or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Microsoft says Google refused to join the Novell patent consortium
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Microsoft says Google refused to join the Novell patent consortium - Page 2

post #41 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

This from MacRumors (I hope it is OK to quote MR here?)

Happens all the time... I would have added a link for proper citation, but that's just me...
post #42 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoom View Post

The worst part is that the public is too stupid to realize Google is playing the victim, while it's very existence is due to it's software patents.

Google's karma is about gone, who suspects while they're screaming about this, they're figuring out how to buy software patents on the sly?

Karma is never gone. It can quickly change from good to bad depending on what energy you put out into the universe, but it is always there, waiting to bite you in the ass.

Perhaps you meant their mojo is almost gone?...and I would agree.
post #43 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

Happens all the time... I would have added a link for proper citation, but that's just me...

Now added, thanks
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #44 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

I



In a tweet, Smith stated, "Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no."



What sort of terms did they offer to Google? What precisely was the offer that Google said no to? We have no information on that.

If the offer was even-steven, Google is rightly being denigrated. If the offer was "you pay most of the money, we get most of the benefit", then Google may have had good reason to refuse. Maybe the offfer was neither of these.

We don't know.
post #45 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

Screw Google. They just should have stuck with search. At first, they were so much better than the competition, they killed them all. Instead of focusing on keeping ahead of those who figured our how to game PageRank, they stuck their fingers into random areas like YouTube and Picasa.

Now, Google searches are mediocre at best (when I started using Google in the 90's, the search results were so good, you'd think they were psychic.) They need to get back to basics instead of being a holding company for a bunch of various businesses.

It's amazing to me that gmail search still can't do partial word match.
Emailing video from iPhone to Apple TV , sort of..
Reply
Emailing video from iPhone to Apple TV , sort of..
Reply
post #46 of 87
Has anyone turned purple yet waiting on DED to correct his erroneous story?

Yes, the MS comments were concerning Novell patents sold last year, with the sale (correctly IMO) modified by the DoJ.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-sourc...-software/8713

It 's not the Nortel patent portfolio that went on the auction block last month. The Google lawyer may have been disingenuous in including that patent sale in his comments. We don't know what the supposed partnership offer terms were, if it was in fact a partnership. Certainly a question that deserves an answer if Google intends to continue that argument.

So there is a story in there of Google turning down a MS offer last year. Just not the story that DED has confusingly weaved. But tho I wouldn't wait on him to admit to his mistake you still gotta love him for his Apple dedication. He doesn't pretend not to be the ultimate fanboy and isn't ashamed to admit it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #47 of 87
OK kids - pay attention - there are lots of patents for sale out there so you need a little background:

NOVELL (the LAN networking company) holds key patents relating to, among others things, Unix. Microsoft entered a "partnership" with Novell while also providing funding via a third party group to SCO to support their litigation against Linux users and developers. The prevailing thought was that Microsoft would try to influence Novell to sell it's rights to Unix so that Microsoft could ostensibly force licensing of Unix code blocks allegedly found in Linux. So far however nothing SCO has brought to court against the defendants has stuck. Other rumors include Microsoft's desire to use parts of Unix to rework the Windows kernel into a stronger more flexible core. Microsoft has seen a strong incursion of Linux servers into it's Windows server product line, and has been trying to mitigate that impact by a number of means. In the meantime, Novell, whose influence and marketshare in network administration has been massively undermined by Microsoft's Active Directory and .Net products decided to put some of its IP patents up for sale, at which point Apple joined Microsoft and a couple of other firms to purchase those patents. Google was offered a stake in that patent purchase by Microsoft - and demurred in order to try and purchase the patents by themselves.

Next round: Nortel

NORTEL (Canadian networking and telecommunications company) was one of the casualties of the dot Com bust and never recovered. Unable to restructure back into solvency they sold off bits of their company until all that was effectively left was 6,000 patents and applications for patents involving key elements of mobile telecommunication and networking. To the delight of the remaining creditors, those hit the market and were in high demand from a number of companies, including Google, Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, EMC, Ericsson, RIM and Sony.

During the bidding as the price went up (Google offered the first stalking horse bid of $900M US, then raised it to nearly $2B, nearly $3B and then over $3B), those bidding companies whose stake was too low to continue recombined with other companies to pool stakes. The winning group was composed of Apple, EMC, Ericsson, Microsoft, RIM, and Sony. Obviously Google lost as a part of (apparently) the "whining" group.

Lest anyone is willing to take Google's assertion of victimhood too seriously, if you look at Google's pattern of expenditure on buying up smaller companies, they are hardly innocent of trying to bolster their IP: over 100 companies, paying out well in excess of tens of billions of dollars over the course of the last 10 years. They have no intrinsic interest in patents themselves (other than their core technologies in search and ad placement) as they largely just offer services, not tangibles like hardware or software (excepting the Chromes and Android - which however are tied to supporting their core services and not an actual product development stream/profit center as such). However, if you look at each of the companies they bought - each one brought a nice nest of patent IP with them to add to Google's value. Of course they don't want you looking too closely at that "What??!! All the cute little companies we bought had patents and stuff?? Who knew!!"

There is no confusion here Google has been complicit in jacking up the price on patent properties and has participated in doing so. So Drummond is essentially not happy they lost and is now trying to spin it as a conspiracy instead of accepting the blame for his incompetence and bad guidance from Google management.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #48 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

Google is an advertising company. They're in search so they can deliver ads. They're in email so they can deliver ads. They're in online docs so they can deliver ads.

They knew browsing was moving from computers to mobiles and were afraid they'd lose a way to deliver ads so they bought the company that was developing Android - knowing they'd give it away free just like Microsoft gave away Internet Explorer to get a massive market share and guarantee that they'll be able to deliver ads there too. They HAD to get into mobile.

They have tricked a lot of people into thinking they are a tech company - they are not - their business model and revenue source is advertising.

Do you really want a personal computer in your pocket that was created by an advertising company whose sole existence is dependent upon learning about you so they can target you through marketing? That bleeping crazy.

Perfect post!!! It is why I find it so unbelievably blind by all of the tech-geeks that have made Google their Master and are devout disciples at the Google Church. Apple-Cult indeed!
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #49 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post

Karma is never gone. It can quickly change from good to bad depending on what energy you put out into the universe, .......

There is no such thing as 'good' karma or 'bad' karma. There is only karma, period.

Please don't bastardize/oversimplify basic but important ideas from another religion.
post #50 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaim2 View Post

So Google's argument is invalid because they didn't collude with MSFT to bid on the the Novell patents which were eventually sold to Microsoft, Apple, EMC and Oracle in December 2010 for 450 million, and then went on to not place an individual bid at all?



AI even reported on this last year



Maybe AI should follow its own advice.

It pays to read AND comprehend the information at hand. Google opted out of the consortium in order to bid on the Novell patents by themselves. Whether they chose finally to bid or not - the stated intention was to acquire the Novell patents singly for Google, not to share with other companies. Google drove the price up on the Nortel patents by actively participating in the bidding and pushing the price up.

Seems pretty plain and simple to me - Google is fussing about not winning the bids for patent properties, and complaining that others are winning instead of them - "it's not fair - this games sux! Mommmmy! Make them let me wiiiinnnnnn!!!!!"
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #51 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobwoods View Post

Daniel, don't you mean Nortel? Novell's patents were sold quite a while ago, to a consortium that included Apple, Microsoft and EMC, if I recall..

It looks as if Daniel during a late night writing marathon let his Spell Checker get the best of him. You are correct the article is about the Northern Telecom's (Nortel) IP acquisition.
I'm glad to see someone is holding Googles feet to the fire, the bunch of crying babies. They did a great job as a search giant but let them enter into the big boys game of design and manufacture and "Billy and Johhny aren't playing fair, mommy (big brother)". If you don't have the creative vision to be innovative and creative, don't complain if others smack your hands for having them in their "IP cookie jar".
KennDDS
Reply
KennDDS
Reply
post #52 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

It pays to read AND comprehend the information at hand. Google opted out of the consortium in order to bid on the Novell patents by themselves. Whether they chose finally to bid or not - the stated intention was to acquire the Novell patents singly for Google, not to share with other companies. Google drove the price up on the Nortel patents by actively participating in the bidding and pushing the price up.

Seems pretty plain and simple to me - Google is fussing about not winning the bids for patent properties, and complaining that others are winning instead of them - "it's not fair - this games sux! Mommmmy! Make them let me wiiiinnnnnn!!!!!"

Did Google ever indicate their intention to bid on the Novell patents at all? Perhaps they did, but I don't find it. I only find the recent mention that Google didn't want to join in with Microsoft at one point.

As for the complaints that Google has publicly made since losing out on the Nortel patents, I don't read the intent as looking for sympathy. They instead looking for assurance that the purchasers didn't do so with the aim of using them as the "nuclear weapons" they were compared to, aimed at completely destroying Android alone while leaving everyone else unscathed. That would potentially be illegal and Google would be remiss in not trying to get DoJ clarification before the expected attacks (based on 2nd hand intellectual property) start. Google stockholders would be right in not expecting anything less from counsel at this point.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #53 of 87
Everyone here is missing the point. Google needs some patents exclusively for themselves because in the current legal system, the only way you can defend from a patent dispute is to countersue with some patents you own but others don't. If Google joined MSFT/AAPL/Oracle to buy the patents together, then obviously Google can't use these patents to countersue against lawsuits from these companies because they would all own these patents together.

Basically Microsoft would always welcome everyone to purchase patents with them, as long as they themselves still hold some patents that nobody else does. That way, Microsoft can always sue others but others can never sue them (because all the patents other own, they own too through these 'consortiums'). There's really no story here.
post #54 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Did Google ever indicate their intention to bid on the Novell patents at all? Perhaps they did, but I don't find it. I only find the recent mention that Google didn't want to join in with Microsoft at one point.

As for the complaints that Google has publicly made since losing out on the Nortel patents, I don't read the intent as looking for sympathy. They instead looking for assurance that the purchasers didn't do so with the aim of using them as the "nuclear weapons" they were compared to, aimed at completely destroying Android alone while leaving everyone else unscathed. That would potentially be illegal and Google would be remiss in not trying to get DoJ clarification before the expected attacks (based on 2nd hand intellectual property) start. Google stockholders would be right in not expecting anything less from counsel at this point.

IP is what innovative and creative companies use to distinguish their products from other products in the same arena. THere is no problem with purchasing IP that others no longer need or because of financial difficulties must sell some of their most desired IP to raise funds to further their business. So if a competitor or someone (IP Trolls not allowed) desiring to enter into that product arena and has the resources to purchase said IP more power to them. We never hear any complains about sports teams buying player contracts or making trades it's about business and being the best.
KennDDS
Reply
KennDDS
Reply
post #55 of 87
... that Android was kinda using the Novell file system and would of wanted the patents?
post #56 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by KennMSr View Post

We never hear any complains about sports teams buying player contracts or making trades it's about business and being the best.

Are you kidding? You never heard of the complaints against the Yankees? the Lakers?
post #57 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

To google, the only true, honest, pure, noble, and good way to make money is by selling advertising. The idea of one person paying another for creating something useful is twisted and wrong. If you want to get paid for creating something useful, the Right way is to sell advertising space on your useful thing, using google as the middle man between you and the advertiser. That's how God intended. Oh, and if someone copies the thing you made, and also tries to make money off of it by selling advertising using google as the middle man, then it is sinful for you to feel jealousy in your lustful heart. For truly the only value in a thing lies solely in it's ability to maximize the holy ad revenue.

Those things you call "patents" and "copyrights" interfere with the maximization of the holy ad revenue. They are wicked things, devised by wicked men.

Sinners, repent!

Brilliant! well said sir.
post #58 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

... even though they bid $3.14 billion for the same Nortel patents they are criticizing...

I'm of the opinion that they had no real interest in acquiring these patents. Like the bidding on that 700MHz wireless spectrum, they just wanted to drive up the price for whomever did eventually purchase it. If they could get it cheap, great. But it's just as much a win if you can get your opposition to pay too much for something.
post #59 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

I'm of the opinion that they had no real interest in acquiring these patents. Like the bidding on that 700MHz wireless spectrum, they just wanted to drive up the price for whomever did eventually purchase it. If they could get it cheap, great. But it's just as much a win if you can get your opposition to pay too much for something.

If the goal was to get competitors to overbid, I'd call it a failed strategy in this case. With several companies splitting costs, the only one who paid anything substantial was Apple at a estimated $2.1B. I wouldn't consider that an overpayment.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #60 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by FriedLobster View Post

Google is a THIEF and a LIAR.

Google probably had bigger plans, which is why, if asked, it did not join in, but it also says something else, if you need them for yourself, probably for the use against Apple and/or Oracle, then doesn't that prove you violated patents?
post #61 of 87
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
post #62 of 87
And Google continues their tragic slide down the slippery slope.

The real surprise here is there are still Google fanboys who will swear up and down that Google is always lawful good and Apple, Microsoft etc. are always chaotic good.

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #63 of 87
Well if Brian said it, that's good enough for me.\
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #64 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

Google is an advertising company. They're in search so they can deliver ads. They're in email so they can deliver ads. They're in online docs so they can deliver ads.

They knew browsing was moving from computers to mobiles and were afraid they'd lose a way to deliver ads so they bought the company that was developing Android - knowing they'd give it away free just like Microsoft gave away Internet Explorer to get a massive market share and guarantee that they'll be able to deliver ads there too. They HAD to get into mobile.

They have tricked a lot of people into thinking they are a tech company - they are not - their business model and revenue source is advertising.

Do you really want a personal computer in your pocket that was created by an advertising company whose sole existence is dependent upon learning about you so they can target you through marketing? That bleeping crazy.

*facepalm*
Apple is in the advertising business too in case you didn't notice. Pay attention.
They even take it one step further and have created an entire system where they control every aspect of advertising.

So maybe you should ask yourself - which would you rather have;
A phone that shows you advertising from a free market?
or
A phone that shows you advertising where a corporation controls the message, controls how you see it, controls what you see, controls how you interact with it, controls your purchasing?

Some people like choice, freedom and open markets - others like Apple.

That said, all the big tech companies have lost their karma and goodwill.
I have to laugh at Google for this debacle thou. I'm sure someone is getting fired over this.
post #65 of 87
Oh. Snap.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #66 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode View Post

*facepalm*
......
So maybe you should ask yourself - which would you rather have;
A phone that shows you advertising from a free market?
or
A phone that shows you advertising where a corporation controls the message, controls how you see it, controls what you see, controls how you interact with it, controls your purchasing?

'Facepalm' is right.

Paranoid much?
post #67 of 87
IN.THE.FACE!


CNN: Obamacare largest tax increase in American history

 

FORBES: ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Middle class

Reply

CNN: Obamacare largest tax increase in American history

 

FORBES: ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Middle class

Reply
post #68 of 87
Why does everyone imply that using patents as a defense is somehow more noble than using them as an offense. What is wrong with using patents as offense? The right to exclude is the right of a patent. Any patent holder should use it in their best interest. A lot of big companies don't sue on their patents because they don't want to get sued. If that is in their best interest then great. However, there is nothing wrong with enforcing a patent. That's why we have patents.
post #69 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

'Facepalm' is right.

Paranoid much?

Paranoid? Not at all - just stating the facts.
That you would consider facts as paranoia tells me that some part of you doesn't trust Apple's motives and like what they are doing either.

And anantksundaram, that's ok.
It's ok to like Apple for the things they do right, and reject them for the intentions behind them.
The tech is good. It's the motives that are evil.
post #70 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

Why does everyone imply that using patents as a defense is somehow more noble than using them as an offense. What is wrong with using patents as offense? The right to exclude is the right of a patent. Any patent holder should use it in their best interest. A lot of big companies don't sue on their patents because they don't want to get sued. If that is in their best interest then great. However, there is nothing wrong with enforcing a patent. That's why we have patents.

Given the fact that in the current mobile industry, you literally cannot create a new product without violating some patents from the existing incumbents because there are many thousands of trivial patents these incumbents own, if the incumbents like you said can 'use the right to exclude' any new products from the market, one could argue that this is basically anti-competitive behavior and it's bad for the society.

The problem with the current patent system is caused by the fact that innovation is, most of the time, just an improvement of existing technology, and if you allow the owners of current technology to exclude others from participating in improving the existing technology, there won't be any competition. Now most here woult argue that the owners of the current technology needs to be compensated for that, no doubt, but how to compensate is the question. Should they be allowed to be compensated by being awarded the monopoly to the right to further improve that technology?
post #71 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode View Post

*facepalm*
Apple is in the advertising business too in case you didn't notice. Pay attention.
They even take it one step further and have created an entire system where they control every aspect of advertising.

So maybe you should ask yourself - which would you rather have;
A phone that shows you advertising from a free market?
or
A phone that shows you advertising where a corporation controls the message, controls how you see it, controls what you see, controls how you interact with it, controls your purchasing?

Some people like choice, freedom and open markets - others like Apple.

That said, all the big tech companies have lost their karma and goodwill.
I have to laugh at Google for this debacle thou. I'm sure someone is getting fired over this.

Apple has an advertising business, a tiny insignificant fraction of their revenue. Google is an advertising business, 100% of their revenue.

To the extent that advertising shows up in an Apple product (as the odd iAd on a third party application on an Apple mobile device) it is easily dismissible and represents a vanishingly slight fraction of the overall Apple user experience.

There is literally nothing that happens on a Google powered device or service that isn't part of Google's data harvesting business, designed to sell you to advertisers. Not Chrome, not Android, not Goggle docs, not Google +, not search, not Gmail, not Maps, not anything, ever. It's all one big funnel to get your info into the hands of advertisers. And Google is seeking to relentlessly expand their reach into every type of online transaction so that that information can be sold as well-- hotel booking, flight tracking, media serving, augmented reality, social networking, product reviews and ranking etc. ad infinitum.

I think it's interesting that those two things strike you as similar, with Apple being the bigger abuser. Wait, did I say interesting? I meant "fucking insane."
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #72 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Did Google ever indicate their intention to bid on the Novell patents at all? Perhaps they did, but I don't find it. I only find the recent mention that Google didn't want to join in with Microsoft at one point.

As for the complaints that Google has publicly made since losing out on the Nortel patents, I don't read the intent as looking for sympathy. They instead looking for assurance that the purchasers didn't do so with the aim of using them as the "nuclear weapons" they were compared to, aimed at completely destroying Android alone while leaving everyone else unscathed. That would potentially be illegal and Google would be remiss in not trying to get DoJ clarification before the expected attacks (based on 2nd hand intellectual property) start. Google stockholders would be right in not expecting anything less from counsel at this point.

Interesting. You suggest that it would be illegal for a consortium to buy the patents to put Google out of business. What's your rationale? Do you think it violates anti-trust laws? I'm not an expert on anti-trust, but I'm not aware of any case law on point. It raises a question as to whether the act of buying patents in concert violates anti-trust laws. Certainly there is no problem for the consortium to enforce the patents once they have them. Patent rights give you the right to exclude. However, the collusion could be in the formation of the consortium. Maybe the consortium could be said to be engaging in illegal "exclusive dealing" or "refusal to deal". However, if they offered to let anyone into the consortium, maybe that cures the problem.

If it is anti-competitive, I don't think it matters what the intent was. As with all anti-trust issues, what matters is whether the alleged bad actors have "market power" and if their behavior has an adverse affect on competition.
post #73 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

Interesting. You suggest that it would be illegal for a consortium to buy the patents to put Google out of business. What's your rationale? Do you think it violates anti-trust laws? I'm not an expert on anti-trust, but I'm not aware of any case law on point. It raises a question as to whether the act of buying patents in concert violates anti-trust laws. Certainly there is no problem for the consortium to enforce the patents once they have them. Patent rights give you the right to exclude. However, the collusion could be in the formation of the consortium. Maybe the consortium could be said to be engaging in illegal "exclusive dealing" or "refusal to deal". However, if they offered to let anyone into the consortium, maybe that cures the problem.

If it is anti-competitive, I don't think it matters what the intent was. As with all anti-trust issues, what matters is whether the alleged bad actors have "market power" and if their behavior has an adverse affect on competition.

The DoJ has a whitepaper on the issues of interest when competitors collaborate.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/04/ftcdojguidelines.pdf
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #74 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

Given the fact that in the current mobile industry, you literally cannot create a new product without violating some patents from the existing incumbents because there are many thousands of trivial patents these incumbents own, if the incumbents like you said can 'use the right to exclude' any new products from the market, one could argue that this is basically anti-competitive behavior and it's bad for the society.

The problem with the current patent system is caused by the fact that innovation is, most of the time, just an improvement of existing technology, and if you allow the owners of current technology to exclude others from participating in improving the existing technology, there won't be any competition. Now most here woult argue that the owners of the current technology needs to be compensated for that, no doubt, but how to compensate is the question. Should they be allowed to be compensated by being awarded the monopoly to the right to further improve that technology?

I just have to laugh at the statement "the problem with the current patent system is caused by the fact that innovation is, most of the time, just an improvement of existing technology." Well of course it is. I'll go one step further and say that innovation IS ALWAYS an improvement of existing technology. I'll bet you any amount of money you can collateralize that you can't give me an example of an innovation since 1776 that isn't just an improvement of existing technology.

And yes, patents are "anti-competitive". In fact, they are intended to be anti-competitive. That is the carrot offered to the inventor to disclose the secrets that led to the invention. Everyone seems to forget that the grant of a patent is an exchange between an inventor and the public. The public gets a full and complete disclosure and the inventor gets a limited time period of exclusivity. You can't expect the inventor to divulge the company jewels to competitors for nothing.

Americans are so used to the technology sector humming along creating advancements and wealth that they just believe that this is how society works and that it would work the same if we didn't have a patent system. Well, you might be able to pull the patent system right now and have the gears keep turning for a while, but eventually the machine would come to a screeching halt. Being an entrepreneur is a huge risk and patents are like insurance policy that hedges the risk and convinces the entrepreneurs to make improvements. I work with inventors every day. I watch them struggle and fight to make those improvements. It's only five years later that everyone starts pointing a finger and saying it is so obvious to do.
Explain this to me: If the Nortel patents are so damn obvious and Apple and partners were willing to pay 4.5 billion for a 1,000 patents, why didn't Google just pay an attorney to draft them. That's 4.5 million per patent. A patent only costs about $20,000 to draft, prosecute and maintain. Last time I checked, an ROI of 22,500% is pretty damn good.

I drafted a patent last week that I'm sure everyone would say, "ooooh that is so obvious...." Yet, it is really clear to me that this particular invention is valuable and that the big companies working in this space have missed it (at least we couldn't find anyone doing it). Is that not evidence that the invention isn't obvious? Or, maybe these companies thought about it, but just don't care about making money.
I suspect the problem is that people often determine obviousness based on whether the invention is difficult or easy. That's not how it works. Obviousness requires showing that the elements of the invention existed in the prior art and that the skilled artisan would be motivated to combine the teachings in the manner claimed. The invention may be really easy to do, but nevertheless be patentable. The biggest problem is that everyone is using hindsight. After the market adopts something it looks a lot more obvious than before. How many pundits said Apple's iPhone would fail because it didn't have a physical keyboard like a blackberry. Gestures on a touch screen are really obvious right? Everyone knows that phones should have touch screens and "pinch to zoom". etc etc. etc. The pundits said the iPad was just a big iPod Touch and that it wouldn't sell. Yet even the copy artists like Google are having a hard time ripping off Apple. I'm telling you, things that seem simple to ya'll in hindsight are not obvious until the inventor tells you how to do it. Those of us that see innovation day in and day out know just how much of a tragedy it would be if we curtailed our patent system. You are shooting the goose that lays the golden egg.
post #75 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

I drafted a patent last week that I'm sure everyone would say, "ooooh that is so obvious...." Yet, it is really clear to me that this particular invention is valuable and that the big companies working in this space have missed it. Isn't that evidence that it isn't obvious? Maybe these companies did think of it but they just don't care about making money.

And it's entirely possible that the best research into existing software patents may have missed a claim to the same general creation granted to another entity. Or was yours a hardware patent?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #76 of 87
@ash471

Your post is one of the most eloquent and sensible explanations I've ever read regarding the patent system.
post #77 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The DoJ has a whitepaper on the issues of interest when competitors collaborate.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/04/ftcdojguidelines.pdf

I didn't see anything specific to IP purchases. However, I think you're right. Collaborative purchases of IP can be illegal. I think it falls within "Buying Collaborations" See Page 16 of the DOJ document.

And, as I indicated in my prior post, it doesn't matter what the intent was. What matters is whether the collaborators have market power and whether the collaboration harms competition.

Here is how Apple could avoid an anti-trust violation:
If I were Apple, I would have the Consortium own the IP and then offer a license to everyone inside and outside the Consortium (including Apple and Google). The Consortium could charge a relatively high fee until the purchase price of the patents is paid back (i.e., Apple would get paid back for its outlay to purchase the patents). The license should be on a per unit basis, which would cost Google more because of its large market share. All the licensee's including Apple would pay the same price. This again benefits Apple because Apple has the highest margins and it allows Apple to get paid back more quickly for its investment. The pricing could be tiered so that after the IP has been paid for, the licensing fees go way down. This would allow Apple to recoup its investment and damage Google until the patents are paid off. This strategy should avoid the anti-trust laws because Apple wouldn't be excluding Google from the market and they would be offering a license for the same price as to themselves. The high licensing fees could be justified based on the high cost of the patents. If Apple does this, they will have essentially compelled everyone to overpay on a patent portfolio. Since Google's margins are thin, this strategy damages Google a lot more than Apple. Brilliant plan, no?
post #78 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

And it's entirely possible that the best research into existing software patents may have missed a claim to the same general creation granted to another entity. Or was yours a hardware patent?

It was software. And yes, the rat race to get a patent is fraught with difficulties. There may be two equally qualified inventors that invent a day apart and only one will get the patent. Patent applications don't publish for 18 months so maybe this particular invention is already out there. We'll know soon enough.

Of course, if you want to win the race, it helps to hire good patent counsel. =)
post #79 of 87
Classic case of the loser calling "they cheated" after they agreed to the terms and rules (Arkansas Sugar Bowl anyone? ). What's more disappointing is DED's writing. His seething hate for Google shows up again and a lack of proofreading is evident.
For the record, Microsoft was commenting on the NOVELL patents, not the Nortel ones.
TalkAndroid anyone?
Reply
TalkAndroid anyone?
Reply
post #80 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Additionally, according to Brad Smith, the general counsel of Microsoft, Google refused to join the group bidding on the Novell patents, instead bidding separately for the collection of patents in hopes that it could win them all for itself, just as had earlier done on a portfolio of around 1,000 patents from IBM.

DED's getting close to the facts now. Just change the claim that Google bought IBM patents before the Novell auction to several months after instead, and it looks fairly good.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Microsoft says Google refused to join the Novell patent consortium