Google Finally Speaking Up About Problems With Patent System

from the good-for-them dept

Tue, Jul 26th 2011 1:43pm — Mike Masnick

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

Filed Under: patents, problems
Companies: google

39 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

maclizard (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 1:56pm

if only...
Hold on, are you implying that elected officials can in fact listen? I thought the only reason people got elected was to shut them up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike42 (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 1:58pm

Did you hear that?
That's the sound of all the patent lawyers switching to Bing!

AAAnnnd switching back after their first search returns garbage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Donv69, 26 Jul 2011 @ 2:00pm

Remove the government
Google should just remove all government websites from its index until the government listens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert Doyle (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 2:10pm

No more lawsuits
I think if Google really wanted to make a point they could simply refuse to sue people for infringing on their patents.

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 thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 2:14pm

Re: Remove the government
Bing copies some of Google's results from what I remember. So that would be a double whammy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2011 @ 2:16pm

Re: No more lawsuits
Your last idea seems more in line with Google's sense of humor seeing as they decided to bet pi on those patents.

I expect though that as much as they hate it, a good defence includes a good offense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2011 @ 2:16pm

Re: No more lawsuits
Your last idea seems more in line with Google's sense of humor seeing as they decided to bet pi on those patents.

I expect though that as much as they hate it, a good defence includes a good offense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 2:23pm

Re: No more lawsuits
... and who is Google suing over patent infringement?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2011 @ 2:25pm

Re: No more lawsuits
Or better yet, send only interns to court when they get sued. Show some true disdain for the ridiculousness of the whole thing.

Showing disdain toward a judge is not the most economically effective way to show disdain for a law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 2:28pm

Re: No more lawsuits
I think if Google really wanted to make a point they could simply refuse to sue people for infringing on their patents.

Such as who? Who should they "stop suing"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wizened (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 2:28pm

Sure government officials listen
Government officials listen as soon as you put your money in the coin slot. The more money you insert the more attentively they listen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ken (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 2:34pm

Our current patent system is destroying innovation, jobs, and billions of dollars. True creativity is being destroyed by endless litigation. Nothing is developed now that does not generate lawsuits from patent trolls.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2011 @ 2:42pm

Re: if only...
... elected officials can in fact listen?

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 thread ]
ken (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 2:47pm

1 - 5 years max on patents
Patents lasting for 20 years might as well be perpetual because any technology from 20 years ago is long obsolete. How many people are still using 20 year technology besides the music biz and their cd's?

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 thread ]
Prashanth (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 2:47pm

But what about Android (with reference to Microsoft)?
That's cool that Google is doing this, but the fact that Microsoft is extorting Samsung over alleged patents covering Android technologies still sickens me; so when is Google actually going to stand up to Microsoft, Apple, et al regarding this patent extortion over Android?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 3:01pm

Re: Re: No more lawsuits
I think they mean that Google should be willing to license patented works of their own for a small fee and GPL licensing, instead of actually suing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 3:02pm

Re: 1 - 5 years max on patents
Correction: 12 months from submission to prototype, or you lose it. THEN, for a successful prototype, you get 2 years to get it to market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2011 @ 3:04pm

Re: Did you hear that?
or porn, bing returns lots of porn if you turn off safe search
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2011 @ 3:06pm

Re: Re: Re: No more lawsuits
i think his point is they already dont sue anyone
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rick Martin, Patent Attorney (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 3:07pm

Is Intellectual Ventures A Crook?
Visit the public PAIRS system at USPTO and check patent application serial number 11/173,990 and the Third Party Submission 37 CFR 1.99 dated 9/18/2007.That was me. Nathan had filed 35 patents on a nine year old idea of offering free printed photos in exchange for printing ads on the photos. Sort of print "Alpo" on your tie, then Alpo pays for your printed photo for the privilege of keeping their name in your family photo album forever.How was it that IV could not find half a dozen killer references but little me did? Was Nathan trying to monopolize an entire advertising method with 35 fraudulently obtained patents? The USPTO Finally Rejected this case after six years.Big Money with Bad Patents are Bad for America. NPR should rewind their reporters to describe why these smelly tactics are not cause to tear down the patent system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 26 Jul 2011 @ 3:09pm

I dont know why we dont just keep reporting on the patent given to toast like 10 years ago (or the hundreds of other toast patents) until people realize how god damn stupid the whole system is. It was something like "process for thermally enriching bread," and I believe was a mention during the This American Life episode discussed earlier today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike42 (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 3:10pm

Re: Re: Did you hear that?
Note to self... :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 3:13pm

Re: Re: Re: No more lawsuits
Google already doesn't sue over patents, and they also have a habit of buying up patents and then giving people irrevocable rights to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Other Guy (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 3:54pm

Re: Re: Did you hear that?
Since that is the best advert for Bing I've ever heard, I feel I must accuse you of being a paid Microsoft blog-shill :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James D (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 4:03pm

This American Life - Patent edition
This week's episode focuses on patent trolls and the famous IV:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/26/this-american-life-tackles-patent-trolls-lives-to-broadcas t/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 4:31pm

Fixed That
"We have them to reward innovation, but that�s not happening here."

We have them to *stimulate* innovation, but that, too, is not happening here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 26 Jul 2011 @ 6:10pm

We�ve Heard This Before
The lawyer who coined the term �patent troll� is now working for Intellectual Ventures (the world�s biggest-ever patent troll) as their chief counsel.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2011 @ 10:20pm

Re: We�ve Heard This Before
Not unless the culture at Google changes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 10:41pm

Re: Sure government officials listen
So it's like a homemade sex toy then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prisoner 201, 27 Jul 2011 @ 1:47am

Re: Re: if only...
Free market ad absurdum. Too bad it's actually happening.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nicedoggy, 27 Jul 2011 @ 3:30am

Re: Re: Remove the government
You have violated Judge Dredd copyrights and are here now sentenced to 20 years in prison, what do you plead?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 4:28am

Re: 1 - 5 years max on patents
How many people are still using 20 year technology besides the music biz and their cd's?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 6:52am

Re: Re: 1 - 5 years max on patents
OK, how many patented technologies are still current after 20 years.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 7:21am

Google is butt hurt because they didn't win, perhaps?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vic Kley, 27 Jul 2011 @ 6:34pm

Moore's Warriors Not Innovation?
Are you all only talking about minor variations of program structures and Software Patents? If so say so otherwise your ridiculous point appears to be the top of your heads. I would still disagree but there is a place for debate concerning pre-existing software inventions.

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 thread ]
Gene Cavanaugh (profile), 27 Jul 2011 @ 8:39pm

Patent reform
No one can seriously argue that the patent system as it exists is NOT doing serious harm to our economy (and the world as a whole). No one can argue that the US government selling out to big entertainment, et al, is not a serious concern.
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 thread ]
staff, 28 Jul 2011 @ 7:38am

rubbish
"just how ridiculous patents had become"

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 thread ]
patent litigation, 1 Aug 2011 @ 7:45pm

epic
In the context of recent events, Walker's comments sound a lot like sour grapes over Google's epic mishandling of its Nortel patent bid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ddstark, 28 Feb 2012 @ 10:09am

Re: Is Intellectual Ventures A Crook? Rick Martin
Rick Martin AKA Ralph Martin He is on probation for misusing client funds. Google 10PDJ124 before hiring this crook. Legal name Ralph Martin. Also went bankrupt and was kicked out of offices at 385 Main Street though he still promotes this address on website. Though he shows several people on website he is a one man band. He admitted in court that he abused his son and the court took away visitation. Read what the attorney rating agency says about him at http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/80502-co-ralph-martin-1264077.html.
[ link to this | view in thread ]