Jump to content



Photo

Google encourages companies to work together on patent licensing

google patents

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#16 OP +techbeck

techbeck

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,528 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 05

Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:55

exactly. googles patents are worthless in that industry. that's what im saying.


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.


#17 vcfan

vcfan

    Doing the Humpty Dance

  • 5,023 posts
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 14 March 2013 - 00:29

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.


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

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’s patent stockpiling initiative appears to be focused entirely on deterrent value rather than on acquiring quality assets. Google shareholders may take some small solace in the adoption of a multi pronged defensive strategy, but may want to demand higher quality standards for the assets and liabilities acquired in future transactions.



The company looked at the 18 patents that Motorola Mobility had asserted against Apple, suggesting that these particular patents may be the "stars" of the bunch -- but, again, found that nine of those patents were "impaired," and were unlikely to be very strong or valuable.

In the end,all these patents ended up being tossed out.Meaning,all their patents are useless.

A judge from the International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled yesterday the Apple iPhone did not violate a patent owned by Motorola, covering a sensor that prevents accidental hang-ups. The judge ruled the patent was invalid.

Back in August, it won another squabble with Motorola, after one of the latter’s claims related to patents for 3G technology was thrown out.



heres more from last month,Feb 8

In an ongoing patent dispute between Motorola and Microsoft, Washington state federal judge James L. Robart has thrown out a total of 13 patent claims in Microsoft's favour.
The claims in question apply to just three patents that all concern encoding and decoding digital video content.
In this case, Microsoft argued that the "means for decoding" and "means for using" elements should be declared invalid and the court agreed. Judge Robart ruled that the lack of specific limitations, or "indefiniteness", rendered it invalid.



#18 OP +techbeck

techbeck

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,528 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 05

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:07


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

#19 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,441 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:16

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.


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.

#20 vcfan

vcfan

    Doing the Humpty Dance

  • 5,023 posts
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:51

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


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

Defenses

Noninfringement

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

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 clear and convincing evidence, a much harder standard to overcome than the usual preponderance of the evidence or more likely than not standard.