Google: Apple, Microsoft Waging War on Android

Google: Apple, Microsoft Waging War on Android? Not on android... on Google...

And how exactly would "jointly" purchasing those patents have "not" helped protect Android from lawsuits? Joint owner is still "owner", and therefore still covered by the patent, "protection" wise and all...

This just in: Companies that cannot compete do not survive. That's right, this is earth shattering news. Of course companies like oracle, microsoft, and Apple are ganging up on google... it would have NOTHING to do with the fact that they each have their own flawed OSs that require patents to improve. With the fevered pitch of OS development in the mobile sector it just makes patents that much harder to come by. So if Android cannot compete in the game of patents then maybe it is time for them to get to work on the innovation front, which I always thought they were pretty good at before, but with whining like this I am having my doubts.

I don't really understand that part either. Microsoft could still attack them with other patents that they had but Google lacked, but it seems like if they had tried to attack them under one of the joint-licensed patents wouldn't Google's response just be "Uhm, yea, we have that patent too."

This comes across like a temper tantrum because someone took the toy they wanted. It's called competition. I know Google is not used to it with their virtual monopoly in search engine space, but your competition is always going to be trying to take you down. The idea with patents is to get a mexican standoff going; if you all hold enough patents then you can hold each other at bay. All parties knew these patents were dangerous and went after them for their own safety. If Google doesn't play and get enough patents of their own, then they will be the one bringing a pocket protector to a gun fight.

@scuba dave

Google purpose for the patent was to protect them from future law suits, a joint patent would not provide a defense from a MS or Apple because they jointly hold the patent, basically Google will use these patents to defends against other patent (force a cross licensing agreement)

Clash of the Titans, nice!

http://black1blue.blogspot.com/201 [...] -m11x.html

Like the richest company in the world is weeping that they got outbid by competitors in an auction that they had themselves put up bid for nearly as much for? And then they want to make up the difference by crying in the press and begging for some kind of sympathy?

And I wonder what they'd be saying if they'd placed the highest bid and role reversed with MS, Oracle, Apple group

All I have to say is that if you're going to build an entire operating system off another company's software (Oracle) and try to make billions off it, then freakin' pay for the damn license and be prepared for bidding wars on other related ones. Always been bewildered by use of Java in first place. not only for this exact reason but also for the fundamental performance disadvantages.

The legal system for software is broken, you can always do the same thing 50 ways with 50 different ways of coding it to serve the same function. The patent system should only be applied for PHYSICAL objects, no programming. Just like you cant patent life because it is ever changing, you should not be allowed to patent computer code because it is ever evolving.

lol i find this funny, there doing this because apple and microsoft both aggree there os's are ****

instead of making there os's better there trying to stop manufacterers installing andriod instead

I don't think it's a tantrum, I think Google has it right. But Apple, MS, Oracle aren't doing anything illegal by doing so. I think the patent system is a joke, and needs, serious overhauling

They should expire patents like they do medicine. Basically, yoh can own that patent for several years, after that people can profit from it, however, they want by exactly copying, this was be especially useful in the tech industry because it changes so fast. It would end this non-sense of patent hording, immediately. Also, if you are not the original creator the patent, you should not be allowed to enforce it, this will end all these buying binges.

the patent system was never developed for digital media so it should have never applied to digital media anyway

patents were originally designed to stop people stealing other companies designs and using them

It's sad to see that the grand idea of patents has come to this in the modern age.
In the past a patent was handy because the innovating inventor could get their work protected so that way no one could steal it. Even the little guy who came up with the next big thing would be able to stop the giants from simply copying and undercutting his prices.

Nowadays its just patent trolls, The giants taking over and massively buying them, or even the little guy who has a legit case getting stomped on by the giant's lawyers. This was not what the system was made for. Ceasing the patent system all together would simply just spell complete disaster for the little guy so that is certainly not the answer. But with out a doubt it needs to be reformed.

in the end lawers win. they are hired to find loop holes, then defend them. im going to make a career change:|

Lol, they can argue all they like... I'll just continue to use both Android and Windows. Don't exactly care what these two companies think of each other.

That said, patent trolling is getting annoying. Apple managed to forbid Galaxy Tab sales in Australia (now poor Aussies have to import them, lol) - though what they should be scared of is not the Galaxy Tab, but the Galaxy S II and Asus Eee Pad Transformer, since these sell much better - and it shows just how much messed up the system is. Since when do Apple's patents extend to other countries? I might be missing something, but I think this is pretty much like that notorious case where Intel has been bribing manufacturers to preven AMD sales. Just in case with Intel, everyone went "bad, Intel, bad! Screw you and pay a fine!" and in case of Apple, which bribes authorities, no one cares.

After that kind of stuff, not much of a surprise that MS wants to do the same. And it's not like Google is a saint, either... Would be cool if Google would teach Apple a lesson or two when it comes to patents.

If you don't get it. Patents for corps are like nukes. You need to have your own to stop them from deploying theirs. So if you have one they are using and vice versa. No one goes to court because it's a wash. So if google shared the patents with M$FT and didn't have any of their own. M$FT could sue for the ones they totally own and Google would have nothing to counter with.. So in other words the jointly shared patents you need 2 codes to unlock both M$SFT key and Google's key.. But Microsoft has nukes that they only need their key for.. Now imagine we did that with China.. Would would be the result.. You want to joint share nukes with them and get rid of our own?? That sounds like a plan..

This whole IP patent nonsense is getting tiresome; One of two things need to be done:

1.) Throw the IP/software functionality patent systems out the window and let companies compete with end products. The market will decide which is better, and this will foster innovation in the private sector.

2.) Rewrite the entire system with revised required criteria (i.e. must have working model within 6 months and show plans to sell or release as open source, or you cannot renew the patent(or variants); rework review process to prevent fluff patents and generalizations, etc.)

All in all, the entire system is ludicrous; Anyone who thinks you should be able to patent an update button, or teleporter is smoking rocks. People waste government/taxpayer money filing these ridiculous fluff patents generated from "invention companies" with no intention of ever making a product. The review process doesn't work.

The function of a patent is to give the holder exclusive use of that technology. The function of a patent is not to license out that technology to your competitors. The holders of the patents have every right to tell Google where they can shove it.

Six months? When you are truly pushing the limits on a technology, not just copying, it can take more than five years to put a product on the market.

And how exactly would "jointly" purchasing those patents have "not" helped protect Android from lawsuits? Joint owner is still "owner", and therefore still covered by the patent, "protection" wise and all...

Here's how it works:

Microsoft comes in with their huge patent collection and asserts that Google is infringing on X number of their patents. Google comes back and says, "But wait! We just bought a bunch of patents" and lays them on the table stating that Microsoft is infringing on them. Normally at this point, the two companies come to some sort of truce. But Google then remembers "Oh crap, we purchased these patents jointly with Microsoft.... they own them too! We're screwed."

Why would Microsoft be scared by patents they jointly own?

So what's that, 250,000 permutations of button push patents?

They really need to stop allowing people to patent software UI processes. They are all obvious and as such should be under copyright, not patent laws.

Buying up patents to F up the use of a UI in an OS is NOT COMPETITION.

Right, I agree on that part.. Google couldn't use them to defend against MSFT, however they would have been useful against Apple(which is realistically, and unfortunately,more likely to throw lawsuit after lawsuit at Google). In this case, a limited protection > no protection would have been the better route to go.. and instead they decided to take an un-needed risk and lost everything they were hoping to gain by saying no. I wish it didn't work that way.. Honestly something needs to change, but whining and crying after you lose because decided to play ball your way, is kinda flawed.

Apple, is obviously, the biggest competitor to Android, and WP7 is still quite the joke atm. Not to mention there are still plenty of other patents that Google could(and probably is) trying to silently acquire concurrently..

This simply reeks, to me, of a PR attack because Google's decision to risk it in the auction didn't pan out the way they thought it would.

The "joint" purchasing entailed Google still paying Microsoft licensing for the patents they helped pay for under terms that Microsoft set in place.

companies spend lots of money and time to get some thing developed ( hardware or Software). Patents can be used to get their monew they invested in from their products. If others want to develop a similar product they need to spend money and come out with a way to desing it diffrently than theor competition. This is called inovation, not by have to limit the original companay from exercising their patent, as in the latter case there is no inovation just copying and getting the product sold cheaply since they did not have to pay for development of the idea.

there needs to be a Fight Club intervention vs the Patent Office.

Google is saying that they cannot use patents as a shield or a club against a co-owner of those patents. Google is in violation of unrelated patents and to defent their actions they want to own something they can counter sue with.

Android is a great OS but some of that greatness comes from the fact they flat out stole some ideas from others. This is now coming to haunt Google and they keep taking the low-road which is making it worse.

The whole patent system is flawed. Why innovate when you can litigate?

You can't litigate unless you've innovated.

No.. Because that wouldn't make them an owner, but a regular licensed user with a substantial down-payment. The purchase would have given a usage license to all the purchasing parties, however, that wouldn't protect Google from any patents Microsoft had sole ownership of, which is what Google says it needs. However, as they declined, microsoft asked Apple, and they accepted, and now Apple and Microsoft have even more "ammunition" they can fire at Google. If Google had accepted, they would have had ammo to defend against Apple, however they would have still needed something else for defense against Microsoft. So instead of having defense against one, they effectively chose having defense against none. Personally, I think it's hilarious that they start crying after the auction resulted in them losing.. It's basically like a blackjack player crying after they lose a hand.. They knew there was a risk.. One they lost.. And so now they are playing the government/PR game to try and get the "hand that was dealt" overturned. Cry me a river Google.

That's how things are supposed to work - unfortunately in most cases the patent office is overwhelmed and patents are allowed through from stupid shit... Let's not even go into the whole software as patentable because that's just laughable.