Using patents aggressively makes you a bad guy.

Google has not done this, Microsoft and Apple have.

Whichever side that is not willing to end the patent fight (without payments to either side) is the aggressor.

And it seems to me Apple is the one not willing to quit.

It seems like Google had more control over whether that lawsuit was filed than I thought. From FOSS Patents:

>A few months after that Zeitgeist talk, in January 2012, Google authorized a Motorola Mobility lawsuit against Apple over six patents in the Southern District of Florida. The merger agreement was publicly available and absolutely unequivocal about the fact that Motorola needed Google's consent prior to bringing new IP assertions while the merger was under antitrust review.

EDIT: Since it's not letting me reply to your comment, gonna post it here.

If you're talking about Motorola vs. Apple in general now, clearly Apple wasn't the aggressor. Motorola was the first to sue over patents prompting Apple to counter-sue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility_v._Apple_Inc.

http://googleblog.blogspot.fi/2011/08/when-patents-attack-an...

Yes, in the Motorola-Apple suit, Motorola was the aggressor and the bad guy. But when Google bought them, Apple had already counter-sued them. That's why I defined the aggressor between Google and Apple as one that is not willing to quit.

Has Google ever extracted licensing deals from others?

http://allthingsd.com/20130905/microsoft-trounces-google-in-...

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/yahoo-was-licensing-paten...

http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-buys-patents-ibm-defend-itsel...

Incidentally if anyone is told their work is to be patented and will only be used in defense - bear the above behaviour in mind, over time, companies will not just use patents in defense.

Ha, it seems I'm a bit late to make that prediction - it's already happened.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/google-purchases-1-...

Google's Motorola Mobility has sued others based on patents in their portfolio.

I don't see how Google gets a free pass because that was its wholly-owned Motorola Mobility when Apple/Microsoft/RIM/etc don't get a free pass because Rockstar is an independent entity.

Or because the patents in question were H.264 ones, which the defendant themselves already collects royalties on?

The fact that one of them is slightly better than the other in one regard doesn't change the fact that neither of them are really that worthy of your support.

You're right that Google haven't been patent aggressors up until now but if recent behaviour teaches us anything it's that Google have been very willing to change what they've stood for historically. If you believe that they'd never change that position if they felt it suited them then you have more faith in them than I do.

Retaining them defensively isn't "slightly better". Using them offensively is significantly worse.

"You're right that Google haven't been patent aggressors up until now but if recent behaviour teaches us anything it's that Google have been very willing to change what they've stood for historically. If you believe that they'd never change that position if they felt it suited them then you have more faith in them than I do."

That just sounds like weak speculation to me. Patent fee extortion is the sort of thing you do if you have a gradually declining (Apple) or minimal (MS) market share.

That is only until you study how you use defensive patents defensively.

Suppose that you join a patent pool like http://www.rpxcorp.com/. Then you're sued by a patent troll with no assets other than a patent. How exactly is RPX going to help you?

They used to state it in their FAQ. Then removed it, but I'm sure they still do it. They negotiate with the troll. And to make it cheap, they give the troll what they want. They give the troll another patent, in return for a binding contract to not sue anyone protected by RPX.

(I became aware of this possibility after 3 patents taken out with my name on it when I was younger got sold to RPX.)

The direct consequence of this would be a call to get rid of the evil on both sides and abolish the (software) patent system altogether.

I'd like to emphasize a quote from the end of the article:

> Patents have become the arena in which tech companies have chosen to do battle.

There is no longer competition about the best user experience or the best technical solution to an engineering problem but competition about who can file the best vague, yet court approved patent and secure the most destructive intellectual properties. I don't understand why we are still only talking about reforming the patent system.

Seriously?

iOS7 and Android Kit Kat both move user experience forward both in terms of the UI and the functionality offered. The latest iPhones, Android phones and Lumias are clearly better than what went before. I suspect if you asked average engineers at Apple, Google or Microsoft how much of their time and energy is taken up addressing problems caused by patents the number would be pretty small and if you look at how much those companies spend on patents, lawyers and settlements it's dwarfed by what they spend on product development.

To put the giant $4.5bn spent on the patents in question in context (and remember that's was shared between several companies), it's about what Samsung spend on marketing in a year or half of Apple's 5C/5S iPhone sales for the first weekend they were on sale.

Yes patents are impacting the industry but that's not to say that competition about things users care about has stopped, it's just slowing things up a bit.

I think "slowing things up a bit" is a great understatement. Hackers who could build the Next Big Thing have no chance at success if it takes a billion-dollar patent arsenal to avoid getting sued out of existence.

Who wins this fight is a side issue. The real issue, I think, is that only such giants can compete. If so, we're missing out on a lot of innovation.

A lot of products can be dreamt of that do not benefit the Apple or Microsoft or Google ecosystems. But can they be built without infringing "a navigation tool for graphical user interface?"

Frankly most of the patents that have been enforced seem to me at least to have been pretty minor and relatively easy to workaround with little real impact on the user.

I could see a short protection period for things like this, but the magnitude of current protections seems extreme.

But that's a somewhat different argument - the original point was that consumers were being significantly impacted and I don't think this shows that.

To my mind the biggest impact may be coming from FRAND patents, the terms of which don't have to be particularly fair or reasonable and as such can easily be used to block new entrants. To my mind FRAND patents should have transparent licensing terms which are common to every licensee whether you be a major multinational or a two man start up.

Something I'd like to see in addition to the now-pending reform is a law limiting damages to a fraction of revenue related to how the patent figures in the device in question. That ends up looking like a mandatory licensing fee, which I think would be about right for those few tech patents which are actually valid.

What's that? The official motto of all bullys and anarchists?

Nothing extreme could ever work. It's an equilibrium with lots of different sides that change their weight with time. Another manifestation of this is the mafia. It is present in every society in History. It's a human flaw. Rather than ignore it and pretend it's not there, maybe we should talk about it.

Understanding other people's position and making compromises is key if sustainability is your primary goal.

Because if so that's some pretty heavy spin you're putting on it.

edit: excerpt from Google's official response, linked elsewhere in this thread (note it was in reference to a different bundle of patents).

" If you think about it, it's obvious why we turned down Microsoft’s offer. Microsoft's objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a license would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners. Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android — and having us pay for the privilege — must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn't fall for it.

Ultimately, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened, forcing Microsoft to sell the patents it bought and demanding that the winning group (Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, EMC) give a license to the open-source community, changes the DoJ said were “necessary to protect competition and innovation in the open source software community.” This only reaffirms our point: Our competitors are waging a patent war on Android and working together to keep us from getting patents that would help balance the scales."

    >note it was in reference to a different bundle of patents

Google is explicit about why they wanted the patents, and why joining the consortium would not further that goal.

Quite a statement especially on the background of the other companies involved. Any substantial arguments for that? Until recently, Google had not filed even a single patent lawsuit [1] and so far still has not done so against Apple, MS, and the like, afaik. Meanwhile, the 'rockstars' have been going rampant [2].

[1] http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/02/google-files-first-patent...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars

Edit: Ah, I see you edited when you spotted Google had in fact filed suit.

Look at the history of when the lawsuits are filed, and who filed them.

There is no equivalence.

Source? you're not confusing these with the Novell patents, are you?

Either way, this is the worst case of patent trolling, and may even raise anti-trust issues. Speaking of which, weren't they specifically told not to sue and gang up on other companies when they bought these?

That's a very misleading claim. It's not because they decided to buy a big pool of patents that they necessarily knew that 7 of them would apply to their tech. Moreover it's not clear either that they implemented anything after the fact. Those patents seem to be touching fundamental things like advertisement and search.

I can't compile hello world in any language without violating dozens of patents.

But to answer the question in broad terms, the compiler you're using and the operating system you're running it on will probably infringe something or other in its rather comprehensive standard library or system call implementation, which you've incorporated when you type the equivalent of "#include <stdio.h>" in your Hello World program.

You're mistaken. It is we, the public, that are the good guys. Whatever Google's motives are does not matter. What matters is the outcome and how that impacts the public and the future of innovation.

Right now, it is pretty clear to many observers that the system is broken and having a very negative impact on innovation, competition and the public. The legal and R&D costs associated with patents are inevitably passed on to the public.

Furthermore, google is actively lobbying to weaken software patents.

I would say, then, that in this case, they are certainly my ally, or at the very least, the enemy of my enemy.

Thanks!