Google Faces Off Against Intellectual Ventures In Landmark Patent Trial 53
enharmonix writes "Although Google initially invested in Intellectual Ventures, a patent holding firm, the two have since parted ways and are about to face off in court over some technologies used in Motorola (and other) phones. This is an important battle and the timing is significant given Congress's recent interest in patent reform. 'Two of the patents in the upcoming Motorola trial cover inventions by Richard Reisman, U.S. government records show. Through his company, Teleshuttle, Reisman has developed several patent portfolios for various technologies, including an online update service, according to the Teleshuttle website. IV claims that the two Reisman patents cover several of Motorola's older-generation cellphones that have Google Play, a platform for Android smartphone apps. Motorola argues that IV's patents should never have been issued because the inventions were known in the field already."
Re:I hope google loses (Score:5, Insightful)
And don't forget IV is owned by the even more anti-competitive Apple & Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3)
No, IV is not owned by Apple and/or Microsoft, although there are plenty of Apple and MS alumni working there. Microsoft gazillionaire Nathan Myrvold is the primary founder, his original goal was to make sure that IP that was not being used could be shopped around and licensed to ensure that whatever technology it promoted would be used. Company has morphed a bit since then, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And don't forget IV is owned by the even more anti-competitive Apple & Microsoft.
You're fabricating facts to suit your narrative. From wikipedia [wikipedia.org], here's the ownership breakdown:
- 40% Nathan Myhrvold
- 20% Peter Detkin
- 20% Gregory Gorder
- 20% Edward Jung
Gorder and Detkin are lawyers (Detkin worked for Intel before co-founding IV). The only tie either Apple or Microsoft has to IV (aside from being sued by them or licensing rights to patents from them), is that Myhrvold and Jung are both former Microsoft employees. Neither company has an ownership stake in IV.
Re: (Score:2)
You're fabricating facts to suit your narrative.
Really? Because from TFA:
Microsoft and Apple were both early investors in Intellectual Ventures.
While they might not be "owners" now, but they are investors & profit from IV.
Re: (Score:2)
While they might not be "owners" now, [...]
They never were owners, with or without scare quotes, any more than Google (who also invested in IV) was or is. In fact, if you look into it, what you'll find [patentlyo.com] is that Apple, Google, Microsoft, and a whole host of other companies made investments in IV in exchange for licensing agreements for IV's patents (i.e. to keep the patent troll away). That hasn't stopped IV or its subsidiaries from suing all three of them at different points in time for patents that weren't licensed, however, so any suggestion that A
Re:I hope google loses (Score:4, Insightful)
As opposed to the anti-competitive patent troll that is Intellectual Ventures? IV is known for overly broad patents, targeting people who can't afford to fight, and stifling innovation. I mean sure IV isn't Prenda Law in that at least they *try* to pretend to make things, but that's no reason to root against Google who are terrible in their own right.
Re: (Score:2)
If google lose, they'll go after every other manufacturer of smart phones with some resemblance of an update system.
Re: (Score:2)
Care to point out a case where Google has actively used patents to sue a competitor without being sued first? Please don't include Motorola suits from before they were purchased.
Never pick a fight with people who (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Buy ink by the barrel
-or-
2. Maintain the search engine
*settles back with popcorn*
Re:Never pick a fight with people who (Score:4)
1. Buy ink by the barrel
-or-
2. Maintain the search engine
*settles back with popcorn*
-or-
3. Have more money to throw at lawyers on a whim than the GDP of small countries...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's queued behind the "+1 Scary" and the "+1 Biting sarcasm" (itself a compound of Funny, Scary, Informative and Insightful)
Patent Troll (Score:1)
Which company holds the patent for being a patent troll?
Re:Patent Troll (Score:4, Insightful)
IBM
http://www.pcworld.com/article... [pcworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well you can count, but you're not quite clear on the concept of a patent troll.
Not all Trolls are NPEs, you know. Sometimes even a big player in the industry "trolls a bit" on the side (see: Microsoft's Android patents).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intellectual Vultures.
Also, please do not use the offensive term 'patent troll'. Instead use the more neutral and less offensive term PTE (for 'patent trolling entity'). Thank you.
monopoly on what? mobile? search? dictionary.com (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you think Google has a monopoly on? Mobile operating systems? Apple will be surprised to find out that iPhone doesn't exist. About a dozen other companies will also be surprised to learn their phones don't exist.
Perhaps you're saying Google has a monopoly on search? Microsoft's Bing division will be sad to hear that they don't exist.
Oh, I know. You mean Google+, that's a monopoly on social networking, right? There's no such thing as Facebook, right? Does Google make the only smart TV? The only VoIP service? The only webmail service? In most of the markets Google competes in, there are several credible competitors and Google has less than 50% market share. That makes them the exact OPPOSITE of a monopoly.
Perhaps you just had no idea what the word "monopoly" means.
Re:monopoly on what? mobile? search? dictionary.co (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps you're saying Google has a monopoly on search? Microsoft's Bing division will be sad to hear that they don't exist.
You mean Bing does exist? I'll have to google it to verify.
Re: (Score:1)
"In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
"Google Still Holds 74% Majority Share of Search Engine Usage"
First hit from https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Engaging in monopolistic practices doesn't require 100% market control.
I personally don't think Google engages in evil monopolistic practices, but they certainly have enough market share to do so. And while they have made some mistakes, I think that, as a company, they generally try to do
Create a monster... (Score:3, Insightful)
Google created a monster in their patent troll office, and now that monster is chewing on their door.
Irony? maybe....
clueless. 1st Google patent suit was 2013 (Score:2)
I'll never understand the appeal of completely making stuff up, just pulling something out of your butt, then believing it.
Google a patent troll? You realize Google's basic policy is that they never sue over patents. They eventually filed one case last year. Google has been strongly fighting against patent overreach since AT LEAST 2006. Before that also, but 2006 was the first thing that came up in five second search.
Why do you think they made Google Patents? Their whole goal has been to make the patent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intellectual Ventures (Score:1)
The people behind it have never done anything intellectual in their lives.
Re: Intellectual Vultures (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
The IV labs are incredibly cool. Imagine walking into a 5+star restaurant kitchen that is also equipped with a metal lathe, a vacuum chamber, a 400 liter tank of liquid nitrogen, an electron microscope, and a terawatt laser that can automatically target female mosquitoes. So yeah, they do some really neat stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Modded 0? Really? Just because I don't hate on IV? Good grief.
Massively useless article (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The complain mig
Re: (Score:2)
You're certainly entitled to your own opinions about the patent system, and while I'm sure I probably would agree with you on several points, your post i
Re: (Score:2)
1. An illumination device, comprising:
a light source, comprising an array of a plurality of light emitting devices;
an illumination uniformizing means disposed in front of the light source to uniformize a light emitted from the light source, the illumination uniformizing means comprising:
an incident plane, the light emitted from the light emitting device array is incident therefrom;
a bottom plane, comprising a scattering pattern the
Re:Massively useless article (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Massively useless article (Score:4, Insightful)
A more useful article that lists the patent numbers and claims in dispute.
You linked to a site which specializes in fictional writing. It's like quoting Star Trek as an authority on real faster than light travel. Think of fosspatents as a site that recommends reversing the polarity on the deflector dish to fix legal problems.
get while the gettin's good (Score:2)