

Calling Google's bluff: Which patent is bogus? Why not open source their code? - econgeeker
http://brianshall.com/content/google-are-pussies

======
nextparadigms
_"Oracle Corporation opposes the patentability of software. The Company
believes that existing copyright law and available trade secret protections,
as opposed to patent law, are better suited to protecting computer software
developments. Patent law provides to inventors an exclusive right to new
technology in return for publication of the technology. This is not
appropriate for industries such as software development in which innovations
occur rapidly, can be made without a substantial capital investment, and tend
to be creative combinations of previously-known techniques.

Even if patent law were appropriate for protection of software, due to the
large volume of recently-granted software patents and the rising number of new
applications, the current patent process would continue to be troublesome for
the software industry. Software patent examinations are hindered by the
limited capability of searching prior art, by the turnover rate among
examiners in the Patent and Trademark Office, and by the confusion surrounding
novelty and innovation in the software arena. The problem is exacerbated by
varying international patent laws, which both raise the cost and confuse the
issue of patent protection.

Unfortunately, as a defensive strategy, Oracle has been forced to protect
itself by selectively applying for patents which will present the best
opportunities for cross-licensing between Oracle and other companies who may
allege patent infringement."_

A statement against patenting software from no other than Oracle, before they
sued Google. So in principle even they think software patents are _all_ bad,
but when they stand to make billions of dollars, they suddenly have a change
of heart, and they want to abuse the patent system just like any other patent
troll out there.

Why should Google be the only ones to open-source _all_ their patents right
now? So they can be even _more_ vulnerable against other companies? Didn't
they open-source Android and other companies _still_ found ways to sue them?
What's to stop Microsoft from suing Google on search related patents after
they open source theirs? Because I'm sure Microsoft has some search patents,
too, but if Google open sources theirs, how will they be able to ensure that
"mutual -assured destruction" balance if they don't own any patents anymore?

This can't be just one-sided. Either everyone loses their patents, or they
keep going as it is, and try to gather as many patents as possible to ensure
they don't get sued over bogus patents.

EDIT: And what corporation doesn't use their profits to enter a new business?
Doesn't Microsoft user their _monopoly profits_ as you call them, from both
the OS business and the Office doc business, to throw them at the search
engine business where they still lose billions of dollars?

Didn't they use those _monopoly profits_ to enter the console market where
they had to invest billions of dollars to beat even long time players such as
Sony? Is that any more fair than what Google is doing?

What about the mobile market? They're using their monopoly profits to throw
billion dollars more at that market, too, in promotions and partnerships with
(once) market leaders such as Nokia.

It's _Microsoft_ who are being the _pussies_. They are the ones trying to use
any loophole in the patent system to stop Android from growing any further.
Why is Microsoft being such _pussies_ and using the legal system or any means
necessary, moral or not, to stop Android, instead of competing in the market
like everybody else?

It's Microsoft who are the ones crying Android is stealing their mobile
business because they were 2 years late to the game, and now they try to
recuperate by exploiting the patent system, instead of catching up with their
own technology - you know the stuff that really matters in the end - what you
have to show for yourself - not some patents on a paper.

~~~
eykanal
You're highlighting the difference between "in principle" and "in practice".
Probably all these companies think that _in principle_ the patent system is
screwed up; they spend BILLIONS of dollars buying and litigating patents, and
most likely every single one of these companies would rather spend the cash on
R&D or something more useful. However, _in practice_ a company that does this
is going to suffer, and suffer badly.

The complaint against Google is their whining. Yes, they don't like the patent
system. Yes, they also aggressively bid pi billion to increase their patent
portfolio. However, complaining afterwards that the problem is with the "other
guys" is just stupid. Complain about the system, OK; it's a messed up system,
we all know that. Complain about the other guy, when you were just doing the
exact same thing a minute ago, now you're just a whiner, and you should grow
up.

~~~
nextparadigms
If the others think the system is broken "in practice" then they should also
push for abolishing software patents, whether they do it together with Google
or separately.

------
Mavrik
EVERY software patent is bogus - companies rather waste time and money
fighting each other over "link phone number to contact" patents instead of
actually developing products.

Copyright is more than enough when it comes to protecting IP.

~~~
technoslut
I agree that software patents are BS but this article is more about Google
than software patents.

Throughout this whole argument the only party I've felt sorry for are the
indie devs. I couldn't care less that Google, who is playing by the patent war
system, is not winning. Their major concern has not been the indie dev but
themselves. Where are they on the Lodsys lawsuits? No one knows.

If Google is willing to play the game, don't cry because you're losing. Many
will not have sympathy for a company that is worth hundreds of billions and
controls a de facto monopoly on search.

------
johnfelix
that account has been suspended...you can read the cached copy at
<http://fireballed.org/linked/2011/08/04/google/>

~~~
rwolf
The link seems to work. This appears to be someone's blog, so what do you mean
by "that account has been suspended?"

Fireballed looks cool, incidentally.

------
napierzaza
One wrong part of this article is that Google ever said they wanted to tear
down patent law. They actually said in their blog post that they wanted to buy
patents and have the Nortel sale reversed and made illegal (making Google the
only legal buyer I imagine). They want to be players in the patent
business.They want the current paradigm to continue.

"We’re also looking at other ways to reduce the anti-competitive threats
against Android by strengthening our own patent portfolio. Unless we act,
consumers could face rising costs for Android devices — and fewer choices for
their next phone."

The other wrong part is asking them to open source everything. They do use the
"Open" moniker too much, especially now that they are being restrictive with
Android. But they shouldn't be expected to reveal everything they do, even if
they should tone down the "open" rhetoric.

------
1010011010
This guy calls out Google but admires Microsoft... a company worse on all of
his metrics. Why?

~~~
robterrell
He says it right there in the article:

 _Google hasn't innovated a single fucking thing in over a decade... While
Apple and Microsoft and Nokia and Nortel and Blackberry and IBM and many
others were actually innovating in smartphones and mobile technologies for
over a decade you were busy making monopoly profits in a different market. Now
you want into the big global smartphone market. And essentially want all the
intellectual property of these companies to be effectively voided._

I don't get any sense that admires Microsoft per se; as I read it, he's just
comparing and contrasting with respect to innovation in the smartphone space,
and finds Google lacking.

