ie8 fix

Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney

Google and Barnes & Noble get serious about Android patent lawsuits

By | November 9, 2011, 11:52am PST

Summary: It looks like Google, is going to start defending its allies from Android patent lawsuits, while Barnes & Nobles’ is upping the stakes in its own Android intellectual property battle with Microsoft

While Google has been fighting with Oracle over Java’s intellectual property (IP) and Android, it hasn’t been doing a lot for its Android allies who have been being whipsawed by Apple, Microsoft and patent trolls such as Intellectual Ventures. That may be changing. Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt said today in Taiwan that Google will stand by the phone vendors firms in any Android patent lawsuit.

According to Focus Taiwan, Schmidt said, “We disagree with Microsoft that anyone needs to pay Microsoft a royalty fee for products they didn’t build. I want to emphasize that Google built these products [Android and Chrome], not Microsoft. We tell our partners, including the ones in Taiwan, that we will support them.”

It’s not just Microsoft though that Schmidt is giving notice to that Google won’t be sitting back in patent lawsuits. “For example, we have been supporting HTC in its dispute with Apple because we think that the Apple thing is not correct.”

I also suspect it’s because, as Google gets closer to sealing the deal that will bring it Motorola Mobility. Google will be able to use its Motorola Mobility patent arsenal against Android’s enemies in the courtroom.

Thanks to the total failure of the patent system when it comes to software, litigation rather than innovation rules the mobile software market. With Motorola Mobility under its belt and Intel as an Android partner, Google has the bullets it needs to fight and win in this war.

One of Google’s Android allies, Barnes & Noble, in particular seems to be spoiling for a bigger fight with Microsoft. Barnes & Noble has already been sued by Microsoft for its use of Android in its Nook e-readers and tablets and, in reply, Barnes & Noble accused Microsoft of attacking Android with its patent lawsuits.

That’s all well and good and all typical of how mobile technology “competition” works in 2011 when those that can’t do, sue. Recently though Barnes & Noble has asked the Department of Justice to investigate Microsoft’s patent-licensing tactics.

Barnes & Noble said in an October 17 letter to Gene Kimmelman, the Justice Department’s (DoJ) chief counsel for competition policy that had been drafted by Peter Barbur, of the law firm Cravath Swaine & Moore, that “Microsoft is embarking on a campaign of asserting trivial and outmoded patents against manufacturers of Android devices. Microsoft is attempting to raise its rivals’ costs in order to drive out competition and to deter innovation in mobile devices.”

If you think Barnes & Noble and Cravath may be over-reaching, you might want to consider that Cravath hired the DoJ’s top anti-trust lawyer, Christine A. Varney, this summer. If they can’t put together a creditable case that Microsoft is acting in an illegal anti-competitive matter, I don’t know who can.

In another letter, from Barnes & Noble’s general counsel Eugene V. DeFelice to James J. Tierney, chief of the DoJ’s Networks and Technology Enforcement Section in the Antitrust Division, details Microsoft’s method of pushing for a patent-licensing deal. DeFelice wrote that Microsoft accused Barnes & Noble of infringing on six patents at a July 2010 meeting.

“When Barnes & Noble asked Microsoft for more detailed information related to these patents, Microsoft refused, claiming that the information was confidential and could not be shared unless Barnes & Noble first executed a nondisclosure agreement.” DeFelice claimed that “Microsoft’s assertion of confidentiality is simply a means to cloak its oppressive and anti-competitive licensing proposal and is another element in Microsoft’s larger scheme to restrict competition in the mobile operating systems market,”

Microsoft has replied “All modern operating systems include many patented technologies. Microsoft has taken licenses to patents for Windows and we make our patents available on reasonable terms for other operating systems, like Android. We would be pleased to extend a license to Barnes & Noble.”

It looks to me like Barnes & Noble, and Android’s parent company Google, have no interest in signing up for such a license anytime soon. The Android and mobile IP wars are heating up.

Related Stories:

B&N asks DOJ to investigate Microsoft

World’s most profitable Android company? Microsoft!?

Microsoft’s Samsung Android Patent Troll Win

Oracle vs. Google Android, Java lawsuit settlement talks will go no-where

Google and Intel Android pairing spells trouble for Microsoft

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka sjvn, has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system

Disclosure

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is a freelance writer. He does not own stocks or other investments in any technology company.

Biography

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka sjvn, has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system; 300bps was a fast Internet connection; WordStar was the state of the art word processor; and we liked it!

His work has been published in everything from highly technical publications (IEEE Computer, ACM NetWorker, Byte) to business publications (eWEEK, InformationWeek, ZDNet) to popular technology (Computer Shopper, PC Magazine, PC World) to the mainstream press (Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, BusinessWeek).

129
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Google and Barnes & Noble get serious about Android patent lawsuits
cymru999 30th Nov
It is the whole notion that people with ideas are always able to make money off the back of them that I find wrong. I dont see how you can claim any idea is new or unique as millions of us have ideas all the time. If these companies used their wealth to generate more ideas and improvements by sharing with each other the world would move forward at a faster pace. Fewer people would get rich (a good thing) but more people would have jobs (a good thing) consumers would get better deals and more choices (both good things). Instead of have a mindset that they are in competition they should be collaborating for the greater good.
0 Votes
+ -
hmm
Hasam1991 9th Nov
HMMM SO Basically Google thinks it has the right to copy and steal anyone's innovations? MS, Apple and others put in a lot of R&D... I hope Google has to pay..
@Hasam1991
is good for them -
"Hey, everybody else is stealing, why not us?"
@William Farrell

You're either delusional, or on M$'s payroll. M$ has one of the worst reputations for stealing other's intellectual property. Stacker Electronics!?!? Or, more recently, I4I!?!? Countless others!?!? M$'s "Hard Work" consists of getting others to take initiative, & then either stiffing that company, or taking from them outright.
  • Flagged
@William Farrell Yeah, all the cool companies are doing it...
@Hasam1991 Empty words without facts to back them up. You drink too much Koolaide.
@timspublic1@...
Well, think of it this way. Microsoft has inked 6 or more deals with VERY large companies around Andriod. These companies get sued EVERY DAY on some patent. They don't sign licensing deals for them every day. So I would trust the lawyers that have a fiduciary responsibility to protect their clients to know better whether there is a good possibility that a patent has been violated than someone with zero knowledge of the patents in question or the conversations had behind closed doors. If there was no merit then believe me, they would not pay the licensing fees.
@timspublic1@... Then maybe YOU can tell us how Android went from a Blackberry clone prior to the release of the original iPhone to a copy of iOS when it was released by Google. And keep in mind that Eric Schmidt - then CEO of Google - was on Apple's board of directors during the development and testing of the original iPhone.
@ldhudson21

You don't know what you're talking about. Settlement in patent disputes has nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to do with the merits of the patents in question. And lawyers will advise their clients to settle when it is in the client's best ECONOMIC interests to do so. In tort law these are called nuisance suits. In patent law, these situations are raised to a new and ridiculous level.
@ldhudson21
Companies settle lawsuits and threats of lawsuits all the time. If you are facing $500,000 against yourself or you can pay $10,000 for it go away what are you going to do? You would be stupid not to pay $10,000 if it was going to cost $500,000 and 5 years just to prove your right. Most of these companies don't want to get in to a lawsuit with Microsoft even though Microsoft is 100% wrong. So they pay off the extortion at a lower rate than it costs to fight it. It sucks, it's wrong but it is good business sense to settle or pay up, rather than a long expensive, protracted and distracting lawsuit.

Personally I think the DoJ should be looking in to some of these lawsuits and threats of lawsuits as anti-competitive and leveraged monopolies by way of crappy patents. Microsoft hasn't changed they just switched to patents rather than browsers and OSes to mess with the industry.
@Pete "athynz" Athens
Perhaps you can tell me why iPhone ripped off Palm in every single possible way but Apple gets a pass but Google doesn't. There is absolutely nothing the iPhone does that Palm didn't do first. Palm got out Palm-ed by Apple because of industrial design and nothing else.
@ldhudson21: Sorry, but they do. They prefer to avoid costly litigation.
ldhudson21@... Microsoft has a lot of leverage and "behind closed doors" they could have threatened to raise the windows OEM license if they did not sign. These companies cannot afford to have their pc business become uncompetitive just to support their phone business. Better to just sign and keep selling pcs (at least for now).
@Hasam1991

Show me an innovation they've stolen. And please keep in mind that just because some feature is on an iPhone that does not define it as an innovation, and just because it may also be on an Android that does not mean it was stolen.
@Hasam1991 And the poor MS/Apple did not steal anything maybe? Poor corporations... they are obviously not making enough money. Copying is not stealing by the way.
@zelrikriando Xerox start there and work your way up, they've both stolen from there. Get a life and get educated before you post.
@zelrikriando
Perhaps someone will eventually tell my why Apple stealing from Palm is ok. There is absolutely nothing the iPhone does or looks like that wasn't done by Palm first.
@zelrikriando @Home Grown IT

Actually the in reality Microsoft licensed the technology from Xerox while Apple did not. Xerox then sued Apple at which time they paid up. The truth is much different than the urban tale.
@Home Grown IT

Xerox isn't really the start of that chain. It was going on throughout the 1960's. The Computer Mouse in the late 1960's was a device to make it easier to use such 'Graphical' systems. Digitizers were just getting too clumsy.

This is like Music, really a long progression, where there are many many 'innovators' who all take the idea from others and push it in a new direction.
0 Votes
+ -
@Hasam1991 One word: XEROX (which amusingly enough these days tends to mean "copy"). Both Apple and Microsoft "stole" from Xerox long before Google got in the picture. It was ok then, why is it not ok now?
@gavin.bollard@...

Technically incorrect. Microsoft paid license fees to Xerox, hardly can be called stealing. Apple actually hired the engineers who came up with the GUI and had them re-engineer it for their hardware, again this can hardly be called stealing. Stealing would be to go there, take the code and implement it on your system - and that simply didn't happen.
@gavin.bollard@... Okay I'm getting tired of educating you people - do some basic research prior to posting here it will save you the embarrassment of being corrected.

Apple did NOT steal from Xerox - Apple licensed the GUI technology from Xerox in exchange for stock options... Google it or use Bing.
@Pete "athynz" Athens
Learn some history and stop believing the Apple corporate line so much, and might want to lay off the Apple kool-aid. Apple absolutely did steal from Xerox. Maybe you can tell me why Apple paid Xerox cash and stocks *AFTER* the Mac was announced? It's because Xerox went nuts about them basically stealing their work. It was all over the industry rags at the time. Apple to make nice with Xerox paid them a pile of cash and stocks and then took their engineers on press junkets with them for the Mac. If Apple hired any engineers from Xerox it was after the Mac was released. Remember the whole Mac team were Apple employees who were throw off to the side in the crappiest building Apple had at the time. Steve Jobs was getting his butt kicked by the board so they sent him off to the Mac team to get him out of the way. That's the real history. Mac was not the darling of Apple until AFTER Steve Jobs pushed all of the team in insane and probably illegal ways with threats over and over. Steve Jobs is a jerk of a boss and I am surprised he didn't face more employee lawsuits and settlements than he did.
@gavin.bollard@...

Actually Xerox gave the stuff away. It's widely known that while they did early GUI work they had no idea how to turn it into a computer OS. When they did it was a flop.

And MS Stole from Apple. Ever wonder why the Windows mouse pointer is a bit for bit copy of the Mac's? Except Mac's is black and Windows' is white. Or that early WMV's were bit for bit the same as Quicktime .MOV files?
@gavin.bollard@... That a great urban legend, but wrong. Both CEOs visited Xerox. One CEO named Bill licensed the technology while the other, lets call him Steve did not. Xerox then sued Apple which paid a licensing fee after the fact. It was Microsoft that recognized the value of what Xerox had which is why they licensed it.
@Skippy99 but then Apple sued Microsoft. Remember we learned through the DoJ suit and tell-all books that when Gates was shown the Mac and asked to write software for it, he ignored the NDA, wheeled it down to his engineers and said, "Make me one of these." They're both guilty in different ways.
@Hasam1991

Writing code on your platform to appear to be the same as on another platform is stealing? When the actual code behind it is completely different due to the two (or three) being different platforms, how can this be stealing? Oh, you can't take my icon that looks like a padlock and swipe it across your screen..... Do Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, et. al., pay Volvo to install the three-point seat belts in their cars? (Volvo was the first car to use the common three-point seat belt)
@benched42

Did Volvo patent the three-point seat belt? Was it upheld in court? Directly copying code is a copyright issue. Copying a "process or method" of doing something with software is a patent. Just because the code doesn't read word-for-word like the "copied" code does not mean it isn't infringing on a patent.

Don't get mad at Microsoft/Apple/Google/IBM/etc, get mad at the system. There isn't anything illegal about what companies are doing.
@benched42
Its not the code who is licensed, its the solution to a problem they solved with that code that is licensed.
@ldhudson21

It is illegal to practice extortion. That is what M$ is doing. Their history is full of examples of illegal activity. Even while they were subject to a consent decree with the DOJ, they willfully violated it by pressuring OEMs to prevent other software from being loaded on those OEMs systems... All behind the scenes, and without anyone willing to turn over a few rocks to catch them at it and turn them in...
@ldhudson21
Gates himself has said that if the current patents on software were allowed in the 70s and 80s, there wouldn't be either an Apple or Microsoft. Think about that for a minute. Patenting a process is a very young idea, and a bad one, as well.
@Hasam1991 Or maybe they think silly vague little patents of the basic functionality of mobile devices that actually have prior art from companies other than those suing them are laughable and worth crushing in court to be rid of the annoyance.
@mdeans@...
Apple stole lock stock and barrel from Palm and just put it in a fancy package. Let's just that out of the way ahead of time. The iPhone is in no way revolutionary or new. It does show a greedier side of the business by locking out the carriers and demanding front-loaded payments and sell it exclusively through 1 carrier. That right there was corporate greed at its finest, or worst depending on your motives and stock portfolio.
0 Votes
+ -
Nobody has proven...
John L. Ries Updated - 9th Nov
@Hasam1991
...that Google has stolen anything. I think we're about to find out, though, what those secret patents actually are, and what the Emperor is actually wearing.
0 Votes
+ -
According to B&N...
John L. Ries 9th Nov
@John L. Ries
...the Emperor isn't wearing much.

http://www.geekwire.com/2011/barnes-nobles-29page-slide-deck-calls-bs-microsofts-android-patent-campaign

...but who knows what sorts of claims MS has made to others.
@John L. Ries Hopefully this will clear up the mystery patents Microsoft refers to when claiming Linux in general infringes on its patents. The whole idea of keeping the patents secret is ridiculous. This can only be because the patents are very weak and could be challenged, or could easily be worked around and the product made non-infringing. Microsoft obviously doesn't want people to avoid the infringement.
@John L. Ries Thank you for posting that link. Those patents are RIDICULOUS and the fact that they're charging as much as WP7 over them is obviously an attempt to stop competition.
@John L. Ries it would be interesting to find out what these patents are, though I doubt it is simple enough to rewrite, otherwise someone who knew would at least let out enough info for Linux devs to begin reworking the infringing parts.
@jgm

Microsoft isn't charging as much as WinPhone 7. Reported amounts are $5.00 to 'license' the patents for Android, $30.00 for Windows Phone 7.

The reason Microsoft is making more on Android than on Windows Phone 7 is that so many Android phones are being sold by the companies who have decided it is cheaper to pay than to 'defend' in court. Couple that with how dismal the sales of Windows Phones are, and you will see where the money comes in.
@Hasam1991
Specially after what they did when Sun microsystem was bankrupting. they took java, never licensed it, and build their own platform on top of it.

They abused the work of others for too long. Google has to pay.
@SylvainT : thats not SUN's version of events... only Oracles.
@SylvainT
There are memos from Sun's execs praising Google for using Java.
0 Votes
+ -
Amazing turn about.
Cayble 9th Nov
@Hasam1991

Ya, agreed to a point anyway. It seems like only a few years ago people around here were complaining endlessly about Microsoft stealing ideas from other software producers and how they should have their butt's kicked around the block.

Now here we are, and its Microsoft who's complaining. What a turn about.

I can only agree to the extent that if your going to play fair about the whole issue Microsoft has to have the same rights under that law as anyone. On the other hand, we all know the patent system pertaining in particular to software patents is a mess. It seems to me that vast numbers of these software, and even some hardware patents in high tech have been given out without genuine merit.

Seriously folks, if this lousy system had of been in place in primitive days someone would be paying a licensing fee every time someone lights a fire or rolls a wheel.

Ridiculous.
@Cayble
No Microsoft doesn't get to play the same as everyone else. When your a convicted illegal monopoly you have to play by a whole different set of rules because you broke the law and harmed the public. So no Microsoft does not get the same leeway as other companies might. This is all just the same illegal behavior that got Microsoft in trouble in the first place. Just change OS and browser for Android/Mobile OS and you get the same exact results. Microsoft should be smack hard in the back of the head for this kind of junk. They should also finally be broken up in to 3 seperate companies that can only license from each other at the average license rate of every other licensee, nothing should be allowed to be exclusive. They should chopped up in to OS, applications, entertainment (XBox & game studios) and hardware (mouse, web cam, etc). Split the company give stock holders a 1:1 share in the new companies and have 15 years of oversight on a daily basis and call it a day. Microsoft needs to stomped on hard for doing the same exact crap as before. The computer industry would have a radical shift and be allowed to accelerate and innovate at a much faster rate. Microsoft even effects start-ups as investors want to know if Microsoft is even thinking about doing something similar and if so then no investment. That is a choke hold on the industry plain and simple.
@Cayble
Microsoft's tactics were a bit different. The standard procedure was to "partner" with a company who had tech that MS needed, get deep eyes on it, then cancel the contract and develop something identical in house.

That's not the same as "Your phone looks a little like mine."
@Hasam1991 Basically all software contains code that somebody somewhere can claim to be infringing. Software patents have gotten so absurd that your post probably infringes like 3 of them so I hope you have to pay. To sjvn: keep up the good fight. I love your columns and don't let these vapid trolls get you down.
@Nathan A Smith

Don't worry about Steven. He probably gets a lot of good laughs out of reading what the trolls say, I know I do!
@Hasam1991 they all stole from Nokia.

End of Story. grin
@Hasam1991 Yeah, that explains the Microsoft preference for the BSD license over the GPL license.
@Hasam1991, no Google does not steal anything. Microsoft is the thief. They are forcing people to pay them for things that are not theirs. Microsoft did not innovate. None of the "patents" they claim are innovative in any way. Nor did Microsoft invent them, or anything like them. Microsoft just took existing things, wrapped them up in a bunch of leagalese, and the Patent office granted them a government guaranteed monopoly over things that cannot, in fact, be legally patented.
It is the whole notion that people with ideas are always able to make money off the back of them that I find wrong. I dont see how you can claim any idea is new or unique as millions of us have ideas all the time. If these companies used their wealth to generate more ideas and improvements by sharing with each other the world would move forward at a faster pace. Fewer people would get rich (a good thing) but more people would have jobs (a good thing) consumers would get better deals and more choices (both good things). Instead of have a mindset that they are in competition they should be collaborating for the greater good.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix