Support NeoGAF

[numble]

The coordination as in the Apple v Samsung litigation and the suspension of sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab in Aus., the MS v HTC, I believe MS has also sued a number of other Android manufacturers and are at present earning a fair bit of dough from that. The acquisition of the patents by Google competitors and Google's response points to the fact that Google feels these competitors who are already suing their Android partners and in some cases Google itself, are acquiring these patents solely for the purpose of handicapping Android. If this is the case that it illegal which is what Google were pointing out. (I believe MS was a part of another consortium which sued Google itself for patent violation).

If the entities suing Apple (the ones which are Apple competitors at least) suddenly went on a mobile patents acquisition spree, Apple would be very concerned.

As for Sony Ericsson (1 company) they are part of that coalition for the express purpose of protecting themselves from future litigation by the consortium (other reasons as well I am sure). The point is Android is open source plenty of people distribute Android software on a number of devices without express permission from anyone, Google included, with no added cost. If for any reason everyone had to start making royalty payments to another party cost goes up and stifles Android growth. If all large Android manufacturers jumped in what about the smaller guys that no one has ever heard of in China, Taiwan and India for example Odroid. There are $100 Android phones, royalty payments mean that market is dead.

Sony and Ericcson are 2 separate companies. You are confusing their joint-venture on phones with the 2 companies taking part in the bid separately.

Only Oracle is suing Google directly, and they did not take part in the Nortel bid.

LG just sued Apple for violating it's patent for instant OS start-up, is that part of a coordinated attack on Apple?

The truth is that everyone is suing everyone, there is no coordinated attack, they are all suing everyone out of their own interest. Can you really look at these graphs and see a coordinated attack on Google and its partners?

It looks like its important to everyone to get as many patents or patent licenses as they can, to protect themselves from everyone else. And if it means being part of a consortium, that's cheaper than buying the patents themselves. Google had opportunities to share in the patents, whether in the CPTN consortium, or even with RPX in the Nortel bid, but they are only interested in using them as weapons (defensive or otherwise) against others, so they weren't willing to share. The fact is though, they need to protect themselves from companies besides the consortium partners, like Nokia or Kodak.

 

[LCfiner]

I really can't wait for Nilay's take on this.

I’m listening to the podcast now.

Nilay always makes these things easier to understand. He’s calling out both MS and Google on their public responses.

edit: Nilay is gonna piss off some folks when he says that Google built up its business by “flagrantly ignoring intellectual property”. ouch.

edit2. Josh is totally wrong about the power of patents and keeps interrupting Nilay. the original patent system helped kick off the industrial revolution. of course nails and screw are patented.

 

[brotkasten]

I’m listening to the podcast now.

Nilay always makes these things easier to understand. He’s calling out both MS and Google on their public responses.

edit: Nilay is gonna piss off some folks when he says that Google built up its business by “flagrantly ignoring intellectual property”. ouch.

edit2. Josh is totally wrong about the power of patents and keeps interrupting Nilay. the original patent system helped kick off the industrial revolution. of course nails and screw are patented.

I listend to it yesterday and the debate is crazy. I hope his editorial comes out on Monday, it should be a good read.

 

[Blackhead]

I’m listening to the podcast now.

Nilay always makes these things easier to understand. He’s calling out both MS and Google on their public responses.

edit: Nilay is gonna piss off some folks when he says that Google built up its business by “flagrantly ignoring intellectual property”. ouch.

edit2. Josh is totally wrong about the power of patents and keeps interrupting Nilay. the original patent system helped kick off the industrial revolution. of course nails and screw are patented.

that's highly debatable (I don't think it's true)

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

Sony and Ericcson are 2 separate companies. You are confusing their joint-venture on phones with the 2 companies taking part in the bid separately.

Only Oracle is suing Google directly, and they did not take part in the Nortel bid.

LG just sued Apple for violating it's patent for instant OS start-up, is that part of a coordinated attack on Apple?

The truth is that everyone is suing everyone, there is no coordinated attack, they are all suing everyone out of their own interest. Can you really look at these graphs and see a coordinated attack on Google and its partners?

-----------snip---------------------------------

It looks like its important to everyone to get as many patents or patent licenses as they can, to protect themselves from everyone else. And if it means being part of a consortium, that's cheaper than buying the patents themselves. Google had opportunities to share in the patents, whether in the CPTN consortium, or even with RPX in the Nortel bid, but they are only interested in using them as weapons (defensive or otherwise) against others, so they weren't willing to share. The fact is though, they need to protect themselves from companies besides the consortium partners, like Nokia or Kodak.

You cite 3 unconnected companies (AFAIK) this cannot be part of a coordinated attack, Google cites 2 companies who have a vested interest in seeing Android knocked back a few pegs. The graphs point to Nokia suing everyone and LG and Elan suing Apple, unless there is more which the chart fails to show that seems like disparate companies. Google is pointing out a large number of suits against Android (or Android partners) originate from two companies. If it can be proved that the intent is to damage the OS as opposed to simply a reasonable business practice, then that is an anti-competitive practice.

I agree with the first sentence of the bolded but the inclusion of Google in the CPTN would mean no protection for device makers and only protection to Google itself which is pretty useless to them.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

I was wondering why Google wouldn't let RPX join in on their bid and I finally have an answer. A major investor of RPX is also a major investor of the patent troll, Intellectual Ventures.

 

[kehs]

Google: 'We can protect the values of Android'

Without going into too much detail, I do think that we have very strong paths that we can take to protect the values of Android that we have built through the open-source Apache 2 license with our partners. Obviously, Google doesn’t build — we don’t build phones and devices, but we had a vested interest in protecting the values of the Android ecosystem.

So when our partners are being attacked by aggressors, which we see as materially unfounded, it’s something that we join up together with our partners to resolve. And we have, I think, several options that we can take that will help protect the values of Android.

So again, we want to protect innovation. Patents were supposed to be there to enable innovation and monetization of innovation. When it’s being used in a prospective which is more to, as we see it, stifle innovation, it’s not something that is good for consumers.

Android is the only operating system, modern smart-phone operating system, that exists on devices that cost $200 or less. That is what is enabling the next billion of users of the Internet on mobile in the world. There might be players that are not so excited to see the margins and the prices go down like that and the variety that Android enables, but I think we are very convinced that we will be able to continue and create and protect the value of Android.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/google-we-can-protect-the-values-of-android/54415

 

[brotkasten]

Nilay's editorial is out. Have fun.

The patent system isn’t broken — we are

 

[giga]

DoJ just released a statement following their investigation: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/February/12-at-210.html

WASHINGTON – The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division issued the following statement today after announcing the closing of its investigations into Google Inc.’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc., the acquisitions by Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd. (RIM) of certain Nortel Networks Corporation patents, and the acquisition by Apple of certain Novell Inc. patents:

“After a thorough review of the proposed transactions, the Antitrust Division has determined that each acquisition is unlikely to substantially lessen competition and has closed these three investigations. In all of the transactions, the division conducted an in-depth analysis into the potential ability and incentives of the acquiring firms to use the patents they proposed acquiring to foreclose competitors. In particular, the division focused on standard essential patents (SEPs) that Motorola Mobility and Nortel had committed to license to industry participants through their participation in standard-setting organizations (SSOs). The division’s investigations focused on whether the acquiring firms could use these patents to raise rivals’ costs or foreclose competition.

“The division concluded that the specific transactions at issue are not likely to significantly change existing market dynamics.

“During the course of the division’s investigation, several of the principal competitors, including Google, Apple and Microsoft, made commitments concerning their SEP licensing policies. The division’s concerns about the potential anticompetitive use of SEPs was lessened by the clear commitments by Apple and Microsoft to license SEPs on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, as well as their commitments not to seek injunctions in disputes involving SEPs. Google’s commitments were more ambiguous and do not provide the same direct confirmation of its SEP licensing policies.

“In light of the importance of this industry to consumers and the complex issues raised by the intersection of the intellectual property rights and antitrust law at issue here, as well as uncertainty as to the exercise of the acquired rights, the division continues to monitor the use of SEPs in the wireless device industry, particularly in the smartphone and computer tablet markets. The division will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action to stop any anticompetitive use of SEP rights.”

Lots more analysis at the link.

 

[Blackhead]

DoJ just released a statement following their investigation: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/February/12-at-210.html



Lots more analysis at the link.

stalemate? the deal goes ahead but must be licensed 'fairly'.

 

[killakiz]

stalemate? the deal goes ahead but must be licensed 'fairly'.

Only the “Standard Essential Patents” and FRAND must be licensed fairly, looks like everything else is cold war status.

 

[kehs]

Even the DOJ is ranking on windows phone.

Google’s commitments have been less clear.
.......
Nonetheless, the division determined that the acquisition of the patents by Google did not substantially lessen competition, but how Google may exercise its patents in the future remains a significant concern.

Backfire on Google?

 

[twobear]

and apple and microsoft deserve to win

 

[Dicer]

and apple and microsoft deserve to win

Lol, no.

But whoever wins, this system is broken and we all lose anyway.

 

[twobear]

Lol, no.

But whoever wins, this system is broken and we all lose anyway.

i do agree that we all get fucked over by it!

 

[AndyD]

Backfire on Google?

Nah. I read a longer article on it earlier. Essentially the acquisition in itself is not problematic, but Google has to follow the rules in the future just like Motorola has had to do so far. They just wanted to clarify that just because they have no objections now, that does not mean they will not keep an eye for future violations involving these patents.