Google Finally Speaking Up About Problems With Patent System
from the good-for-them dept
Back when Google first put forth its stalking horse bid for Nortel's patents, the company explained its position by basically dancing around the issue of just how ridiculous patents had become. It made it clear that it was looking to buy the patents for defensive purposes, but couldn't bring itself to really condemn the problems of the patent system. Some patent system supporters have tried to claim that this was actually Google realizing the value of patents.Of course, to many of us, it demonstrated the exact opposite. Google was demonstrating the ridiculousness of the patent system by showing that it was ready to pay billions not for the "innovation," but to avoid wasteful lawsuits. Of course, in the end, the patents went to a coalition of companies that didn't include Google, and it seems likely that we'll start seeing them in litigation pretty quickly. Even then Google was pretty quiet about its opinion on patents.
That seems to be changing. The company's General Counsel spoke with TechCrunch's MG Siegler and finally seemed willing to say what's widely known in Silicon Valley: that patents do the opposite of encouraging innovation and they represent a tremendous tax on innovation:
"A patent isn't innovation. It's the right to block someone else from innovating... Patents are government-granted monopolies... We have them to reward innovation, but that’s not happening here."Nothing exactly earth shattering, but it's nice to see Google finally willing to come out and state the obvious, rather than holding back. Now, if only our elected officials would listen.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
if only...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if only...
Every elected official always listen to anyone who makes a big enough campaign donation.
You want access? Pay up. It's that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: if only...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did you hear that?
AAAnnnd switching back after their first search returns garbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did you hear that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Did you hear that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Did you hear that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remove the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remove the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Remove the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No more lawsuits
I'm not saying to stop filing them - credit where credit is due - but to truly take the high road and refuse to pursue people/companies in that manner.
They should still talk about it and this community should still report on it, simply to highlight how much damage could be done.
Plus, the hit to the legal community's pocket would be worth it.
Or better yet, send only interns to court when they get sued. Show some true disdain for the ridiculousness of the whole thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No more lawsuits
I expect though that as much as they hate it, a good defence includes a good offense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No more lawsuits
I expect though that as much as they hate it, a good defence includes a good offense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No more lawsuits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No more lawsuits
Showing disdain toward a judge is not the most economically effective way to show disdain for a law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No more lawsuits
Such as who? Who should they "stop suing"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No more lawsuits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No more lawsuits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No more lawsuits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moore's Warriors Not Innovation?
The progress of smaller, faster, cheaper as applied to computing power and storage however is an area where the truly new invention is not open to debate. New solutions are necessary for fairly small markets (the actual methods and equipment for semiconductor manufacture) in which there must be protection or no investment will take place.
Each year there are new obstacles to the progress of electronics which powers must of the innovation your readers use and anticipate. New obstacles to Moore's Law.
Each year there are a few people, Moore's Warriors, who provide solutions which must be protected. Solutions work and Moore's Law marches forward, marches forward as it always has on the backs of myriad small but critical inventions.
These inventions enable the products which in turn are perceived as "innovations" successful products.
Google, Apple, GE, GM, Lenovo, Siemens, Toyota and IBM, all depend on inventions and a patent system of which they may be entirely unaware.
Attack the patent system, and its inventors blindly and the inevitable result will be the companies who owe their success to Moore's Law may well defeat the inventors - Moore's Warriors.
An act of suicide. Blind suicide that takes our country and our children's future down with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure government officials listen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sure government officials listen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1 - 5 years max on patents
Patents should last no more than 1 - 5 years and they should be absolutely specific. If you aren't actively developing a patent you should lose it after one year and be subject to lawsuits for the damages done to those who would have used it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1 - 5 years max on patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1 - 5 years max on patents
The C language. The C++ language. FORTRAN. Unix. And many many more; these were just the ones I came up with in a few seconds.
Just because you cannot recall any examples does not mean that they do not exist, nor that they are not important.
Of course, these examples were never patented (and AFAIK software patents did not exist back then).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1 - 5 years max on patents
You may be prooving the point in that the languages you use are still in use precisely because they are not patented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But what about Android (with reference to Microsoft)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Intellectual Ventures A Crook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Intellectual Ventures A Crook? Rick Martin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This American Life - Patent edition
http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/26/this-american-life-tackles-patent-trolls-lives-to-broadcas t/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixed That
We have them to *stimulate* innovation, but that, too, is not happening here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We’ve Heard This Before
Basically, small(er), growing companies quite rightly see patents as a nuisance and an obstacle to innovation. But once they become big and established, they begin to appreciate the point in using patents from the other side, to hold back new, up-and-coming competitors.
Google’s attitude now is similar to Microsoft’s in the early 1990s: by many measures already a big company, but still with plenty of room for growth, so it still values hanging on to the startup mentality. Once it has reached the limits of its own growth opportunities, you will see its attitude predictably change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We’ve Heard This Before
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent reform
But it is almost the definition of "moronic" to be so extremist! First, someone says "patents as they exist are so bad we would likely be better off without the present system", which is definitely true. Then person two jumps up and says ANY kind of system is bad!MORONS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rubbish
The patents of others are always "ridiculous" when you're a defendant. Take a look. Far more often large firms like Google are defendants rather than plaintiffs. It all depends as they say on whose ox is being gored as the old story goes.
If infringers don't pay you to write this rubbish, they should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
epic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]