FTC Recommends Google Be Sued Over Patents

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
According to this article, the FTC is planning to sue Google for violating U.S. antitrust laws. :eek:

A Federal Trade Commission staff report has recommended that the government sue Google for violating U.S. antitrust law because it asked courts to stop the sale of some products that infringe its essential patents, a source told Reuters Thursday. The five-member commission is inclined to vote in favor of suing Google Inc, the Internet search engine company, according to the source, who declined to be identified to protect business relationships.
Click to expand...
 
Wait, am I misunderstanding this? They are going to sue Google for enforcing patents which they legally hold?

It says that these are "standard essential patents":

In a few cases, the patents involved are considered "standard essential patents," which holders pledged to license on fair and reasonable terms. Many antitrust enforcers believe it is inappropriate for companies to ask for sales bans based on the infringement of essential patents.
Click to expand...
Why even bother patenting these things? If the patent is considered so vital to use that there is no other way to produce the product without someone infringing on it, why is there even a patent on it? It seems that would automatically be something that's not novel or obvious.
 
Not a fan of the current patent system, but if you can't sue another company for violating your patent what good is the patent to begin with?

I understand they are required to license the patent, but if I know that no matter what you can't sue me for infringing what incentive is there for me to actually license it as opposed to just steal it?
 
I know the free market people would be against this but why not just impose fixed terms on the standards essential patents ... I know if no reasonable excuse for why one company should pay more for a FRAND patent than another ... they should make it a fixed 1% or 3% or whatever ... but the terms should be the same, regardless of the size of the company or whether they are your direct competitor ... FRAND patents shouldn't be used to block market access (that is not an indication that I agree with what the FTC is doing, only that I think there is some game playing in general with the FRAND patents ;) )
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
Not a fan of the current patent system, but if you can't sue another company for violating your patent what good is the patent to begin with?

I understand they are required to license the patent, but if I know that no matter what you can't sue me for infringing what incentive is there for me to actually license it as opposed to just steal it?
Click to expand...

These aren't your standard patents. These are patents that they have said that they will license at fair/reasonable terms. Instead of licensing them, they sued instead. Seems to me that they are violating the laws here.

Rizen said:
Why even bother patenting these things? If the patent is considered so vital to use that there is no other way to produce the product without someone infringing on it, why is there even a patent on it? It seems that would automatically be something that's not novel or obvious.
Click to expand...

Because they still generate revenue from being patented. If they weren't patented, they would not have to license them, and people would be completely free to use them without paying a penny. Now they generate some revenue, of course it would seem that they are following the rules with them, which is causing the problems.
 
I thought they had to license "essentials patents" under RAND?
If they are trying to ban sales instead of licensing the patents they are indeed in the wrong.

(Fruit-based fanboys anti-Google haters incoming, possibly already here, eh Cali?)
 
Pinski said:
These aren't your standard patents. These are patents that they have said that they will license at fair/reasonable terms. Instead of licensing them, they sued instead. Seems to me that they are violating the laws here.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but nowhere does it say they refused to license them, it just said they are filed suit against others for unlicensed use.

If for example MS has the option to license something but instead just uses it without a license shouldn't the owner of the patient to be able to sue to stop the sale of the product?
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
I understand that, but nowhere does it say they refused to license them, it just said they are filed suit against others for unlicensed use.

If for example MS has the option to license something but instead just uses it without a license shouldn't the owner of the patient to be able to sue to stop the sale of the product?
Click to expand...

The article is leaving out a lot of information so it's hard to form an opinion on this.

I always thought that if it was FRAND you could still sue if it was being used without licensing regardless if it's FRAND or not. The catch with FRAND is that they are fair prices for the licensing since it is an industry standard and not some gajillion dollar licensing fee. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

Maybe the catch here for Google is that they are suing to ban the products? Just suing the offenders for the fees would be acceptable?
 
Vermillion said:
The article is leaving out a lot of information so it's hard to form an opinion on this.

I always thought that if it was FRAND you could still sue if it was being used without licensing regardless if it's FRAND or not. The catch with FRAND is that they are fair prices for the licensing since it is an industry standard and not some gajillion dollar licensing fee. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

Maybe the catch here for Google is that they are suing to ban the products? Just suing the offenders for the fees would be acceptable?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's antitrust because Google is trying to stop the sale of products for reasons that are protected under the law.
 
Google cant have infringingbproducts banned but Apple is allowed to eliminate all competition by doing the same thing?
 
aireyc said:
Yeah, it's antitrust because Google is trying to stop the sale of products for reasons that are protected under the law.
Click to expand...

Personally I would think that the fact that they do offer reasonable licensing fees would make it even more reasonable to ban products then if they required billions to license it.

If it's illegal to ban a product due to these patents then there is absolutely no incentive to get the license, since worst case you have to pay the licensing fee if your caught.
 
BoogerBomb said:
Google cant have infringingbproducts banned but Apple is allowed to eliminate all competition by doing the same thing?
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't own any FRAND patents ... but if the Apple patents couldn't be invalidated that would be an alternate solution ... make them FRAND so they are forced to license them ;)
 
I'm okay with Google getting sued even if it doesn't have anything to do with them doing their usual creepy watch you browse the web and read your e-mail stuff that they usually do.
 
aireyc said:
Yeah, it's antitrust because Google is trying to stop the sale of products for reasons that are protected under the law.
Click to expand...

Except that the infringing devices aren't paying the fees that should be paid. So why are they protected?

Certainly don't understand how trying to enforce a FRAND patent so you get the appropriate fees is anti-trust. :confused:
 
kbrickley said:
Apple doesn't own any FRAND patents ... but if the Apple patents couldn't be invalidated that would be an alternate solution ... make them FRAND so they are forced to license them ;)
Click to expand...

Um, round corners?

This has nothing to do with fairness. Google simple hasn't paid enough bribe money to the oligarchs that run the FTC. Apple is very good about bribing (sorry, lobbying) government oligarchs which is how they were able to stack the jury and get a favorable judge in the Samsung trial.

Also, in reference to your earlier post, patents are incompatible with free markets because, by definition, patents restrict what kinds of products you can sell on the market through coercive violence.
 
damicatz said:
Um, round corners?

This has nothing to do with fairness. Google simple hasn't paid enough bribe money to the oligarchs that run the FTC. Apple is very good about bribing (sorry, lobbying) government oligarchs which is how they were able to stack the jury and get a favorable judge in the Samsung trial.

Also, in reference to your earlier post, patents are incompatible with free markets because, by definition, patents restrict what kinds of products you can sell on the market through coercive violence.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I agreed with the Apple patents ;) ... also, although Patents in the electronics and software industry are intensely flawed, other patents will not be going away any time soon ... drug patents in particular require billions in research and those costs must be recovered ... patents allow that ... even the most laissez faire capitalist is still in favor of some level of patent protection to protect true research (especially in medical sciences) :cool:
 
kbrickley said:
I didn't say I agreed with the Apple patents ;) ... also, although Patents in the electronics and software industry are intensely flawed, other patents will not be going away any time soon ... drug patents in particular require billions in research and those costs must be recovered ... patents allow that ... even the most laissez faire capitalist is still in favor of some level of patent protection to protect true research (especially in medical sciences) :cool:
Click to expand...

Oh I think most people would agree that some form of patent protection is still needed, but the current system definately needs to be reformed.

The problem is, with politics being what it is today who actually wants that can of worms opened when the odds are that even if some small areas are made better, overall the system will likely be made worse?
 
Rizen said:
Why even bother patenting these things? If the patent is considered so vital to use that there is no other way to produce the product without someone infringing on it, why is there even a patent on it? It seems that would automatically be something that's not novel or obvious.
Click to expand...

FRAND

The best example everyone here can understand is Intel: they own x86 in its entirety, but they are required to license that tech to AMD so that they have a competitor.
 
Here are more details:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12...gle-via-antitrust-law-over-frand-patent-abuse

Motorola is attempting to "alter the deal" with licensing for its H.264 patents, with respect to Apple and Microsoft. These fall under FRAND patents due to the standardization of H.264 as the de facto mobile video format.

damicatz said:
Um, round corners?
Click to expand...

Round corners are not required to be standards compliant. If they were, Apple would be forced to license that tech to competitors.

FRAND only covers things that are barriers to entry for standards compliance.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Here are more details:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12...gle-via-antitrust-law-over-frand-patent-abuse

Motorola is attempting to "alter the deal" with licensing for its H.264 patents, with respect to Apple and Microsoft. These fall under FRAND patents due to the standardization of H.264 as the de facto mobile video format.



Round corners are not required to be standards compliant. If they were, Apple would be forced to license that tech to competitors.

FRAND only covers things that are barriers to entry for standards compliance.
Click to expand...

Wait... So round corners are not essential since without at least somewhat rounded corners a phone would become fairly dangerous, but a superior video format is essential... Someone ate there apple jacks this morning didn't they..
 
Apple doesn't have a patent on rounded corners. Therefore it could never qualify for FRAND, even if rounded corners were somehow (on some bizarre planet) an accepted international standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top