Google Says Microsoft Uses Patents When Its Products Fail

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
"X Uses Patents When Its Products Fail"

Isn't that like a general strategy used by companies whose product fail or who fear getting their product beaten down by competitors?
 
It's funny because what he really means is, "When we (Google) use patented stuff in our products and then get into legal trouble over it, and it's obvious that we messed up, we blame the system and want it fixed. It also helps us when we say things like this because many of our supporters (read fans of open source) hate Microsoft, hate patents and/or the patent system and also they hate Microsoft. So this is a smart thing for me to say. Did I mention they hate Microsoft?"

What's also funny is that Google has never really hesitated in the past to protect it's IP when it felt it was in the right and could win in the courts.

What's sad is that Microsoft, as far as I've been able to find, has not directly threatened anyone. They have however approached many of their partners with what could only be a viable way to keep both parties satisfied. They cannot directly go after Google because it gives the software away to be distibuted by the product manufacturers. It's not hard really. If Google doesn't like it, all they have to do is come up with a different way of doing whatever it is that's obviously infringing on Microsoft's IP.
 
He does have a point. You can't patent an idea only a design or technology. A "box with round corners" is an idea but described as a design in order to get a patent. Those are what Apple's been using to bludgeon every non-Apple smart phone maker with. What MS's has been doing is selling "protection" from Apple in a form of licensing agreements. Companies can "license" the MS patent for "box with round corners", and if Apple has a problem they have to battle it out with MS instead of the smaller company. The $15 USD tax seems ridiculously high but the alternative is to have Apple block your product from launch and destroy your company.

The US really needs to pass some form of patent reform to fix these issues. Otherwise innovation will be deeply stiffed until those patents expire.
 
Finally someone from a major company has come out and said it. And the sad part of it is that even though they recognize that, they are forced to get on the train and perpetuate it or be left financially far behind.
A stricter patent system against a real actual physical invention is fair and just. A patent system where a major company says that I was first to unlock a phone by swiping the screen and anyone else that does the same owes me big bucks is just broken.
Blame the game not the players.
 
People can complain that Google is just whining all they want. Google is right! The patent system in this country is very broken when you can patent software without even coding the software first. When Apple can patent "touch and swipe" to unlock a phone even after it is the industry standard is wrong. This country needs a major patent overhaul that clearly defines what is and isn't patentable, especially when it comes to software and electronics. What is going on in the industry right now with patents and lawsuits is completely ridiculous.
 
[citation][nom]ChiefTexas_82[/nom]" As Opposed to Apple, who brings out its patent guns when they LEAD the market???[/citation]

no more like paronoid like when samsung came out with the galaxy S they knew it was better than the iphone so they are suing them into the ground
 
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Look at all the Android fanboys thumbing down comments....pathetic.[/citation]

you are the only one that sounds pethetic here. especially giving a crap about a thumb up/down system on some random website LOL

FAIL
 
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Look at all the Android fanboys thumbing down comments....pathetic.[/citation]
Look at Google's lawyer not understanding patent law.

Ideas are in fact patentable....it's called "Proof of Concept".... Google should be happy this exists as they hold numerous "proof of concept" patents..... If you can't "patent an idea"...Google just lost the majority of their IP....
 
[citation][nom]dormantreign[/nom]he's right on the money. abolish copyrights and patients and watch us travel to mars and beyond.[/citation]

but then there goes most of the capitalist society. what is the point of inventing something when everyone else can copy off you? there is no money in that.
 
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]but then there goes most of the capitalist society. what is the point of inventing something when everyone else can copy off you? there is no money in that.[/citation]
There can be money in it, you just have to produce the best implementation of the idea. With patents you can make money off a pile of crap.
 
MS is a big Ass****. They don't want to stop the spread of Android, they want it to succeed so that their royalties can increase. Although Android is given away free, if some company is creating products that are infringing your patents why not sue them??? And for ppl who speak for MS, do you actually know if the patents are actually valid???
 
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Google is just butt hurt because Microsoft gets something like $15 for every Android device sold. Maybe if Google wasn't so inept it would've secured the proper patents before getting themselves into this mess.[/citation]

o i just sent an email from my phone
aw poo, someone owns the patent
i just pressed the screen and made words appear
aw poo someone also has that patent
i just connected wirelessly to the internet while someone else drives me
wow yet another person owns that patent.

realistically, they cant, because the patents they need are held by people they would compete with.

software patents in the tech world are retarded, and should only really be held for 5 years. because how often has something come out, been brand new, and than, 5 years latter, was still so new and amazing that you cant imagine how it was ever made. fact is that after 2 years it either becomes common sense, or its basically abandoned. sending an email shouldn't be a patent in any way shape or form anymore, but sadly patents last for 15-25 years, the tech that the patented idea/method could have used is obsolete by the time it goes public.
 
I agree that, especially, the US patent system is broken. Ideas being patented instead of technologies, but to my understanding, most of the law suits between MS and manufacturers has been about Exchange, which is an MS technology.
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]o i just sent an email from my phoneaw poo, someone owns the patenti just pressed the screen and made words appearaw poo someone also has that patenti just connected wirelessly to the internet while someone else drives mewow yet another person owns that patent. realistically, they cant, because the patents they need are held by people they would compete with.software patents in the tech world are retarded, and should only really be held for 5 years. because how often has something come out, been brand new, and than, 5 years latter, was still so new and amazing that you cant imagine how it was ever made. fact is that after 2 years it either becomes common sense, or its basically abandoned. sending an email shouldn't be a patent in any way shape or form anymore, but sadly patents last for 15-25 years, the tech that the patented idea/method could have used is obsolete by the time it goes public.[/citation]
Very valid point. The software industry goes through generations arguably much faster than any other industry to date. Perhaps they should reconsider the patent life for softwares, as 15 years is far too long considering the turnover rate.

I've written several programs over the years, and I'm sure that I've violated several patents along the way simply because things that are now considered obvious are still under patent. I'm a small guy writing small programs, so nobody sues me. But just imagine if you write big programs how many patents you are inadvertently violating.

Definitely need a shorter lifespan on patents.
 
[citation][nom]Benihana[/nom]Very valid point. The software industry goes through generations arguably much faster than any other industry to date. Perhaps they should reconsider the patent life for softwares, as 15 years is far too long considering the turnover rate.I've written several programs over the years, and I'm sure that I've violated several patents along the way simply because things that are now considered obvious are still under patent. I'm a small guy writing small programs, so nobody sues me. But just imagine if you write big programs how many patents you are inadvertently violating.Definitely need a shorter lifespan on patents.[/citation]

this isn't software, but look at wacom and its competitors. due to wacoms patents, its competitors cant compete.

the tech is old as hell, but still, a reasonalbly sized tablet still costs about 400-500$ and the only consumer tablet they sell costs about 100$ for a work area that is barely 4 inches. and it can do this because they have no competition. look at the competitors, i have one of their tablets, idios or something, its 9-10 inches, and i payed 50$ for it. wacom has a monitor you can draw on, its their highest end product, but the tablet in the lowest end one isnt even as good as their mid range ones, and its a 12 inch screen, and they charge 1000 for it, 2000 for a 21 inch 1600x1200 and 2500 for a 24 in 1920x1200 and the charge that much because they else to light a fire under their butts.

sorry that was a bit rantish, i really want a penable monitor, and a 1920x1200 too, but the point is valid, and shows what happens when pattents are held by one person in tech.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom