
Patents and innovation - fogus
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/patents-and-innovation.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FMKuf+%28Official+Google+Blog%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
======
grellas
I don't know details about the patent portfolio upon which this bid was made
so as to comment upon it specifically, but I can make a couple of observations
about Google's strategic approach to patents:

1\. Google is definitely _not_ "anti-patent," either philosophically or
otherwise. At the heart of its business is the PageRank patent, which is
assigned to Stanford with exclusive license to Google. Even within the last
month, Google got a patent for its "Systems and methods for enticing users to
access a web site," i.e., its "Google Doodle" (see
[http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/03/25/google-patents-the-
google-d...](http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/03/25/google-patents-the-google-
doodle/id=15873/) for an overview on this). And, of course, the blog post
involved here very carefully delineates and distinguishes patents that foster
innovation (presumably good) and others that are primarily gained to foment
litigation, in particular "low-quality software patents."

2\. Of course, Google is involved in a current, major fight involving Oracle's
assertion of both copyright and patent Java-related claims against its Android
technology. Google is a powerful adversary to take on, and it is blasting away
quite skillfully seeking to invalidate the Oracle patents in that suit on
_Bilski_ grounds that they constitute "abstract ideas" and not bona fide
patentable subject matter (see <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1899156>
for a summary of relevant issues in that case). But no powerful litigant ever
bets solely on how a court might interpret some nebulous body of law such as
what constitutes patentable subject matter. As matters now stand, should
Google lose on that issue, it has very little in the way of defense against
such claims. Perhaps the patents upon which it is bidding will give it a
practical way to attack Oracle so as to bolster its defense but, again, I
don't know about the immediate portfolio or whether it even relates to the
Java-related claims. That said, however, I am certain that the Oracle
litigation, at a minimum, has spurred Google to consider this issue very
carefully and to determine that it needs these tools very badly so as not to
be exposed in the future to patent broadsides to which it has no answer other
than to point out how weak the relevant patents are - which may be no answer
at all in the real world of patent litigation. Hence, this patent portfolio
bid has either an immediate aim in mind (Oracle litigation) or a long-term aim
with the same strategic view in mind (cover yourself against flim-flam patent
claims that might hinder Google's future ability to innovate).

3\. The FTC recently issued a comprehensive report on the need for patent
reform, and one of its main points concerned so-called "non-practicing
entities" or what it has chosen to call "patent-assertion entites" (PAEs) or
what is commonly known as "trolls" (see HN discussion here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2303980>). These are patent holders who
do not use their patents to produce things but rather use them solely for
licensing and the concomitant litigation that inevitably follows against those
who decline the licensing "offer." In reality, the PAE idea is much more
complex than merely that of a shakedown racket. All sorts of large tech
companies routinely gather up all sorts of patents for which they have no
plans to innovate but which are vital to their business strategies, either to
be used to attack rivals or to defend against them and whether for good or for
bad motives. In making this bid, Google is basically acknowledging that it
needs to arm itself in this department. This is neither inherently good or bad
and could be used strictly for protecting Google's ability to innovate or it
could be abused down the road, all depending on future choices to be made by
the company's management. It is certainly a double-edged issue.

Groklaw recently ran a piece answering the question "what's blocking
innovation in America" and answered it with "IP laws" - this in turn led to
some sparks flying here at HN as some, like me, defended IP in general while
saying that it needs to be reformed and (many) others taking the more radical
view that IP laws generally are to be castigated
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210469>). In my view, the case for IP
laws generally is made by companies such as Google, which uses such laws
effectively and powerfully but which, at least to date, has not abused them.
In this sense, Google has been an exemplary company on this issue. What the
future may bring on this front, of course, remains to be seen.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Do you have any more evidence for Google being pro-patent than them applying
for patents?

They've just bid a billion dollars for a patent portfolio, which they claim is
a necessary defensive move. If you accept that, then applying for patents is a
valid defensive strategy too.

~~~
grellas
_applying for patents is a valid defensive strategy too_

Yes, if you define "defensive" to mean that they want to guard their
proprietary forms of innovation against others who might seek to use them
during the period of the temporary monopoly they hold on them. But not
defensive in the sense of having been obtained in anticipation primarily of
being used in litigation defense when others sue Google (which, I think, is
how "defensive" is normally used on this topic).

I am no special authority on Google's thinking in this area. Its public
actions and comments, though, suggest that it is a company that dislikes and
even despises low-quality patents used primarily to foment litigation while
supporting the types of patents (like PageRank) that reward innovation. That
is pretty much how I read this piece. By the way, I also have an antipathy to
flaky patents and strongly believe that the patent system needs reform, but I
am not opposed to IP generally, nor to patents (when done properly) in
particular.

~~~
_delirium
Does Google assert their patents positively, though? I'm not aware of the
PageRank patent being much used, despite the fact that there's a whole cottage
industry of "PageRank for X" search tools, who not only seem to infringe on
the patent, but even _advertise_ the fact that they use a PageRank-derived
algorithm (see, e.g., eigenfactor.org).

~~~
grellas
I think your point is a good one but I am confident that, if Microsoft started
using PageRank for Bing, a Google lawsuit (or at least a Stanford lawsuit for
the benefit of Google) would be both swift and formidable.

~~~
alexandros
PageRank-style algorithms are so fundamental to current search tech that I
would be shocked if Microsoft wasn't using something along these lines on
Bing.

------
flipbrad
This is a big boy move: like the spectrum auction, it's win-win: if they win,
they have a defensive portfolio; if they lose, they force higher bids from
others, meaning that others are going to have to outlay a lot more cash just
to get into a position where they can sue Google from, so that once they do,
they are doing so from a weaker position. Being able to spend billions on win-
win moves that invariably weaken the field without any of those billions going
towards improving client/consumer experience? Maybe Microsoft's got a valid
point about abuses of dominant positions by Google.

~~~
Gaussian
What will truly be interesting: How will Google wield its patent cache when,
inevitably, waters get rougher in the future and some upstart punches them in
the nose? If they shake it off and say, "let's dance," rather than calling
their patent lawyers, then they will have lived up to the credo they're
espousing here.

~~~
moultano
And as an additional insurance, their employee retention/recruitment depends
on them living up to their credo.

------
dochtman
I hope they will license the patents freely to all open source projects, or
something like that, to demonstrate the unevilness.

~~~
zmmmmm
There would be some irony in that since it would allow Oracle to use them to
defend against any counter strike Google makes in the Java / Android patent
suit.

~~~
jbri
Note that such "free licensing" for patents generally includes the stipulation
that you waive your license if you engage in any patent suit against the
patent-holding company - for example, the Red Hat promise includes the words:

"Our Promise does not extend to any party who institutes patent litigation
against Red Hat..."

The whole point is to free up your patent collection so anyone can use it,
without devaluing it as ammunition to defend yourself from other patent
claims.

------
woan
If this isn't a nearly $1b testament for real patent reform (not what is going
through Congress now), I don't know what is...

------
felix0702
Would you give years of hard works freely to someone who just waits to gain
benefits from your hard works? Majority of the answers will be NO. Therefore,
a patent system is still needed in order to protect inventor's hard works from
being stolen by big sharks.

However, there are problems with the current patent system. Why Innovation is
stifled. Why trolls and litigation are likes wildfires. They all come down to
one root cause. The current patent system treats all patents the same and does
not factor in that the speed of the innovation in each industry is different.

If we just look at the innovation speed of the software industry and the 20
years patent length, the problems mentioned earlier become obvious. Say if the
software patent only last 5 or less than 10 years, the problems become
mitigated. Trolls will need to justify the litigation costs vs revenue
generated in less years. Many paper patents will become no value at all.

Also, because the patent length is shorten to less than 10 year, it’ll force
inventor to wait until implementation or commercialization of the patent is
mature before filing the patent application. Otherwise, by the time
implementation or commercialization is ready, the patent will most likely due
soon.

------
ericHosick
I understand their position. Basically, if you want to play with the "big
boys" then you need to have a defensive patent portfolio.

(I am in no way implying I agree with this, just that I understand.)

------
bluelu
It would be great if they could create a patent pool where every company could
join (e.g. paying a small yearly fee), so whenever somebody sues you, you
would have the right to use all the patents in that patent pool to sue the
other company back.

~~~
extension
The problem is that each patent can only do a limited amount of damage to each
company its used against, so members with larger portfolios would be
stretching their defenses thin to cover the weaker companies.

Still, I might like to see a strictly defensive patent pool between equally
powerful players.

------
bugsy
Just to state the obvious, "us, our partners and the open source community"
excludes rivals and suggests something a little stronger than a defensive
portfolio.

~~~
btipling
Yet still it's a positive move. Startups will benefit from it.

------
akmiller
The problem with making this sound like it's purely a defensive move is that
if tomorrow the government decides they agree and would like to massively
reform the software patent process would Google really be able to support
that.

They just spent 1 billion acquiring patents that they would then turn around
and support reform that invalidates most of them. I call BS on that!

No company is going to throw away a billion dollars for the greater good!

~~~
MichaelGG
Or perhaps they realise, even with a new patent arsenal, it's still overall
poor for their business? They probably also realise that any patent reform
isn't going to happen very quickly, and this patent acquisition isn't going to
be "thrown away".

------
grishick
Large patent portfolios owned by big companies represent the most danger for
small companies trying to make something new. Big companies can afford to
fight each other with armies of lawyers and settle on large piles of cash.
However, if your startup gets a threatening letter from Google telling you
that you are infringing on their patent, you are done. Google is a public
company, so they have an obligation to their shareholders to turn their
investments into profits. Hence, I don't see any reason, why Google's lawyers
won't google through their newly acquired patent database to see how they can
extort some juice settlements or shut down some small players.

------
acconrad
Google is becoming more hypocritical by the day. First the Verizon deal. Next
it was closing Android, now it is bidding on Nortel's patents as a protection
power-play (and I'm sure there are countless others, but those are the first
I'm reminded of). This is a "sorry we're not sorry" blog post...I never
understand this. Stop pretending to be a small company in big company's
clothes: own up to being a part of the system you swore not to be a part of,
and move on. Search works for me, so I'm still happy.

~~~
Kylekramer
Google can be ideologically pure about patents being evil and subsequently get
sued to oblivion, or they can acknowledged the current reality and fight it
while staying safe themselves. I'd know one I would pick.

For example, I disagree with marijuana laws, but I am not about to light up in
front of a cop.

~~~
dexen
And who's there to stop Google from abusing the patent pool in 4 years from
now?

Yes, they have been pretty considerate business up to now. But future is not
merely a direct projection of past.

A portfolio of patents is as much an obligation as an asset. You cannot
arbitrarily enforce patents only against certain competitors, lest you risk
the patent in question being shot down in arbitration or court case.

~~~
bad_user
A portfolio of patents becomes a liability sooner or later, no matter who owns
it.

The only one who can stop that is you -- by voting, lobbying or donating money
to the EFF or similar organizations that are fighting against software
patents.

If enough people did this, we wouldn't have this conversation -- but the truth
is, most people accepted the status-quo and/or have other priorities, so after
a little bit of hand-waving, life goes back to normal and it's business as
usual.

And companies have the obligation to defend themselves -- they can't afford to
just bitch-and-moan about this issue. And even companies acting in good-faith
(if such a thing exists for companies) -- will choose the path of least
resistance (i.e. building a patents portfolio). Otherwise, to make a (bad)
analogy, it would be like going to war with "make love" signs.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

