? If you can develop something on your own time
that violates a software patent, that means we need massive patent reform. Not
that somebody did something wrong, or that it should be stopped. Making that
assumption is unjustifiable and something that should be apologized for.

Google doesn't have a lab with reverse engineers working on "hurting M$". No,
they are simply distributing a flavor of Linux. And unlike the other
scared/ignorant companies that are signing costly patent deals with Microsoft
based on claims and threats of potential litigation, Google actually wants to
fight. I think that's pretty respectful.

Software patents are a joke. They leverage the playing field towards the rich
and ensconced individuals/corporations and against the hackers who are
actually inventing the technologies. It's a sad, depressing joke no one wants
to laugh at.

------
Vexenon
The one thing I'll agree on with Google: the patent system is flawed ― too bad
this is really the only good point (or excuse, I should say) they're using to
defend themselves. Then again, Gruber shouldn't be condoning the validity of
software patents in the first place, because they suck.

Aside from that, I think Gruber hit the nail on the head (though his usage of
undermine seemed a bit odd and out of place).

~~~
fpgeek
"Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Once you take away Gruber's presumption that most software patents are valid,
the rest of his piece collapses.

------
billmcneale
"So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been
OK."

It's a war. You have to take arms to defend yourself, but it doesn't mean
you're happy about it.

Gruber is almost bipolar: his insight on the industry is usually pretty
interesting, but he becomes borderline retarded when he starts posting about
Apple competitors.

------
statictype
Sounds to me like what he's _trying_ to say is that using patents isn't such a
terrible idea as long as you've actually used it to make money on your own
products. I think that's not an unreasonable statement to make, whether or not
you agree with it.

------
Dysiode
"But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents
Android actually violates?"

I may be naive but I simply don't understand the concept of transferring the
ownership of a patent. If Google buys a patent related to Android then HOORAY!
They can use that idea in Android. If Microsoft buys that patent related to
Android then HOORAY! Microsoft gets to sue Google.

It seems to me that "violations" are simply "didn't pay enough monies." Why is
buying a patent your product violates a bad thing?

and, on a semi-unrelated note, why are patents transferable at all? Shouldn't
they only benefit the person who created it? what claim does some arbitrary
company dozens of sales down the line have to that patent?

------
metafour
Also, apparently Microsoft offered Google the chance to join them in bidding
for the patents and they declined.

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/08/03/interestinger>

------
tambourine_man
Google needs to drop the “but we are the good guys” argument because they
simply can't sustain it.

"Don't be evil" is sounding at best schizophrenic and at worst hypocritical.

I'd much rather hear: “Look, we love open source software and we'll use it and
contribute to it in every possible way, as long as it doesn't interfere with
our business strategy”.

That would be honest and not that bad in fact.

------
srik
Could somebody shed some light as to what kind of patents that Android is
allegedly violating. I am curious as to whether they are "real" innovations or
something akin to Amoazon's 1-click.

------
spartango
Gruber: "Sour Grapes"

------
yanw
It's hard to take Gruber seriously when everything he writes distorts reality
and commonsense in the sake of representing them in ways that favor Apple Inc
and its endeavors.

His thoughts on WebM vs. Apple backed MPEG-LA are equally ridiculous.

~~~
itg
"It's hard to take yanw seriously when everything he writes distorts reality
and commonsense in the sake of representing them in ways that favor Google Inc
and its endeavors."

It goes both ways. I don't agree with the way software patents currently work
and think patent trolls such as Intellectual Ventures are the scum of the
Earth, but Gruber has made some valid points here.

~~~
Daishiman
No not really. There's nothing of value in this article.

------
miratom
When will Apple respond to bad press directly instead of hiding behind this
clown?

~~~
shaggyfrog
What bad press does Apple have to respond to? Google losing a bidding war?
Bwuah?

Attack the argument, not the man. Your comment just looks silly.

------
dailo10
All I know is that the lawyers are gonna be making a whole lotta cash from
this showdown!

------
billmcneale
Hold the presses everyone, Gruber just bashed Google.

------
tonetheman
Does anyone else feel like the apple shill is worried that his precious is
losing to android? haha... software patents suck... it is bad for apple and
google and any other tech company.

~~~
Caballera
Yes, because with 5.6% of the market share and 56% of the profits Apple is
hurting.. lol Get real, Google can only hope to make that amount of money on
Android.

~~~
tonetheman
Depends on what you are after. If it is only money (aka Apple) they are really
doing great. Their tribe has money and loves to pay (you cant even go in the
apple store for less than 30 dollars). If you are trying to spread like a
virus... Android wins. Not sure where google is getting money off of it, but
android will end up with insane market (but you are right much less money
there)

