

Google On The Nortel Loss, Patents As Government-Granted Monopolies - aorshan
http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/25/google-patent-fight/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29

======
daniel-cussen
Patents are precisely government-granted monopolies. That's the working
definition of a patent. Does this come as some sort of surprise to anyone?

~~~
r0s
The headline is ineffective.

The problem, as the article implies, is that those monopolies are transferable
and hoarded.

------
brudgers
It's hard to swallow Google claiming the high ground after according to their
own analysis, they were willing to pay significantly more than they believed
the patents were worth.

As they say, "We've established what kind of woman you are, now we are just
negotiating price."

[[http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/what...](http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/what_kind_of_woman_do_you_take_me_for_madam_weve_already_established_that_c/)]

~~~
JamesBlair
Confusing criticism for sour grapes shuts down discussion of externalities
like this. Ignoble words can argue for noble ends, but won't when people shoot
the messenger.

Improving the rules of the game should make it easier for the meritocracy, if
that is what you value then you should pay extra attention to those who look
like they should be winning but aren't rather than the opposite.

~~~
brudgers
The criticism of the process would be more convincing had Google won the
bidding because there would not be any appearance of self-interest. Given that
the article concludes:

 _"So the hunt continues for some nuclear warheads to build towards mutual
assured destruction, and eventually détente,"_

It is hard to see Google's motives as meaningfully different from those who
won the auction. In an arms race both sides can claim it is for defense - and
I will point out that nuclear warheads may deter a powerful opponent, but they
will invariably intimidate the weak.

~~~
MikeCapone
Isn't the difference that Google is the one being sued and the others are
doing the suing? Defensive patent holdings seem different from offensive ones
to me.

------
Luyt
If I read this, I get the suspicion that that you have to be a lawyer to make
money in the Valley, not a developer/founder.

------
ldar15
$900 million could buy a lot of politicians, surely.

~~~
fpgeek
When there's $4.5 billion (or more) on the other side?

~~~
ldar15
Depends if the other side also wants to keep patents going. They may be
interested in patent reform too. Apple has Lodsys to deal with, for example.
If you dont have patents then its all about execution. I'd say Apple is
kicking everyone's arse on execution. Same for IBM.

~~~
fpgeek
Apple may be afraid the day will come when they stop kicking everyone's ass on
execution. That seems to be the simplest explanation for the Samsung / HTC /
Motorola lawsuits. If they were confident they'd keep winning in the
marketplace, why waste the time and take the PR hit?

In any case, Microsoft and RIM (two of Apple's partners on the Nortel patent
purchase) know that the day that their execution is no longer enough has
already arrived.

------
ashishgandhi
If you look at Android phones from 2007 (to me the one in the link looks
_very_ similar to a Blackberry) and if you look at them now you cannot miss
how much they have changed to look like the iPhone.

You can't even tell it's the same OS.

So when you copy you are sued. (If the copying/taking inspiration was
reasonable or not is a different issue.) Samsung was sued to copy "look and
feel".

[[http://random.andrewwarner.com/what-googles-android-
looked-l...](http://random.andrewwarner.com/what-googles-android-looked-like-
before-and-after-the-launch-of-iphone/)]

~~~
MikeCapone
I'm sure that if you look at computers before and after the PC you'll see that
most companies followed the leader. Probably same with various generations of
cars, planes, televisions, toasters, whatever.

Where's the line between copying and being inspired by a better way to do
things? I don't know, but I think we have to be careful where we put that
line.

~~~
sbuk
"Where's the line between copying and being inspired by a better way to do
things?"

Somewhere between here; <http://cl.ly/8lZ5> and here; <http://cl.ly/8lIC>

"I don't know, but I think we have to be careful where we put that line." The
line in the sand is there already and crystal clear. This dispute is nothing
new. To be clear, Apple aren't arguing that the phones cannot have radiused
corners or have silver bevels, they are saying that the look of the Galaxy S
phone is too close to the look and feel of the iPhone to be anything other
than plagiarism and therefore an infringement of copyright. When you compare
the two phones I've linked here, one can clearly see that HTC have done their
own thing. They have their own design language that differs significantly from
their competitors. It would generous to claim that Samsung where only inspired
by Apple's IP; the look of the icons, the grid layout, the shape of the icons,
the look and feel of the hardware, the placement of the d-pad. It's all too
similar.

------
orky56
Google is cornered and is taking the appropriate stance. They did not get the
patents from the Nortel sale and Apple is already successful in putting
pressure on HTC and perhaps other Android manufacturers in the near future. If
the situation was different, Google was successful, and released Android
before the original iPhone, they would be the one holding the patents to fight
off competition.

Unfortunately for them, they are late to the party and unwilling to invest
enough in mobile intellectual property. They clearly are not only playing and
supporting the game but also complaining about the rules.

~~~
rmrm
"If the situation was different, Google was successful, and released Android
before the original iPhone, they would be the one holding the patents to fight
off competition."

I believe (some of) the patents HTC got dinged with were granted before Google
or HTC were founded (1996 iirc).

Investing more or less, paying attention more or less to mobile or any other
kind of patent wouldn't have helped them _to not be in violation_. Might have
helped them to not get challenged, but they would just as surely be in
violation. A time machine was required.

I realize this is an over-generalization, but it seems to me that any mobile
software company (not just OS, but of any kind) must have a license agreement
for basically all the patents from Microsoft, Apple, Motorola, and Nokia at a
minimum or they can be assured to be in violation of a patent. It is all but
guaranteed. Everyone, including those mentioned, certainly violate each others
patents.

~~~
fpgeek
BTW, Hacker News (along with many, many others) is (according to Apple)
violating an Apple patent right here: <http://www.google.com>

Yes, Apple claims one of their patents covers recognizing certain kinds of
text (e.g. URLs, phone numbers, etc.) and making them clickable actions.

