It's an interesting patent. I'm not sure how defendable it is though, since there seems to be prior art in existing network switching and routing mechanisms, but it might keep competition away initially, and allow Google to get a strong foothold in the market (unless Google states that it's a purely defensive patent.)
The patent appears to be about selecting a network carrier using a bidding process. The device can choose a network based on price and quality of service. What prior art is there for this?
That's a prior patent not prior art i.e. Apple hasn't used it in a product yet. Moreover Apple having a patent suggests Google applied for a patent for their own implementation to avoid getting sued by Apple. Apple has a history of litigation to stifle competition.
Assuming that is true, and while IANAL I read it that way too, it is baffling that someone in the patent office can read something like this and not feel compelled to laugh and toss it in the dustbin.
Replace 'network carrier' with 'fishmonger', 'device' with 'person', and 'network' with 'fish' and you can probably find prior art that predates recorded history.
I also have the urge to laugh and toss the patent in the trash, but I don't think your example helps the case, and it might hurt. Replacing 'network carrier' with 'fishmonger' and 'network' with 'fish' works fine, but...
If I say "I've created a machine that can do something humans used to have to do themselves"... is it really obvious that, based on that description alone, I should be ineligible for a patent? Substituting a new process that uses a device for an old process that uses a person is significant. You can't swap between the concepts without triggering an entirely different context.
> Substituting a new process that uses a device for an old process that uses a person
The thing is, processes are not patentable. The problem lies in the fact that there's a loophole which allows processes to be patented if they include the phrase "implemented on a machine".
This loophole is the problem, since it makes something previously unpatentable (such as mathematics, business logic) patentable.
OK, look. Carrying water up a hill in buckets is a process for raising the water. Using an Archimedes screw is also a process for raising the water. Yet the Archimedes screw is (conceptually) patentable.
Feel free to rephrase my earlier comment to say "A machine that does what used to require a person is significant". In fact, I'm pretty sure I used that phrasing myself just one sentence earlier -- compare "a machine that can do something humans used to have to do themselves". There's no reason a machine that can negotiate for you shouldn't be patentable, any more than a machine that can wash your clothes for you shouldn't be patentable. The problem here is that it's a stupid-obvious idea.
Ah but there's a big difference: The Archimedes screw is a novel device with a unique design that's significantly different from other solutions for performing the same task (moving water up a hill). The Google patent here describes the mere process of picking a vendor based on their price.
It's the equivalent to a patent on moving water--regardless of the mechanism.
I can think of many novel, unique ways (in code) in which to perform the function described in this patent yet all of them would fall under the same umbrella of violation because, like I said, it is basically a patent on a generic process that could be preformed with a pencil and paper.
Patents of processes are actually explicitly allowed:
35 U.S.C. 101: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful _process_, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."
> The patent appears to be about selecting a network carrier using a bidding process. The device can choose a network based on price and quality of service. What prior art is there for this?
It's a common-knowledge approach in general: Obtain a service based on price and quality. Modifying that to obtain service of type __ should not represent a novel patentable idea.
In a non-broken system these kind of patents would only apply to the specific selection technology/method and not to an obvious general concept. How broadly applicable it will be in practice? Who knows? I'd say since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Interna... it's more promising.
It's painful reading these things. Companies like Google file thousands of patents gobbling up all kinds of fairly obvious ideas and by doing so create a minefield of inovation stifiling lawyer fodder. Many people forget that the original intent of the patent system was to give inovators a leg up not to create a market for buying and selling IP.
Google wasn't always like this but since the android patent wars which made them buy Motorola for their patent portfolio - they seem to be just like all the others now.
And most incumbent players seem to like the current state of affairs.
The whole situation is beginning to resemble feudal Europe class system. You cannot sell a car unless you belong to a specific fraternity. You cannot sell Android phones unless you pay licence fees to some company. The free market is shrinking because of various regulations written by lobbyists.
Unfortunately this seems to a trend for societies across the globe. The older society, the more walls higher class builds to protect their status.
"You cannot sell Android phones unless you pay licence fees to some company"?
Of course you need to pay licence fees to "some company" if you are selling Android phones, they're the ones making it. Why shouldn't Google get paid for their work? You can always remove Play store and other Gstuff and "leech" Android like Amazon. Let's not compare selling(licensing) software to some kind of feudal extortion pls.
I would hesitate to describe Google as 'just like the others' until Google uses their patents offensively. Apple has a similar patent to this one and I presume Google got this one as a defence
Agree, not yet. But then there's no guarantee. And seeing them trying to build up a patent inventory for stuff that seems to be close to obvious or public knowledge gives mixed feelings...
To my knowledge Google has stated, and not violated that statement, that their patents would be used for defensive purposes only... Do you have knowledge to the contrary?
Promises on which another party reasonably relies can be legally significant even if not made in a binding contract. See, particularly, the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
I think it's more about the patents being used to sue, say, Samsung if Samsung decides to sue Google about something else. Bullets in the gun, if yo will
I thought the actual actual intent was to make sure innovations are accessible to the public (and competitors once protection expires), helping society as a whole.
Yet, it's hard to find any instance where someone would have used a software patent for its supposed purpose: to replicate the innovation. They're utterly useless.
I don't support the existence of software patents at all. That said, I also don't think the benefits of patents should be interpreted so narrowly, or that we should judge patents by the single criterion of their "actual" intent instead of these other benefits.
The other benefit is that it enables companies to do innovation where they would not have been able to keep the idea secret in the first place. E.g. a pharmaceutical drug whose chemical composition would be trivial to reverse engineer. In that case, the patent does not serve the purpose of making the knowledge public in exchange for a monopoly. What it does do, though, is incentivize innovation be rewarding the inventor with the "rights" to that idea.
The real problem with patents is when patents are of trivial things that anyone could have thought of without much effort. That is why I don't support any software patents, because it's so much easier to patent trivial things in the software world than the physical world.
The argument for actual intent is based on how it was sold to voters when the laws were first enacted. I think it's perfectly legit to judge patents on these terms.
If our primary interest is stating what the law should be, then how the law was originally sold to voters is a minor point. Very charitably, it might be argued that my views are different to the average voter, and so in a democracy I should argue for laws that reflect the opinions of voters. But if we were to reform the laws, the voters would be asked to make another choice, and I so would rather spend my effort in convincing lawmakers and voters based on all the arguments and evidence available.
Patents are in the Constitution, so they weren't "sold to voters" per se. In any case,like a lot of old legal things, they were conceived at a time when we didn't understand economics. It's perfectly legitimate to reinterpret old legal concepts in light of advances in economic theory.
Tort law, for example, predates the U.S., but today we have an economic understanding of what purpose it serves (addressing the negative externalities of risk-creating activities). It's perfectly legitimate to look at those modern economic models to decide how we interpret (and evolve) these existing laws. With regards to patents, we can understand them as a solution to free-rider problems. Regardless of what intuitive understandings motivated them in the first place, the laws should be interpreted with the economic model in mind today.
I would like to see a progressive fee structure on the filing of patents, and a point in the fee structure(say after 500 patient filings, the fee would jump up to a amount that would sting(maybe 5 million dollar filling fee?).
Plus, I would like all fees for the first patent, copyright, trademark free for individuals under federal poverty level.(Just the first one. If gross mistakes are made in the paperwork--so be it, but give smart, poor people a way to protect their works, trademarks, and inventions?)
The reality is that any public company that does not file a patent related to a major service launch is foolish. The most important purpose is crosslicensing as well as using it as a licensing hook for compliance, i.e. ensuring compatibility. Aggressive litigation is usually a question of corporate culture, but patents need to be defended to remain valuable for licensing agreements.
The sad reality is that if Google doesn't patent it, some troll or some other big company will and that will be the end of this tech. It's a horrible game, but the alternatives are pretty bad:
1. Google never develops anything new.
2. A startup or small company develops it, some troll patents it, and even though they should win via prior art the company is destroyed through the cost of litigation. It's then bought up by a troll or some other big company, which then patents it.
50 comments
[ 0.14 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] threadhttp://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H...
http://www.ericksonlawgroup.com/law/patents/patentfaq/what-i...
Replace 'network carrier' with 'fishmonger', 'device' with 'person', and 'network' with 'fish' and you can probably find prior art that predates recorded history.
If I say "I've created a machine that can do something humans used to have to do themselves"... is it really obvious that, based on that description alone, I should be ineligible for a patent? Substituting a new process that uses a device for an old process that uses a person is significant. You can't swap between the concepts without triggering an entirely different context.
The thing is, processes are not patentable. The problem lies in the fact that there's a loophole which allows processes to be patented if they include the phrase "implemented on a machine".
This loophole is the problem, since it makes something previously unpatentable (such as mathematics, business logic) patentable.
Feel free to rephrase my earlier comment to say "A machine that does what used to require a person is significant". In fact, I'm pretty sure I used that phrasing myself just one sentence earlier -- compare "a machine that can do something humans used to have to do themselves". There's no reason a machine that can negotiate for you shouldn't be patentable, any more than a machine that can wash your clothes for you shouldn't be patentable. The problem here is that it's a stupid-obvious idea.
I don't need this patent to reproduce the functionality of their system. Ergo it is not patentable.
It's the equivalent to a patent on moving water--regardless of the mechanism.
I can think of many novel, unique ways (in code) in which to perform the function described in this patent yet all of them would fall under the same umbrella of violation because, like I said, it is basically a patent on a generic process that could be preformed with a pencil and paper.
35 U.S.C. 101: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful _process_, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101
It's a common-knowledge approach in general: Obtain a service based on price and quality. Modifying that to obtain service of type __ should not represent a novel patentable idea.
In a non-broken system these kind of patents would only apply to the specific selection technology/method and not to an obvious general concept. How broadly applicable it will be in practice? Who knows? I'd say since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Interna... it's more promising.
Google wasn't always like this but since the android patent wars which made them buy Motorola for their patent portfolio - they seem to be just like all the others now.
The whole situation is beginning to resemble feudal Europe class system. You cannot sell a car unless you belong to a specific fraternity. You cannot sell Android phones unless you pay licence fees to some company. The free market is shrinking because of various regulations written by lobbyists.
Unfortunately this seems to a trend for societies across the globe. The older society, the more walls higher class builds to protect their status.
Of course you need to pay licence fees to "some company" if you are selling Android phones, they're the ones making it. Why shouldn't Google get paid for their work? You can always remove Play store and other Gstuff and "leech" Android like Amazon. Let's not compare selling(licensing) software to some kind of feudal extortion pls.
I kinda can see what you're trying to say, it has been said many times before - patents make it harder for new players to enter the market. We have Jolla (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolla), and that spanish Ubuntu/Android-phone maker (http://www.bq.com/gb/), and the other spanish company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeeksPhone) which kinda prove otherwise.
http://gizmodo.com/the-secret-android-patents-that-microsoft...
How will you justify that you experienced negative consequences because Google decided to defend their own patents, by actively suing.
I guess it is complicated...
Yet, it's hard to find any instance where someone would have used a software patent for its supposed purpose: to replicate the innovation. They're utterly useless.
http://youtu.be/vCLyPMSrdko
The other benefit is that it enables companies to do innovation where they would not have been able to keep the idea secret in the first place. E.g. a pharmaceutical drug whose chemical composition would be trivial to reverse engineer. In that case, the patent does not serve the purpose of making the knowledge public in exchange for a monopoly. What it does do, though, is incentivize innovation be rewarding the inventor with the "rights" to that idea.
The real problem with patents is when patents are of trivial things that anyone could have thought of without much effort. That is why I don't support any software patents, because it's so much easier to patent trivial things in the software world than the physical world.
Tort law, for example, predates the U.S., but today we have an economic understanding of what purpose it serves (addressing the negative externalities of risk-creating activities). It's perfectly legitimate to look at those modern economic models to decide how we interpret (and evolve) these existing laws. With regards to patents, we can understand them as a solution to free-rider problems. Regardless of what intuitive understandings motivated them in the first place, the laws should be interpreted with the economic model in mind today.
Plus, I would like all fees for the first patent, copyright, trademark free for individuals under federal poverty level.(Just the first one. If gross mistakes are made in the paperwork--so be it, but give smart, poor people a way to protect their works, trademarks, and inventions?)
Can you really patent an idea?
1. Google never develops anything new.
2. A startup or small company develops it, some troll patents it, and even though they should win via prior art the company is destroyed through the cost of litigation. It's then bought up by a troll or some other big company, which then patents it.
Apple? MS? I would make the exact same post as you have about Google about either of these companies.
Well if that's how you're going to be about it, sure. Try not to spitefully take it as proving you right about anything, though.
(Yes, it's pretty similar. But no reason to be looking at the pre-grant version.)