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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
You mean other than the implicit admission that Google is using patents from others without a license so it needs a defensive patent portfolio (as pointed out by Gruber)?
You CAN do business with MSFT/JAVA/ORCL without a defensive patent portfolio as they seem to be willing to license. APPL maybe not so much but they are explicitly calling out MSFT as part of some weird tech conspiracy theory.
Comments
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.
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.
*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?
'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.
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?
*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."
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.
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
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.
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?
Your post is one of the most eloquent and sensible explanations I've ever read regarding the patent system.
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?
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.
For the record, Microsoft was commenting on the NOVELL patents, not the Nortel ones.
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.
Everyone here is missing the point.
...
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.
You mean other than the implicit admission that Google is using patents from others without a license so it needs a defensive patent portfolio (as pointed out by Gruber)?
You CAN do business with MSFT/JAVA/ORCL without a defensive patent portfolio as they seem to be willing to license. APPL maybe not so much but they are explicitly calling out MSFT as part of some weird tech conspiracy theory.
No, folks aren't missing the point at all.