Patents As Theft: How Oracle & Microsoft Seek To Profit From Android Despite Having Nothing To Do With It
from the shameful dept
People talk about patent laws as if they're about "protecting property." If only that were true. In most cases, they seem to be about the exact opposite. They're about getting paid for things that don't belong to you and which you had absolutely nothing to do with. Take, for example, Google's Android operating system. Microsoft has been using its patents to demand a cut of every Android phone. In fact, people have pointed out that Microsoft is likely going to make more money from Android than it makes from its own competing mobile operating system. Now add to that Oracle's decision to demand $15 to $20 for every Android device, and what you get seems like highway robbery. You have two companies -- Oracle and Microsoft -- who have done absolutely nothing to contribute to Android in any way, but who are both using large questionable patent portfolios to demand a cut. That's not protecting or encouraging innovation. That seems like the exact opposite. It seems to be shaking down people for cash that they have no right to. I'd argue that's much more like "theft" than anyone who infringes on a patent by building something the market wants.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: android, licenses, patents, smartphones
Companies: google, microsoft, oracle
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But because it's all legal, it's clearly okay. Yet WE are called the freetards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The government has no business legalizing, and enforcing, theft. Abolish IP!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are correct, that is not the intended purpose of patents. They are infringing on the contract that "We" the public made with them.
Hmmm.. I wish there was something "We" could do...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah I wish too. Too bad there is no way to change any of this. And dont spout off about "voting" or changing laws. You, I and the American people have zero (less than zero) input into reforming or eliminating blatantly one-sided laws like this. The lawyers, judges and politicians who run things will never allow these systems to be changed, they get too much money from special interests and invested parties to ever work for the good of the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RICO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wouldn't say "in any way"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wouldn't say "in any way"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wouldn't say "in any way"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wouldn't say "in any way"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wouldn't say "in any way"
I'm not saying it's good (I have mixed feelings), but Google is not allowed to just take Java and twist it the way they like. And, like it was said, Oracle bought Java, so _their_ technology is a core part of Android.
Actually even before Oracle bought Sun, it got big involvement in Java and had their impact on what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I wouldn't say "in any way"
Those evil freetards! That open source should not be allowed to just take those patented technologies and twist them any way they want!
In fact, it is impossible to write a non trivial program today that does not step on numerous patents. Programmers should all be locked up I tell you!
Think of the children!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I wouldn't say "in any way"
The example of java is classic. So it's open for me to install and use on my pc but not on my phone? Wtf?! And if Google 'tampered' with the original java and introduced a few juice to it so they should pay me even though it's a different thing?
And while you are moaning about ppl using your system what the fuck are you doing to deserve money?
They should charge a fee over every computer sold too after all the computers CAN be used to run their shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wouldn't say "in any way"
Java is a language specification, a JVM, and a set of class libraries. Google, from my understanding of the matter, didn't want to pay to license "Java". So they "supposedly" rebuilt the JVM in a clean room implementation, stripped the headers off the class libraries and recompiled them, and use a new "language" with the exact same syntax and idioms.
So, new JVM, same language, same libraries, plus additions. Plus many of the functions implemented in the JVM (JIT caching) and libraries (image processing, network stacks and so on) are under patents of their own.
So it's a new thing... and the same thing. But mostly all of that work is little more than a sneaky attempt to get around paying for a Java license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wouldn't say "in any way"
Google acted in such a way as to avoid paying a license. If they couldn't legally do that using Java...they'd have used something else. There is nothing "sneaky" about it whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wouldn't say "in any way"
Well, I consider copying something, changing part of it, and then claiming it to be your own simply to avoid paying a license fee "sneaky."
And the legality of doing so is still under consideration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So they "supposedly" rebuilt the JVM in a clean room implementation ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I wouldn't say "in any way"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I wouldn't say "in any way"
Like all software patent disputes, this is all stupid. Prove that they didn't STEAL your code or GTFO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I wouldn't say "in any way"
That "bunch" of letters, numbers, and symbols that looks like java code IS Java code, and that particular expression is subject to copyright. The same "bunch" of letters, numbers, and symbols also embodies algorithms and functions that are subject to patents.
And they didn't have a license. That's why they went to rather absurd lengths in a attempt to bypass it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wouldn't say "in any way"
There's a big difference between the various license types (GPL, LGPL, APL, EPL, and on and on). All of them are open, so "open" is an entirely meaningless word in terms of rights you may or may not have to use or fork code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess I can start giving legal advice now, since turn-about is fair play...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
actually, when you think about it maybe all these suits are a concerted plan to simply raise prices and blame the other guy. if apple sues motorola for one thing and motorola sues apple for another they settle for certain amounts and add that to the price of their products. we pay more and both sides make more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why gov't should go after corporations merely because "big".
So the solution is easy: bring back anti-trust prosecution, BREAK UP especially Microsoft, just like AT&T was broken up (but is now more or less back together!), open up the field so small corporations have an actual chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why gov't should go after corporations merely because "big".
There's no other check on government operation than corporate money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is why gov't should go after corporations merely because "big".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a tax
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a tax
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's a tax
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's a tax
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two questions
1. I keep reading that Microsoft demands 15 bucks for any Android device that Samsung sells etc. - why is it not only for devices sold in the US? AFAIK Samsung is South Korean company, I for example live in EU and we don't have software patents here... so why should we care about American patents... or even pay for them?
It seems to me that the best strategy to deal with patents would be to let only Americans pay for them (which would maybe make them want to fix their broken patent system) - but nobody seems to be doing that, why?
2. It seems to me that American patent system has deviated into the tool that allows to transfer money from those who do things and are successful to those who have government granted monopolies. This must have terrible impact on American economy - why is it not changed? I know... lobbying, corruption, political pressure... but innovative anti-patent companies like Google are rich too and should have some political impact. Even companies like Microsoft and Oracle have been damaged by patent trolls and should have at least some motivation to change things.
Why is nothing changing? Why are innovative and creative companies not pressuring the government to change patent law... or moving outside of US jurisdiction... which would seem to me to be even smarter thing to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two questions
Because they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two questions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two questions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google may have had less to do with Android than you think
If Google is found to have stolen java as the foundation for Android. How can you say Sun and now proxy had nothing to do with the success of Android?
At some point, how do folks expect Java to continue to thrive if companies like Google can just grab copies of it and do with it what they will?
Finally. Java's primary benefit is write once work everywhere. There are even more indirect damages to developers (new porting costs) as Google fractures the Java platform.
Android is an example of the greatness that Sun's Java can achieve. Don't discount it as being simply "free" for any one. You know the issue isn't that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At some point, how do folks expect Java to continue to thrive if companies like Google can just grab copies of it and do with it what they will?
It was Sun�s preciousness over Java that cost it a lot of its early momentum. For example, its lawsuit against Microsoft put an end to Java being distributed with every Windows installation. That took away a huge potential market for Java programs pretty much overnight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and up next - Home baking!
"method of mixing basic ingredients to achieve deliciousness"
It has recently been announced that the wheat, sugar and chicken farmers (with the support of the Microsoft, MPAA and the RIAA) have created a new body whose responsibility will be to collect the new 'cake and biscuits' tax from all bakes goods sold at church and school fundraisers.
The farmers representative, Mr Auld McDonald was quoted as saying "it's only fair that we are properly compensated for the use of the ingredients that we have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Android Despite Having Nothing To Do With It
I would not say nothing, and neither would google, as they are happy to pay, if it was nothing they would fight it, (only an idiot would think they would pay if they did not legally have too).
So MS invented and patented key components and Android needs to be functional, if google was 'good enough' they would rewrite that code and screw MS.
But clearly that are not "that good" it is easier and cheaper for them to use the technology (and fairly pay for it) than it is for them to develop their own technology..
Dont forget Google is **NOT** a software company and have *NO* expertise or experience in complete product development.
(sure they can copy what others are doing, but not that well, but when it comes to the hard stuff, they defer to the experts, or 'techsperts'...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Android Despite Having Nothing To Do With It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Android Despite Having Nothing To Do With It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Android Despite Having Nothing To Do With It
If they had that they would have sued everybody sooner not latter they bought the patents, they didn't invent shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The carriers wouldn't be distributing potentially infringing code and the consumer gets all the features.
For those who don't know how or don't want to do this, offer a service to set it up for them and charge them the license fees for the service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just let the dumb patent some "new idea" and after that you patent every path he has to upgrade so eventually he will need to deal with you if he want to stay in business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quote:
Source: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-07-brics-countries-vow-poor-nations.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is theft, yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
large infringers and their paid assassins
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don�t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.
For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
M$ and Oracle stealing money from Android
But again, "pegging" on a conclusion!
This is not a "go-no go" situation; all IP is good, or all IP is bad.
This is about so-called "defensive" or "large entity" type patents. Originally intended to make it too expensive for people to attempt to steal money from successful companies, it has morphed into the exact opposite, ALLOWING people to do so!
IP as the founders intended is a vibrant force for good, just a (small) minority, now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On The Take From MSFT?
ACs: Where are all the idiots who often write in the comments that Masnick's positions on IP are fully funded by MSFT?
Ron Resnick...I'm thinking of you, for one (with all due respect).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]