Sorry if this is old news. I thought it was kind of funny.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/02/google-pi-auction-bid
-
Bass
I need better writers.
-
PaoloM
Hypermediocrity
Then loses the bid and starts bitching. Stay classy, Google.
-
Ian2
In geeks we trust ...
-
Maddus Mattus
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda
Google cries wolf,..
They didnt complain when patents were in their favor. So they have lost their right to complain when they now work against them,.
-
Bas
It finds lightbulbs.
@Ian2:And in response, this pretty funny tweet and screenshot.
-
PeterF
Early Adopter
No wonder they lost, it should have been $3,141,592,653.59
-
Harlequin
http://twitter.com/TrueHarlequin
So they would have won if they bid with Tau?
-
JeremyJ
The pioneers would be appalled!
@PaoloM: Google is taking classy to a whole new level. Turns out they were offered an opportunity to participate in the joint bid and said no. Then they throw a public tantrum about it.
http://www.wpcentral.com/now-microsoft-calling-google-out-patent-allegations
This is one of the many reason I dislike Google....
-
Has Google ever tried to stop its competition with patents?
Microsoft: A once (arguably) good high-tech company turned law firm.
-
PaoloM
Hypermediocrity
Google should stop infringing on those patents if it wants to stop being sued (not that Google has been sued in this case, of course).
Patient: "It hurts when I do this!"
Doctor: "Then stop doing it."
-
Bass
I need better writers.
1 hour ago,fanbaby wrote
Has Google ever tried to stop its competition with patents?
Microsoft: A once (arguably) good high-tech company turned law firm.
++
I remember when people were like "Microsoft would never do that!" in re: patent trolling.
How naive.
-
magicalclick
remember the flow
If Google wants to make NFL games, will they bid for the same amount? That would lose to EA's bid for sure and they will complain again.
-
@Bass:It's not really 'patent trolling' if you're actively using them is it?
-
Bass
I need better writers.
I consider patent trolling to be any attempt to use a vague and/or obvious set of patents to stifle competition. Under this definition, Microsoft is a patent troll. Feel free to disagree. Microsoft also likes to do shenanigans like threaten lawsuits on people and organizations without even telling them what patents they supposedly violate. If that isn't the white collar equivalent of a protection racket, I don't know what is.
-
CKurt
while( ( !succeed=try() ) ) { }
@Bass: Yes Microsoft is defending its patents very hard and is using them to get cash out of Google creating the strange situation in which Microsoft makes more money out of every Android phone sold then Google does.
On the other hand, Google is acting like they don't care about patents and they can violate them at will, even if they don't own them. They are playing the 'we are big and can get away with it' card just like they did with Google Music not having any deals with record labels. And I think they should be punished for it, because I'm sure they would do the same thing if somebody copied the Gmail interface and call it Hmail.
The patent system has bad spots, but just because you do not agree with the law does not mean you can violate it. -
Bass
I need better writers.
The problem is the patent system is broken. It only benefits has beens and patent trolls, not people who are actual writing useful and popular software.
It's ironic that the most valuable patents are the most inane - stuff like patenting putting buttons on the top the screen, because you can literally sue EVERYONE with a patent like that. If the patent is clever and the result of extensive research and development, it's unlikely to be violated. While a novel patent may be more useful to the society and basically why the patent system was created. However patents like that are less than worthless to a patent troll. You want the most obvious and inane patents so that you can sue as many people as possible. And if there is prior art, it doesn't matter at all. Because you know that USPTO clerk that will approve your patent won't be able to spend the decades required to properly research prior art in the millions (billions?) of pages of patents and computer science literature out there, especially if it is written in intentionally deceptive legalize.
It's not like Microsoft is suing people for using their clever and expensively researched algorithms (which they have, MSR does do real research don't get me wrong). The patents they are suing for are bullsh!t patents that are impossibly easy to violate, much like the patents Microsoft gets sued for (eg: "custom XML").
-
CKurt
while( ( !succeed=try() ) ) { }
@Bass: I guess not allowing patents to be SOLD in the first place could help a lot. Because people and big companies now buy patents to have them in house and be able to sue somebody later on.
What is the rule would be: You are unable to sell a patent, if you want to sell it you get a normalized sum of money ones but then the patent is 'unpatented' and anybody can now do what you patented. Since only huge companies sue others really.But I agree, the system is broken. Still does not give Google the right to violate the system.
-
Bass
I need better writers.
Still doesn't give the right for X to violate the system, where X is every fricken software company on the planet. We might as well stop writing software!
How many times have you did a patent search before you wrote that line of code? Do you truly know if you never violated one of the millions of software patents with that if statement?
Add your 2¢