Google's Top Lawyer: Some Apple Inventions are Commercially Essential, Should Be Made Into Standards

[MacinDoc]

I don't get what you're saying, Nintendo does have exclusive rights for "super smash bros.", but other people can create games similar to super smash bros. and that is NOT wrong at all and should be encouraged.

So you're saying that since Madden was the first ever football video game, that no one else can create a football video game ever?

Competitors would obviously be copying, you know, since having each button correspond to which receiver you want to throw to is easily an innovation made only by EA. Other competitors need to figure out another way to have your QB pass the ball. Maybe by saying outloud etc.

How is that good for consumers. Under your logic, there is NO innovation, NO creativity, NO competition for Madden in the football game department.

If every other football game looked and played exactly like Madden, then there would be no point in EA updating it; other companies would just copy what they did and charge half the price. Or why bother using the time and effort to create any original games, why not just copy what has already been done? And what's the point of having more than one, from the consumer's point of view, if they are all almost identical? No reason why there shouldn't be other football games; they should just implement the game in unique ways. That way, the consumer has a choice between products that have some differentiation, rather than a bunch of look-alikes.

Regardless, as Renzatic has pointed out, this example is more an issue of copyright than patent protection.

WRT the original topic, Google is arguing that popular features and innovations should be treated in the same manner as features without which a phone cannot be made because of communications standards which are universally agreed upon. The difference is that that latter is essential, and is clearly agreed on to be essential, and by its very nature must be used, while the former is what differentiates one product from another and makes it unique.

 

[kdarling]

Now I'm mad.. mostly at myself for blindly believing some idiot's interpretation without going to look for myself, something I usually do. All Things D should fire that writer, or at the least print a huge retraction.

I finally read the original Google letter and it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Apple's patents or IP.

On the contrary, Google was talking about such de facto standards as Philips' Compact Disc or Microsoft's ActiveSync, where those companies acted OUTSIDE OF ANY STANDARDS group, but have encouraged the entire world to license their proprietary IP in order to make their IP a standard.

Google simply suggested that such widespread single-company standards... with so much invested by so many other companies and customers... should be treated the same as multi-company FRAND standards and likewise be prevented from raising their rates by selling their IP to multiple shell companies in order to get more royalties.

Therefore most of this thread is moot.

 

[sha4000]

But it was entertaining to listen to all the tech talk I must say. Are we going to get anymore retractions or is everyone just going to stay the course?

 

[KnightWRX]

As I said, software patents should be required to be much more specific and avoid any terms which could later be generalized to have a broader meaning. Your reading of my posts seems to be a bit selective.

The problem is that is already the case. The non-obvious and novel clauses of patents state this already. However, patent lawyers have been getting better and better at wording patents to make them seem non-obvious and novel to examiners when in reality, the meaning is broad and easily open to interpretation by courts.

That or they simply add revision after revision until they wear down the examiner.

That is why the system itself is flawed, not to mention it does not protect something in software that should be protected in the first place, as I have put it many times again and again. No one deserves to own the solution to a problem. They get to own their own implementation of that solution however, and copyright and trademarks cover that.

Other things that can be patented are not protected by copyright and trademarks already like software. Patents have a place, but I don't find software to be that place.

----------

Now I'm mad.. mostly at myself for blindly believing some idiot's interpretation without going to look for myself, something I usually do. All Things D should fire that writer, or at the least print a huge retraction.

I finally read the original Google letter and it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Apple's patents or IP.

On the contrary, Google was talking about such de facto standards as Philips' Compact Disc or Microsoft's ActiveSync, where those companies acted OUTSIDE OF ANY STANDARDS group, but have encouraged the entire world to license their proprietary IP in order to make their IP a standard.

Google simply suggested that such widespread single-company standards... with so much invested by so many other companies and customers... should be treated the same as multi-company FRAND standards and likewise be prevented from raising their rates by selling their IP to multiple shell companies in order to get more royalties.

Therefore most of this thread is moot.

Interesting. I'll hunt down the letter myself then I guess.

 

[kdarling]

Interesting. I'll hunt down the letter myself then I guess.

They're actually in the original article, which I cannot believe none of us read. Mea culpa.

Just click the Download button on the Flash embedded letter and view it as a PDF. See Section II The Importance of De Facto Standards.

The upshot is that, no, Google doesn't want anybody's IP for free. Not even close.

And yeah, I'm all for continuing the technical debates

 

[Dbrown]

We should get away from the video game analogy, because that involves, as has already been pointed out, a totally different kind of IP, and it's not a road I chose to go down in the first place.

The point that's being made is that all software should be protected by copyright, not patents. The video game industry is filled with games that are copies of other games, or borrow features from other games. Yet the industry is doing fine.

It's ridiculous that stuff like slide to unlock and disappearing scroll bars get patent protection. How is that any different than say, regenerating health with visual indicators in an FPS?

 

[Oletros]

But Google's argument that patents that are not part of standards should be invalidated if they're so popular that the company owning their rights has an advantage over competitors is utter crap

Google has never said that those patents should be invalidated, you probably misunderstood the letter

----------

Widgets use ram all the time. They don't just magically restart themselves at set intervals. Their processes are cached but the process still uses ram as it sits there. So while it may not be actively doing anything its still running all the time.

They don't have to. A process can set an alarm and be restarted (not magically) at set intervals.

 

[G51989]

The point that's being made is that all software should be protected by copyright, not patents. The video game industry is filled with games that are copies of other games, or borrow features from other games. Yet the industry is doing fine.

It's ridiculous that stuff like slide to unlock and disappearing scroll bars get patent protection. How is that any different than say, regenerating health with visual indicators in an FPS?

Easy, because Apple " invented ( they patented something that already exist, because they are scared to death of competition catching up to them. I don't blame them, Bill Gates ripped the **** out of Apples in the early 90s, they could be worried about the same kind of thing happening again ).



I think Apple does hold some valid patents, and there is nothing wrong with that. But I do think the majority of them are total crap, which tends to explain why they get invalidated in court.

 

[dethmaShine]

The issue is Apple patented the **** out of the tech, even patents that they aren't using, just to keep other companies from developing other methods. Apple didn't just cover their bases, they patented tech they bought or even thought of, thus blocking other companies from many, many, many avenues of exploration. It's tantamount to patenting air, careful, you may have to pay to breath

So basically, you have nothing against Apple, but the patent system. You are saying as if Apple is the only company that files multiple patents and even patents that they would never use.

I'm surprised that you are even putting that against Apple. Funny.

 

[dethmaShine]

Slide-to-unlock as a patent is utter nonsense.

Why? Because you only understand the title and unable to discern the cumulative claims of the patent?

 

[Oletros]

Why? Because you only understand the title and unable to discern the cumulative claims of the patent?

Perhaps he understand a lot more than you and so he can say that some patents are nonsense.

 

[dethmaShine]

Perhaps he understand a lot more than you and so he can say that some patents are nonsense.

Oh you! As someone said previously, any patent that google doesn't own automatically becomes a BS patent.

I will not fight and try to claim that all apple patents are novel and innovative. Just like Apple, Google's and Microsoftare portfolio may include some BS patents. But yeah, you keep on ravelling.

----------

Now I'm mad.. mostly at myself for blindly believing some idiot's interpretation without going to look for myself, something I usually do. All Things D should fire that writer, or at the least print a huge retraction.

I finally read the original Google letter and it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Apple's patents or IP.

On the contrary, Google was talking about such de facto standards as Philips' Compact Disc or Microsoft's ActiveSync, where those companies acted OUTSIDE OF ANY STANDARDS group, but have encouraged the entire world to license their proprietary IP in order to make their IP a standard.

Google simply suggested that such widespread single-company standards... with so much invested by so many other companies and customers... should be treated the same as multi-company FRAND standards and likewise be prevented from raising their rates by selling their IP to multiple shell companies in order to get more royalties.

Therefore most of this thread is moot.

That is exactly what a number of people remarked on the very same day. Google's letter had nothing to do with Apple or Apple patents. The writer just made it up and turned it into a big ****ed up ****.

 

[Oletros]

Oh you! As someone said previously, any software patent (being owned by Google, Apple, Microsoft or Jay Leno) automatically becomes a BS patent.

Corrected, you're welcome

 

[KnightWRX]

They're actually in the original article, which I cannot believe none of us read. Mea culpa.

It does actually make more sense that way too. "Slide to unlock", as desireable and ubiquitous as it is (not to mention obvious, and covered by prior art and prior patents) is not really "commercially essential". However, things like the patents that cover the FAT filesystem (Microsoft's vfat long filename) that has been made the defacto standard on most external flash media even though it's a Microsoft proprietary technology is a good example.

Thinks that are required for interoperability but aren't under published open standards covered by patent pools sometimes are left at the whims of a single vendor or a series of partners.

The upshot is that, no, Google doesn't want anybody's IP for free. Not even close.

The article was pretty clear on this point. A few people missed it in their rush to yet again send vitriol Google's way, but except for these few posters, no one ever claimed to want patents made free to access here.

 

[boronathan]

They don't have to. A process can set an alarm and be restarted (not magically) at set intervals.

Hi oletros, do you have any example of a widget that exhibits the behavior you just mentioned. I'd like to download the app and verify myself. Thanks.

 

[kdarling]

After reading both letters, they're actually pretty much repeats of what we've heard time and again:

Apple was pointing out that injunctions are like holding someone hostage (more than a bit ironic considering how much they themselves like to ask for injunctions). They also argued they should not have to pay FRAND rates on the entire device price... which is understandable, but not the deal everyone else had made for 20 years.

Google was pointing out that FRAND patent agreements usually allow injunctions as a last resort, and that to remove that option also removes any way to force companies (like Apple) to negotiate or pay up:

"Significantly, MMI did not immediately seek an injunction against Apple. To the contrary, MMI spent more than three years attempting to negotiate with Apple, which categorically refused to make a counter-offer. It was only after Apple began its patent war against the Android ecosystem, suing patent-poor HTC in an effort to leverage a settlement or adverse judgment against MMI and other Android OEMs and making clear that it had no intention of paying FRAND royalties unless sued, that MMI first sued Apple in both district court and the ITC. - Google"

--

So, nothing new there. What was more interesting to me was the revealing of a lot of ETSI FRAND rates:

• Nokia - 2% of device price
• Alcatel-Lucent - 2% of device price
• Ericsson - 1.5% of device price
• MMI - 2.25% of device price
• Qualcomm - 3.25% of device price

Note that these are opening bid rates. In other words, licensees can and do negotiate them down through quantity discounts and/or cross-licensing. Still, the total is a good part of a device's cost.

--

Finally, Google went after companies that set up standards and then play with the rates. Their example was a claim that Microsoft had licensed ActiveSync under an implied FRAND agreement and then later began using multiple patent holding companies to effectively double the royalty rate.

 

[Oletros]

Hi oletros, do you have any example of a widget that exhibits the behavior you just mentioned. I'd like to download the app and verify myself. Thanks.

From Android documentation
http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/appwidgets/index.html#MetaData

Read updatePeriodMillis

 

[boronathan]

From Android documentation
http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/appwidgets/index.html#MetaData

Read updatePeriodMillis

That says nothing about whether or not the widget remains running. It just says update intervals can be set. Rodimus Prime indicated that the widget or app doesn't even have to be running for it to work. That's not true. A widget always has a background process running using RAM sometimes cached sometimes not. Even after you remove the widget it may remain in memory in case you need it again.

It doesn't just disappear from memory and then reappear when your set intervals arrives. I would like to test an example of a widget if you know one that behaves the way you say though. I'd be pretty impressed if it worked the way you described!

 

[Oletros]

That says nothing about whether or not the widget remains running. It just says update intervals can be set. Rodimus Prime indicated that the widget or app doesn't even have to be running for it to work. That's not true. A widget always has a background process running using RAM sometimes cached sometimes not. Even after you remove the widget it may remain in memory in case you need it again.

Well, it doesn't have to be running, the update event will start the process.

 

[boronathan]

Well, it doesn't have to be running, the update event will start the process.

Do you have an example of a widget that doesn't do this? I just checked all of my home screen widgets and they are all running. They include widgets that are set at intervals like my stocks widget and my weather widget and my news widget. I'm only asking because I've never seen a widget that just drops out of memory and then just pops back in at set intervals. While they might not be updating, they still remain in memory and use RAM.

Please provide an example so I can test.

 

[SockRolid]

See Knight's post. Batman is NOT a patent. And you don't see DC suing marvel because Tony Stark is a billionaire playboy like Bruce Wayne. [...]

OK, bad example. Batman (TM) is a registered trademark of DC Comics and Warner Bros. It's probably not patented. (But just try putting a black suit, black cape, and pointed-ear helmet on Tony Stark and see what happens...)

Let's take Sony, a consumer electronics company, and their Trinitron-based televisions. Sony's Trinitron technology was superior to pretty much any other consumer TV picture tube technology. It's what helped Sony become the leader in television sets right up until the patent expired in 1996.

Did Sony patent their proprietary Trinitron technology? Yes.

Did Sony license their proprietary Trinitron technology? No.

Did the Trinitron technology differentiate Sony from all other TV makers? Yes.

Same with Apple. They have patented their proprietary, differentiating technologies. Do they need to license them to allow others to use their technologies (for a price)? No they don't.

 

[kdarling]

I'm only asking because I've never seen a widget that just drops out of memory and then just pops back in at set intervals. While they might not be updating, they still remain in memory and use RAM.

Widgets usually start a background service to do their actual updating.

Just as with most mobile systems, any process can be dropped if the OS needs the memory. The OS will of course prioritize which processes it kills, and recently used services are way down that list.

----------

Same with Apple. They have patented their proprietary, differentiating technologies. Do they need to license them to allow others to use their technologies (for a price)? No they don't.

Correct.

And as it turns out, no one is asking them to do so, including Google.

 

[boronathan]

Widgets usually start a background service to do their actual updating.

Just as with most mobile systems, any process can be dropped if the OS needs the memory. The OS will of course prioritize which processes it kills, and recently used services are way down that list.

Thank you. I understand that a process can be dropped but for a widget to function it needs to be running whether as an active or cached process both of which use RAM.

In other words you can't place a widget, set an interval to update and then remove the widget. If you want a widget to work its process has to be running.

There is no example of a widget that I've seen that will run without an associated process that's always running when the widget is visible. Plus I assume that widgets on a home screen take higher priority over other processes.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Thank you. I understand that a process can be dropped but for a widget to function it needs to be running whether as an active or cached process both of which use RAM.

In other words you can't place a widget, set an interval to update and then remove the widget. If you want a widget to work its process has to be running.

There is no example of a widget that I've seen that will run without an associated process that's always running when the widget is visible. Plus I assume that widgets on a home screen take higher priority over other processes.

Yes you can have a widget function with out the underlining process even running. A pending intent is stored in the phones alarm manganger or a board cast receive is set up. Both those are lower leave to android and the information stored in the intents is pretty limited. The underlining code is only fired when needed and the os will open up the app if need be to fire the needed processes

 

[boronathan]

Yes you can have a widget function with out the underlining process even running. A pending intent is stored in the phones alarm manganger or a board cast receive is set up. Both those are lower leave to android and the information stored in the intents is pretty limited. The underlining code is only fired when needed and the os will open up the app if need be to fire the needed processes

Everyone keeps saying this but can't provide an example. I have an android phone and I assume you do too. Can you give me an example of a widget you use that behaves the way you described so I can test? If it works that way I'll be impressed because that's not my understanding and none of the widgets I use behave that way. But if that functionality is there that's awesome.