Why Google's 'We Won't Sue' Patent Pledge May Actually Suggest A Greater Proclivity To Sue Over Patents
from the don't-launch-patent-suits,-period dept
Google is getting some attention today for taking an official pledge that it won't initiate patent lawsuits over open source software on certain patents:At Google we believe that open systems win. Open-source software has been at the root of many innovations in cloud computing, the mobile web, and the Internet generally. And while open platforms have faced growing patent attacks, requiring companies to defensively acquire ever more patents, we remain committed to an open Internet—one that protects real innovation and continues to deliver great products and services.Initially, this pledge only covers 10 patents, but they claim they'll be adding more.
Today, we’re taking another step towards that goal by announcing the Open Patent Non-Assertion (OPN) Pledge: we pledge not to sue any user, distributor or developer of open-source software on specified patents, unless first attacked.
While this pledge is better than nothing, it feels like really weak sauce from a company that could and should go much further. For nearly Google's entire history, it simply did not act as a patent aggressor at all. It grew its own portfolio, and in some cases I believe it would use patents in countersuits against companies that sued it, but as far as I can remember, it was never an initial plaintiff in a patent lawsuit (feel free to point out an example case where that's not true). As far as I can tell, the first time Google acted as a patent aggressor was last summer, when its Motorola Mobility subsidiary went after Apple.
How much stronger and more powerful a statement would it have been for Google to not limit this patent anti-aggression pledge to just ten patents and just open source projects? The company easily could have come out and said: we won't sue over patents unless sued first. It would have been a clear and definitive statement that actually took a stand on a broken patent system -- and it would have been almost entirely consistent with the company's history. The fact that the company chose not to do this actually suggests that they're even more likely to be patent aggressors. This is unfortunate. It is not uncommon for larger companies to switch to a patent litigation strategy as they get bigger and as smaller upstarts start disrupting their markets, but Google had, in the past, indicated that it wouldn't follow that path. This pledge actually suggests an evolution in their thinking... and not in a good way.
As we've seen, historically, it's when companies start having trouble innovating and competing that they switch to litigating over patents. One hopes that this is not an indication that Google has reached that stage.
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: open source, patent aggression, patents, pledge, won't sue
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I do think they probably should have stepped up though and maybe said something along the lines of flat out they will never attack an open source group. That way they still can prevent someone, like say Apple, from just using tons of googles patients without licenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
google apologist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: google apologist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the problem with blanket statements
We can argue about the whether Motorola should ask for 2.25% or lower, but the other side of the coin is that Microsoft would not want to pay anything at all. So in the event Google follow's Mike's advice, what option would they have to ever get anyone to pay for their FRAND patents.
I agree that software patents are not good for innovation(three cheers for Red hat/Rackspace), but unilaterally disarming yourself is even worse for innovation and health of a company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the problem with blanket statements
Didn't talk about the Microsoft case, but the Apple one.
Microsoft would not want to pay anything at all. So in the event Google follow's Mike's advice, what option would they have to ever get anyone to pay for their FRAND patents.
So? If they're in the business of making products instead of patents, that shouldn't be a big deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the problem with blanket statements
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the problem with blanket statements
So what was Motorola Mobility complaining about? Two things:
1. That the XBOX360 used Microsoft Siverlight...which uses the same compression standard as Flash for high definition video streaming (codec standard H.264).
2. The controllers connected to the console wirelessly via IrDA protocols.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the problem with blanket statements
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the problem with blanket statements
We can argue about the whether Motorola should ask for 2.25% or lower, but the other side of the coin is that Microsoft would not want to pay anything at all. So in the event Google follow's Mike's advice, what option would they have to ever get anyone to pay for their FRAND patents.
I agree that software patents are not good for innovation(three cheers for Red hat/Rackspace), but unilaterally disarming yourself is even worse for innovation and health of a company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the problem with blanket statements
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do we still need big?
What does Google need with a same-day shipping service anyway? | VentureBeat: "... we could even posit that the Google of the future could combine same-day shipping with self-driving delivery trucks. That sounds crazy, but this is Google we’re talking about. ... Google is stretching its tendrils into every market these days, and it’s become increasingly unsurprising."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do we still need big?
"As ‘killer applications’ have emerged, new digital industries have gone from competitive to oligopolistic to monopolistic at breakneck speeds.”
“It is true that with the advent of the Internet many of the successful giants -- Apple and Google come to mind -- were begun by idealists who may have been uncertain whether they really wanted to be old-fashioned capitalists. The system in short order has whipped them into shape. Any qualms about privacy, commercialism, avoiding taxes, or paying low wages to Third World factory workers were quickly forgotten. It is not that the managers are particularly bad and greedy people -- indeed their individual moral makeup is mostly irrelevant -- but rather that the system sharply rewards some types of behavior and penalizes other types of behavior so that people either get with the program and internalize the necessary values or they fail.”
More here: Digital Grab: Corporate Power Has Seized the Internet | Common Dreams
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a trap!
Of course, if everyone followed that then no one would sue the trolls would be forced back under the bridge where they belong. We all know that won't happen until it's fiscally debilitating for the trolls, by which I mean companies adopt an "always fight back" strategy or a collaborative defense strategy, used when the trolls sue multiple people at a time (even though they now have to do it on separate dockets, thank you AIA).
Wait...did I spell "debilitating" right?
Anyway, I don't think they'll open up the treaty beyond those patents and here's why:
http://iptrolltracker2.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/nortel-buyers-are-you-angry-yet/
They need their stable locked and loaded to compete in the current patent climate, which is just dad. Even taking out the trolls won't help that, this is a Big Dawg to Big Dawg fight.
Google's blinking on the stuff that doesn't matter...and they're getting the press they wanted for it.
Just sayin',
IPTT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good God in heaven, the typos!
2. ...which is just *sad*
Still don't know about debilitating, I have a case of debilitating laziness or I'd look it up. ;)
Just sayin',
IPTT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, I am going to be quick to point out that Google only innovated one thing and one thing only....online advertising...and even then most of that was from actually acquiring other online ad agencies just so they could use those methods.
Anyone thinking they actually created Android...think again. They financially backed Android Inc. stating "we believe in an open platform and we will fund your program" in a very Kickstarter, or (me showing my age) like Microsoft investing in Apple stock to keep Apple afloat in the late-mid 1990's, way. After the project was nearly finished, they bought Android Inc. outright and went on "innovating" on top of the work the original devs had already done.
So what makes people think Google actually innovated anything new? They might not have been pioneers to ideas that Apple had been into (USB and Firewire as standard input connections.... first generation iMac G3 anyone?), but they never truly innovated as they claimed they had. Their initial search engine was about all the innovating they actually had done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
when I find the link I'll paste it here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/11/30/google-patent-reveals-data-center-i nnovations/
though I figure only systems administrators will appreciate the pain points and innovation in that article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm disagreeing with that, but hey. I am not going to put a case forward with that type of thought pattern, its just going to waste my time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/11/30/google-patent-reveals-data-center-i nnovations/"
So doing what kludgers had already done over the years and patenting it is innovation? It's called Air Conditioning. Desktop PC's use fans like the patent you showed all the time for the same purpose. Hell that is how SLI and Crossfire video card systems cool the multiple GPU's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
" I am going to be quick to point out that Google only innovated one thing and one thing only....online advertising...and even then most of that was from actually acquiring other online ad agencies just so they could use those methods."
That's a whole different context compared to what you picked out of there which means you adhommed your argument.
Now as to my supposedly contradictory statement, let's rephrase that:
*Google's search engine the only true innovation from Google.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You defeat yourself pretty neatly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Way to cherry pick words. I think that the rest of my sentence which you minced indicates that I haven't defeated myself ^_^ Good try though ^_^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also worth mentioning, that innovation isn't restricted to original ideas. Google matured a number of preexisting technologies, including ads and full text search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There was more after that. I clearly explained that they bought out companies and relabeled those company's products as there own.
Notice how I am making the same arguments about innovation (or lack thereof) against Google that people make about Apple?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I am going to be quick to point out that Google only innovated one thing and one thing only....online advertising"
When I fully really said this:
" I am going to be quick to point out that Google only innovated one thing and one thing only....online advertising...and even then most of that was from actually acquiring other online ad agencies just so they could use those methods."
The italicized bits in my statement clearly says that their advertising scheme is not innovative so the idea that Google innovated web advertising is canceled out in the end.
By cherry picking Wally's statement you changed the context and tone of his comment.
"Their initial search engine was about all the innovating they actually had done."
That actually compliments the non cherry-picked context of my aforementioned paragraph about advertising but it is further pulled out by my initial statement that you chose to pick from:
"They might not have been pioneers to ideas that Apple had been into (USB and Firewire as standard input connections.... first generation iMac G3 anyone?), but they never truly innovated as they claimed they had. Their initial search engine was about all the innovating they actually had done."
I am glad you got the point at lease for this one, but you got the tone and context of my advertising statement wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Naive
Google's stand on patents is entirely consonant with their weak position vis-a-vis technology patents compared with the companies they are competing with and their position regarding IP is intellectually bankrupt.
They have always been the worst kind of aggressor. One who appropriates the IP of the small guy. They have built their business on micro theft on a massive global scale, where the extent of the theft was always too small for the individual affected to take them on. They did it with video, with news and with images and with books. They adopt the stance they do because they have a fiercely closed protected central database service. When your customers have to come to a central service kept under lock and key, you don't worry about people copying your tech out in the world. Indeed you encourage it because the more tech "out there" there is connecting to your central service the more money you make.
They think their philosophy re: patents can be kept in a bubble where the patents covered are only of the kind that are important to their competitors. But at the boundaries of this bubble their principles come to a screeching halt. If their position wasn't intellectually bankrupt, they would extend this philosophy to their adwords patents which is where they really make their money. But of course they won't do that in million years. Instead what they are engaged in is a shallow PR stunt to get gullible developers on board and to keep the world suckling at the teat of their "free" services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naive
POWER-CURVE SOCIETY: The Future of Innovation, Opportunity and Social Equity in the Emerging Networked Economy | The Aspen Institute: "The industries that are most resistant to any change in the status quo, said [Michael Fertik, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Reputation.com], are Internet-based media incumbents such as Google and Facebook, which argue that new requirements to protect privacy will destroy innovation. Shane Green of Personal said that when he talks to people at large Internet companies that gather lots of personal data, he is 'amazed' at their resistance to disclosing how they capture data, what they do with it and how much money they make from it. 'They sound just like Ma Bell from way back,' said Fertik. 'They have absolutely no interest in talking about privacy. Why won’t [these companies] open up and talk about how they capture data and what they do with it? Because they’re controlling things in a way that benefit them and not everyone else.'”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naive
What exactly have they been stealing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Naive
Google's stand on patents is entirely consonant with their weak position vis-a-vis technology patents compared with the companies they are competing with and their position regarding IP is intellectually bankrupt.
They have always been the worst kind of aggressor. One who appropriates the IP of the small guy. They have built their business on micro theft on a massive global scale, where the extent of the theft was always too small for the individual affected to take them on. They did it with video, with news and with images and with books. They adopt the stance they do because they have a fiercely closed protected central database service. When your customers have to come to a central service kept under lock and key, you don't worry about people copying your tech out in the world. Indeed you encourage it because the more tech "out there" there is connecting to your central service the more money you make.
They think their philosophy re: patents can be kept in a bubble where the patents covered are only of the kind that are important to their competitors. But at the boundaries of this bubble their principles come to a screeching halt. If their position wasn't intellectually bankrupt, they would extend this philosophy to their adwords patents which is where they really make their money. But of course they won't do that in million years. Instead what they are engaged in is a shallow PR stunt to get gullible developers on board and to keep the world suckling at the teat of their "free" services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Naive
Google's stand on patents is entirely consonant with their weak position vis-a-vis technology patents compared with the companies they are competing with and their position regarding IP is intellectually bankrupt.
They have always been the worst kind of aggressor. One who appropriates the IP of the small guy. They have built their business on micro theft on a massive global scale, where the extent of the theft was always too small for the individual affected to take them on. They did it with video, with news and with images and with books. They adopt the stance they do because they have a fiercely closed protected central database service. When your customers have to come to a central service kept under lock and key, you don't worry about people copying your tech out in the world. Indeed you encourage it because the more tech "out there" there is connecting to your central service the more money you make.
They think their philosophy re: patents can be kept in a bubble where the patents covered are only of the kind that are important to their competitors. But at the boundaries of this bubble their principles come to a screeching halt. If their position wasn't intellectually bankrupt, they would extend this philosophy to their adwords patents which is where they really make their money. But of course they won't do that in million years. Instead what they are engaged in is a shallow PR stunt to get gullible developers on board and to keep the world suckling at the teat of their "free" services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]