

Google buys 1,000 patents from IBM to defend Android - matteodallombra
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/google-purchases-1-023-patents-from-ibm-to-bolster-portfolio.html

======
politician
I understand that patents are negotiable instruments like stock certificates,
nevertheless it seems like cheating when you can simply buy creative ideas to
engage in what seems like "Magic: The Gathering"-style legal warfare.

"Ha ha! My 'System and Apparatus for Propagation of Radio Signals' confers a
+2 legal mumbo-jumbo bonus on my 'Transmitter switch-on in a dual-mode mobile
phone'. Your move, sport."

~~~
brlewis
I don't know how much this kind of patent warfare happens outside software.
It's only in software that you can _count on_ competitors "infringing" your
"inventions" if you simply buy enough patents.

~~~
corin_
I would have thought there are many other industries where it is just as
possible for patents to work in this way, though I have no idea which, if any,
do.

For example I could imagine car manufacturers all having a bunch of patents...
just imagine. Nissan have a patent on controlling your car radio from buttons
on the steering wheel. Ford have a patent for having the horn button on a
stick that's connected to the wheel, while VW have a similar one for the horn
button right on the wheel itself.. Could go on and on, and they could have
great fun taking each other to court.

Some industries maybe aren't so open to pointless patents (maybe
pharmaceuticals?), but in most I think you could do a hell of a lot. Maybe
they already do the same, but we just don't hear about it. Maybe they could,
but are wise enough not to bother. Maybe the patents system has just been in
use for a longer time in those industries, so companies aren't allowed to get
away with so much crap?

~~~
qohen
FYI, this actually happened in the nascent aviation industry--the government
had to step in to force the players to cross-license their patents (in order
to have planes for World War I):
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war>

Some interesting bits from that Wikipedia page, which demonstrate that patents
don't necessarily promote innovation and that being too litigious with them
can damage one's reputation:

From the "Patent War" section:

"The Wrights' preoccupation with the legal issue hindered their development of
new aircraft designs, and by 1911 Wright aircraft were inferior to those made
by other firms in Europe.[9] Indeed, aviation development in the US was
suppressed to such an extent that when the U.S. entered World War I no
acceptable American-designed aircraft were available, and the U.S. forces were
compelled to use French machines."

From the "Aftermath" section:

"The lawsuits damaged the public image of the Wright brothers, who were
generally regarded before this as heroes. Critics said the brothers actions
may have retarded the development of aviation,[9][14] and compared their
actions unfavorably to European inventors, who worked more openly."

~~~
qohen
BTW, while the government had to intervene in the aircraft case, there have
been cases of various companies coming together to form their own private
patent pool too, the most famous of which would be related to the sewing
machine: [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/10/28/why-is-a-
smartphone-l...](http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/10/28/why-is-a-smartphone-
like-a-sewing-machine/)

"The Sewing Machine War was the first instance of what is today called a
'patent thicket.' The disputes prevented Singer from selling his invention,
and tensions ran high in and out of court: When Howe personally called on
Singer, Singer threatened to throw him down a flight of stairs.

But there’s a happy ending to the story, as your machine-stitched clothes
evince. The Sewing Machine War ended with a just and lasting peace in 1856,
when Orlando B. Potter--a lawyer representing one of the plaintiffs--suggested
a solution that Mossoff calls 'groundbreaking but also breathtakingly simple':
The patent-holders would combine their patents in a 'patent pool' and share
the profits from selling the machines. The patent pool participants lived
happily and wealthily ever after--or at least until 1877, when the last patent
expired."

~~~
qohen
But, it turns out that, the sewing machine patent pool may have inhibited
innovation, according to this paper:
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1308997>).

"Contrary to theoretical predictions, the sewing machine pool appears to have
discouraged patenting and innovation, in particular for the members of the
pool. Data on stitches per minute, as an objectively quantifiable measure of
performance, confirm these findings. Innovation for both members and outside
firms slowed as soon as the pool had been established and resumed only after
it had dissolved. "

------
mhd
Exactly 1023 patents? Does Google do those jokes even in a legal context?
(Maybe someone had to count them using only his fingers)

~~~
vvnraman
1023 = 2^10 - 1. It would have taken all the 10 fingers.

~~~
notatoad
1023=2^10, 0-indexed.

~~~
gregable
Even 0 indexed, 2^10 patents is still 1024 patents.

~~~
angus77
You missed their secret weapon, the zeroth patent.

------
spdy
Can is say one thing "patent reform" please.

This trend really bugs me all the big companies are spending billions of
dollars on papers instead of putting it into Innovation / new products etc.

If this trend goes on and more patent trolls enter the field everyone of us
needs to have a patent lawyer next to our desk. Lodsys allready proved its
worth to go after the lowest hanging fruit.

I dont want to imagine what happens if one of the big tech companies turn
evil.

~~~
searine
Except these patents (and the massive profits they generated for IBM via this
sale) are the direct result of R&D.

IBM would be crazy not to invest the profit back into R&D to develop another
patent library...

~~~
Hyena
Not really. Most are the direct result of IBM's system of internal rewards for
patenting. This results in thousands of questionalble patents. Being that it
is easier to get than eliminate a patent, IBM is a company deeply engaged in
destroying the world.

------
Zarathust
I just don't get how those amounts of patent help anything. Don't you just
need the good ones? Every company seems to hoard them by number instead of
picking them by validity.

"Ok fine, you can take my hyperlink-in-any-application patent but you've got
to buy my 1000 other crappy patents about artificial-life-in-smarphone". Who's
got to select the 1023 patents?

~~~
cynusx
If I recall correctly, each patent lawsuit takes $1 mil to resolve. The goal
is to inflict massive costs until the other one wants to negotiate a
settlement.

------
michaelpinto
My first assumption is that they did this to go after Apple, and then it
dawned on me: Microsoft is actually going after hardware vendors for money --
so I wonder of this has something to do with that?
[http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070511-microsoft-
paten...](http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070511-microsoft-patent-
android.html)

------
Anechoic
Serious question; would it have been cheaper to just license the patents on a
royalty basis?

~~~
robot
That would be like buying the bullets instead of the weapon.

~~~
barista
But I thought Google's patent play is a defensive play. So they should be
looking for shields and armors not guns and bullets.

~~~
kanamekun
Mutually Assured Destruction is a defensive play... it's a recognized form of
deterrence:

 _Mutually Assured Destruction is based on the theory of deterrence according
to which the deployment, and implicit menace of use, of strong weapons is
essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use by said-enemy of
the same weapons against oneself. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash
equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any incentive to disarm
thereafter._

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction>

------
niels_olson
Serious question: is this a piece of protest performance art?

------
acak
The number of patents licensed = 1023 = 2^10 - 1.

Ofcourse, there can be doubt about their seriousness this time.

------
napierzaza
In case you didn't notice, mobile is the next big thing and everyone who is
worth anything is either spending or making billions of dollars or both.

~~~
felipemnoa
It's been here for a while already.

