Google has decided to fight back against the Apple and Microsoft-backed patent troll Rockstar. It has filed a lawsuit, asking the court to state that the Android platform does not infringe any of the patents the patent troll is asserting against Android, Google, and Android OEMs. Google describes Rockstar’s trolling in no uncertain terms.
Rockstar produces no products and practices no patents. Instead, Rockstar employs a staff of engineers in Ontario, Canada, who examine other companies’ successful products to find anything that Rockstar might use to demand and extract licenses to its patents under threat of litigation.
A very interesting tidbit is found further down in the legal documents – Google claims that Rockstar actually contacted companies that use Android, asking them to… Stop using Android.
On information and belief, Rockstar contacted and met with these California-based companies in order to discourage them from continuing to use Google’s Android platform in their devices, and to interfere with Google’s business relationships.
This Apple and Microsoft shell company is way, way dirtier than we already knew.
Moving past the problematic ideology so often propped up by this site and many of it’s visitors that software patents somehow = bad, I don’t see how anything they did is “dirty.” Far from it. This is simply the wheels of justice moving… however slowly they roll… to right a longstanding wrong.
This is not exactly an example of a patent troll company that doesn’t create anything yet sues based solely on ownership of software patents. Each company associated with rockstar sells a phone and has a vested interest in the recognition of these patents. Rockstar itself doesn’t create a product but the companies participating in the rockstar company absolutely do. At best its a grey area but far from the black and white issue presented in the summary.
With that out of the way, Rockstar paid a very healthy sum to own these patents. If you own the patents then you have the opportunity to grant licensing opportunities to select companies or to none at all.
Similarly, I don’t see how telling my competition to stop making their product is somehow bad be it because it does a dis-service to my business as a whole or because the competing product utilizes patents that I own.
Android copied the competition when it was established AND it utilizes patents owned by another company. Google’s business model depends on taking the research done by others and giving it to other companies.
When the infringed party takes issue with it of course Google is going to call them names such as patent troll and call upon every member of the technology press to come to their defense but only because that is really the only defense they have.
I know it was a long shot but I hoped this site would take the high road. So much for that idea.
Edited 2013-12-27 18:50 UTC
If you don’t consider software patents bad, and protection racket and privateering dirty practices (and Rockstar is exactly that – patent privateer, a thug company working on behalf of MS and Apple, so they could be shielded from retaliation), there is nothing really to discuss.
Edited 2013-12-27 18:38 UTC
You’re adding labels which don’t qualify. Protecting what you own is a simple concept that everyone can identify with. Labeling it racketeering to help your cause is nothing more than a straw man
I responded to this comment in my parent statement to avoid having this conversation…. but as I said, the companies associated with rockstar are more than mere patent holders therefor this label is unjustified.
Protecting what belongs to you do does not make one a thug.
…and blackberry… e.g. all the companies that were infringed.
Shielded? It’s not like its hidden. These companies have been very vocal about their association. There is nothing they need to fear for pursuing what’s theirs save for the backlash from those in the tech news community telling their readership that these companies are doing the industry a disservice for protecting what belongs to them.
Agreed and yet this article remains on the site doing the bidding of fulfilling Google’s only defense by calling their accusers names.
Edited 2013-12-27 19:04 UTC
[/q]
Believing you can own an idea isn’t going to get you very popular around here.
Edited 2013-12-27 18:59 UTC
Hence the problem.
First off your an idiot. They are dirty cause they don’t make 1 single product and are suing a company looking for fee’s when they weren’t even harmed. On top of that since all this company is, is a patent holding company for android’s 2 biggest competitor’s, they are nothing more then a proxy in this lawsuit. Apple never been able to deal with fact driod has kicked their butt in innovation for years now. Apple steals tech from other companies refuses to pay for them and when they get sued they cry about abuse of patents while on the other hand they are doing same thing they cry getting used against them.
Each company associated with rockstar sells a phone and has a vested interest in the recognition of these patents. Rockstar itself doesn’t create a product but the companies participating in the rockstar company absolutely do. At best its a grey area but far from the black and white issue presented in the summary.
I might be wrong about this but I don’t think they are looking for fees. I think they don’t even want to grant them a license. Assuming I’m wrong though, granting a license for pay to others wanting to use your product is absolutely justified. Again, nothing wrong here.
If you build a business using my product and gain customers using a product that you could not otherwise create without my patents… customers that would have otherwise chosen my product were yours not available then yes… then yes I would indeed have been harmed. By that same understanding each of these companies owning Rockstar’s patents have also been harmed by the same premise.
2 biggest competitors… (blackberry is also part owner). A proxy company makes it sound as if the company was established solely for litigation purposes rather than being companies interested in owning a share of these patents for their company’s individual businesses.
Your opinion
If/When Apple does and is in the wrong then they should indeed pay. What’s your point?
Edited 2013-12-27 19:21 UTC
No they don’t. Ericsson is a part of rockstar and they stopped making phones long ago. And Sony… well, they make android phones, so yes.. they sell phones. They do have strange bedfellows though.
Except that Android got its market share before Rockstar existed. When the patents belonged to someone else. Someone who either wasn’t a patent troll or just failed to see the opportunity to squeeze money from Android makers (and I would bet, iPhone and WP makers).
To whom it may concern:
As the owner of the idea for the term “problem,” I am writing you this post to inform you that you have 48 hours to complete the payment of the $100,000.00 (one hundred thousand dollars) fee related to your unlicensed use of my intellectual property on the website “www.osnews.com” on Friday the 27th of December 2013.
Failure to pay within the stipulated time period will imply further legal action leading to harsher penalties.
Have a nice day.
tylerdurden,
It has come to my attention that you are in fact NOT the owner of this patent. Had you been I would have justifiably paid you your rightful sum. Because you have presented yourself in a nefarious manor I require that you pay a penalty for the amount with which you hoped to take from me.
Have a nice day.
themwagency,
“It has come to my attention that you are in fact NOT the owner of this patent. Had you been I would have justifiably paid you your rightful sum.”
Obviously tylerdurden was making a point rather than for you to take the threat seriously, however you couldn’t just brush off a real case without consequences. You’d at least have to consult real patent lawyers, give them access to the code in question to see what the odds are for your successfully fighting the case. Unlike criminal cases, you are not entitled to free representation in your defense. So realistically speaking, it’s may be better for you as a victim of a patent lawsuit to settle anyways if you don’t have the time, skills or money to see the case through. Not to mention the negative publicity that ensues… In a sense, settling is “win/win” for everybody, just like paying off the mafia is “win/win” for everybody. It may be the least painful option for the victim; not that this makes it right.
From the obvious pattern in your posts, I wasn’t expecting any basic sense of humor from your part.
But thanks for letting us know that what’s good for your goose is not for other people’s ganders.
I have no _problem_ with that.
In our company we only deal with issues and challenges.
Best regards
Somebody have the idea to _KILL_ someone, now it gets patented. Now if everybody who happens to have the idea of _KILLING_ someone must pay some blood money to that the one who patented that idea(KILL).
You have some violent thoughts in you …again.
Not a bit of it. Patents are supposed to protect methods and not ideas. If you can achieve the same end via a different method then you do NOT infringe on a patent covering another method for doing the exact same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
Note in particular that an invention is defined as a (singular) solution to a technical problem, it does not cover all possible solutions to that problem. If Google solves technical problems of smartphone operating systems using different methods (i.e. a different solution) to other operating systems, then Google is not infringing. Android most certainly employs different methods than does iOS and Windows Phone, even though it does solve some of the same technical problems. Pure and simple.
If you don’t understand that patents are not meant to confer ownership of ideas, then you have no business commenting upon the matter.
Edited 2013-12-28 06:49 UTC
IP don’t protect an idea you claim to own.
IP protect a specific method to solve a specific problem that you claim to have found first.
Period.
Hence the claim checking problem.
Assuming you aren’t a troll…
Wrong definition of shielded. Rockstar was set up as a purely offensive company. By not making any products, they can’t be counter sued for patent infringement. The company was specifically set up to monetize patents and not to do anything with them. So not a shield that hides moves, but one that prevents a friendly company from being hit by a counter attack.
Uhhhh…you DO know there is a reason why Steve Jobs to his dying breath wanted to “Go nuclear” on Android, yes? Have you seen the before and after iPhone pictures of Android?
Look I really don’t care what you think of patents and full disclosure my smartphone is an Android but for Google to claim somebody is trolling when they bold faced stole every idea in Android? That takes some really big brass ones.
Look, I don’t care what you think, try to get it through your head that no-one can own ideas. All that you can do is patent methods you use in your inventions.
When Google uses different methods to produce a similar product (Android is based on Linux and Dalvik, which are NOT iOS or java respectively), then Google’s product, since it uses different methods to achieve similar ends, does NOT infringe on Apple or Oracle IP.
What on earth is so hard to understand about that?
Get over it already.
Edited 2013-12-30 06:17 UTC
Except the courts have ALREADY ruled your argument is BS, remember Lindows? Yeah they got busted because even though Linux is not Windows it was obviously a rip off.
You can’t copy something and just use different materials, its called counterfeiting and all one has to do is look at the before and after the iPhone pics to see what Google did was bold faced counterfeit the iPhone, from the icons to the form factor to the layout .
Why on earth is that so hard to understand? You aren’t allowed to counterfeit, get over it already.
// Yeah they got busted because even though Linux is not Windows it was obviously a rip off. //
According to Wikipedia, that’s not exactly what happened. As it turns out, MS repeatedly lost against Lindows and was forced to eventually settle (they bought the Lindows trademark for 20 million). Doesn’t sound like Lindows was busted. On the contrary, sounds like MS was busted.
I know this is going to sound condescending but oh well. I think anyone who thinks software patents are not something bad on the whole are either naive about the software engineering process or have a vested interest in software patents.
For example this is one of the patents that Google is infringing on “an advertisement machine which provides advertisements to a user searching for desired information within a data network”. Patent number 6,098,065. Read the entire patent. It violates the spirit of the patent system if not the very letter of patent law. It is not specific, but intentionally generic to encompass virtually any advertising based on search. There is no specific implementation to reference. The description is a trivial database lookup at best. It is not unique in any way.
The patent system was not invented for people to patent ideas, horde them, and then force people to pay them for owning an idea. Patents are there to protect people who actually invest time and money into making something unique and non-trivial. It was put into place to give people an incentive to invest in new and improved ways of doing things. Software patents do exactly the opposite. They inhibit people from developing and improving systems because an idea contained within them is patented even if it has never been marketed, or even created and never will be. What is the upside to that? Making a bunch of lawyers rich?
They should try to challenge the patent in question rather than the company owning it or the system that governs it.
The fact that Google is trying to negate software patents altogether and going after the company trying to have recognition of their patents says to me that they realize that their entire business model is at risk and has to try and knock everybody down beside them if they have to go down for trying to take what didn’t belong to them.
Edited 2013-12-27 19:49 UTC
1. Google have the money to challenge a patent but what about any small company? In the patent system the big guy always win.
2. Such broad patents shouldn’t be granted in the first place.
What agency are you working for Burson-Marsteller? among others. I know MS and Apple have hired them to troll forums against Google.
andydread,
“What agency are you working for Burson-Marsteller? among others. I know MS and Apple have hired them to troll forums against Google.”
In this case, it’s interesting to note that “themwagency” is actually the domain name of a marketing company:
http://www.themwagency.com/services.html
The domain was registered by a “KELLY MCNEILL”, probably the same one who was the editor of osviews.com and appears to have had spats in the past with our very own Thom Holweda:
http://thom-holwerda.blogspot.com/2005/09/explanation.html#comments
Sounds familiar!
Thom had this to say some 8 years ago…
Since osviews is no more, you won
Impressive.
Spot on. Exactly. Precisely.
Your entire post is utterly worth repeating. Well said.
themwagency,
“This is simply the wheels of justice moving… however slowly they roll… to right a longstanding wrong.”
The longstanding wrong is the *patent system*. Assuming google’s lawsuit eventually gives way to reforming the patent system, then maybe the “wheels of justice” will eventually get there. Google, will survive no matter what, but these monopolistic software patents over software are catastrophic to smaller developers. We need to do away with the software patents that inhibit innovation by blocking others from access to key technologies that we’re not even allowed to implement ourselves using our *own* resources.
Not only is patent related litigation strangling our industry, it’s completely unnecessary since software is protected by copyrights and trade secrets which already protects all implementations.
Software patents are not about rewarding innovation, they’re being used to solidify the status quo. The patent system has been completely perverted from it’s original purpose of maximizing public utility. Now we have companies paying developers & lawyers not to innovate, but to patent every conceivable enumeration in order to block competitors from being able to solve problems without infringing. That’s become the driving force behind patent companies; it HAS to be because patents serve no other practical purposes these days. Far more money, time, and resources goes into the patent lawsuits than went into the invention itself.
Edited 2013-12-27 20:18 UTC
There are costs doing doing business in every industry. Some are larger than others. Debeers is inhibiting OUR industry by buying up all the diamond mines around the world. These are our diamonds and because of their actions it hurts small companies who also want to sell diamonds. Now they have to buy the mines directly from Debeers who sought to buy them first!
In many instances they are. If there is to be any reform it should be in reinforcing the patents that are innovations and doing away with those that are not. It’s important to understand that some of these points are highly debatable.
Edited 2013-12-27 20:54 UTC
themwagency,
You are ignoring the very big distinction between a natural monopoly arising from mutually exclusive physical property rights (ie diamond mines) versus an artificial government granted monopoly on ideas. Since ideas are inherently non-physical and not mutually exclusive, you need a damn good reason for granting a monopoly on them, and the majority of those in the software industry agree they don’t make any sense for our field.
In any case, don’t you find it ironic to compare patent monopolies to the most violent monopoly on the planet? Was your intention to highlight the similarities or the differences? If your point was to say “look, it’s not as bad as THAT monopoly”, well so what? That’s truly a terrible justification for our patent policy.
Software engineers like myself generally agree that software patents only get in the way. The vast majority of developers just want to do what we do best: R&D. Unlike other industries (ie pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, chemicals, aviation, etc) software development has unprecedented low barriers to entry, so anyone with talent can join us with very low up front investment. Patents are a major detraction for us.
A large part of the problem with a patent system is that it’s inherently not scalable. Beyond a certain size, it just stops being feasible to effectively compare all patented and published works for a fixed cost (to say nothing of unpublished works). Even the patent office itself throws it’s hands up and grants patents because they have no way to make heads or tails over whether something is unique given their limited time to review the matter. That responsibility shifts to the courts in trials that cost millions of dollars. This cannot be fixed, at least not without diverting exponentially more resources to patent matters.
With so many developers, it makes very little sense to grant some of them a monopoly on ideas that others are increasingly likely to come up with independently anyways.
Edited 2013-12-28 03:59 UTC
For example…?
Google should better dig out some proof that MS and Apple are behind this and then fight them back directly.
It’s not a hidden nor illegal, mischievous or dubious fact that they are a part of Rockstar. They established the company solely because they each wanted to own part of the patents yet none wanted to front all the money to buy it.
Seriously. Google can sue the shareholders whenever they want. They don’t though, which is telling.
So, in other words, it’s run-of-the-mill patent trolling – but performed by a cartel rather than an individual company. Thanks for clearing that up.
shmerl,
“Google should better dig out some proof that MS and Apple are behind this and then fight them back directly.”
The reason for using a shell company is to indemnify the parties responsible. Google might give apple & ms bad press, but legally speaking I doubt they can go after MS or Apple for the actions committed by them through Rockstar.
Shareholders are not responsible for the actions of the company. Thus pinning the blame on the shareholders(MS and Apple in this case) is essentially impossible.
It’s worth noting that Google tried to buy this patent portfolio for 3 or so billion, but was outbid.
Worth noting is that Google tried doing same thing that Rockstar is doing when they bought Motorola… but just happened to fail at that as well.
Google’s hypocrisy is unrivaled.
Edited 2013-12-27 21:36 UTC
In fact Google patent claims from Motorola was defensive.
Also Motorola patents were proven infringing by Microsoft and others. The debate over them was how much had to be paid for invalid usage due to Frand licensing allowing free usage as long as terms were obeyed.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57581544-93/court-sides-with-micro…
Yes if you dig into every cases of Goggle vs anyone over patents. There is not one case the other party is not infringing not he patent. Every time Google has been paid. Less than what Google has requested most of the time.
Sorry themwagency Google has not failed with Motorola at all.
Also Google with Motorola did the first court cases to determine what Frand licensing could charge.
Rockstar is a different kettle of fish. Its turning out to claim infringement when it does not own the patents required. So Rockstart is not doing the same thing Motorola under Google did.
The claim that Motorola under Google failed is bogus. They just got 1/4 of what they were asking for. Interesting enough the prices Motorola was using was directly based on the Rate Microsoft had be licensing patents at.
Yes the Rockstar case is also to force Rockstar and others to reduce the price per patent.
Some homework for you:
How much did Google pay for Motorola? How much did they seek in licensing fees from Microsoft? How much did they end up getting?
Just so we can quantify this supposed success.
Google didn’t (to my knowledge at least) set up a shell company with no other purpose than going offensive with Motorola’s patents and hence hidding themselves from any possible counter suing.
Motorola can, and has sued a shareholder (Microsoft), just not to very much success.
Google has filed a declaratory judgement suit against Rockstar (as this article describes) which indeed is counter suing.
Now, if Google actually thought they had a snowballs chance in hell of prevailing against the shareholders I’m sure they would’ve done so, but past is prologue here and we’ve seen nothing but spectacular losses by Moto across the map.
They have useless FRAND patents like some of us mentioned and little recourse except to argue against the validity of the patents and/or present affirmative defenses.
How successful Rockstar will be remains to be seen, but the fact that Google bid $3.14B for them doesn’t bode well for any invalidity claims.
Google has sued Rockstar on the basis of Rockstar being allegedly a troll company, which is obviously not the same as countersuing an actual practicing entity where you can reach an agreement.
That’s not to say that Google would have the resources to successfully countersue and reach such agreement (ie. cross licensing or whatever) but the issue is that Rockstar shareholders have effectively prevented such possibility by suing through a proxy non practicing shell company.
Ie. it’s certainly not the same thing Google did with Motorola, which is what the OP was arguing.
<sarcasm>Hey! How is your company, Rockstar doing?</sarcasm>
Do you have any sort of proof that they would have gone down the same path as Rockstar if they had indeed bought these patents? Otherwise, what is the hypocrisy?
Another one of these threads huh? It’s funny that every time one pops up, it’s advertised as more shocking & dirty than the last, yet it’s just more of the same. You know what would be shocking news? If the patent system were actually overhauled.
Indeed. But patent system overhauled is impossible.
tonny,
I wouldn’t say “impossible”, but it would be shocking for the politicians to vote against the interests of the corporations who finance their campaigns. Voting against corporations equals political suicide. Voting for corporations equals job security both in politics and through the “revolving door” to the private sector. Therein lies the problem.
I wonder if this behaviour of Microsoft will change at all once Ballmer is no longer CEO. One could hope, I suppose. But I’m not holding my breath.
You mean a company not doing everything it can to protect their interests and/or impede competitors under current law? Very highly unlikely.
You forgot “trollololol.”
If you think that any patent litigation filed east Texas is worthy of protection then there’s no hope for you. Please use a condom.
Do you get drunk before posting here or something?
No, ilovebeer, I’m pretty sure we have nothing in common like that.
Based on your nonsensical comment, I felt it needed to be asked. Why else would you attempt to argue against such an obvious and mundane statement? Maybe you’re just looking to be noticed and in need of attention. You exist, jimmmy. Congratulations.
The real news isn’t that Google has done it, but that it took them so flipping long. What have they been waiting for?
Why have they been sitting on their thumbs for years?
Microsoft, I have read time and time again, makes more money off Android installations, than Google? Where was Google in all that time? Why didn’t Google protect *these* companies? What did Google *think* was going to happen?
Why should any jury side with Google when Google, until now, has appeared perfectly content to passively legitimize every patent claim ever made by Microsoft?
I’m on Google’s side, but I have to say, they deserve what they get. They have spectacularly mismanaged the whole legal issue surrounding patents, including their egregiously flippant bids for the same patents now held by Rockstar. Frankly, I hope it costs Google several billion. Maybe they’ll learn something from all of it.