Google Says Microsoft Uses Patents When Its Products Fail
According to a Google lawyer, Microsoft brings out its patent guns when its products fail and it's cornered in the market.
In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Google patent lawyer Tim Porter says that the patent system itself is broken thanks to a patent office that granted protection to "broad, vague or unoriginal ideas masquerading as inventions." Now Microsoft is reportedly abusing that broken system by stockpiling dubious patents and "taxing" those supplying Google's Android operating system.
"When their products stop succeeding in the marketplace, when they get marginalized, as is happening now with Android, they use the large patent portfolio they've built up to get revenue from the success of other companies' products," Porter said, also pointing out that Microsoft used a similar tactic with Linux.
The Chronicle opens the interview with a short history of Google's battle with Microsoft, Apple and Oracle who stands firm with a claim that Android was built using technology protected by their patents. Oracle has sued Google outright while Apple and Microsoft have attacked companies using the operating system in question. The major players have even scrambled to build their patent portfolios, eventually pushing Google into claiming that competitors were purposely banding together to "tax" the highly popular Android.
But as previously stated, Porter blames the current firepower against Android on the patent office itself. "I think what many people can agree on is the current system is broken and there are a large number of software patents out there fueling litigation that resulted from a 10- or 15-year period when the issuance of software patents was too lax," he said. "Things that seemed obvious made it through the office until 2007, when the Supreme Court finally said that the patent examiners could use common sense."
"Patents were written in a way that was vague and overly broad," he added. "(Companies are) trying to claim something that's really an idea (which isn't patentable). There are only so many ways to describe a piston, but software patents are written by lawyers in a language that software engineers don't even understand. They're being used to hinder innovation or skim revenue off the top of a successful product."
According to Porter, the legal system should say you shouldn't patent something that's obvious. There also needs to be real standards for what is patentable. Even more, patents are supposedly a form of property -- if there aren't clear boundaries, then the "property" system doesn't work. Damages, injunctions and remedies also should be proportional to the value of the invention, not the "astronomical damages" Apple and Microsoft are currently seeking in court.
Porter also goes on to debunk Microsoft's patent attorney Horacio Gutiérrez's statement that the current swarm of lawsuits is an unfortunate-but-normal historic event that follows "disruptive" technologies. "Microsoft was our age when it got its first software patent," he said. "I don't think they experienced this kind of litigation in a period when they were disrupting the established order. So I don't think it's historically inevitable."
"The period of intense patent assertions (against things like the steam engine) resulted in decades-long periods of stagnation," he added. "Innovation only took off when the patents expired."
To read the full interview, head here.
- Deals Nov 7: 24" VAIO 1080p 3D Touchscreen PC $1,799
- Firefox 8 Now Available For Download
- Linux: Now 400 Distributions Strong
- Commodore Announces New Quad-core C64x Extreme
- How Windows 8 Will Deal With Tons of CPU Cores
- OLPC to Drop Tablets from Sky in Developing Countries
- AMD Bulldozer Speed Record Broken Again at 8.58GHz
- Rosewill's Blackhawk Ultra Gaming Case Released
- Japanese K Supercomputer Smashes 10 Petaflop Barrier
- Ultrabooks to Account for 43 Percent of Notebooks in 2015
- Netgear Adapter Streams HD Video from Legacy PCs
- HP Adds New 3D-enabled AIO, Photon Tech to Portfolio
- Foxconn to Build ''Robotic Kingdom'' in Taiwan
- Intel Says Android 4.0 Has x86 Optimizations
- Deals Nov 8: COD: MW3 (360) + $20 Credit for $55
- Brief Internet Outage Caused by Juniper Firmware Update
- Opinion: 3 Ideas For AMD's Project WIN
- AMD 1090FX, 1070 Chipset Info Leaked; Missing PCIe 3.0
I get the feeling that Mr. Porter enjoys using his brain quite frequently. Here here!
"X Uses Patents When Its Products Fail"
Isn't that like a general strategy used by companies whose product fail or who fear getting their product beaten down by competitors?
Seem like good points. Doubt it will go anywhere though.
This is bull... we all know damned well that Google wants to expand its portfolio as well and plans to do the same thing...
Gentlemen, don't behave childishly.
Google has been a whiner lately...
Whine all you want Google. Microsoft hasn't even laid its hands on you.
It's funny because what he really means is, "When we (Google) use patented stuff in our products and then get into legal trouble over it, and it's obvious that we messed up, we blame the system and want it fixed. It also helps us when we say things like this because many of our supporters (read fans of open source) hate Microsoft, hate patents and/or the patent system and also they hate Microsoft. So this is a smart thing for me to say. Did I mention they hate Microsoft?"
What's also funny is that Google has never really hesitated in the past to protect it's IP when it felt it was in the right and could win in the courts.
What's sad is that Microsoft, as far as I've been able to find, has not directly threatened anyone. They have however approached many of their partners with what could only be a viable way to keep both parties satisfied. They cannot directly go after Google because it gives the software away to be distibuted by the product manufacturers. It's not hard really. If Google doesn't like it, all they have to do is come up with a different way of doing whatever it is that's obviously infringing on Microsoft's IP.
Google is just butt hurt because Microsoft gets something like $15 for every Android device sold. Maybe if Google wasn't so inept it would've secured the proper patents before getting themselves into this mess.
As Opposed to Apple, who brings out its patent guns when they LEAD the market???
He does have a point. You can't patent an idea only a design or technology. A "box with round corners" is an idea but described as a design in order to get a patent. Those are what Apple's been using to bludgeon every non-Apple smart phone maker with. What MS's has been doing is selling "protection" from Apple in a form of licensing agreements. Companies can "license" the MS patent for "box with round corners", and if Apple has a problem they have to battle it out with MS instead of the smaller company. The $15 USD tax seems ridiculously high but the alternative is to have Apple block your product from launch and destroy your company.
The US really needs to pass some form of patent reform to fix these issues. Otherwise innovation will be deeply stiffed until those patents expire.
Finally someone from a major company has come out and said it. And the sad part of it is that even though they recognize that, they are forced to get on the train and perpetuate it or be left financially far behind.
A stricter patent system against a real actual physical invention is fair and just. A patent system where a major company says that I was first to unlock a phone by swiping the screen and anyone else that does the same owes me big bucks is just broken.
Blame the game not the players.
People can complain that Google is just whining all they want. Google is right! The patent system in this country is very broken when you can patent software without even coding the software first. When Apple can patent "touch and swipe" to unlock a phone even after it is the industry standard is wrong. This country needs a major patent overhaul that clearly defines what is and isn't patentable, especially when it comes to software and electronics. What is going on in the industry right now with patents and lawsuits is completely ridiculous.
Look at all the Android fanboys thumbing down comments....pathetic.
" As Opposed to Apple, who brings out its patent guns when they LEAD the market???
no more like paronoid like when samsung came out with the galaxy S they knew it was better than the iphone so they are suing them into the ground
Look at all the Android fanboys thumbing down comments....pathetic.
you are the only one that sounds pethetic here. especially giving a crap about a thumb up/down system on some random website LOL
FAIL
Look at all the Android fanboys thumbing down comments....pathetic.
Look at Google's lawyer not understanding patent law.
Ideas are in fact patentable....it's called "Proof of Concept".... Google should be happy this exists as they hold numerous "proof of concept" patents..... If you can't "patent an idea"...Google just lost the majority of their IP....
he's right on the money. abolish copyrights and patients and watch us travel to mars and beyond.
he's right on the money. abolish copyrights and patients and watch us travel to mars and beyond.
but then there goes most of the capitalist society. what is the point of inventing something when everyone else can copy off you? there is no money in that.
but then there goes most of the capitalist society. what is the point of inventing something when everyone else can copy off you? there is no money in that.
There can be money in it, you just have to produce the best implementation of the idea. With patents you can make money off a pile of crap.
MS is a big Ass****. They don't want to stop the spread of Android, they want it to succeed so that their royalties can increase. Although Android is given away free, if some company is creating products that are infringing your patents why not sue them??? And for ppl who speak for MS, do you actually know if the patents are actually valid???
"Innovation only took off when the patents expired."
I agree!
Google is just butt hurt because Microsoft gets something like $15 for every Android device sold. Maybe if Google wasn't so inept it would've secured the proper patents before getting themselves into this mess.
o i just sent an email from my phone
aw poo, someone owns the patent
i just pressed the screen and made words appear
aw poo someone also has that patent
i just connected wirelessly to the internet while someone else drives me
wow yet another person owns that patent.
realistically, they cant, because the patents they need are held by people they would compete with.
software patents in the tech world are retarded, and should only really be held for 5 years. because how often has something come out, been brand new, and than, 5 years latter, was still so new and amazing that you cant imagine how it was ever made. fact is that after 2 years it either becomes common sense, or its basically abandoned. sending an email shouldn't be a patent in any way shape or form anymore, but sadly patents last for 15-25 years, the tech that the patented idea/method could have used is obsolete by the time it goes public.
I agree that, especially, the US patent system is broken. Ideas being patented instead of technologies, but to my understanding, most of the law suits between MS and manufacturers has been about Exchange, which is an MS technology.
o i just sent an email from my phoneaw poo, someone owns the patenti just pressed the screen and made words appearaw poo someone also has that patenti just connected wirelessly to the internet while someone else drives mewow yet another person owns that patent. realistically, they cant, because the patents they need are held by people they would compete with.software patents in the tech world are retarded, and should only really be held for 5 years. because how often has something come out, been brand new, and than, 5 years latter, was still so new and amazing that you cant imagine how it was ever made. fact is that after 2 years it either becomes common sense, or its basically abandoned. sending an email shouldn't be a patent in any way shape or form anymore, but sadly patents last for 15-25 years, the tech that the patented idea/method could have used is obsolete by the time it goes public.
Very valid point. The software industry goes through generations arguably much faster than any other industry to date. Perhaps they should reconsider the patent life for softwares, as 15 years is far too long considering the turnover rate.
I've written several programs over the years, and I'm sure that I've violated several patents along the way simply because things that are now considered obvious are still under patent. I'm a small guy writing small programs, so nobody sues me. But just imagine if you write big programs how many patents you are inadvertently violating.
Definitely need a shorter lifespan on patents.
Very valid point. The software industry goes through generations arguably much faster than any other industry to date. Perhaps they should reconsider the patent life for softwares, as 15 years is far too long considering the turnover rate.I've written several programs over the years, and I'm sure that I've violated several patents along the way simply because things that are now considered obvious are still under patent. I'm a small guy writing small programs, so nobody sues me. But just imagine if you write big programs how many patents you are inadvertently violating.Definitely need a shorter lifespan on patents.
this isn't software, but look at wacom and its competitors. due to wacoms patents, its competitors cant compete.
the tech is old as hell, but still, a reasonalbly sized tablet still costs about 400-500$ and the only consumer tablet they sell costs about 100$ for a work area that is barely 4 inches. and it can do this because they have no competition. look at the competitors, i have one of their tablets, idios or something, its 9-10 inches, and i payed 50$ for it. wacom has a monitor you can draw on, its their highest end product, but the tablet in the lowest end one isnt even as good as their mid range ones, and its a 12 inch screen, and they charge 1000 for it, 2000 for a 21 inch 1600x1200 and 2500 for a 24 in 1920x1200 and the charge that much because they else to light a fire under their butts.
sorry that was a bit rantish, i really want a penable monitor, and a 1920x1200 too, but the point is valid, and shows what happens when pattents are held by one person in tech.
What he is trying to say is even if you own a patent, if the product it is attached to isn't massively successful you should allow everyone to freely copy it without penalty.
So under that reasoning, all patents that belong to the Mac Mini are up for grabs and anything associated with Linux?
Stupid arguement, if you own a patent you should litigate against anyone who copies it, under general principle, exactly the same as if a burglar breaks into your house and steals the toilet brush. It doesn't matter if it is valuable or not, theft is theft.
[ Begging for helps ] Complaint about Human Rights Violations by IBM China on Centennial
Please Google:
IBM detained mother of ex-employee on the day of centennial
or
How Much IBM Can Get Away with is the Responsibility of the Media
or
Tragedy of Labor Rights Repression in IBM China
[ Begging for helps ] Complaint about Human Rights Violations by IBM China on Centennial Please Google:IBM detained mother of ex-employee on the day of centennialorHow Much IBM Can Get Away with is the Responsibility of the Media orTragedy of Labor Rights Repression in IBM China
Yeah, IBM doesn't treat people like this anywhere else in the world, I think your arguement is not against IBM but against China.
Try the United Nations, not a tech forum, mkay?
captaincharisma: Wall Street thanks you for thinking of the stability of their investments, and Intel and Microsoft thank you for protecting their monopolies.
If anybody could do anything and copy anything else, and borrow ideas in their own products, only companies that constantly innovate with every product will be able to sell anything. 1 CPU company, with 1 competitor, is not competition, a 200 company free-for-all is competition.
Funny how Porter flames on Microsoft but doesn't even mention Apple. Maybe he is living under a rock but Apple is the one that sues everyone for the most ridiculous patents on mostly stolen ideas...