Jump to content

20 posts in this topic

Posted

[quote]
Google has recently been [url="http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/27/4036824/google-says-uspto-taxes-hard-part-of-innovation"]taking a hard line[/url] on the US patent system, claiming that it over-rewards the work of coming up with an idea while taxing those who do the work of actually implementing it. The company also takes issue with excessive patent litigation from so-called "patent trolls," and now [url="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/working-together-to-reduce-patent.html"]Google is encouraging[/url] companies to work together to cross-license patents to help cut down on frivolous lawsuits. [url="http://www.google.com/patents/licensing/comparison/"]On a new site[/url] that Google launched today, the company outlines four different, royalty-free patent licensing agreements that it believes will help protect participants from patent trolls.

It's also asking for interested parties to take a survey and submit feedback on its proposals to help determine which of the approaches it outlined is the most interesting to potential participants. Google's looking to collect feedback on the issue by April 9th, though it's not yet clear what the next steps will be following that deadline. Similarly, it's not yet clear how willing companies will be to work with Google on this initiative, though we imagine many will find Google the lesser evil when compared to patent trolls.
[/quote]
http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/12/4093518/google-encourages-companies-to-stop-patent-trolls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote=Google]we don't have patents so lets try to weasel our way from having to play by the rules. wah wah[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='vcfan' timestamp='1363101383' post='595572720']
we don't have patents so lets try to weasel our way from having to play by the rules. wah wah
[/quote]

Where does it say that at? And Google has plenty of patents.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='techbeck' timestamp='1363101909' post='595572752']
Where does it say that at? And Google has plenty of patents.
[/quote]

their patents are weak. Google has been trying to change the rules so they can steal without repercussions. They want to take someone elses intellectual property then give it away for free.Comparies spend billions in R&D,google feels entitled. They are a bunch of hypocrites as well. They tried to buy the Nortel patents but got outsmarted. They bought the IBM patents. They bought Motorola for their patents. In the end they screwed themselves and still have weak patents,and have been trying to push for rule changes since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='vcfan' timestamp='1363102860' post='595572784']
their patents are weak. Google has been trying to change the rules so they can steal without repercussions. They want to take someone elses intellectual property then give it away for free.Comparies spend billions in R&D,google feels entitled. They are a bunch of hypocrites as well. They tried to buy the Nortel patents but got outsmarted. They bought the IBM patents. They bought Motorola for their patents. In the end they screwed themselves and still have weak patents,and have been trying to push for rule changes since.
[/quote]

You said they didnt have patents...now saying they have patents but are weak. Which is it?

And how do you know what Google is trying to do here. Making a lot of assumptions. Google is correct that the patent system is f'ed up. And they will start producing phones from Motorola. Just a matter of time.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='techbeck' timestamp='1363103243' post='595572794']
You said they didnt have patents...now saying they have patents but are weak. Which is it?[/quote]

its a hyperbole.smh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='vcfan' timestamp='1363101383' post='595572720']
[/quote]

Google bought 2000 patents from IBM and got thousands more from Motorola, combine that with the few hundred it already had. You don't Nokia and Microsoft falling over themselves to try and license them. Works both ways you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='thealexweb' timestamp='1363106539' post='595572906']
Google bought 2000 patents from IBM and got thousands more from Motorola, combine that with the few hundred it already had. You don't Nokia and Microsoft falling over themselves to try and license them. Works both ways you know.
[/quote]

useless patents.If these patents carried any weight in the industry, Microsoft wouldn't have been able to get android OEMS to pay up so willingly .Google would have had a hand in cross licensing,which they couldn't. Microsoft and apple cross license because they have worthy patents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='vcfan' timestamp='1363106720' post='595572912']
useless patents.If these patents carried any weight in the industry, Microsoft wouldn't have been able to get android OEMS to pay up so willingly .Google would have had a hand in cross licensing,which they couldn't. Microsoft and apple cross license because they have worthy patents.
[/quote]

Different patents. Android uses patents owned by MS and thus has to pay. MS doesnt apparently or else they would have to pay Android.

Its not about paying willining, its about paying or getting sued and have to pay even more. More companies should do cross licensing and stop this patent trolling suing everyone who infringes on anothers property. You know, get along for the sake of the consumers since hte consumers are the ones who suffer ultimately.

Apple and MS has had this agreement for years and has nothing really to do with their patents or how worthy they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='techbeck' timestamp='1363107127' post='595572932']
Different patents. Android uses patents owned by MS and thus has to pay. MS doesnt apparently or else they would have to pay Android.
[/quote]
exactly. googles patents are worthless in that industry. that's what im saying.

[quote name='techbeck' timestamp='1363107127' post='595572932']
Its not about paying willining, its about paying or getting sued and have to pay even more. More companies should do cross licensing and stop this patent trolling suing everyone who infringes on anothers property. You know, get along for the sake of the consumers since hte consumers are the ones who suffer ultimately.
[/quote]
Microsoft would gladly license to google,but google doesn't want to pay. Its actually better if Microsoft licenses to google,because this way it doesn't have to go to each individual OEM and make them sign.

[quote name='techbeck' timestamp='1363107127' post='595572932']
Apple and MS has had this agreement for years and has nothing really to do with their patents or how worthy they are.
[/quote]
Of course it does. What good is trading your worthy patent for a worthless one? That would be the dumbest thing ever. Its like giving away your patents. Microsoft wants something Apple has,and Apple wants something Microsoft has.Its a fair trade. If google wanted to trade up some of their search stuff for some mobile patents, there could be a deal in place between them and Microsoft. Except google doesn't want to do that. And since they don't want to do that,Microsoft will keep going and getting it from the OEMs,and google will keep complaining about patents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='vcfan' timestamp='1363101383' post='595572720']
[color=#282828]we don't have patents so lets try to weasel our way from having to play by the rules. wah wah[/color]
[/quote]

Not everyone has a huge patent portfolio, and some companies working on related technologies would surely feel more comfortable developing their products backed with at the very least a defined common patent pool rather than wasting their time navigating the patent minefield scattered through thousand of third parties.

Something like OIN but not restricted to Linux.

I'm not sure how you get to the [i]"weasel our way from having to play by the rules"[/i] when groups like the OIN are built precisely on the intent of playing by the rules to the letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote]Google has recently been taking a hard line on the US patent system, claiming that it over-rewards the work of coming up with an idea while taxing those who do the work of actually implementing it. [/quote]
That's a silly way to put it. Companies spend billions on R&D, testing etc just to come up with an idea. It doesn't just drop out of the sky in a second.

Granted I'm talking about real technology patents here, not oh look my phone has rounded corners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='-Razorfold' timestamp='1363126827' post='595573626']
Companies spend billions on R&D, testing etc just to come up with an idea.
[/quote]

Some do, some don't. That's the thing: either you lower the rewards or raise the quality bar for patent granting. Or maybe both, considering that tech patents last long enough to not only give the owner a head start and ROI, but for the tech to become obsolete before the patent expires.

As things stand now it's perfectly possible that on average they are being greatly over-rewarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Regardless of all the above, they are right. It's a no win situation for everyone involved. Especially when the patent office allows patents like rounded corners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

vcfan it's at the level of dot matrix but with another set of realty transformed facts :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='vcfan' timestamp='1363117613' post='595573288']
exactly. googles patents are worthless in that industry. that's what im saying.
[/quote]

Google's patents are not worthless or else they would not of bought them. The patent system is royally screwed and at least Google can see that and is trying to do something. This is not a poor me I have no viable patents wah wah from Google like you put it earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='techbeck' timestamp='1363179305' post='595574714']
Google's patents [b]are not worthless or else they would not of bought them[/b]. The patent system is royally screwed and at least Google can see that and is trying to do something. This is not a poor me I have no viable patents wah wah from Google like you put it earlier.
[/quote]

just because they thought they are not worthless,doesnt mean they arent. the patents are bogus.the only worthwhile ones are the FRAND variety,which they are forced to license to reasonable terms. if they had any substance,microsoft wouldnt have gotten a ITC ban on motorola devices last year,before they were forced to remove the infringing features.if google had any patents with substance,then OEMs would not be scared to decline payment to microsoft and apple for licensing fees.

googles patents were analyzed by M-CAM financial

[quote][i]Google is paying $12.5 billion for alleged assets that include a 17,000 patent portfolio, of which close to half appear to serve as deterrent value alone. The cost of maintaining patents of dubious quality will be an ongoing and potentially unnecessary liability to Google and its shareholders. Regrettably, close to half of the portfolio deemed "best" based on previous assertions have substantial weaknesses. Google

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='vcfan' timestamp='1363220948' post='595576122']
[/quote]

You do realize that invalid does not mean useless. It simply means that that patent wasnt infringing on anything. It means that Motos case for that patent against whoever was invalid. Judge either decided it that the defendant did not infringe on that patent or that there was not enough information for a case.

You are comparing a decision handed down by a judge, in which Moto lost and their case was rendered invalid, to how useful Google's patents are in the tech world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='-Razorfold' timestamp='1363126827' post='595573626']That's a silly way to put it. Companies spend billions on R&D, testing etc just to come up with an idea. It doesn't just drop out of the sky in a second.[/quote]

What, like slide-to-unlock? It's the exact same principle as a physical lock yet Apple was granted a patent for it, which it used to stifle the rest of the industry. A lot of the time there is no innovation taking place, companies are simply trying to patent everything they can in the hope that another company ends up coming up with the same idea itself. Rather than rewarding innovation it is stifling it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='techbeck' timestamp='1363223234' post='595576244']
You do realize that invalid does not mean useless. It simply means that that patent wasnt infringing on anything. It means that Motos case for that patent against whoever was invalid. Judge either decided it that the defendant did not infringe on that patent or that there was not enough information for a case.

You are comparing a decision handed down by a judge, in which Moto lost and their case was rendered invalid, to how useful Google's patents are in the tech world
[/quote]

No offence,but thats completely untrue. Invalid patent means the patent is no longer valid. It means the patent should not have been issued. It means the patent is no longer a patent. You have non infringement of patent mixed up with invalid patent.

Google has failed using their best patents they got from Motorola.Completely and uterly useless.

According to US Patent Law

[quote]
[b] Defenses[/b]

[b] Noninfringement[/b]

Obviously, one defense to infringment is simply that the defendant products or processes do not infringe the plaintiff's patents.
[b] Invalidity[/b]

The defense of invalidity argues that the patent should not have issued as a patent in the first place because the invention is not novel or is obvious. One example of patent invalidity would be where the defendant can show a printed publication that completely describes the invention before the invention date of the patentee. This defense is usually more difficult to prove than noninfringement, because the patentee is given a presumption of validity on the patent once it issues. Therefore, to invalidate a patent, a defendant must show patent invalidity by [b]clear and convincing evidence[/b], a much harder standard to overcome than the usual [b]preponderance of the evidence[/b] or [b]more likely than not[/b] standard.[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.