
Patent war goes nuclear: Microsoft, Apple-owned “Rockstar” sues Google - phenylene
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/patent-war-goes-nuclear-microsoft-apple-owned-rockstar-sues-google/
======
pg
It's a little early to say for sure, but I predict this will do more to hurt
Apple's reputation in the tech community than anything they've done before.
And that is not a good community to alienate. I would not be surprised if they
look back on this move one day and feel that they ended up net worse off as a
result.

Apple used to be careful not to alienate hackers. And Microsoft has been
gradually digging itself out of a hole in that respect for several years. Now
in my mind they are both the enemy.

~~~
bowlofpetunias
This may be true, but let's not get fooled into thinking that because "they"
are the enemy, Google must be our friend.

Google is playing a very dubious game here, and it has nothing to do with
being on "our" side of the patent issue. They've tried to buy the same
patents, refused to participate in a joint effort to safeguard those patents
for all, and then knowingly violated those patents.

All through this, they've been silent about their motives, and have even tried
to mislead the public by claiming they were never invited to join.

There are no "good guys" in this conflict, no sides any of us should be on.

~~~
air
I think separating good guys and bad guys is pretty simple, if one is against
(at least software) patents:

Using patents aggressively makes you a bad guy.

Google has not done this, Microsoft and Apple have.

~~~
blumkvist
This is according to some moral code or what? The world doesn't abide a set of
moral rules. Rules are made by people who can't win without them. You can't
tell everybody to stick it and start entering several industries at once. In
the real world you have to be cooperative, as well as persistent, because you
are not the only 800-pound gorilla.

~~~
sgift
> Rules are made by people who can't win without them.

What's that? The official motto of all bullys and anarchists?

~~~
nzp
Anarchists? I'm sorry, but how about learning what that word actually means?

------
OoTheNigerian
Anytime I see the latest "outrage" on HN, I laugh and remember us, citizens of
my country that want to protest as long as they are not required to personally
sacrifice too much.

Most of these companies depend on you hackers (I do not write code) to be
successful. If you decide to pull your apps from the app store, stop buying
their products and write a post telling everyone why you made the move, they
will be hurt. Even if the embargo is for one year only!

But of course that will not happen. No one likes to be inconvenienced
personally. It will mean loosing revenue. Other people (the EFF)should fight
the battle. You donate your $10 to EFF and believe you have fought the good
fight.

Nothing will come out of this. Google will band with a few chaps on the other
side (Facebook Twitter etc), a few hundreds of millions will be spent on
lawyers and they will settle in one way or the other. After all, they are
working together on other schemes (just like the politicians).

Of course, Facebook will one day eliminate all privacy settings, or Google
will put ads in our inbox and there will be outrage again.

Of course nothing will come out of it.

I try to limit my outrage these days. I suggest you should too.

~~~
bad_user
> _Of course, Facebook will one day eliminate all privacy settings, or Google
> will put ads in our inbox and there will be outrage again._

As I was explaining in another comment, if you or other people or other
companies don't like something, they can always build something better. If
that something is good and provides more value to some people than the popular
alternative, then it will take off. That's how the free market works, that's
how Android became popular.

Patents lawsuits on the other hand are a loophole of capitalism, preventing
the emergence of competition. I haven't been worried in a long time that
Windows is still king of desktop operating systems, because Windows is no
longer relevant because of technological disruption. I'm not worried if
Facebook eliminates all forms of privacy controls, as teenagers are already
preferring other platforms precisely because of privacy issues (e.g. who wants
their grandma to see their drunk-at-party photos?). But what if Facebook will
acquire enough patents as to nuke all alternative social networks?

Now that's a reason to worry. And this outrage is entirely justified. I also
don't like your apathy and your cynicism. All the freedoms and luxuries you
enjoy today come either from technological disruption, or from people that
were outraged and that decided to do something about it. I also don't
understand your position on this matter - if you agree that patents are bad,
then your cynicism does nothing else but to waist other people's time.

~~~
OoTheNigerian
_> All the freedoms and luxuries you enjoy today come either from
technological disruption, or from people that were outraged and that decided
to do something about it._

"Decided to do something about it"

I am against "outrage" for outrage sake. If you are outraged but not willing
to do anything about it, then it is worse than ambivalence. You are wasting
energy and reducing the value of outrage as a deterrent.

Outrage would be a useful if it resulted in action. So anytime there is
outrage, the offending party would retrace their steps. Because they would be
aware "shit is about to go down!"

So if the first time Twitter/Facebook/Apple indiscriminately fucked over
developers, out rage resulted in something that affected them, things would
have been different today.

 _> I also don't understand your position on this matter. if you agree that
patents are bad, then your cynicism does nothing else but to waist(sic) other
people's time_

I am against the abuse of patents and this is an abuse of patents. I am hoping
my "cynical post" will offend hackers (who have leverage) enough to say "how
dare you say I am all talk!" and take action.

~~~
bad_user
OK, I misunderstood your motives. Sorry.

Personally, as a web developer, I never liked third-party APIs, I stayed away
from proprietary platforms that are hard to replace, always preferring open-
source alternatives or alternatives based on standards, I use Ubuntu Linux on
my workstations, I encrypt my documents that I store in Dropbox and I use
Facebook & Twitter with great care.

I also prefer Android both as a user and as a developer, in spite of Google's
disregard for Romanian developers (i.e. we can't sell apps on Google Play, we
can only distribute free apps), but that's only because with Android you're
not tied to Google Play. Plus I'm rooting for Firefox OS taking off, as even
with 5% of the market, it will push things forward by developing and
standardizing new web APIs.

------
bpodgursky
I know it's been said before, but to reiterate: outrage doesn't help anything,
but buying products from these companies DOES hurt. If you're truly outraged
enough to want to take action, take action

\- writing to your representatives

\- donating to the EFF or other organizations

\- by not donating another $2k to Apple for a new Mac*, implicitly endorsing
these bullshit tactics

\- not developing for those platforms (App Store, etc)

Leaving comments here expressing outrage isn't really helping.

~~~
ekianjo
"Don't buy Macs" is not going to work well around here. Most HNers develop
software on Mac and see it as the ideal development platform. I'd say they
don't care about what Apple does (it's not the first time Apple does that
either).

~~~
throwaway98604
I'm honestly starting to regret choosing to learn Objective-C now. I am
seriously considering learning Android development and ditching my Macbook /
iPhone for a Nexus 5 and some sort of linux distro. People like me are making
this whole situation significantly worse by contributing software to Apple's
platform.

~~~
bstar77
This comment is ridiculous. The big players have been playing a patent chess
game since 2007. Don't forget Google bid for these patents as well and it's
completely ignorant to think they would have not exercised their billion $+
purchase.

Google took the initiative a year ago with their Motorola patent portfolio,
Samsung took the initiative with their FRAND patents, Apple took the
initiative with their design portfolio, Microsoft took the initiative by
funding SCO and suing android OEMs and now this conglomerate is taking the
initiative with the Nortel patents.

This is a war with many players willing to stifle the industry until this gets
sorted out. All players are responsible, but this terrible system requires
that you get involved and are proactive in protecting your intellectual
property.

Go sell your mac and get an ultra book. Go learn Java and ditch obj-c. But do
it because you prefer those products, not because you think you are taking the
moral high ground.

~~~
ekianjo
If I remember correctly, Google has always said they would only use these
patents in a defensive manner if they ever get them.
[http://www.androidcentral.com/google-pledges-only-use-
open-s...](http://www.androidcentral.com/google-pledges-only-use-open-source-
related-patents-defensively)

That's very different from Apple or Microsoft.

~~~
bstar77
I disagree, microsoft tried to destroy linux by coercing companies to pay a
bogus linux tax. Microsoft also footed the bill for SCO's case against Linux.
MS' record is atrocious here.

Motorola Mobility sued apple in 2010. Just last month Motorola filed a motion
to reopen their case against Apple.

Again, all of these companies are deeply involved in this game of patents.

~~~
ekianjo
> Motorola Mobility sued apple in 2010.

As far as I know Google acquired Motorola Mobility in 2011. So they had
nothing to do with the original suit. As for last month's one, I don't know
about the details.

> I disagree, microsoft tried to destroy linux

Where did I say Microsoft was clean ?

------
aspensmonster
Please, make it stop. Make it stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. STOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP.
How many billions of dollars are these companies going to flush down the drain
on legal fees that could be better spent doing just about anything else?

>When Wired visited Rockstar's Ontario headquarters, it found 10 reverse-
engineering experts, working daily to take apart products and find patent
infringement.

>With just a few dozen employees, Rockstar is hoping to convince more than 100
technology companies to pay it patent licensing fees for a huge array of
products. "Pretty much anyone out there is infringing," said Rockstar's CEO,
John Veschi.

Oh fuck these guys.

~~~
ulfw
It's how America runs. Have you asked a doctor how much he pays for legal
fees/malpractise insurance? It's the laywers who run this place

~~~
ac29
Malpractice insurance is probably way cheaper than you think:
[http://truecostofhealthcare.org/malpractice](http://truecostofhealthcare.org/malpractice)

A few thousand a year. Its a common misconception that its expensive, or plays
more than a tiny role in the cost of health care.

------
cromwellian
I thought it was impossible to be more of a douchebag than Intellectual
Ventures, but apparently, there's a new winner in town. It was obvious when
the Rockstar bid won and you looked at who made up the group, what was going
to happen.

I used to get really angry and outraged when reading stories like this, but
now I'm just resigned. Patent reform isn't going to happen and this kind of
predatory and unethical abuse of the system by sharks and parasites will
continue as the cost of doing business.

One can only hope for karmic retribution one day.

~~~
axman6
Hang on a sec, if the patents are found valid, and Google etc. are found
infringing, then they have s/broken the law/failed make appropriate agreements
so that they are then allowed by the owner of the monopoly defined by the
claims to use the defined invention, and are now liable to a civil suite from
the owner of said patents in order to exercise their exclusive right granted
by the ownership of a letters patent/.

s/Breaking the law/Using patented inventnions/ is OK when you're Google, but
an abomination if Apple/MS do it I guess? Obviously Google knew the value of
the patents, and clearly knew the contents, and if it's found they continued
to infringe them, then they're getting what's coming to them. If it were small
companies without the resources to discover the patents they might be
infringing it'd be a different matter, but this is absolutely not the case
here.

Edit: law ain't broked, but Google et al potentially open to exclusion of the
use of the inventions defined by the exclusive patent right.

~~~
olefoo
You don't understand how patents work. Patents allow you to prevent someone
else from selling a product that is covered by your patent. But to do so; you
have to get a court order and show that the product in question is covered by
the patent in question. It's not a question of whether the defendant is doing
something illegal; it's a question of whether the rights the plaintiff asserts
are valid. Of course, once the plaintiff has won an order; defying it is ...
ill-considered.

~~~
axman6
Right you are, a small slip on my part. To clarify for anyone playing along, a
granted patent doesn't make using the invention illegal, but it does mean the
owner of the patent how the right to a)exclude you from using it if they so
choose, and b) they may also seek reparations due to potentially lost income
from someone making use of their invention. (as well as other stuff)

------
linuxhansl
Somebody please show me a single patent on software or a so called business-
process that is worth anything (i.e. not obvious to somebody skilled in the
art).

Just one... I'll shut up then.

Patents were supposed to encourage innovation, now they are doing the opposite
(at least for software and business processes) and causing billions of wasted
dollars and fat bonuses for patent lawyers.

This move seems a bit desperate to me. To avoid fair competition on products,
MSFT and Apple are using patents that they did not even invent. Pathetic and
despicable.

~~~
WildUtah
Just one good non-obvious software patent?

US Pat #4,200,770 Diffie Hellman public key exchange

There are literally dozens, maybe hundreds of good software patents out of the
500,000 or so that have been issued.

We'd all be much better off without any software patents at all but it's not
true that they are all fraudulent and abusive like the ones in these lawsuits.
A small fraction are decent. Of course the innovations involved in those few
patents would all have been discovered and published without patents as an
incentive, because that's how software works.

~~~
rst
Also, in the same sphere, RSA.

But the rationale for the patent system is to encourage innovation that
wouldn't have happened without it, and it isn't clear that either of the
public-key crypto patents qualifies. In each case, the inventors included
academics (Hellman was on Stanford's faculty) whose job is to innovate and
disclose their own innovations. (And while it's common these days for
academics to patent and try to monetize at the same time, that wasn't always
so. It was rarer, and sometimes controversial, in the 1970s.)

The RSA patent made R, S, and A very rich --- but it isn't clear what it did
for the rest of us.

------
confluence
Haha, when you have to sue your competitors to stop them from totally crushing
you in business, it's game over, you have already lost.

To be honest patents don't protect shit and their only value is in protecting
oneself from pointless litigation by losers. The only way to protect your
margins from attack by the competition is to have a naturally defensible
product that derives it's value from the very nature of its use. Google search
is naturally defensible. No one has their code (NDAs FTW!), and no one has the
cash or the competence to build the computing infrastructure to serve that
code. Microsoft Office/Windows was naturally defensible thanks to the network
effects generated by third party applications on the platform, until the
Internet/Linux destroyed that by being cheaper and faster. The iLine of
products from Apple was naturally defensible for the same reasons as Windows,
until Android ate their lunch, just like Windows ate Apple's lunch back in the
1980s. Apple also cried like a bunch of babies way back then and sued
Microsoft for eating their lunch using GUI patents.

> _History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme._

\-- Mark Twain

If you're in the tech world you’re mantra should be: innovate don't litigate.

Apple and Microsoft, you have just shown that you'd rather litigate than
innovate.

Whenever that happens in the tech world that means that you are done.

------
caf
_" Pretty much anyone out there is infringing," said Rockstar's CEO, John
Veschi._

Well, that's pretty damning. If it's true, then it indicates that the patents
never should have issued in the first place. If the overwhelming majority of
"Anyone out there" managed to independently re-invent these alleged
"inventions" without reference to the patent, then that seems to point out
that whatever inventive step may have been involved was obvious.

------
37prime
Frank Shaw of Microsoft revealed that Google was invited to jointly bid
Nortel’s Patent Portfolio but declined.

[http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/03/microsoft-just-kicked-
googl...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/03/microsoft-just-kicked-google-in-
the-nuts/) [http://technologizer.com/2011/08/04/google-shows-how-not-
to-...](http://technologizer.com/2011/08/04/google-shows-how-not-to-complain-
about-the-patent-mess/)

Take everything with at least a boulder of salt before turning to an emotional
being.

~~~
randomfool
By invitation, was it "Join us in suing others, or we'll sue you?"

~~~
grej
indeed. Sounds more like extorted than invited at first glance.

------
grej
The patent system has been out of hand for a while but the big corporations
haven't complained too much about it because having huge patent portfolios
themselves allowed them to build a virtual moat around their business units.

If things go nuclear and they start hemorrhaging even more legal fees, they
may begin to exert more pressure to change the system.

Given some of the recent proposed legislation, hopefully the tide is turning
against filing patent lawsuits as a business model.

~~~
ScottBurson
I don't think any of the recent proposed legislation is intended to address a
situation like this, where all the players are large companies with deep
pockets.

~~~
grej
Good point. Although this particular case highlights one of the key problems
in the entire system. Shell corporations with very little assets are
established as the suing entity in order to shield the much larger and
wealthier owners from any counter-suit liability. If _that_ aspect of the
current system were changed and you could pierce the shell corp to get at the
real beneficiaries, it would alter the landscape for these cases
significantly.

~~~
xerophtye
Will you please enlighten me on how these shell corporations are used? i
thought they existed to avoid negative PR

------
mythz
What really sucks is how established multi-billion dollar companies are able
to oppress smaller innovative ones from competing by simply using their cash
war-chest to buy-up broad patent mine-fields around them. It especially sucks
this is being done to stifle the momentum of one of the highest-growth markets
the world has ever seen.

Patents were meant to protect the innovator, instead software patents are
being used to legally harm competition they can't compete against technically
- hurting everyone except the status-quo.

~~~
bsdetector
Small companies that have done something new aren't buried six feet under a
lawsuit, they are bought out and become Google YouTube, or Google Maps, or
Google Blogger.

Yes they may be forced to sell or sell for less to avoid patent lawsuits
against them, but they sell for more than if they didn't have any patents
themselves.

It isn't an idea situation, but patents still generate a ton of income for
small inventors.

~~~
Goronmon
_It isn 't an idea situation, but patents still generate a ton of income for
small inventors._

But is this income generated for a good reason or just because ..."patents"?
Are these small companies getting paid because of the good work they've done
or because they've managed to fake enough to get some patents useful in a war-
chest of patents for a larger company down the road?

------
prawn
_" Google bid for the patents, but didn't get them. Instead, they went to a
group of competitors—Microsoft, Apple, RIM, Ericsson, and Sony—operating under
the name "Rockstar Bidco.""_

I feel like with those initials, they could've operated as "REAMS" instead.
From Wiktionary, ream: "(slang, vulgar) To sexually penetrate in a rough and
painful way..."

------
interpol_p
This article is very emotionally loaded. Containing a lot of phrases designed
to evoke an emotional response: 'Nuclear', 'DEFCON 1', 'Attack', 'Shocking'.

It actually doesn't mention what Rockstar is suing Google for (i.e., whether
it's monetary compensation, banning the sale of products, etc.) The article
seems designed to get fans of these companies to react.

I think this will play out as a much more boring, lengthy, and anti-climactic
fashion than this article implies.

~~~
axman6
But OH MY GOD it's APPLE and MICROSOFT, didn't you see that? It's literally
the devil incorporate trying to DESTROY GOOGLE who have NEVER done anything
wrong ever!!! How dare they use the law to their own advantage! and besides,
APPLE have never invented anything at all and stole it all from Google even
before Google released it!

~~~
Ygg2
You are making guilt relative. Stop that.

It's like saying. Person A murdered person B, but person B did something shady
in the past (maybe murder, maybe he stole a dishwasher or maybe he was
jaywalking), so it's all Ok for B to get murdered. He had it coming.

Patent racketing is always bad. I don't care who gets fucked over by patent
racket, even if it was the Devil himself, the snake from Eden, he still needs
a fair trial.

------
existencebox
As an engineer, I'm repulsed by the whole deal, to the point of feeling sick
about it.

I'm going to get a lot of negative posts about hyperbole, but no, I
legitimately get red in the face and get a headache whenever I think too hard
about the patent wars. It is our fucking JOB to build things, to move
technology forward, that is at least, my entire reason for being what I am.

so in my eyes at least; fuck the patent system; fuck the american built system
for repressing innovation for "corporate protections." We all argue about
whether it's a "better or worse" solution but at this point, when I spend 99%
of my time hearing about the billions spent on suppressing innovation rather
than supporting it, it makes me realize I want little to no part in the system
that motivates this.

I will have no part of it. My code will be open. I will build things that I
care about, and give them to the world, and hopefully work at a place that
repays me for that (as I have found now.) Consider this my very ill-placed
manifesto to in my own endeavors, support innovation, not the ill-gotten-gains
of the future holder of my patents.

(I'm not sure if I put this here to get it out there; or for comments; or for
thoughts; I think mostly I just feel that it needs to be said, although
perhaps unnecessarily alongside an ocean of similar replies :P)

------
vincie
Non-Americans watching this - make sure you organize however you can to stop
the American disease spreading to your country. Watch your politicians
carefully for any sign that they might want to implement their patent systems
in your country. Good luck.

------
rurounijones
'One patent filed in 1997, for a "navigation tool for graphical user
interface," describes a way of navigating through electronic documents.
Another describes an "Internet protocol filter," and a third patent describes
an "integrated message center."'

Well with earth-shaking innovative patents like that I hope they succeed.

I would never have thought of an integrated message center for anything.

~~~
grej
...a third patent describes an "integrated message center."

This is just comically ridiculous. The only benefit to Google being the target
of this suit is that if it goes all the way, there is a chance that some of
these might be invalidated because at least they have the cash reserves to
stand and fight (if they choose to do so).

~~~
axman6
Have you read the patent?

------
plumeria
Easy people, just don't buy Apple / M$ products! They are trying to stop
innovation...

~~~
ekianjo
Yeah, that's the right thing to do. Punish the ones who use Patents to attack
other companies.

~~~
37prime
So you’d punish Google too?

Edit: Cached version instead of the bloodsucking WSJ paywalled version.
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zoneG32...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zoneG32AVw0J:online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203806504577183433184318046+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari)

~~~
curveship
You realize that suit was from before the two companies merged.

~~~
37prime
The suit was filed after google struck the deal to buy Motorola, but not
officially finalized.

Google announced Motorola Mobility acquisition in 2011. The suit was filed in
2012.

~~~
6thSigma
I believe they were still seeking regulatory approval of the acquisition when
the lawsuit was filed. Either way, Apple sued Motorola first in 2011.

~~~
37prime
Any quotes on that?

Apple sued Motorola (2012) [http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-sues-
motorola-over-...](http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-sues-motorola-
over-qualcomm-license-makes-us-dream-of-a-w/)

Motorola Sued Apple (2011) [http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/12/motorola-
wins-injunctio...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/12/motorola-wins-
injunction-against-apple-could-spell-trouble-for-eu-sales/)

~~~
6thSigma
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20090552-17/apple-sues-
mot...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20090552-17/apple-sues-motorola-
over-xoom-design-report-says/)

~~~
37prime
Apparently you didn't get the timeline correctly. Motorola sued Apple over
some FRAND SEP back in 2010. The judgement came down in 2011 in favor of
Motorola. [http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/06/motorola-suing-apple-
for-...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/06/motorola-suing-apple-for-patent-
infringement/)

In addition to that, you're quoting Don Reisinger?

~~~
6thSigma
Either way, the quarrels between Apple and Motorola started far before Google
bought them.

I don't even know who Don Reisinger is. I googled it and linked the first
result.

------
tluyben2
Like many have said already; how do you vote with a wallet when there is not
so much choice. I need a new laptop; my macbook, after many (by apple and by
myself) repairs, is falling apart. It's fast enough, but just broken. So I was
going to get the 13 inch retina, but now I'm rethinking my position. But what
is the alternative... I haven't seen much yet. I want long battery life, i7
4th gen, 13 inch and at least retina resolution. So Pixel, Ativ 9 pro, Yoga 2
pro, ... ? But I also don't want Windows; I don't want to pay for it.
Problem... I know the thinkpad t440s has long battery life, i7 4th gen, linux
can be installed(still pay for windows), but the resolution (& GPU) are simply
too depressing.

The tablet + phone. Firefox phone; I'll get one of those. Tablet? Are there
any which you can buy _now_?

I really would just like to see Ubuntu on everything; tablet, phone and
laptop, but I guess that's not really an option. I say Ubuntu because it's the
most obvious; when Ubuntu is on there I know I can replace it with another
Linux and I can customize it at least.

Like someone said; we cry here, but we all buy macbooks anyway. While a lot of
us have the power to actually change things. If 100.000 people ask Lenovo for
a Linux laptop, it'll probably come. Besides MS pressure (which is probably
100% of the reason) I wouldn't see why they wouldn't all offer the choice.
It's just not popular enough; check any video on any startup site on HN:
everyone has macbooks.

------
BenoitEssiambre
This is nothing less than an attack on technology, innovation and engineering.
They could try to compete by building better products and matching the level
of openness of their competitor but they'd rather keep their platform closed
so they can gouge their customers and use lawyers against anybody that
doesn't.

We live in a world where inventors can't build anything that get's them
noticed by large established competitors without risking frivolous patent
lawsuits on obvious concepts.

------
guelo
In a just world Apple and Microsoft lose out on enough idealistic brilliant
engineers over this that over time they decline and die.

------
Pxtl
My Apple fanboy friends always try to argue how Apple's hardware and software
are superior, as if that'll convince me that I should buy Apple gear.

I keep explaining the same thing: I know Apple makes the best stuff. I don't
avoid Apple because of quality considerations. I avoid Apple because they're
_screwing up the industry_ , an industry I use for both my career and my
hobbies.

------
yajoe
Looks like Rockstar will be this generation's SCO. It's almost exactly the
same tactic as last time, except now Microsoft isn't even bothering to hide
its role.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_controversies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_controversies)

------
r0h1n
At the risk of downvotes & personal dissonance (I love Android and Google
search), I'd like to posit an alternate filter to apply to this news.

Given (a) Google's inexorable rise and domination of more and more parts of
the Internet & mobile [0], and (b) the unwillingness or inability of
regulators around the world to apply any kind of checks to its scary clout,
could this - Rockstar - be a kind of defensive mechanism from the industry
itself?

I'm not saying that Apple, Microsoft, RIM etc. are suing Google out of a
greater sense of responsibility towards consumer choice, but can we not - as
external observers - view their action as a countermeasure to one competitor's
overwhelming clout?

[0] [http://blog.launch.co/blog/googlewinseverything-
part-1.html](http://blog.launch.co/blog/googlewinseverything-part-1.html)

------
dzink
This is a survival tactic for the consortium. If you look at the bunch - all
of them have hardware businesses with margins that are getting continuously
eroded by Google's "free by ads and cheap manufacturing" model. If they don't
make it expensive for Google to erode mobile margins, they won't last long in
that market. The 0.01 Billion in bidding difference they got the patents with
is quite suspicious too.

The real pickle stems from all of the money feeding the patent trolling
business. That industry needs to die a quick death, and instead it is getting
fed by the buckets. Who knows where it will spill to next (killing fledgeling
hardware/internet of things firms?).

------
DigitalSea
Wow, what a dog move. The fact they're using Google's attempt to bid for the
patents originally against them is even worse. If this isn't justification for
serious patent reform, I don't know what is. The fact the consortium that owns
the patents is comprised of Google's main competitors in many spaces should
immediately ring alarm bells for any judge. This move surely must be anti-
competitive, I hope Google fights this all of the way to the top (they've got
enough cash).

~~~
randomhunt
> The fact they're using Google's attempt to bid for the patents originally
> against them is even worse

That's just lawyering 101...it's a very common thing to do to try and add
"weight" to your arguments is to say the opposition was aware of the "value"

------
usefulcat
The patent system probably added more value 200 years ago when the
dissemination of knowledge was not nearly as easy or cheap as it is today. The
reason for this, of course, is technology.

Looking at this situation from a very meta- perspective, I find it fascinating
that what's effectively happening is that the patent system is seeking to
undermine the very technological forces that have made it less relevant.
Almost like watching two different species compete against each other in
nature.

------
josteink
> "Pretty much anyone out there is infringing," said Rockstar's CEO, John
> Veschi.

And that's the single best reason provided to end software patents once and
for all.

When everyone is "infringing" without even knowing it, without reading the
patent or without trying to copy someone else's work, you should stop, take a
step back, think about things, and realize the entire system is fundamentally
broken.

Or if you have no soul, file a lawsuit and hope to make lots of free monies.

------
m0nastic
Are technology companies eventually going to become like cell phone companies
(or oil companies) where everyone sort of agrees that they all suck, but "oh
well, what are you going to do", or will some company become the de-facto
"conscientious choice"?

I feel like there's at least a bunch of "companies" on the software side of
the equation who I don't feel shitty about supporting, but I think the problem
will be with hardware.

------
slantyyz
I wonder... If Google were to pony up the cash to buy RIM, wouldn't this
lawsuit go away?

~~~
grej
I would think this will definitely increase Google's interest in RIM and its
patent arsenal.

~~~
raldi
RIM is a co-owner of Rockstar.

~~~
grej
Ha. Didn't catch that! I wonder what percentage. Google could get some
percentage of any potential judgement against themselves by buying RIM. It's
like the M&A version of an option spread play.

~~~
adventured
I suspect all parties to the Rockstar trove have equal rights to the patents
(and unequal royalties). Buying RIM would make the lawsuit null and void,
unless RIM agreed that their rights can't be assigned (eg to Google) upon
purchase etc.

Anyone have more knowledge on Rockstar and know how this would all work?

------
throwawaykf
Allow me to inject some perspective.

1) For all the talk of Microsoft and Apple "abusing patents", it was actually
_Google_ that had to pay 14 million in damages for actually doing just that.
Let's just not forget that before deciding who should be "alienating the tech
community". However, Google's PR really is very good, and unfortunately, most
people here accept it without critical thought because it confirms their
biases.

2) This is business, and business is war. Giving away Android for free was a
direct attack on Microsoft's and Apple's business model. They are simply
responding in kind. Most people here root for Google simply because they give
away tons of really cool stuff for free, and/or because they seem to be "more
aligned" with free/open source, which appears to be the dominant religion
'round these parts. However, people elsewhere would see this as perfectly
natural.

3) Google is very weak on the patent front, and they know it. So while they
hustle to buy up patents from all sorts of sources, they simultaneously try to
spin the patent system as "broken" and their own moves as "defensive" in an
attempt to reduce their disadvantage in the long term. It may seem counter-
intuitive: why simultaneously buy patents and work to weaken their value?
Because buying patents is just a short term defensive move. In the long term,
Google would be perfectly happy to not have a patent system at all because all
their competitive advantage is locked away in their data centers. This is a
luxury Apple and Microsoft do not have. They put out products that anyone
anywhere can copy, so they would prefer having a patent system.

4) As mentioned below, Google had an option of joining the consortium, but
decided to go it alone. Drummond's blog post says it would not have helped
Android, but that is very shallow reasoning. They could have always joined in
and negotiated the rights to indemnify Android vendors in exchange for
contributing a lot more towards the winning bid. Maybe the consortium would
not have agreed to it -- we'll never know, because Google peremptorily
declined to join in. But I have no idea why they though they could outbid a
consortium of multiple giants in the space.

5) As mentioned in TFA, there is some truth to the argument that Rockstar is
actually independent of Microsoft and Apple. I know of patent trolls that have
funding from e.g. hedge funds, but operate entirely independently. Heck, IV is
a perfectly good example. They have funding from Google themselves, and yet
they turned around and sued Motorola!

Now, allow me to address your theory: You posit that this may invoke the ire
of the "tech community" and this would be a disadvantage to Apple and
Microsoft. Some questionable assumptions:

1) The tech community in general has a similar world view as the HN (or is it
SV?) bubble. Trust me on this, HN is an enormous echo chamber. If you ask
software engineers outside this bubble -- which is, you know, most of the
world -- about patents, you'll get three responses:

a) "What's a patent?" (No, really.)

b) "I don't mind patents."

c) "Having a patent as an achievement!"

2) The tech community, even if it does by some remote chance share your world
view, _won 't care_. This is business as usual, and has historically always
been so.

Now you may move the goal posts and say that by "tech community" you mean "the
good ones", the "hackers". Again, I'm not so sure. Consider the NSA
revelations: All the comments on HN are rife with outrage. Yet would you
believe, even for a minute, that the NSA does not have the best of the best?

Edit: I really do not wish to come across as supporting one company over
another, and hope to maintain a neutral tone. I think all the companies
involved are perfectly good companies to work for, and perfectly justified in
what they're doing. I'm just trying to present a perspective that is somewhat
lacking in most comments so far.

~~~
kumarm
[ Giving away Android for free was a direct attack on Microsoft's and Apple's
business model. They are simply responding in kind.]

So Google Entered a new Market with good product and different business model,
MSFT and AAPL responded with litigation. Thanks for making it obvious.

~~~
throwawaykf
No. Apple created a new Market at great risk and expense, and Google entered a
it with a rip-off product. On the other hand Microsoft sacrificed three years
to create an original product to compete fairly. But since Google didn't incur
the risk and costs of creating said market and designing an original product,
Google (supported by its search monopoly profits) could undercut them by
dumping on to the market Android for free. And so Apple and Microsoft
responded by suing for trampling on their intellectual property rights.

But wait, there's more! It doesn't end at Apple and Microsoft! Google also
ripped off _Sun_ by co-opting, without license, the Java dev environment (that
cost Sun millions of dev dollars) and more importantly, the Java _work force_
(that cost Sun billions of _marketing_ dollars), just so they could get more
people to make apps for their mobile OS. Guess what! Sun/Oracle sued them too!

Wow, if all these companies are suing Google for ripping them off (and
considering multiple patent-related injunctions issued against Android
vendors), it must mean Google _has_ been ripping them off!

See? I can spin facts to support arbitrary biases as well.

Now, let's drop the incendiary language that most posters here stoop to.
Here's the (overly simplified) reality: Google took for free what they thought
they could get legally away with (and their gambles have so far paid off), and
their competitors responded by trying to restrict them by using other legal
counter-measures. Each side is doing exactly what they can get away with
legally. People just happen to side with Google because their actions agree
with their personal biases.

------
grej
You have to wonder what Microsoft's goal is here, given that some estimates
have them earning over $3B/yr in licensing fees on Android sales.

~~~
mayhew
Locking people into their mobile ecosystem is probably worth way more then
that in the long term. That's what these companies are all about, after all.

------
bad_user
What I don't understand is why in the world are companies allowed to buy
patents in the first place? At the very least, patents should NOT be
transferable.

How is it acceptable for companies with big pockets to simply buy 6,000
patents and then sue the shit out of whomever they don't like?

I mean, to some degree, I accept that patents in the health-care industry are
helping, because research labs spend years and enormous amount of money on
research, with results that can be easily copied. And so they need the first
mover advantage in bringing the product they researched on the market. It's
not perfect, but at least it has _some_ economical and moral ground.

But how in the world is it acceptable for patents to be transferred, like they
are assets? If you weren't the one doing the research, then you shouldn't be
the one that benefits from a government-granted monopoly, no matter how much
money you have.

~~~
Myrmornis
Know nothing about this. But say they couldn't be transferred. Then you could
have moribund companies holding a patent and doing nothing with it thus
stopping other people from doing something that would benefit the world. But
given that they can be transferred, there is a market, so a moribund company
has an incentive to pass the patent on, and the patented thing gets realized,
by someone.

------
PeterisP
I'm happy for patent war to go nuclear. It desperately needs reform and
neutering; and if lawsuits like these can motivate some big-tech companies
like, say, Google to start lobbying seriously for patent reform then this
exactly what the world needs.

And by lobbying seriously I don't mean a couple of million that were spent on
some other activities - if such companies are eager to spend amount such as 4
billion or 12 billion on purchases that include zero benefit to their
products&customers, but simply as patent war ammunition&defense; then I'd
expect that they can easily spend hundreds of millions in campaign
contributions to extuinguish the patent war as such.

We don't need bigcorps accumulating frivolous patents to ensure mutually
assured destruction - it doesn't work that well as a deterrant, and it is used
against smaller corporations. We need disarmament.

------
eggged
Newegg can help...contact our legal counsel... don't feed patent
trolls...[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/how-newegg-
crushe...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/how-newegg-crushed-the-
shopping-cart-patent-and-saved-online-retail/)

------
swat535
It would be naïve to think they wouldn't do this. Google would do it if they
were in the same position. This is mostly a problem with the law, the fact
that such a thing is possible is a problem.

Also, pretty much all these companies were invited to join Rockstar to buy the
patents, including Google:
[http://www.techradar.com/..](http://www.techradar.com/..). . Except Google
decided that they wanted it all for themselves and went against the group, in
the end they lost. The only reason to hold these patents are to basically sue
other companies, the fact that Google bid against the group over and over
again implies that if Google had gotten these patents they would have done
exactly the same. So lets not pretend Google is a victim.

------
smegel
> a "navigation tool for graphical user interface," describes a way of
> navigating through electronic documents. Another describes an "Internet
> protocol filter," and a third patent describes an "integrated message
> center."

Sigh. Where are my anti-depressants.

------
emhart
There is something mildly sickening and darkly amusing that Microsoft and
Apple apparently learned enough losing over half a billion dollars in patent
lawsuits filed by McKool Smith, to then hire them when they were ready to go
after their competitors with patent suits.

------
pasbesoin
I have, perhaps, some degree of sympathy for compensating people whose
significant work is subsequently, directly used.

I'm about done with, "You can't do it because I did it first."

The world wants to move forward. Your outsized self-interest, simply doesn't
interest me.

------
tracker1
I would think that 4.4 billion could effectively fund congressional campaigns
in a number of key districts.. which may be more effective use of said funds
for Google at this point. If I were Google, I'd be funding an all out war on
technology patents.

------
jemeshsu
Easy people, don't waste your emotional energy. Microsoft has been collecting
Android licensing fee for years now. Apple has the objective to kill Androids.
And you think Google don't use patent to sue? These companies are all evils.

~~~
ericd
I believe Google has only used patents defensively. At least that's what I've
heard their official position is, and I haven't heard anyone call them out for
violating it.

------
adventured
If the Obama DOJ has any guts, they'll break out the collusion section of
anti-trust law and make some new anti-trust case law regarding multi-company
patent offensives and the potential to cause harm to consumers.

------
nu2ycombinator
It is simple Microsoft and Apple are trying to get their paid 4.5Billion
dollars from Google. It is a strategic mistake from Google side deciding not
to be part of that team to buy the patents from Nortel.

~~~
Ygg2
Right. Right. Because Google suing their OEMs as part of "Rockstar" group is
sooo much better. Really helps building the trust of Android.

MSFT/AAPL and the rest made a strategic decision to win those patents and
destroy Android. They gave Google a choice:

A) Don't take patent - get opened for lawsuits

B) Take patent - lose trust because we are going to sue the shit out of
Android OEMs

C) Buy all patent for an overinflated price

I just hope Google gets a team and invalidates all those patents, but I fear
large patent price tag came for a reason.

------
RyanMcGreal
> "Pretty much anyone out there is infringing," said Rockstar's CEO, John
> Veschi.

If "pretty much anyone out there" is breaking a law, that tells us there's
something wrong with the law.

------
firstOrder
As someone wrote a century ago - "Monopoly, it inevitably engenders a tendency
of stagnation and decay...the motive cause of technical and, consequently, of
all other progress disappears to a certain extent and, further, the economic
possibility arises of deliberately retarding technical progress. For instance,
in America, a certain Owens invented a machine which revolutionised the
manufacture of bottles. The German bottle-manufacturing cartel purchased
Owens's patent, but pigeon-holed it, refrained from utilising it."

------
jrockway
At least the US and USSR realized what Mutually Assured Destruction actually
meant. It seems these big companies don't quite understand, and it's going to
be pretty sad when they find out.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
There is no mutually assured destruction here. Google is helpless.

~~~
adventured
$56 billion in cash. They're anything but helpless.

A $6 billion bid for RIM would solve the problem.

They also have Motorola's massive patent hoard, with thousands of patents
available to assault both Microsoft and Apple. So far Google has mostly played
nice on patents.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
$145B for Apple

$50B for MS

Google's outgunned - but you're right, not helpless.

------
josephlord
I'm going to hold judgement until I understand the size of licensing fees
being requested (and if there is a separate FRAND rate for any Standards
Essential Patents).

Google bid $4.4Bn for this portfolio so they must have see value and/or danger
in these patents. I disagree with the article's statement that "Google has
plenty of patents" as this doesn't seem to the case in the current battles
with Apple and Microsoft. The Motorola purchase doesn't seem to have helped
much in this area either.

------
zmmmmm
It will be interesting to see how this goes now that it is (essentially) an
all-American battle. The Samsung / Apple suit was always complicated by
suspicions about the jury, partly (but not only) because it seemed impossible
for a US jury to take an unbiased view of a trial between such an emblematic
American company and a foreign corporation. This one will be a much different
contest and perhaps we have a better chance of seeing a real examination of
the underlying patent issues occur.

------
kazagistar
> "Pretty much anyone out there is infringing," said Rockstar's CEO, John
> Veschi.

In other words, the law is totally useless and needs to be modified if not
totally revoked ASAP.

------
tehabe
The problem is not if Google or Apple, Microsoft & Co. are good or evil. This
patent war is evil, very evil. Because it could prevent companies like Jolla,
Canonical or Mozilla to release their smart phone OS world wide.

Especially small companies won't have a chance in a patent battle against a
Apple, Microsoft or Google proxy.

That is the biggest problem, and the solution has to be political, it won't be
reached in the courts or on the market but in parliament.

------
eonil
This is the disaster started by Google themselves. Also a reward for betraying
friendly partner - especially who is not likely can take Google's business,
and even attacking them using new partner.

Now Google's mates are only Samsung and telecoms which seems really not
helpful on these kind of lawsuit or Google's image.

See now what's happening. Apple-Microsoft alliance against Google, Samsung and
telecoms…? Am I alone feeling former team looks nicer?

------
LVB
At my last job, 15 years ago, I was granted four patents. I also got a fancy
engraved plaque for each one. I've since moved, and those plaques sit in
unpacked boxes. My wife has occasionally pressed me to hang then up like I
used to, when we both saw them as a point of pride. I have trouble explaining
to her why they're an embarrassment to me now, and that I'm not showing them
off.

I'll be happy when I see they've expired.

~~~
nullc
If you're aware of anyone being strong-armed with your patents you could make
amends with your conscience by offering to consult with them to help them
workaround or invalidate them.

------
erikb
Great article!

Just as a side note: Because English is not my mother tongue I have problems
to understand what the title actually wants to say, though. To me it sounds
like Apple owns Microsoft, and Microsoft is Apple's "rockstar" because it sues
Google. So I wonder if some mother tongue speakers could verify that the title
is actually understandable to them and explain what the title wants to say.
Thanks!

------
beautybasics
\- They are just accruing debt with their actions

\- Their time will come and when it does it will be painful.

\- Any system that's inherently corrupt is bound to collapse.

~~~
jmhain
> Any system that's inherently corrupt is bound to collapse.

I don't really believe this, but it'd make me very happy if you could prove me
wrong.

------
kriro
I wonder how hard Canonical will get hit eventually if Ubunut Phone ever comes
close to being viable.

But most importantly: lol software patents.

The twisted part in me hopes every single startup will get sued for all the
amazing one-click patents and whatnot that they infringe upon as soon as they
secure their first round of financing at some point. Maybe then something will
change but I doubt it.

------
EGreg
I am shocked that Google's "ads in search" business was patented before Google
was founded, and no one ever asserted this patent. Bill Gross' overture said
they never patented it.

Imagine for a second that Google will have to turn over a portion of the ads
revenue from the past 10 years? It makes up 97% of their revenue...

------
clavalle
If your patents are obvious enough that 'everybody is infringing', your patent
should not have been issued.

------
neovive
Android has really been a source of innovation over the past few years. I
would hate to see things take a step back. I recall a couple years ago, when
Google had to remove the integrated search feature from Android -- that
searched both local and online -- due to some IP infringement.

------
padrikas
It looks to me that it is really a wrong system when you can buy patents only
to sue someone in the future. And it rarely benefits people who create stuff
If you could buy patents only to use them (but the ownership of a patent would
not be transferable) there would be no patent trolls

------
timedoctor
I think the ultimate outcome of this type of patent war is either: a) Re-
examining the whole patent system to prevent this sort of attack b) Companies
will have to re-locate to China or another country where US patents do not
apply

It's totally ridiculous to be sued for offering free software.

------
tehwalrus
These patents are just "adverts, but on the internet" right? Exactly the sort
of stuff that shouldn't have been granted a Patent in the first place.

I hope google has the guts to use the "invalid patent" argument in court and
rule this sort of nonsense invalid in future.

------
michaelfeathers
Maybe the problem with patents is that they are transferrable property. What
if patents were seen more as a license from the government to an inventor for
a period of exclusivity? That would prevent the worst of this sort of
stockpiling and weaponization.

------
beedogs
I really wish they'd just nullify any patent granted that involves "doing
something commonplace _ON THE INTERNET!!!_ ", as if adding a tcp/ip connection
is something truly inventive or novel. Christ, this is getting out of hand.

------
hristiank
"The Rockstar consortium is an organization backed by Apple, Microsoft,
BlackBerry, Ericsson and Sony."

Out of all these companies RIM (BlackBerry) is the only one up for "sale".

How long until Google tries to buy itself a backdoor into the alliance?

I give them a couple of months.

------
Fundlab
If patents are granted to drive innovation, how is Rockstar encouraging that
in this case?

------
WaterSponge
We are all building software on the shoulders of giants but like to claim
major pieces of glory once we grow into corporations. Remove a certain piece
and like jenga it all falls down.

Some pieces protected by patents. Others patentable but never claimed.

------
locusm
How does one keep up with new comments in a thread like this, wheres the sort
by date?

------
shmerl
Google should sue them for racket or find some other way to smash these trolls
down.

~~~
monsterix
> racket

That's an interesting choice of word!

------
emehrkay
It this not business as usual? Not saying it is "right," but not saying that
it is out of the norm. It seems to be an issue now that people(consumers,
nerds, etc.) have emotional connections to these companies

------
ChrisNorstrom
??? They spent 4.5 billion on patents rather than invest in their own
products. For all they know the patent system can completely change in the
next 5 years, outlawing the kind of crap they're pulling right now.

------
veganarchocap
It seems to be these declining, nonreactive old-timers that seem to stay in
authority by handing out court cases over arbitrary points.

They're not protecting 'their material', they're stiffing innovation.

------
Fuxy
Anybody else seeing Google suing Microsoft and Apple directly in the future or
is it just me?

This is battle stations and given Google doesn't use shell companies they
either make one or declare all out war.

------
tits_for_tots
I don't know why Google doesn't just license these patents, it's pretty
critical to their business. They obviously thought so when they were bidding
billions of dollars for them.

------
bramswenson
Just keep overpaying for "pretty" hardware and a mediocre development
environment and see where it gets us folks. Apple is just as bad as M$ ever
was, they just have more style.

------
mcherm
I hope that they manage to ban the import and sale of ALL Android phones,
iPhones, and Windows phones simultaneously.

I'm not sure what else might actually motivate Congress to change the law.

------
tariqr
Sony, Microsoft, Ericsson, Apple and RIM. So basically, SMEAR.

------
acd
I think software patents sucks! Software patents is a way for big corporations
to keep smaller agile competitors off their turf creating monopolies &
oligopolies.

------
jmpeax
The real villains aren't the companies involved in battles of fisticuffs, they
are the corrupt or incompetent politicians who fail to abolish software
patents.

------
Fizzadar
It's such a sad sight to see companies pour billions into damaging each other
(and themselves) rather than innovating and creating new things.

------
NicoJuicy
It's quite easy, in the days, it was Apple vs the rest, and Apple got popular
(Mac vs PC, ...)

Now, its Google versus the rest, we'll see how this goes :)

------
ypcx
So is it finally less expensive for Google to pay a lobbyist firm (hell, pay
ALL the lobbyist firms) to significantly overhaul the patent law?

------
wmeredith
"Pretty much anyone out there is infringing," said Rockstar's CEO, John
Veschi.

Isn't that the definition of a broken system of selection?

------
mydpy
We need to treat the cause and not the symptom. Because really, if Google won
this suit, they would most likely be trying the same tactics.

------
transfire
I am surprise. There seems to be a lot of Google haters here. Tell me, would
you be happier in a world without Google and Android?

------
josteink
OK. So does this once and for all end the debate about Apple being a proper
patent-troll, or do they need to buy a bridge first?

------
wfunction
I'm extremely surprised no one's mentioned the timing of the whole thing --
right before the Innovation Act.

------
CmonDev
Well, perhaps in the spirit of knowledge sharing and to set an example Google
could share their full search algorithm?

------
hect0r
It would be interesting to see what would happen if Microsoft/Apple moved
beyond Google to target IBM.

------
1010011010
Microsoft and Apple are assholes.

------
gesman
This is a chance for Obama to do the right thing to boost innovation and
economy.

------
fpp
The key word in the title is nuclear - a war that no one can win

------
ChikkaChiChi
This should make HP's WebOS patent sale more competitive.

------
CmonDev
Well, it is lawful - just like Google's tax evasion.

~~~
DanBC
minor point: evasion is not legal, avoidance is legal. So, Google does tax
avoidance, not tax evasion.

And Google has lawyers and accountants telling them that what they're doing is
legal, but if the UK tax authorities disagree it goes to a court. So it's
possible that what Google is doing isn't legal, because it hasn't been tested
in court.

~~~
CmonDev
Thank you for clarifying.

------
sethbannon
Despicable. At least this is good news for patent reform.

------
ithinkso
Oh you americans and your silly patents

------
alexeisadeski3
Disgusting.

------
belgianguy
For me this feels like it's the famed "Thermonuclear option" Steve Jobs
alluded to: two of the biggest tech giants and their ilk conspiring to KO a
competitor in one of the most cowardly ways possible. As one shouldn't make
the assumption that Rockstar is looking to compete, Rockstar is looking to
defeat. This all feels like instead of studying harder you pay off the
schoolyard bully to go beat up that kid you don't like because he gets better
grades than you do.

Rockstar is not just a patent troll, it's the Patent Troll King. It's much
larger, and has vastly more financial backing, most notably from Apple and
Microsoft. It's nearly invincible (as it can't be counter-sued). Plus the case
is filed in Eastern Texas, known to side with patent holders. Both companies
have much cash in their coffers, and both are feeling the heat from Android.
For Apple, the high-end Android devices eat into their margins. While Apple
still is very profitable, Android's break-neck pace forces them to come up
with their own new features or risk looking dated, coupled with Android's
often better-specced phones that are cheaper than the iPhone. Although brand
loyalty is shielding Apple from large shifts, it can't afford to sit still.
Microsoft on the other hand, is playing catch-up in Mobile after missing the
boat miserably, and while the focus should be on making their own products
better, they largely seem to have been industrious in harassing Android
hardware manufacturers, plus employing some questionable PR-tactics to smear
its competition. They'd both be relieved to see Android wither and die.

The tactic at the heart of the battle against Android seems to be the
following: increasing Android Total Cost of Ownership by drowning it in patent
licenses. This in an attempt to make it toxic to any OEM or potential Android
partner (as they have to pay license fees, or could be sued to oblivion if
they refuse), all in a bid to make Android less attractive (vis-a-vis e.g.
Windows). I don't know the might of Android/Google, nor how much strength
it'll need to face off against the now teamed arsenals of both Apple and
Microsoft. If Rockstar can string Android up with enough patent licenses, OEMs
will bail, developers will leave and Android revenues will dry up. It'll make
a Windows license look cheap and safe in comparision. Then Microsoft can
return to pointing and laughing at the open-source community, sit back and let
their software rot once more as they just eliminated their direct competition.
They'll have some air fist-fights with Apple to seemingly 'compete'.

What more is Rockstar than a hired gun they can sic on any software outfit
that might prove competitive? What if Microsoft feels that Valve's SteamBox is
getting a little too much traction for their comfort, why wouldn't they just
send their bully after them? What if Ubuntu can cling on to some larger
marketshare when it can smoothly switch between phone and desktop software?
Why shouldn't Microsoft try and hobble innovative efforts by letting Rockstar
make the developers' lives a living hell? It's more than sickening that some
Microsoft/Apple fans are already reacting all indignant and holier-than-thou
now that their patent lackey has a Nortel patent on search, as if Google stole
web-search from them all along, and they only just noticed it.

What can counter Rockstar? At what point is this hulking giant too big for the
market it's trying to disrupt? What stops this beast from going after any open
source project that proves slightly popular? How can a developer rest easy at
night, knowing that any day a Rockstar lawyer might be knocking on his/her
door, and that financial ruin lies ahead? Whether by lawyer fees after a
Pyrrhic victory or after being shut down because he/she was found to infringe
on something so very basic a child of five years old could have figured it
out? John Vesci himself said that 'Pretty much anybody out there is
infringing', meaning that any company name that gets in their sights, they can
take apart.

Is that furthering the sciences? Is that what passes for innovation nowadays?
As a developer, this makes me sick to my stomach. But the system allows it,
and there's been too much financial profitability to get this genie back in
the bottle, so the odds of reform happening before this warhead hits are slim.
Even if it were to happen, it'll be thoroughly undressed and defanged before
being applied to any case worth its salt.

------
nutanc
#IgnoreLaughFightWin, we are now at the fight stage for Android and you know
what comes next

------
FridayWithJohn
I'm busy reading "The Masters of Doom". Here is a little snippet all about
patents with one of the world's best developers of all time, John Carmack.
"Carmack turned red. “If you ever ask me to patent anything,” he snapped,
“I’ll quit.” Al assumed Carmack was trying to protect his own financial
interests, but in reality he had struck what was an increasingly raw nerve for
the young, idealistic programmer. It was one of the few things that could
truly make him angry. It was ingrained in his bones since his first reading of
the Hacker Ethic."

As a developer there is nothing more destructive than to be be told you can't
do that... it is similar to what I did.

Could you imagine what would happen if someone put a patient on breathing?

------
leeoniya
i know this will get downvoted, and i've avoided doing this until now, but
it's just too appropriate here

[http://images.wikia.com/random-
ness/images/3/34/Michael_Jack...](http://images.wikia.com/random-
ness/images/3/34/Michael_Jackson_popcorn.gif)

~~~
unimpressive
If you _must_ post a gif, you could at least add to the conversation first.

And no, predicting your karma decrease doesn't count.

