Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Aug 2011 21:38 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y The Google-Microsoft patent war of words is continuing. Yesterday, Google (rightfully so, in my book) accused Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle partaking in an organised patent attack against Android, instead of competing on merit, claiming that they bought up Novell's and Nortel's patents solely to attack Android and its device makers. Microsoft struck back, claiming Google was offered to join in on the bids for the Novell patents, but rejected the offer. Google has now responded to this accusation - and to make matters even more confusing, Microsoft responded back. A public shouting match between two powerful parties? Count me in!
Thread beginning with comment 483706
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Cheering for Google feels like...
by mrstep on Thu 4th Aug 2011 21:56 UTC
mrstep
Member since:
2009-07-18

.. cheering for Stalin over Hitler - neither option is very appealing.

Microsoft / Apple / et. al are using the (broken) patent system to their advantage and presumably avoiding supporting any changes that would take patent power away from big companies.

On the other hand, Google is 'anti-patent' mostly because they want to feel free to copy whatever they feel like and use it to create a larger ad channel for their real profit engine - so copying something and then giving it out for free is much more appealing than if they have to license parts of it. And to help that engine along, they collect all data possible about those users while pushing a never-ending supply of ads. Oh yea! Go Google! (???)

Patents are supposed to protect innovation and give a window where competitors either can't use a new idea or have to license it, so there's certainly validity to Apple going after Google given that they've been granted patents on various touch / portable device technologies. On the other hand, allowing 17-20 year patents on what are often trivial inventions as part of a extremely expensive and litigious system isn't a good thing at all.

Reply Score: 3

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

Considering these are just software and procedure patents I might actually challenge your assertion that google is *just stealing*. There are copyright laws to protect art assets if that is what you are talking about.

Edited 2011-08-04 22:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

deppbv78 Member since:
2008-06-29

Aim of my post is to gain more understanding into patents & copyright....

Isn't a patent provided to cover the idea, process of execution & its applicability? As I understand, copyright can protect my code but not the idea & its implementation process.

So, without a patent somebody can take my idea & execution procedure (unique in combination) but use their own logic (code) to the achieve the same. How will a copyright protect my idea & execution procedure?

I'm OK if somebody takes my idea but uses a different execution approach to solve the problem. But, I don't want somebody copying my idea & execution procedure without me getting any benefit out of it. This is specifically true for cases where a company invests millions of $$ in R&D, just to find that somebody copied their idea & execution approach into their product to get the feature for free.

In any case, patents should have a stringent expiry clauses (not exceeding 5yrs) without possible extensions. Modification of original patent by adding a new approach must not be considered as a new patent. I personally feel 5yrs is more than enough for companies to benefit from their patent. Further, government must stop trading of patents between companies as assets. Ideally, a company's patents must be released to public domain if the company is taken over by another.

Reply Parent Score: 1

andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

.. cheering for Stalin over Hitler - neither option is very appealing.

Microsoft / Apple / et. al are using the (broken) patent system to their advantage and presumably avoiding supporting any changes that would take patent power away from big companies.

On the other hand, Google is 'anti-patent' mostly because they want to feel free to copy whatever they feel like and use it to create a larger ad channel for their real profit engine - so copying something and then giving it out for free is much more appealing than if they have to license parts of it. And to help that engine along, they collect all data possible about those users while pushing a never-ending supply of ads. Oh yea! Go Google! (???)

Patents are supposed to protect innovation and give a window where competitors either can't use a new idea or have to license it, so there's certainly validity to Apple going after Google given that they've been granted patents on various touch / portable device technologies. On the other hand, allowing 17-20 year patents on what are often trivial inventions as part of a extremely expensive and litigious system isn't a good thing at all.


The problem is software patents. Not patents in general. Patenting commodity software such as operating systems is a folly and must stop. Microsoft and Apple are pushing for a day when no one can write open source software without treading on their trivial software patents which are not novel or non-obvious. Your attempt to astroturf for Apple by shifting the conversation has failed. Its about software patents.

BTW a court has found that Apple has copied Nokia's technology. The ITC has found that Apple has copied technology that now belongs to HTC. FYI

Reply Parent Score: 7

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Finally somebody who is willing to call a spade a spade.

The only way this patent bullshit is going to end is if/when these big companies get tired of being sued by each other. Of course, I'm sure that won't stop people like Thom from incessantly whining about it on tech blogs ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Eh, that would be the desired outcome.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

And to help that engine along, they collect all data possible about those users while pushing a never-ending supply of ads. Oh yea! Go Google! (???)

Where is all these ads from Google these folk keep going on about?
I never see any and never have. Or am I just an exception and missing out on summat? ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

...
Patents are supposed to protect innovation and give a window where competitors either can't use a new idea or have to license it...


Am I the only one who thinks this is a very poorly written sentence?! Patent an idea?? C'mon if that is allowed Star track should be in position to license everything from mobile phones to CT Scans etc. Come to think of it... I have an idea give me few minutes to patent it and then I'll tell you all about it...

Reply Parent Score: 2