or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google buys 217 more patents from IBM to bolster IP portfolio
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google buys 217 more patents from IBM to bolster IP portfolio

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
Google purchased another round of patents from IBM in the last week of 2011, adding 217 filings as the search giant looks to strengthen its existing IP portfolio to help protect itself in an increasingly litigious tech industry.

A report on Tuesday revealed that the United States Patent and Trademark Office officially recorded Google's acquisition of 188 granted patents and 29 published pending applications from IBM in its patent assignment database on Dec. 30, 2011, according to blog SEO by the Sea.

The patents, which were effectively assigned to Google on Dec. 28, 2011, cover a variety of topics pertinent to the company's internet business including blade servers, server load balancing, email administration and network performance.

Also found in the batch of intellectual property are patents useful to Google's Android smartphone platform, like portable OS updating, transferring of web applications between devices, voice based keyword searching and a computer phone patent.

The keyword searching patent is of particular interest as Apple's Siri digital assistant is seen as a key feature of the company's iPhone 4S, with at least one market analyst saying that it was one of the main drivers of November sales for the new handset. Google is rumored to be working on a Siri competitor for its Android OS, naming the project "Majel" after Star Trek's on-board computer.

Google has been on an IBM patent buying spree over the last year, with a July 2011 acquisition of 1,030 filings being followed by purchases of 1,022 filings and 41 filings in August and September, respectively.

The financials of the patent buy has yet to be revealed, and both Google and IBM don't normally disclose the details of such transactions.
post #2 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The financials of the patent buy has yet to be revealed, and both Google and IBM have don't normally disclose the details of such transactions.

Might want to fix the "both have don't" wording.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #3 of 24
Why innovate or create your own code, when you can buy or steal it. = Google's mantra

And what is the sole purpose of buying these patents? Not to make their product better, but for litigation purposes. Sounds about right for Google.
post #4 of 24
I see AI has an appreciation for one of my favorite blogs too.

FWIW, there was an article a few months back at PatentlyO that opined the IBM patents had a particular target in mind, starting with an "A".

EDIT: Found it
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011...n-apple-1.html

@MacWorld: IIRC Apple spent a Billion+ or so on on a few thousand patents just a few months back. That's just what the mobile industry has come to, loading up on weaponry.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #5 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Might want to fix the "both have don't" wording.

New Year's resolution for AI posters?
  • Don't post about typos or authors not using the most fitting term unless the context of the article is incomprehendle.
  • Don't point out the word 'anal' is part of 'analyst'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

Why innovate or create your own code, when you can buy or steal it. = Google's mantra

And what is the sole purpose of buying these patents? Not to make their product better, but for litigation purposes. Sounds about right for Google.

Buying patents, companies and talent is fine, it's the stealing of IP that we shouldn't triumph.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #6 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I see AI has an appreciation for one of my favorite blogs too.

FWIW, there was an article a few months back at PatentlyO that opined the IBM patents had a particular target in mind, starting with an "A".

EDIT: Found it
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011...n-apple-1.html

@MacWorld: IIRC Apple spent a Billion+ or so on on a few thousand patents just a few months back. That's just what the mobile industry has come to, loading up on weaponry.

Apple didn't buy the patents outright. There was a consortium of companies that bought the Nortel patents. Not the same thing as this!
post #7 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

New Year's resolution for AI posters? [*]Don't post about typos or authors not using the most fitting term unless the context of the article is incomprehendle.

Unless it is funny. BTW I don't understand "incomprehendle"

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #8 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Unless it is funny. BTW I don't understand "incomprehendle"

"Don't understand" if only there was another word for that

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #9 of 24
Don't both have don't a cow, man.

"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 #10 of 24
I love reading legal blogs such as AppleInsider, tech blogs are so boring!
post #11 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

New Year's resolution for AI posters?
  • Don't post about typos or authors not using the most fitting term unless the context of the article is incomprehendle.
  • Don't point out the word 'anal' is part of 'analyst'.

Buying patents, companies and talent is fine, it's the stealing of IP that we shouldn't triumph.

I would normally agree with you on not pointing out typos in a commenter's post as it is only sidetracking the conversation. However, since this was an AppleInsider staff member, one would expect the article to be as free from spelling and grammatical errors as possible to appear more professional.
post #12 of 24
Hey Google..... just create your OWN content and IP and you will have nothing to worry about!
post #13 of 24
These IP lawsuits are such garbage.

Really, if they "hold up", every tech. item in the US will be destroyed. These patents include nonsense such as network transmission of data structures (packets), things like holding data locally in permanent storage (saving to a disk), sorting data structures (which can only be done so many ways), etc.

It's like patenting a method of processing food before swallowing (chewing), patenting a way of cleansing oneself (bathing/showering), and patenting a process of moving in space via self-propulsion (walking, crawling, etc.)

It's a huge farce.
post #14 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

These IP lawsuits are such garbage.

Really, if they "hold up", every tech. item in the US will be destroyed. These patents include nonsense such as network transmission of data structures (packets), things like holding data locally in permanent storage (saving to a disk), sorting data structures (which can only be done so many ways), etc.

It's like patenting a method of processing food before swallowing (chewing), patenting a way of cleansing oneself (bathing/showering), and patenting a process of moving in space via self-propulsion (walking, crawling, etc.)

It's a huge farce.

Like the one Samsung holds in Europe regarding emoticons on phones?

:-)
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #15 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Unless it is funny. BTW I don't understand "incomprehendle"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

"Don't understand" if only there was another word for that

We interrupt this thread for clarification.

Obviously incomprehensible is the word Solip intended to type.

And now back to the news...

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

We interrupt this thread for clarification.

Obviously incomprehensible is the word Solip intended to type.

And now back to the news...


Initially yes, but iOS didn't autocorrect it. I then left it as-is because I felt the context made the correct spelling obvious thereby making my point.

And now back to the news...

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox View Post

I would normally agree with you on not pointing out typos in a commenter's post as it is only sidetracking the conversation. However, since this was an AppleInsider staff member, one would expect the article to be as free from spelling and grammatical errors as possible to appear more professional.

This is an internet rumor site. Actually, more to the point, this is AI.

I didn't know appearing more professional was part of the requirement.

Whoops, now we've sidetracked...

What the hell were we talking about... oh yeah... patents...
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #18 of 24
Google can go on buying whatever it wants and sees fit to insure its business model prevails and flourishes. At the end of day it has only one business, "Search". Without search no ads, no cash, no cut nor clout. By the end of the decade Google´s search will be outrun and it will go the Yahoo/AOL way of withering and dying away slowly. With luck it spends its way into a faster death.

Googles approach to searching the net and its underlying business model isn´t going to get it into the 2020´s. As useful as Google is today for skimming quick info as annoying it has become when searching for real information, not to mention databases. It´s all cluttered with ad shit. That combined with its logging of user profiles and data without sharing profits made to the original and unique owners of the data is going to lead to the fastest downfall in the history of technology ever to be recorded. Google will vanish faster than it came into existence.

All it takes is a bit awareness of users and it is growing daily, once it reaches critical mass the user drop of Google will be swift and it will happen when none expect it.

Sadly though, after all Google did push technology and services in a profound way throughout the past decade. Only if it cannibalizes its own business and transforms its approach to search will it remain.

My question is:

When is Apple set to revolutionize search?



PS: Ahh yes, hi board ;-)
post #19 of 24
Glad to get my morning chuckle in so early today. I find it quite funny when all the apple fanboys start screaming about how Google can't do anything but buy up IP, when SIRI is a direct byproduct of Apple's purchase of Nuance. Hypocrites much?
post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemacx View Post

Google can go on buying whatever it wants and sees fit to insure its business model prevails and flourishes. At the end of day it has only one business, "Search". Without search no ads, no cash, no cut nor clout. By the end of the decade Google´s search will be outrun and it will go the Yahoo/AOL way of withering and dying away slowly. With luck it spends its way into a faster death.

Googles approach to searching the net and its underlying business model isn´t going to get it into the 2020´s. As useful as Google is today for skimming quick info as annoying it has become when searching for real information, not to mention databases. It´s all cluttered with ad shit. That combined with its logging of user profiles and data without sharing profits made to the original and unique owners of the data is going to lead to the fastest downfall in the history of technology ever to be recorded. Google will vanish faster than it came into existence.

All it takes is a bit awareness of users and it is growing daily, once it reaches critical mass the user drop of Google will be swift and it will happen when none expect it.

Sadly though, after all Google did push technology and services in a profound way throughout the past decade. Only if it cannibalizes its own business and transforms its approach to search will it remain.

My question is:

When is Apple set to revolutionize search?



PS: Ahh yes, hi board ;-)

This whole post sounds like some sort of crack-pot end-of-days rant. So let's get this straight.. Google is going to fall of the face of the planet when their 200 million installed Android base simultaneously throw all those devices in the garbage. And stop using google search. And stop using all of the other services which rely on google search. You sir, are brilliant!
post #21 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemacx View Post

Googles approach to searching the net and its underlying business model isn't going to get it into the 2020s. As useful as Google is today for skimming quick info as annoying it has become when searching for real information, not to mention databases. It's all cluttered with ad shit. That combined with its logging of user profiles and data without sharing profits made to the original and unique owners of the data is going to lead to the fastest downfall in the history of technology ever to be recorded. Google will vanish faster than it came into existence.

My question is:

When is Apple set to revolutionize search?

I do think Google had a very limited business model in the search/ad space and they don't make much money from Android - there are estimates of $200m/year from advertising and their Android market - but the audience is huge. Over 6 billion hits a day from Google and Youtube and now over 200 million mobile users.

The only way they could fail is if the products they have become irrelevant to our future lives and I don't see this happening. Apple's Siri is their search revolution and being a front-end to search, it can make every information source equally unimportant but the leg-work has to be done to manage all of the world's online information and Google does this best.

Google has the only open mobile OS and this allows anyone and everyone to build a product of any kind without restrictions. Android can take over all the Windows CE, Symbian etc devices - sat-navs, low-end phones, low-end tablets, possibly router software, printer software:

http://kschang.hubpages.com/hub/7-We...-and-toy-robot

Apple has the edge in hardware and overall quality as well as user experience.
Google has the edge in flexibility.
Microsoft has neither.

That's how I like it to be honest and I want both Apple and Google to succeed. Let IBM, HP, Microsoft, RIM, Nokia and all the other lethargic corporate companies go down.
post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

This whole post sounds like some sort of crack-pot end-of-days rant. So let's get this straight.. Google is going to fall of the face of the planet when their 200 million installed Android base simultaneously throw all those devices in the garbage. And stop using google search. And stop using all of the other services which rely on google search. You sir, are brilliant!

Does not take brilliance to see the bleeding obvious:

Google=Search=Ads=Profits.
Google Financial Table

Android in itself is not a mentionable profit stream nor are any other services Google provides. They make their money thru ads and it all hangs onto search, thats why they went mobile with Android and do all sorts of services, to attract more (keep) users (search marketshare).

To set things straight, whatever straight means - a bend is as straight as a line, depending on the level of perspective, math 6th grade I guess.

1. Google is search, 99%
2. Android is an OS supported by Google to ensure search is mobile
3. Android handsets will continue to work even if Google fails, no need to throw them away
4. Handsets average lifespan 2-4 years?
5. There was search before Google, there is search besides Google and there will be search after Google
6. No Google Ad revenues = no other service and products
7. Google´s services support search by luring the user onto Googles site, which is plain white with a search field
8. I have not complained nor decried Google buying up IP
9. I said that Google contributed a lot
10. What makes you think I am a Sir? The same logic you apply to the inner logic of your supposed argument? Or because "NEMACX" sounds male.

Might want to use some thought before depreciating others needlessly ("... sort of crack-pot end-of-days rant / You sir, are brilliant!...", obviously you are everything but brilliant. You might want to try being straight in the morning, e.g. sober?
post #23 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

Apple didn't buy the patents outright. There was a consortium of companies that bought the Nortel patents. Not the same thing as this!

Aside from the consortium part, what is the difference in motive?
post #24 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I do think Google had a very limited business model in the search/ad space and they don't make much money from Android - there are estimates of $200m/year from advertising and their Android market - but the audience is huge. Over 6 billion hits a day from Google and Youtube and now over 200 million mobile users.

The only way they could fail is if the products they have become irrelevant to our future lives and I don't see this happening. Apple's Siri is their search revolution and being a front-end to search, it can make every information source equally unimportant but the leg-work has to be done to manage all of the world's online information and Google does this best.

Google has the only open mobile OS and this allows anyone and everyone to build a product of any kind without restrictions. Android can take over all the Windows CE, Symbian etc devices - sat-navs, low-end phones, low-end tablets, possibly router software, printer software:

http://kschang.hubpages.com/hub/7-We...-and-toy-robot

Apple has the edge in hardware and overall quality as well as user experience.
Google has the edge in flexibility.
Microsoft has neither.

That's how I like it to be honest and I want both Apple and Google to succeed. Let IBM, HP, Microsoft, RIM, Nokia and all the other lethargic corporate companies go down.

Once Google Search falls from the throne all other products are negligible if they can be sustained at all without todays Ad revenue stream.

Users are becoming more and more aware of the value of their personal and private data. Awareness has risen since the advent of Facebook and will continue to do so. Googles logging and profiling just adds to the momentum. When the average users makes the connection between him searching on Google and later receiving spam and ads relating to earlier searches, when he realizes that most results are paid or commercial and that it is quite hard to find good and valid information he will start to ponder alternatives. And when the average Joe understands how Google profits off him he is going to ask his rightful share and moreover demand that he retains rights to his profiled data, meaning data is only licensed and can not be sold, especially without giving the unique owner its due - as is now the case.

Don´t be mistaken after all Google is nothing more than a search box. Boxes can and are being replaced. Googles other products are no longer unique, if they ever were, nor do they make Google what it is, they just shape the image and support the only business model they have: search.

If Google isn´t the one to cannibalize its own search someone else is going to.

SIRI is no search revolution. It is just a natural way for humans to access and activate functions and services on electronic devices. So it lets us access search thru voice, thats about it, does´t change the way search is being conducted underneath, not yet that is. That is what you pointed out yourself by calling SIRI the front-end to search.

Android may be open source, but it is basically a stolen product and has infringed on numerous patent licenses ( read patent ). So even if Android makes it, it won´t be a big source of revenue. Maybe if Google buys Oracle and Microsoft, but that isn´t anywhere near

Nor do I see flexibility in Googles setup. MS is much more flexible in that respect and has a brighter future than Google, once Balmer is gone that is. But that I guess that is a matter of perspective.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google buys 217 more patents from IBM to bolster IP portfolio