If Microsoft Shuts Down Google Maps In Germany, How Does That Benefit The Public?

from the monopolies-deemed-harmful dept

Most sane human beings have stopped trying to keep up with the interwined legal actions arising out of the smartphone patent wars between Apple, Google, Motorola, Nokia, Microsoft and all the rest. The cases, though, are still grinding through the courts, which periodically throw out their verdicts. According to Florian Mueller, one such decision in Germany is imminent:

Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann of the Munich I Regional Court just told Google and its Motorola Mobility subsidiary in no uncertain terms that his court is at this point (prior to counsel's argument on claim construction, infringement and validity) inclined to hold Google Inc., its subsidiary Motorola Mobility LLC and MMI's German subsidiary liable for infringement of a key Microsoft patent, EP0845124 on a "computer system for identifying local resources and method therefor", which is the European equivalent of U.S. Patent No. 6,240,360.

Here's that EPO patent:

A map of the area of a client computer (10) is requested from a map server (11). Information relating to a place of interest is requested from an information server (12) by the client computer (10). The information is superimposed or overlaid on a map image at a position on the map image corresponding to the location of the place of interest on the map. The information (or "overlay") server (12) may contain details of, for example, hotels, restaurants, shops or the like, associated with the geographical coordinates of each location. The map server (11) contains map data, including coordinate data representing the spatial coordinates of at least one point on the area represented by the map.

As the claims make clear, it's exactly what any half-way competent engineer would come up with given the task of providing certain kinds of information local to a geographical location. Moreover, it is of course implemented in software; given that Article 52 of the European Patent Convention explicitly excludes "programs for computers" from patentability, the fact that the EPO granted a patent here is an early example of how it circumvented that exclusion because a computer was used to run that software (well, doh.)

There's another problem with the patent, as Mueller's post makes clear:

Microsoft is seeking, and now very likely to obtain, a German patent injunction against the Google Maps service, the Google Maps Android client app, and web browsers providing access to Google Maps. In order to comply with the injunction that looms large, Google would have to disable access to Google Maps from computers using a German IP address, discontinue shipping the Google Maps Android app in the German market, and distribute web browsers in Germany only if they block access to Google Maps in a way comparable to Internet filters used for the purpose of parental controls.

If that turns out to be the case, and Google isn't able to code around the problem, that means that the patent was ridiculously over-broad -- essentially, it's a patent on all implementations of the basic idea. That's unlike traditional patents, where alternative, non-infringing inventions can be devised to solve a given problem.

Moreover, Microsoft can't fall back on its usual justification that it spent years of research and huge amounts of money developing this "breakthrough" idea, and therefore deserves its sweeping monopoly. According to both the European and US filings, the original patent was granted to Sean Phelan, based in London. Here's the background:

Sean started Multimap.com as a bootstrap start-up in his spare bedroom in 1995 and built it into one of the 10 most popular British web services, with revenues of £12M and profits of £1M

Sean formed Multimap.com to bring together his lifelong love of sailing and navigation with his experience with the internet and web-based technology. Through Multimap, Sean realised his vision of services based on the integration of navigation, wireless communications and the web. He is one of Europe's original internet entrepreneurs, with a unique combination of business and technical skills. In December 2007 the company was acquired by Microsoft for £30 million, cementing its position in the ranks of Britain's internet success stories.

And good for him. But buying his patent doesn't give Microsoft -- or anyone -- the right to lock out competitors from the entire online map space. If Mueller is right, and a broad injunction is granted against Google Maps, the net result will be millions of Germans unable to use this popular service in a Web browser or on their smartphones. In what way does that benefit society or promote innovation?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: germany, google maps, patents, public, software patents
Companies: google, microsoft

TomTom Kicks Off FUD Campaign Against 'Dangerous' Open Source Mapping

from the going-down dept

Recently, Techdirt wrote about the increasing number of Web sites that were dumping Google Maps and turning to OpenStreetMap (OSM) instead. But that's only one aspect of the increasingly important digital mapping sector: another is for use with in-car satnav systems. So an obvious question is: how is OpenStreetMap doing here?

Looks like the satnav manufacturer TomTom has just provided us with an answer (found via Slashdot):

Despite the positives, recent studies have highlighted some major drawbacks of open source mapping, specifically with regard to safety, accuracy and reliability. In one particular instance, a leading open source map was compared against a professional TomTom map, and shown to have a third less residential road coverage and 16% less basic map attributes such as street names. Worse still, it blended pedestrian and car map geometry, and included 'a high number of fields and forest trails' classified as roads.

As TomTom explains, this is a Bad Thing:

Many drivers rely heavily on satellite navigation for precise directions, and mapping errors can be extremely dangerous, particularly in the case of one-way streets.

Just in case you didn't get the message, TomTom concludes:

Open source mapping certainly has its benefits and can be extremely useful, particularly for pedestrians and in city or town centres. The way that the maps incorporate input from a wide community of contributors can result in impressive international coverage, whilst also driving down costs of production. However, when it comes to automotive-grade mapping, open source has some quite serious limitations, falling short on the levels of accuracy and reliability required for safe navigation.

Unfortunately, TomTom doesn't share its sources for these figures, but Carlo Daffara pointed us to this research from December 2011 that provides a more detailed analysis of the relative merits of TomTom and OpenStreetMap in Germany. This is what it found:

With a relative completeness comparison between the OSM database and TomTom's commercial dataset, we proved that OSM provides 27% more data within Germany with regard to the total street network and route information for pedestrians. On the contrary, OSM is still missing about 9% of data related to car navigation. According to our projection for the future, this discrepancy should disappear by the middle or end of 2012, and the OSM dataset for Germany should then feature a comparative route network for cars as provided by TomTom.

So OpenStreetMap is actually better than TomTom for the total street network and route information for pedestrians. However, the study also considered the issue of street names raised by TomTom and "turn restrictions" -- places where drivers must or must not turn:

In addition to the route network comparisons, we conducted further analyses regarding topology errors and the completeness of street name information. The results showed that the OSM dataset is not flawless; however, the trend shows that the relative and absolute number of errors is decreasing. Thus, it can also be discerned that not only is new data being added to the project database but also quality assurance is becoming a major factor within the OSM community. Our findings with regard to turn restrictions within the OSM database, which are of critical importance to navigation, showed that based on the current development rate and activity, it will take more than five years for OSM to catch up with the information found in the proprietary dataset used in our analysis.

So in Germany at least, TomTom's criticisms about the poorer coverage of street names and "turn restrictions" are probably justified -- at the moment. But what the research clearly suggests is that it is probably just a matter of time before OpenStreetMap becomes better than TomTom in this area just as it already is in terms of basic street coverage.

The fact that TomTom has chosen to highlight this current deficiency in OpenStreetMap shows two things. First, that it is watching the open source alternative very closely, and secondly, that it is sufficiently worried by what it sees to start sowing some FUD in people's minds. But as history has shown with both open source server software and open source encyclopaedias, once vendors of proprietary systems adopt such a tactic against up-and-coming free rivals, it's a clear sign that it's already too late to do anything about it, and that their days of undisputed dominance are numbered.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: google maps, maps, openstreetmap, safety, satnav
Companies: google, tomtom

You Can't Sue Google If You Get Hit By A Car While Following Google Walking Directions

from the in-case-you-were-wondering dept

Last year, we had the bizarre story of a woman who sued Google after she got hit by a car, while following Google's (beta) walking directions feature. The directions put her on a rural highway with no sidewalk or crosswalk, and as she crossed the street, she got hit. She sued both the driver and Google, but the Google part was what got the attention. The woman's lawyer tried to defend the lawsuit in the face of a lot of mocking, by claiming that Google somehow had responsibility here. When this case got attention, Danny Sullivan did a bang up job pulling images of the intersection from Google Street View, which suggest that this intersection was pretty obviously not designed for pedestrian crossing:

Thankfully, it appears that the court agreed with most of the folks around here who were left shaking our heads that this woman couldn't take responsibility for her own actions of crossing a street. The court dismissed the lawsuit against Google. While Google had raised some First Amendment issues, the court doesn't even get that far in the discussion. Instead it just looks at the simple question of whether or not Google owed a duty to the woman, and found the answer to be pretty clear: hell no, it didn't:

In order to assert a claim for negligence against Google Rosenberg had to show that Google owed her a duty. The court applies a four factor test to determine whether Google owes Rosenberg a duty and concludes that Google does not owe a duty. Rosenberg did not have a special relationship with Google. Rosenberg argued that in other cases courts have held service providers liable for negligently providing services to customers, but the court says that this duty is minimal or non-existent when a publisher or other information provider "publishes information to the general public."

The court also notes that the fact that an injury is unlikely to occur counsels against finding a duty. Although Rosenberg alleged that an accident is more likely to occur along a rural highway such as the one she was on, the court says that an accident involving a pedestrian likely involves the pedestrian's own breach of their duty to yield to cars on the road

It's always nice to see a court agree with what basic common sense tells you.

Filed Under: google maps, liability, walking
Companies: google

Google Maps Error Dispute Continues To Escalate Between Nicaragua And Costa Rica

from the the-map-error-that-starts-a-war dept

We recently wrote about a dispute between Costa Rica and Nicragua, after a Nicraguan military official and his troops accidentally "invaded" Costa Rica allegedly relying on Google Maps, which placed the border between the two countries in the wrong place (oops). However, what's amazing to me is that the story has continued to escalate. Even though Costa Rica has no standing army, it mobilized its police force to go to that area, and now both sides are being urged to back down. Obviously, Costa Rica feels that this was much more than a Google Maps error (since corrected, by the way). Nicaraguan officials are now claiming that they didn't actually rely on Google Maps (though, it was wrong) and that they didn't actually invade Costa Rica, but the Costa Ricans aren't buying it. And no one seems to be explaining why the Nicaraguans have stuck round the area... The whole thing sounds like some important details are being left out, but it would be quite an unfortunate story if it turns out that a Google Maps error leads to war.

Filed Under: costa rica, dispute, google maps, nicaragua

Nicaragua Accidentally Invades Costa Rica, Blames Google Maps

from the oops dept

You would think that military professionals would rely on something other than Google Maps in determining where countries have their borders. However, down in Central America, there's apparently been something of an international incident, after a Nicaraguan military commander, using Google Maps as his guide, brought his troops into Costa Rica. He insists that he was just following what Google Maps said, and that he never intended to go into the neighboring country. Yet... the report also notes that there was a Costa Rican flag there, which the Nicaraguans took down and replaced with their own flag. You would think, at that point, that everyone involved might double check to make sure they were on the right side of the border. After raising their own flag, the Nicaraguans apparently set up camp, cleaned up a nearby river (nice of them) and then dumped sediment into Costa Rican territory (not so nice of them). If this truly is an honest mistake, then hopefully nothing more is made of it, but it sounds like Costa Rican citizens are quite upset about the whole thing, leading Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla to go on TV to ask citizens to "be calm... amid the outrage that these events provoke within us."

Filed Under: costa rica, google maps, nicaragua

Lawyer Explains Reasoning For Suing Google Over Walking Directions: It Was Dark

from the um.-ok. dept

Yesterday, we covered the bizarre lawsuit of a woman suing Google because she got hit by a car while trying to follow Google Maps' walking directions. Danny Sullivan, who broke the story, now has a follow up following a discussion with the woman's lawyer. Apparently, they feel the lawsuit is justified because it was early in the morning and it was dark out, so the woman couldn't properly see that the opposite side of the road had no sidewalk:

"It was 6 in the morning. It was not a busy street [then]. She believed there was a sidewalk on the other side." ....

"She was in an area that she'd never been to before. It was pitch black. There were no street lights. She relied on Google that she'd cross there and go down to a sidewalk."

Even if it wasn't a busy street, there's clearly no cross walk. And you'd have to think that even in the darkness, someone could recognize that. Again, Sullivan has the image: On top of that, her decision to rely on Google is her decision. It's hardly Google's fault. And, if it wasn't a busy street at the time, you would think she would be able to time crossing the street to not get hit by a car. But she didn't:

In fact, Rosenberg never reached the other side. She left the end of Park Avenue to cross to the far side of Deer Valley Drive / State Route 224 and was struck while crossing.

The other bit of info that Sullivan cleared up is the fact that Google Maps walking directions on mobile phones do, in fact, carry a warning, which says: Walking directions (beta): use caution. The woman insists that no such warning was on the phone, but Google says it's been there since it launched walking directions.

Filed Under: directions, google maps, lawsuits, walking
Companies: google

Woman Sues Google After She Follows Google Maps Directions And Gets Hit By A Car

from the personal-responsibility? dept

There have been plenty of stories over the years of drivers blindly following their GPS over a cliff or onto railroad tracks. After doing such things, it may be natural for the driver to blame the technology, though it's unlikely to help you out much in court. However, it appears that one pedestrian has taken things a step further. After using Google's "still in beta" (for a good reason) "walking directions" while trying to get somewhere in Park City, Utah, she found herself on a highway, where she was hit by a car. So, in response, she's suing both Google and the driver of the car. Danny Sullivan explores the issue in much greater detail at that link, and comes to the same conclusion I assume many of you already jumped to: at some point, you just have to assume some sense of responsibility if you're the pedestrian. Sullivan pops out the following two Street View images showing the road in question, and wonders why the woman didn't realize that this road was not designed to be crossed. The first photo is of the intersection she would come to before crossing (note: no crosswalk): And then, if she did manage to rush across that street, this is what she would see on the other site: At some point, common sense is supposed to kick in and the pedestrian says, "hey, this is not designed for walking."

But, the woman who filed this lawsuit seems to want to blame everyone else for her own decision to try to cross a street that is obviously not for pedestrian crossing. In fact, the full lawsuit seems to contradict itself at points, since it seeks to blame both the driver who hit her for driving too fast... but at the same time seeks to blame Google for putting her on "a roadway that exhibits motor vehicles traveling at high speeds, that is not reasonably safe for pedestrians." If the road itself involved cars that were too fast for pedestrians, then why is she also blaming the driver for driving too fast? On top of that, the lawsuit asserts that Google should have known that the road was not designed for pedestrians. Which leads me to ask a simple question: if this woman, who was standing on the side of the road herself didn't make that judgment, despite all the evidence in front of her, why does she assume that some routing algorithm at Google should have reasonably known that fact?

In the end, this looks like yet another case of a Steve Dallas lawsuit, where a big company is sued for someone's own mistakes, because that big company has lots of money.

Filed Under: blame, directions, google maps, walking
Companies: google

UK's Turn To Worry About Google's Gathering Of Harmless, Public Wi-Fi Information

from the regulators-should-understand-the-technology-they're-regulating dept

We just got done exploring how German privacy regulators are "horrified" about how Google is (just as many other companies have been doing for years) gathering publicly-available Wi-Fi hotspot data for GPS triangulation and localized search. Of course the data being collected can't really identify users outside of their router brand preference and use of nerd SSID humor -- but that didn't stop a flood of hysterical articles that assumed Google was using this data for some nefarious purpose. As if on cue, Germany's complaints have now drawn the attention of UK regulators -- who say they're now going to quiz Google about the practice. While Wi-Fi clearly confuses many regulators and the press (look at the usual reaction to war driving), it is important that Google is transparent about this process, but so far there's every indication they're doing a good job on that front. The company posted another blog post this week and sent this filing (pdf) to privacy regulators in multiple countries highlighting exactly what's being collected, what it's being used for, while reiterating that the data can't identify specific users and isn't being published. So the question then is: how long before U.S. and other European regulators start to freak out?

 

Filed Under: google maps, united kingdom, wardriving
Companies: google

Boring Case Against Google Revived... Just A Bit

from the not-so-boring? dept

We've been covering the case of a couple named Boring (no, seriously, that's their last name) who got upset and sued Google after they found pictures of their house in Google's Street View offering -- even though Google lets anyone remove images they dislike. The couple claimed that the images invaded their privacy and devalued their home (how an accurate photo could devalue the home is an open question). The case was quickly dismissed, but the Borings appealed, in lovely language about how this was about Google trampling on their right to privacy. The appeals court has thrown out most of the case, but actually is allowing the claim of trespassing to move forward in the lower court. Indeed, many did point out in our comments that it appeared that the Google vehicle may have driven onto the Borings' driveway in the process of photographing the home. Of course, proving any actual damage from the trespass may prove a bit more difficult.

Filed Under: borings, google maps, street view, trespassing
Companies: google

Google Maps Charged With Unfair Competition In France For Daring To Be Free

from the how-dare-you! dept

Once again, we get to see the entitlement culture at work -- this time over in France. JohnForDummies points us to the news that a French company, Bottin Cartographes, is suing Google over its Google Maps offering, because Google lets companies use its web mapping services for free (how dare they!). Bottin Cartographes, on the other hand, offers a similar service that it charges for. Apparently, it seems to think that "competition" itself is "unfair competition." Why should Google have to charge just because this other company has a bad business model? We're back to companies declaring felony interference with a business model.

Filed Under: comeptition, france, google maps, unfair competition
Companies: bottin cartographies, google