
When patents attack Android - MikeCapone
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-android.html
======
davidu
Drummond is very smart. And he's always been friendly to me. But that's not to
be confused with Google being the good guy. They tried to buy these patents
and failed.

And they claim that they aren't litigious with patents, and they haven't been
yet. But to paint them as the victim is disingenuous -- while they don't use
patents offensively, they have many other tools at their disposal that they do
use offensively, market share in advertising and search amongst them.

Google is a massive company with massive resources. They happen to be
exceptionally smart and know how to use tools outside of litigation to achieve
their means -- but that doesn't make them any less a monopoly or anti-
competitive company; far from it.

It's impossible to view Drummond's post in a box -- it's not just about how
patents hinder innovation -- /everybody knows that/ already. But Google does
everything for a reason, they are very strategic. Since Google knows it has
better tools to be competitive outside of patents, it is in their interest to
eliminate patents as a source of pressure from competitors.

And if you invent something amazing, and you patent it, and then Google
decides to copy you -- you may not feel that patents hinder innovation as much
as you do right now. But since they are a behemoth with lots of other tools at
their disposal, they want to eliminate a favorite weapon of their competitors.
Smart, but altruistic it may not be.

~~~
watty
They're being painted as a victim because they are. Patents are BS and
continue to hinder innovation.

They may be anti-competitive in other areas (although I don't know specifics).
Can you provide some sources?

~~~
cma
They sure touted their PageRank patent.

~~~
MikeCapone
To me, that one seems to actually be a non-obvious, patentable idea. It made
the world a better place. This isn't 1-click checkout or clickable phone
numbers on a smart phone...

But I don't think Google actually sued anyone when most other search engines
started using that method. Correct me if I'm wrong.

~~~
ldar15
It is _exactly_ the kind of innovative solution that multiple developers would
discover independently. It is _exactly_ the kind of idea that does _not_ need
a 17 year monopoly to incentivize investors to provide cash for its
development.

~~~
kenjackson
In fact multiple people did discover similar strategies at the same point in
time such as: <http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/auth.pdf>

------
hullo
It's blatantly incorrect to say of Apple (and even Microsoft) that "Instead of
competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through
litigation."

Regardless of one's feelings about software patent lawsuits (I'm opposed), a
better phrase than "instead of" might be "in addition to".

~~~
JunkDNA
Agree totally. It doesn't really appeal to me personally, but Microsoft in
particular is trying to do some new things from a UI and software perspective
with Windows Phone. From what I have read about it, it actually seems like one
of the few products where MS hasn't tried to systematically copy what is being
done elsewhere.

------
worshipGoogle
Forget Multitouch. Let's talk about how google one day decided to take Java, a
project Sun had spent decades developing and selling as a product, and copy it
(not necessarily the source code) and give it away for free, in all of it's
Google "Don't be Evil" righteousness. Thus causing handset makers who were
paying Sun for their product to stop paying them and instead get the free
version from Google instead.

Is android a better platform than Java's? Yes, definitely. But that's not the
right question. The right question is: was it right for Google to take someone
else's IP and give it away for free?

Frankly I hate the way people view Google, as some righteous white-knight out
to save the world from having to pay for anything that's worth buying. Instead
"just give me all your personal info, and look at a few advertisements, and be
on your way" (pat on the head).

I think Oracle has every right to go after Google for hijacking Java and
turning it into another add-generating revenue stream, without so much as a
tip of the hat to the company that spent decades and billions of dollars
building it into what it is today.

Just my $.02.

~~~
ig1
I don't think you're familiar with the licence history of Java, Sun has long
allowed free third party implementations of Java as part of it's attempt to
get Java adopted as the standard development language.

------
jerf
Is this why we're seeing a sudden burst of anti-patent news? Is Google in the
early phases of drumming up grassroots support for a direct assault on
software patents in general, without their name being on the effort? Is this
post actually move 3 instead of move 1?

Honest questions, BTW, if there's anybody with answers who are allowed to give
answers...

~~~
JunkDNA
Astute observation. Reminds me of this pg classic on PR:

<http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html>

The timing is certainly convenient for Google.

~~~
nitrogen
Software developers, and Open Source developers in particular, have been
adamantly against software patents for a very long time. It seems equally as
likely that independent developers are taking advantage of Google's
predicament to further their own goal of abolishing software patents.

Edit: I will add that I personally have done exactly this in conversation.
But, in the worst case, Google is exploiting a sentiment that already exists,
rather than creating it from nothing.

~~~
econgeeker
"Software developers, and Open Source developers in particular, have been
adamantly against software patents for a very long time."

This is exactly as true as the claim that all scientists support AGW theory.

Reality-- most scientists don't support that theory.

But proponents of the theory say that they all do, all over the place. And
since there is nobody who actually speaks for all scientists, there's nobody
to prove them wrong.

So they repeat it over and over and over and over again, even though it isn't
true.

Logically, your statement is easily disproven. I have been developing software
for two decades, including open source, and I support software patents.

Now you can never make that statement again. Well, you can't if you're honest.

~~~
nitrogen
_"Software developers, and Open Source developers in particular, have been
adamantly against software patents for a very long time."

This is exactly as true as the claim that all scientists support AGW theory.

Reality-- most scientists don't support that theory.

But proponents of the theory say that they all do, all over the place. And
since there is nobody who actually speaks for all scientists, there's nobody
to prove them wrong.

So they repeat it over and over and over and over again, even though it isn't
true.

Logically, your statement is easily disproven. I have been developing software
for two decades, including open source, and I support software patents.

Now you can never make that statement again. Well, you can't if you're
honest._

At the risk of sounding like I'm retroactively changing my argument, I didn't
say "all software developers." My intended meaning of "software developers"
and "Open Source developers" was _many_ , not _all_ , which I believe is a
common and valid grammatical interpretation of a pluralized noun without a
specified quantity.

Sites like Groklaw and organizations like the FSF (though FSF is a bit more
extreme on most things than I am) show that there is a sizable group of people
against software patents, and whether you yourself are for, against, or
neutral, your position does not disprove the harm done to OSS/FS, small
companies, and general innovation by software patents.

Finally, though this is off topic, do you have evidence that most scientists
don't support the theory of anthropogenic global warming? From the perspective
of a non-climate-scientist, non-politician such as myself, it seems like most
climatologists do consider anthropogenic greenhouse gases a problem. It also
seems that claiming that most scientists disbelieve in AGW is a hallmark of
conservative arguments (as in preserving the legal status quo, not as in right
wing), as is claiming that patents help the small inventor.

~~~
davorak
For what it is worth I read your pervious comment as you intended and good job
in your response.

------
MrScruff
I find Google's stance here ingenuous. They're attempting to portray
themselves as the persecuted innovator, but their behaviour in the market in
question doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

While the patents Apple are using to attack Android with seem dubious, the
motivation for this tactic is obvious. Google extremely blatantly cloned the
look and feel of the iPhone and have pursued a strategy of dumping Android in
an attempt to reduce smartphones to a commodity. Of course Apple will try
every trick in the book to prevent them doing this.

As a strategy for Google this makes perfect sense, but playing the wounded
party as they do in this post is ridiculous, whichever horse you have in the
smartphone OS race.

~~~
FxChiP
"Google extremely blatantly cloned the look and feel of the iPhone and have
pursued a strategy of dumping Android in an attempt to reduce smartphones to a
commodity."

There are actually quite a few differences between Android and iOS in terms of
interface, and there always have been -- in fact, many features found in later
versions of iOS were found first in earlier versions of Android, such as copy
& paste, wallpapers, and the upcoming notification area. In addition,
applications are presented differently (you have to slide up a panel,
generally, or tap a button somewhere to get to them), wallpapers can be
dynamic (Live Wallpapers), and Android is, in general, _much_ more reliant on
menu structures than iOS, which seems to take a more simple and transparent
route to most functions.

Sure, there are similarities -- like the fact that it's a touch interface and
applications are represented first as icons -- but I'm inclined to think
they're less prevalent than seems to be thought, and the ones that are there
are (more or less) common sense. (I could be wrong, of course :))

~~~
FxChiP
(I forgot to mention also that manufacturers and carriers also seem to have a
lot to do with the overall interface -- Samsung's stock Android for the
Captivate, for example, _does_ mirror iOS quite a bit, while HTC Sense
probably couldn't be much more different if they tried!)

~~~
recoiledsnake
You can edit posts on here to add updates.

I would say that both iOS and Android are touch enabled versions of this from
more than 20 years ago:
[http://images.yourdictionary.com/images/computer/_PROGMAN.GI...](http://images.yourdictionary.com/images/computer/_PROGMAN.GIF)

For a truly innovative mobile UI, look at WP7 and Metro.

------
justin_hancock
I think that some people have missed some of the points in the article in
particular the aggressive litigation against Samsung, HTC, Motorola etc it
isn't just Google thats being targeted. This is an anti-competitive stance,
Apple, Oracle and Microsoft are being very aggressive in their pursuits. In my
opinion the critical and genuine patents in mobile are linked to the radio
portion of the device, the remaining patents are dubious as they don't
represent novel or non-obvious solutions to a problem, more I did it this
particular way so I am patenting it.

The US patent system, is broken. The cases as far as I know are being fought
in the US, I doubt any of the claims would be accepted by a European court,
though feel free to correct me.

------
rufo
I'm kind of disappointed that the word "reform" doesn't show up anywhere in
this article.

Indeed, one of the main courses of action they're taking is to "strengthen our
own patent portfolio"…

~~~
tobias3
Given the current state of american politics would you want to rely on
"reform" as crucial element of your business strategy?

~~~
rufo
I certainly don't blame them for continuing to play the game as it's currently
played. I was just hoping that they would _also_ look into other, broader,
more beneficial options.

------
jawns
So ... if Google had won the patents, was their plan to just release them into
the wild? Or would they be defending them, just as these other companies are
doing?

~~~
sorbus
Based on what they publicly said, it would probably be something like granting
a license to anyone who asked which would be revoked if they sued Google. It
would probably have been very much like the license for WebM[1].

[1] <http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/>

------
brlewis
Nice to read a Chief Legal Officer using plain language.

~~~
tobias3
And due to this plain language this reads like a like a declaration of war of
Google vs. Microsoft & Apple.

He is accusing them of illegal behaviour. He is accusing them of impeding
innovation. And he says they will increase their own weapons arsenal to defend
their products as well as fight through other channels.

Due to him being a Google official this means this is officialy a
confrontation course. No more diplomacy.

This will be fun to watch. I'm for google :).

------
kooshball
adding more content for discussions

<http://twitter.com/#!/bradsmi/status/98902130412355585>

Brad Smith (Microsoft General Counsel): Google says we bought Novell patents
to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They
said no.

~~~
srik1234
With this, it is difficult to believe and trust whatever Drummond is selling
(apple and microsoft ganging up on google).

------
blinkingled
Patents are here and companies will find a way to exist with either DoJ's help
or by acquiring their own patent portfolio. That's not the interesting news
here to me.

I think by being offensive and teaming up with Microsoft, Apple is risking
being at the losing end of a huge PR and mind share battle here. Microsoft
still makes money using their market position but they are no longer in the
mind share race.

Apple's business is in a position right now where they aren't a monopoly yet
to start abusing it - unlike Microsoft which has so much leverage that losing
mind share and having bad PR doesn't do much in terms of being a dent in
existing, established business. However, for Apple if the rising tide against
their close-ness continues with the help of economical realities and being
perceived as a bully in the same league as Microsoft - they could see
stagnation.

Apple has really no reason to pick that bullying route - they are always first
to create new market categories, they are the most profitable ones, they still
have lot of novelty factor going for them and they can compete in every better
way if they wanted.

------
gord
Note to Google - fix smartphones and insure against future patent abuse by
advancing an even better alternative - a fully formed HTML5+Javascript mobile
OS offering.

Mobile and Web are the same thing, its just we have a legacy crud that needs
to be factored away.

Ideally my phone runs linux with a GPU accelerated HTML5 UI, and has a
javascript programming model with open API to get to hardware features. We are
nearly there.

I believe Objective-C and Java languages are ultimately unsuited to phone app
development. [ because phone app development _is_ web app development ]

This would be a bold, unifying, visionary strategy. You already have this in
place, it just needs to be amplified - doing so could be the perfect strategy
to win the patent game by making the patent game largely irrelevant.

~~~
fpgeek
Huh? HTML5 + Javascript would not avoid future patent abuse. There are lots of
dubious web-related patents from the dot-com bubble that haven't expired yet.

------
febeling
Patent lawsuits are probably filed nowadays how you would threat opponent in a
game of chess. You just need to attack to maintain the strategic position. You
need a lawsuit in an advanced state as a strategic asset. I don't buy that
Google is really any better in a moral sense.

I do believe, though, that there are plenty of people at the companies driving
these current litigations that hate what they are doing. It's just the rules
of the game that let aggression emerge.

~~~
nitrogen
That is indeed the status quo for the large corporate players, but small-time
developers/founders such as myself will still argue against the game because
the same tactics are used by slow-moving incumbents and patent trolls to crush
the nimble startups that are innovating at a much faster rate. A patent threat
against Android in particular is treated as a threat by proxy against all
independent developers because of its open nature.

~~~
mcantelon
It's also a further disincentive to be involved in the American market. The
Indian and Chinese markets aren't similarly encumbered.

------
AllenKids
If the patents were used to block android out of market, then maybe it is
harming the consumers. But I see no problem with demanding license fees and
maintaining certain feature exclusivity, even that means Android become not so
free or less user-friendly. Google does not represent all people and Android
has no inherent right to be free.

~~~
Krylez
You make it sound so reasonable. There is a patent gold rush right now. The
USPTO is approving thousands of patents that cover the same obvious ideas.
Parties that have lost in the marketplace or haven't even participated are
effectively taxing the winners by extorting patent fees. Google could pay the
fees to the losers and acquire enough patents the reach an equilibrium via
mutually assured destruction with their competition, but the market is
effectively closed to anyone without the extremely deep pockets.

~~~
AllenKids
First I hate patent trolls, but the ill effects are financially not that
devastating. Trolls do not kill the geese. No geese, no egg.

And then there are the tech giants, they do not notice you until you get real
big yourself.

So yeah, the situation sure is depressing, but then again at the end of the
tunnel is money and fame, it is only reasonable the path shall be difficult.

------
pcj
If this was coming from an open source community (instead of Google) that's
developing something like Android to give away for free, I would have
understood. But, Google gives away Android for free so that it can sell loads
of them and there by locking down most of the users (non-geeks) to the Google
Ad universe and earn its revenue by selling loads and loads of Ads. Its not
like Google genuinely cares about the expensive mobile industry and its actual
intent is to provide cheap phones to those who can't afford it (on the lines
of OLPC). While whether or not patents and specifically Software patents is
good or bad for the society is a different argument, this issue doesn't
deserve the same sympathy that companies who are attacked by patent trolls do.

~~~
kelnos
Taking a course of action that is in your best interests does not somehow
invalidate the premise that that action is ethical or the right thing to do
absent those interests.

------
marcamillion
I just finished listening to that Planet Money podcast on this, just to see
this blog post this now.

Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

I wonder if all parties involved would lobby for the destruction of software
patents - wholesale - and call a ceasefire.

------
lambtron
technology is an inherently fiercely competitive landscape--a missed
technology cycle can materially adversely impact a businesses operations.

coming out of the 2008-2009 recession, companies are flush with cash, of which
shareholders encourage companies to invest in various operations, assets, etc.
using these cash stockpiles to buy nortel patents and prevent google from
enhancing their dominance / protection against litigation in the android space
is a form of competition. it is all a game.

------
charlieok
I agree that patents are a problem. And, I saw Google's offer today for a free
Android phone with a 2-year contract.

I would love a deal on a phone, but I think it is unethical to bundle products
in this way. I would rather have the opportunity to switch carriers anytime I
want.

I love mobile devices and mobile services, but the market conditions are too
restrictive. I'd like to be able to (for example):

o Have multiple devices from different vendors on the same carrier plan o Have
multiple carriers for each of my devices, so I can use whoever has the best
service at any particular location o Pay a fair price for the data I send and
receive to/from each carrier, and not pay for what I do not use o Sign up only
for internet service from a carrier, without anything else bundled in that I
do not want, such as voice service, SMS plans, etc. Only internet protocol,
thank you. o Use my phone, which I bought, on any compatible carrier, in any
country in the world, for a fair price.

If Google offers an android phone with these terms on their main search page,
I will gladly pay a fair price for it.

~~~
ConstantineXVI
You're more than welcome to forego the contract subsidy to buy a Nexus S (or
many other phones) at full price and use it on any GSM network. Nothing stops
you from pulling your SIM card out and using it in another device, provided
said device supports your carrier's frequencies. The rest of your complaints
are the fault of the carriers, not Google or OEMs.

~~~
charlieok
And so I would like to see Google, who are so intent on fighting anti-
competitive business practices, throw its weight behind this in their
negotiations with carriers, so that they can make such an offer on their home
page.

I seem to remember them trying this originally, with the nexus one, and it
didn't go very well. But, the nexus one was a mediocre phone and it was
relatively early days for android. Now the phones are better, and android's
market share greater. I want to see them take this idea seriously again.

But yes, you are right. The real problem in this case is the carriers.

~~~
ConstantineXVI
Not quite; the N1 came out right as Android was exploding (thanks to the
Droid/Milestone a few months prior), and IMHO (as well as many others) it was
the best phone on the market. It failed because Google didn't bother to
advertise it, and your average person will flip at the idea of paying $529 for
a phone (and these people won't see/care about being in a contract). The Nexus
S is the same concept as the N1, and it's also being sold off contract and
unlocked. It's also being sold on a contract (but still not SIM-locked AFAIK),
because that's what consumers "want" and it'd be another marketing failure
otherwise.

~~~
charlieok
Interesting, maybe I misunderstood. I've had the horrible experience of trying
to use a phone with a European carrier and finding that not only was it SIM-
locked, but there was basically nothing above-board that I could do to unlock
it. I guess I assumed this was a standard practice.

If Google's phones are not SIM-locked, that's great :)

My main remaining gripe is that if I can save on the price of a phone by
entering a contract with a carrier, I want to also be able to go the other
way: get more favorable contract terms if I already have a phone. Or get
month-to-month service at a reasonable price without the need for any contract
at all.

To the extent that these options are not available, the market for mobile
internet service is not as open and efficient as it really ought to be.

------
kleptco
It makes sense for the legal system to guard against copying. If people buying
Android phones actually thought they were buying iPhones - that's a problem.
But if Apple can convince the government that they had a truly original idea
and that no one can use that idea regardless of how they came up with it -
that's absurd.

------
flocial
This is wonderful actually. I don't believe Google's motives are altruistic
for a minute but the only way to make this debate stick is by having one angry
giant of a corporation against it and lucky for everyone Google is the one.

The system is broken but at the same time I suppose we need patents in some
form at least for hardware. Apple couldn't make phones if it wasn't for
innovative suppliers. The only thing between them going it alone and taking
orders from Apple are patents. It's a bit tricky because if this patent battle
plays out, Apple, Microsoft, and HP/Palm would be the only players able to
make smartphones on their own without fear of patent suits. That's a near
monopoly.

It's enough of a tricky debate and politics usually favors entrenched
interests of large corporations. Despite Google's clout they couldn't match
the sheer magnitude of Apple, Microsoft, and others. Plus, Google has always
had an antagonistic relationship with government, since government keeps
trying to pry sensitive personal information from Google.

------
beerglass
To put their money where their mouth is, Google should may be put their
thousands of patents in the public domain and license it to anyone as per the
alternative system they believe is better than the current patents system.

------
fredliu
pro- or anti-patent aside, this post sounds to me more like Google is really
not confident in winning the current lawsuits around Android against its
competitors.

As this blog is definitely not just a random rant against patent from some
random lawyer. Its intention is more interesting. Is Google crying out loud
just because it sees the patent system unjust? or is it really because they
believe they are gonna lose most of their android related lawsuits, so they
want to cry "its unfair!" earlier before the final whistle? just a thought...

------
swarzkeiser
Google was born off of a patent: PageRank. It is unfair to criticize the
entire concept of patents when they've guaranteed the just reward for several
great, honest inventions.

------
jannes
They clearly listened to This American Life's piece on patents. That title
can't be coincidence. They just appended the word "Android" to it. :-)

------
ChrisArchitect
a tough topic/post to go front-and-center public with. a bit surprised to see
it coming from Google. Guess it is the CLO griping.. but the multiple sides of
this coin are hard to ignore. Coin being an operative word as much of this
calls into question the nature of business and competition

------
jheriko
i am yet to hear a valid justification for ANY patent. can we just ignore them
en masse please? the law will then have to change... at any rate i have zero
respect for them. if i invent something already patented, good luck trying to
extract money from me... i dare you.

------
there
off-topic, but if your weblog is not a personal one and has multiple people
authoring content, put the author name immediately under the post's title.

reading a post that starts with "I have worked" makes me immediately stop
reading and scroll around to find out who "I" is.

------
mikaelgramont
Hopefully Google will use some of those $3B to lobby against software patents.

------
econgeeker
The problem with this is that prior to the introduction of the iPhone, android
was designed to look like and work on phones like the blackberry. It was a
better feature phone OS. After the iPhone came out, Google changed courses and
counterfeited the iPhone.

If google wanted to compete, they could have spent 7 years investing in
fundamental innovations-- like Apple did with touch-- to create their own new
UI. Maybe they could have done a voice driven phone. OR, if touch was
inevitable, they could have done their own, innovative take on touch UIs.

They did not. They turned around and cloned the iPhone and then gave the OS
away for free. They were able to do this because the patent system requires
Apple to publicly disclose their inventions. In exchange for this disclosure,
Apple gets a monopoly on the use of their inventions. If you don't like this,
that's fine, amend the constitution, and take it up with your congressman.

Google is now claiming that the government should step in and use force-- that
is, decrees backed by men with guns and the threat of violence-- to allow
google to steal other companies innovations and get away with it.

Think about that. Google cannot compete fair and square, so they steal their
competitors technology. When this is pointed out, they call for the use of
violence to let them get away with it! Talk about Doing Evil!

Apple learned their lesson last time around. They relied on copyright and
license agreements to protect the invention of the GUI. The government did not
have their back when Microsoft stole their invention, so this time, Apple made
sure to patent their inventions.

This is not "anti-competitive", this the very definition of competition. Apple
made a better widget to break into the fiercely competitive mobile phone
market.

People only say "anti-competitive" when someone is _competing_ successfully
and they don't like it.

If justice prevails, Google will become the wholly owned search and
advertising subsidiary of Apple. If corruption prevails, Apple will be
prevented in succeeding against google in court. We'll see how it turns out.

Either way, Once again, Apple-- the only company in Silicon Valley with a
track record of genuine innovation-- is being attacked by counterfeiters who
can't be bothered to spend any R&D on coming up with something new themselves,
and once again, the thieves are claiming that they're just "competing."

If you hope to ever profit form doing something innovative... and not get
squashed by a company like google ripping you off... you really should be on
Apple's side on this. They have always been the underdog that stuck to their
guns and innovated really hard. That they've been successful at this shows
that the underdog can sometimes win.

If its taken away from them, it will not be justice, and it will not be moral.

~~~
FxChiP
"The problem with this is that prior to the introduction of the iPhone,
android was designed to look like and work on phones like the blackberry. It
was a better feature phone OS. After the iPhone came out, Google changed
courses and counterfeited the iPhone.

If google wanted to compete, they could have spent 7 years investing in
fundamental innovations-- like Apple did with touch-- to create their own new
UI. Maybe they could have done a voice driven phone. OR, if touch was
inevitable, they could have done their own, innovative take on touch UIs.

They did not. They turned around and cloned the iPhone and then gave the OS
away for free."

Fundamentally incorrect; the T-Mobile G1 running Android 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0
(with modification), did, in fact, come with its own user interface, utilizing
widgets on the home pages, wallpapers before iOS was even capable of such a
thing unjailbroken, and a different method by which the applications are
accessed -- those particular elements are present to this day in Android
software. Notably, it wasn't until 2.x that the G1 gained multitouch. Back
then, Android's home screen metaphor more resembled the standard desktop of a
computer than anything else -- of course, with the addition of widgets. On top
of everything else, Android did notifications in a brand new way -- in fact,
in a way that was so innovative, Apple ripped them off in iOS 5!

Also, in 2.x, Android gained the feature of dynamic image wallpaper -- i.e.
"live wallpapers" -- where the wallpaper is quite dynamic. This is a feature
Apple simply does not have yet.

Furthermore, there are different interface conventions in application design,
different methods of application development -- in fact, an entirely different
language with a platform-agnostic binary format, and, in general, different UI
mechanisms for everything.

This is not even to mention copy & paste, which Android had before iOS proper
did.

In short: they did not clone the iPhone nearly as much as you say they did.
Manufacturers are the ones that did that later, with form factor.

"They were able to do this because the patent system requires Apple to
publicly disclose their inventions. In exchange for this disclosure, Apple
gets a monopoly on the use of their inventions. If you don't like this, that's
fine, amend the constitution, and take it up with your congressman."

Actually, just because Apple publicly disclosed their patent doesn't mean
Google read the patent and purposely implemented anything exactly the same way
Apple described. In fact, I'm absolutely positive that multitouch doesn't work
quite the same way simply because the API to access touch is completely
different. The end (user-facing) result winds up the same, though -- but the
end result is what's at issue here, isn't it? To that end, I'd say, sure,
multi-touch is copied -- but, there aren't a whole lot of common-sense ways,
on a screen like that, to enlarge something (beyond buttons and such).

"Google is now claiming that the government should step in and use force--
that is, decrees backed by men with guns and the threat of violence-- to allow
google to steal other companies innovations and get away with it."

Blatant, incorrect hyperbole -- unless you can back up the "use force" part.
No, the DoJ is stepping in because the major parties involved with the Nortel
patent acquisition are also direct competitors with Google -- in fact, the
parties are all the major mobile companies that _aren't_ Google. These are
companies that did _not_ invent or patent the technologies themselves, but the
patents are going to them and are potentially usable for the purpose of
crushing Android with litigation rather than by the merit of the products
themselves.

"Think about that. Google cannot compete fair and square, so they steal their
competitors technology. When this is pointed out, they call for the use of
violence to let them get away with it! Talk about Doing Evil!"

"They call for the use of violence" -- citation needed. Honestly, the fact
that _Google's_ competitors seem to be (may not be, but the patent acquisition
seems to be far more than coincidence here) colluding to squash Google by
means of patent litigation is more evidence that Google's _competitors_ can't
compete "fair and square", that is, by technical merit.

"People only say 'anti-competitive' when someone is competing successfully and
they don't like it."

This sounds like something that would be strangely pro-Microsoft back when MS
was abusing its monopoly... but a move to block new competition from entering
a market, or a move to exclude (by disqualification) a very specific
competitor seems pretty anti-competitive to me.

"Either way, Once again, Apple-- the only company in Silicon Valley with a
track record of genuine innovation--"

Are you ignoring Facebook or something? I'm fairly certain Google's search
engine indexer is genuinely innovative, too. Oh my.

"If its taken away from them, it will not be justice, and it will not be
moral."

If it's not, it will not be moral to allow three out of the four mobile
companies to arbitrarily kick the fourth out just because none of them can top
it or stop it on technical merit alone.

Oh -- as for Apple being the most innovative company...
[http://www.gsmarena.com/showpic.php3?sImg=newsimg/11/06/ios-...](http://www.gsmarena.com/showpic.php3?sImg=newsimg/11/06/ios-
event/gsmarena_002.jpg&idNews=2747)

~~~
Xuzz
I can't agree with more than the first few lines of the grandparent comment
(as it is, as you say, "pure fanboyism"), but there is a point there. Nothing
— nothing — before the iPhone had _anything_ similar to it's UI. Not Palm OS,
not Windows Mobile, not (in-development) Android, not even any research
prototypes. The iPhone was _new_.

But "wallpaper", "copy and paste", and even "live wallpaper" are not new.
Physics-based scrolling responding to touch input as if it was actual physical
objects you're manipulating? That was new. Android's innovating (and not at
all bad) notifications interface? That's new, although it's not quite at the
same scale.

But it's hard to argue that Apple did not make serious progress in computing
as a whole with the iPhone. Even if you believe that Android (and webOS,
Windows Phone, etc) should be able to use some of those same elements, or if
you believe that Apple shouldn't be able to patent them.

------
evilswan
If the "innovations" in Android were already covered by prior patents; they
weren't innovations at all, were they?

Not necessarily my point of view, but isn't that how patents should work?
Protecting prior art.

~~~
watty
There are plenty of innovative and unpatented areas of Android. The problem is
"A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent
claims" - this is insane. Patents should protect prior art, not every single
trivial software task. I'd guess it's impossible to create a new mobile phone
and OS without violating patents.

------
jchrisa
Google should buy Lodsys :)

------
yanw
It's sad that pro-patent asstroturf hijacks serious anti-patent discussions on
HN, it's obvious that the HN sentiment towards software patents is that of
disgust, yet when a passionate and rare post like this makes headlines somehow
a pro-patent sentiment creeps out.

Software patents are a joke, just listen to this now famous 'This American
Life' piece: [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/441/w...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack)

In this case it's so blatantly anti-competitive you have to be blind no to see
the problem with it, we have all of Android's competitors consorting together,
time and time again to block Google from buying patents so they could kill it.

Even if you are pro-patent (slim chance if you are a HN member) you should
appreciate the anti-competitive risk of these patent consortiums. And if the
government wasn't infested with IP lawyers (former RIAA, MPAA, BSA; None
reformists) this issue would have taken center stage ages ago.

~~~
grellas
This piece really is all about the Nortel patents.

Google wanted the Nortel patents very badly but couldn't find enough fellow
bidders whose interests matched its own to overcome the concerted efforts of
Apple, Microsoft, and others who have a stake in pulling Android down. An
interesting analysis of who the winners and losers were in this bidding
process appears here: [http://www.tangible-ip.com/2011/what-does-nortel-mean-
for-th...](http://www.tangible-ip.com/2011/what-does-nortel-mean-for-the-
winners-and-losers.htm).

Having lost that bid, Google is in a far worse position to defend Android from
patent attacks than it ever has been before. Essentially, all of its
competitors now have formidable new weapons to use against the Android
platform. This isn't so much an issue of "trolls" as it is conventional large
players who use patent portfolios as arsenals for both offensive and defensive
purposes. Google's enemies are now much more formidably armed as a result of
the bidding.

Google therefore hopes to stir the DOJ into doing something about this on the
antitrust front. The DOJ is scrutinizing this deal and may wind up imposing
conditions that could be vital to Google. Its antitrust chief, Christine
Varney, had represented Netscape while in private practice years ago in its
antitrust fight with Microsoft and she has publicly expressed concerns about
the misuse of patents by trolls and others for anti-competitive purposes (for
those with a subscription, see this WSJ piece:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230365740457636...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576363781889157222.html?KEYWORDS=nortel+patents)).
Quite apart from her personal views, however, it is problematic that
competitors can collude horizontally to do a major IP acquisition for what
seems like an obvious anti-competitive purpose.

Google is not a "little guy" that might elicit sympathy in battling over the
mobile space but it clearly has had its competitors gang up on it in pulling
off the Nortel bid. Android will undoubtedly survive this attack but Google is
seriously worried about being besieged in this way. In this piece, it is
essentially looking to its last best hope in the DOJ for attempting to block
this attack by competitors who hope to win by artificial legal means that
which they can't win in the marketplace.

Let's hope this gets the scrutiny it deserves.

~~~
dmethvin
> This piece really is all about the Nortel patents.

You bet! Nortel is a household name for all they have done to advance
technology and for the smartphone industry in particular, I am _shocked_ that
anyone could dispute the validity of these patents. We owe them a debt of
gratitude for the Nortel PalmPilot, the nDroid, nPhone, the nPad, and all the
other consumer products Nortel has poured their innovation into. They gave so
much, in fact, that they went into bankruptcy. If it wasn't for Nortel, why,
who knows where Apple, Google, Microsoft, and the others would be? The bones
of Nortel are probably brimming with innovative new product ideas that only
need cash from Apple or Microsoft to see the light of day.

~~~
Terretta
I worked at Northern Telecom. You would likely be astonished at how much they
did invent that got licensed into products you take for granted.

------
funkah
I keep seeing this idea that Apple is filing patent lawsuits because they are
afraid of their competitors and their business is on the verge of collapse,
and I just don't understand. Their business is better than ever, breaking
records every quarter. I think maybe people are reading too much into market-
share figures, or projecting their wishes onto reality.

Also, did Google not just try to buy the Nortel patents? Weren't they in an
auction with the same companies called out in this blog post? I wonder if we
would be reading this post at all, had Google won that auction.

Ultimately, patents are not good for our industry, obviously. And if Google
manages to bring about change in this area, we will no doubt be the better for
it. But it just seems a little funny to strike this "patents are bad" pose
when they just bid like $3B for a bunch of 'em.

~~~
redthrowaway
Had Google won the auction, then we likely wouldn't be having this discussion.
Google would have had a huge stockpile of patents with which to countersue
Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle, the result being a cross-licensing deal where
everyone goes back to actually making things. Google's loss created a mismatch
in power, so the cartel can sue them without fear of reprisal. It's this
mismatch that has led to the current situation of companies competing in the
courts instead of the marketplace. Just think: if Microsoft managed to impose
another $15/unit licensing fee on Android, would it even be worth their while
to try to compete? Why bother with WP7, which is never likely to be the market
leader, when you can make more money leeching off Android?

~~~
angryasian
google doesn't sue to hinder competition. At Apple and MS its a regualar
practice. And yes MS is making more money off of Android than WP7

------
napierzaza
Google is lying if they are pretending that Apple and MSFT have started the
software patent issues. And they clearly could have tried harder for the
Nortel patents if they wanted to. How about try to not just bid a magical
number but actually try and win auctions instead?

If Google really cared about the issue of PATENTS they'd be putting as much
leverage behind changing the patent laws and not just calling sour grapes for
themselves. I haven't seen them jumping in and defending (actually small) tech
companies from litigation or doing much more than... a blog posting.

They're also saying that the Nortel patents are dubious, but I doubt it. A
legacy company like Nortel probably had a lot of patents made long ago that
are worth their weight in gold.

What is Google doing about it (based on this blog post)? Not fighting the
patent system itself but of course trying to overturn the patent sale, buy
more patents for themselves and basically become involved in the back and
forth that had predominated software patents for a while now.

This is a blog post from Google about how they want to be heavy hitters with
patents too. They want to throw their weight around with patents just like
everyone else and use the system in the exact same way as this axis of evil
who are conspiring against them.

~~~
Steko
The incredible irony is one of the major benefits of patents is "openness" and
public disclosure of techniques.

The alternative to patents is massive secrecy, sorta like Google's search
algorithm.

~~~
ericd
Openness + death by a thousand papercut licensing fees whenever you try to
write any piece of software. I'll take secrecy and copyright, thanks.

------
pohl
I wonder if anyone in Google is wishing that they hadn't tried to adorably bid
pi billion, and had instead played to win.

~~~
orangecat
This is a rather silly meme. Bidders were allowed to place more than one bid.

~~~
pohl
What you're saying does not contradict the meme at all. The meme goes that
Google first bid Brun's constant, then upped it to the Meissel–Mertens
constant, and finally pi.

That's more than one bid.

~~~
orangecat
And then they continued bidding to over $4 billion. There's nothing to
indicate that bidding non-round amounts changed the outcome.

------
patrickaljord
Good to see Google speak out against the patent trolls that Microsoft and
Apple are, shame on them.

Edit for people downvoting: As I say in my comment below, this is one of the
definition of a patent troll according to wikipedia[1]:

> Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another
> company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased
> patent;

This is what Apple and Microsft did by buying Novel and Nortel patents, making
them de facto patent trolls.

1:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll#Etymology_and_defi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll#Etymology_and_definition)

~~~
danilocampos
You have to be careful throwing around the "patent troll" label or it'll lose
all meaning.

Microsoft and Apple actively ship product. They're playing the patent game but
they're also doing real shit that impacts users every day. This is a far cry
from the Intellectual Ventures and Lodsyses of the world.

~~~
patrickaljord
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll#Etymology_and_defi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll#Etymology_and_definition)

> Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another
> company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased
> patent;

~~~
danilocampos
You left out the rest of the qualifications:

Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to
manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service;

Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base;

Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights; or

Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large
industry that is composed of non-copiers.

I mean, sure, they respond to one of the criteria any time they buy a patent
and later use it in a complaint that includes many patents, both homegrown and
acquired. But I think it's reasonable to say that the rest of the criteria are
a lot more egregious, especially when a company fits most or _all of them_.

~~~
patrickaljord
You left out the part where it says that a patent troll can be defined by any
of these points. Therefore only quoting the one I did was enough to define
Microsft and Apple as patent trolls.

~~~
danilocampos
But that's obvious. The point here is that patent trolling exists on a
spectrum. While Apple and Microsoft may have a tenuous qualification, when I
say patent troll most people who follow this stuff will think Nathan Myhrvold,
not Steve Jobs.

It's same way that calling both a jaywalker and a burglar criminals just
because both have committed acts against the law dilutes the word "criminal."

~~~
patrickaljord
So when Apple and Microsoft buy bankrupted company's patents and use them to
sue Google, they are not patent trolling? What are they then? Innovating? This
is plain patent trolling and make those two companies effective patent trolls
no matter how you try to turn the story. Even if they are innovating on other
fronts. Just like I can save someone's life one day and kill someone the next
day. That doesn't mean I'm not a killer because I'm a humanist on a good day.

~~~
danilocampos
> So when Apple and Microsoft buy bankrupted company's patents and use them to
> sue Google

Has this happened?

~~~
patrickaljord
Not Google but OEM yes.

~~~
danilocampos
They're already suing manufacturers with patents they acquired two weeks ago?

~~~
patrickaljord
They acquired Novel and others long before Nortel.

~~~
danilocampos
You're doing an admirable tap-dance to preserve your Google partisanship here.
Apple may have acquired patents before this but I'm having a hard time finding
support for your assertion that they're trolling with those alone. Or even
applying them at all as part of their patent litigation, as raganwald has
pointed out elsewhere.

Consider these patents cited in Apple's HTC complaint:

[http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/02/the-complaint-apples-
patent...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/02/the-complaint-apples-patent-
lawsuit-against-htc-is-all-about-android/)

Steve Jobs and Scott Forestall are mentioned as inventors in some, and plenty
more are attributed to one Bas Ording, who is a UI designer at Apple.

Even if fully half of Apple's patents in this complaint were acquired from an
outside source, I have a hard time begrudging them their application of patent
law in the protection of a business that makes a real product that required
significant investment to create.

~~~
patrickaljord
Who's doing the tap-dance? First I said that this was patent trolling:

> Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another
> company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased
> patent;

You disagreed, then I demonstrated that it was patent trolling. So, doing you
little tap-dance, you're now saying that Apple never did that. Funny huh? As
for the patents that Apple is suing HTC over, they are ridiculous just like
any software patent as explained by many people (including Bill Gates and
Larry Ellison) and others who pioneered modern computer science:

<http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Bradley_Kuhn_on_software_patents>

Regardless, Apple and Microsoft have been attacking other companies by using
their patents, some which were bought and that, my friend, is patent trolling.

~~~
tedunangst
You have still failed to name the bankrupt company, the company sued, and the
patent in question.

