Google

Why Would IBM want to sell their patents? And to Google, nonetheless?

Think of it this way – You’re at a garage sale and you see a box of comic books (or records if you are not a comic nut). You buy the box for $20, hoping there is a valuable comic (record) in there. You pull out the important ones and what is left is a box of comics you don’t care about.

IBM has been gobbling up different companies throughout the years and some of the patents are like the odd comic books. Nortel is a great example – IBM had over 6,000 patents that they didn’t need. Therefore in May, they decided to auction off those patents that didn’t pertain to them. Google didn’t win that bidding war.

But , according to SEO by the Sea, IBM last week did find 1,030 patents that they sold to Google for an undisclosed sum. It was a hodge-podge of patents – from fabrication to database structures. These are patents that could keep Google from going to the courts for their Android devices, new products coming out on the market and other threats to future revenue.

It’s also a case of Google picking out the ones they need, then keeping a couple in the back pocket for future need (whether for selling or future projects). A couple of those patents relate to search methods. It will be interesting how that effects other search engines like rival Bing.

We’ll have to wait and see how Google utilizes these patents.

Back in Honolulu and the weather is fantastic. Lots of controversial topics on today’s show. Hope that you will chime in and provide some feedback. Bit of a comedy on tonights show as the lower third in the video had a mind of its own.

Subscribe Today: Audio | Video | iTunes | Zune
Download the Show File

Follow @geeknews on Twitter
Geek News Central Facebook Page
Purchase GNC gear from the Ohana Store!
Show Hotline 24/7 1-619-342-7365 or e-mail geeknews@gmail.com

GNC Shows
Robot Underpants
Gadget Professor
Saturday Morning Tech

Listener Links
Paralyzed Man Walks!

Show Notes:
Mobile Workers cranking out the hours.
The Battle for Muni Broadband!
Online Poker Convictions.
iPhone5 Curved Screen.
YouTube to Pre-Roll?
How young is to young for Facebook.
Apple to Lodsys Back Off.
RIAA exec roll in cash.
RIAA new Agenda.
Smart TV on the Move.
Root a Droid give up Movie Rentals.
Is DigitalTrends going Political?
Broadband still slow in the US!
Linking contention continues.
T-Mobile makes Pricing Changes.
When Unlimited really is not Unlimited.
Billguard a New CC tracking Service.
Twitter Features / Dev Contention Grows.
Google Chrome Version 99987654561?
Spending more with Amazon?
iPad 2 Shortages Expected.
Spacewalk #2
Endeavor Cleared for Landing.
ICE takes more Domains.
Hurt Locker 25k Lawsuits!
Firefox Download tab.
Windows 8 Slate Versus Tablet?
Viddy!
Premium Content to Boxee!
Evernote 100k Giveaway.
ISS + Shuttle + Soyuz = Great Picture.
Soyuz Safe Landing.
100,000 feet View.
Mercury Images!
Cassini and Titan!
Parkinson’s Discovery!
Firefox 5 Beta.
Google OS Update.
Whats going on in California?
TSA perfoms Prom Pat downs?
Tweetdeck = Twitter.
Lady Gaga Kills Amazon.
Sony -171 Million.

Samsung Galaxy S

Every week we hear either a patent that Apple applied for, then the next week it’s a story on how Apple is suing another company for their patents. Some of these patents are pretty ridiculous.  Some of it feels more like a squatting practice. So when will patent squatting become more a monopolistic practice for a company like Apple?

Owning a patent is pretty easy. You create something, then go to the patent office, make sure no one else has something similar and patent it. If someone is watching your patent, they can make changes and patent it for themselves.

Case in point: I remember a story about a little girl that invented the clip for your sunglasses onto a visor. A patent was issued for a metal clip, but someone found it and changed the design, using plastic. The end result was the little girl was out millions.

Then there is the option of wading through all the patents, find something that doesn’t have one and patent it. I remember when someone found that pnumatic tires were not patented (or the patent expired), therefore applied.

This week, it’s Apple going after Samsung Galaxy devices. More specifically, the look and feel of the Samsung devices are too close to Apple’s. They are even complaining the packaging is too close to Apple’s.

While I understand looking too close in packaging, I don’t understand on looking in devices. In some cases, it might actually be the opposite.

After all, Samsung put out a white tablet before Apple did.

Still, let’s look at the Galaxy line. The only thing that looks “Apple-ly” is the top of the device. The Galaxy S has a square button and a contoured design in the back. The bottom “call” buttons look a little like an iPhone’s. Yet, the icons are squared – not rounded like iPhone.

Nitpicking on patents sometimes seems to be really petty. There are some cases where it’s important, but a patent on how you can unlock a phone using a graphic? A visual experience when flipping through songs?

When does it become too much? Can it become a monopolistic practice? I am not a patent lawyer, but if Apple has patent complaints on each mobile device, Apple could work out a deal with the companies, then get a percentage of any device you end up buying.

When does it become a non-Apple patent? How much of a “Graphical experience” must I change to be able to unlock a phone?

A few months ago we learned about certain patents in Android that Apple owned. It also risked certain open-source programs because of functions that were under the microscope.

Can a patent become open-source?

So if I put together a new mobile device, I could easily be hit with an infringement if my look and feel of anything matches that of others. It’s not just Apple, either.

One of the positive points to HP buying WebOS last year was they obtained not only the patents by Palm, but also by all the companies that Palm ended up consuming (Handspring, for example). They are older patents, but definitely cases could be made.

Then you have the opposite – Microsoft vs. i4i. Microsoft wants to make the challenge process more complex. If the challenger doesn’t have their paperwork in order, they could easily loose. In i4i’s case, they sold the product for 4 years before applying. That could invalidate the patent simply because of it’s prior use and saturation in the marketplace. After all, you cannot throw out seeds out of a plane, then lay claim to all the plants that are grown.

Back to Samsung – Apple. Once again, I see some things that Samsung should change to not mimic the iconic iPhone. With these software changes, the phone looks different. Apple holds a lot of cards in mobile devices. No different than Microsoft holds in Windows, IBM holds in servers and Facebook holds in social networking.

Let’s just hope that these lawsuits don’t hold off a company that makes the next big thing in technology.

Found on Slashdot.

IBM has applied for a patent for a “system and method for extracting value from a portfolio of assets”, filed in April, but becoming public on October 18.  While the Slashdot article infers that it is a formalisation of a patent protection racket (which is loosely the large company version of what a patent troll does) it is unlikely that IBM would try to patent this style of operation.  Too much prior art.

This appears to be my un-lawyerly eyes to be ‘patent-troll’ insurance.  One method to protect yourself from certain types of patent claims is to have a protective portfolio of patents yourself.  A suit of patent infringement can then turn into a case on who’s patent is valid in that case.  For an opportunistic claimant, pursuing a case against you is harder and more risky.

IBM has lots of patents (over 40,000 according to them) and are highly skilled in IP law.  The thought of having to defend themselves against a rival IBM patent would be a negative motivator to a prospective lawsuit.  For a small to medium company to have access to this protection would be worth some money.

For IBM this also would simplify the management of their IP and make it easier for others to license IBM technology, which increases the revenue potential for them.  While it appears to be a good business idea, whether it should be patentable is another matter.  I have a personal dislike of patenting business models or ideas, or of the patenting of the use of a technology.  Maybe a lower class of patent needs to be introduced, where the patent office can say “yeah, interesting idea but a bit anti-competitive to have a patent.  Have 2 years of exclusivity only.”

The hacker battle continues fix is in for 1.1.1 version iPhone and iBrick Phones. Please help us raise $400.00 to give a laptop to a child!

Sponsors:
Sponsor: Save Money with all our GoDaddy Codes see our Promo Code Page
[Try GoToMeeting free for 30 days at GoToMeeting.com/techpodcasts. No credit card needed.]

Twitter Me http://www.twitter.com/geeknews
My Facebook Profile
Comments to 619-342-7365 e-mail to geeknews@gmail.com

Listener Links:
Laptop Giveaway Promotion Info
Firefox Myths
PodRacer
Blue Wave <-Old School

Show Notes:
iPhone Unbricking
Why I don’t use WordPress
A new Dimension of Time?
Apple WebApps
Music Industry Self Destruction
Music Industry Five Alternative Models
Hard Drive Shortage in Dec?
Mom Tells Ballmer what she thinks of Vista
IE7 to be FIxed for Vulnerability
Madonna may bring Music Industry to it’s Knees
Looking for ET May get new Life
Endeavor may have Issue
Soyuz to ISS
DMCA battles getting Worse
FCC does not back down on 700mhz Auction
RIAA Victim slams Juror

Caught my Eye
How Car Financing Works
How does it Feel
Root offers clues to Addiction

Sean Lyndersay a member of the Microsoft RSS team has responded on the Microsoft Team RSS blog on the Microsoft RSS fiasco, and after reading the post I can tell he was painfully careful in his words.

According to Sean they are essentially claiming innovation in a number of areas, and while I do not see innovation in their application as their in my opinion is plenty of prior art this sadly this will be up to the patent office to determine.

What I would like to see though as others in the space have been calling for, is official assurance from a officer of the corporation that they are using the patent as a defensive filing only. [Microsoft Team RSS Blog]

As I have been watching the Microsoft Syndication (RSS) Patent dispute over the past couple of days the single word that comes to my mind is “Arrogance” and lets look at the definition of the word Arrogance.

Arrogance – Overbearing Pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors

Microsoft’s actions are such that they have made it very evident that they do not respect those that should rightfully be labeled as inventors of RSS and they outrightly slap those that developed RSS in the face.

The overall debate in the community has been quite negative with a few voices asking for reasoning. In my opinion big corporations are always looking to use their muscle and lay claim to something they have no right to lay claim to. When Microsoft came to Gnomedex in 2005 and announced how they were going to have RSS/XML integrated into there forthcoming applications I think we were all pretty much pleased.

But the current situation with this patent application has a lot of people pissed off and highly concerned. There are a lot of prior art issues and I think Microsoft will have an up hill battle on its hands to get this approved, but they have a army of patent lawyers, and I am sure that the patent office treats Microsoft patent applications a lot more seriously than the average persons application.

I am hoping that Microsoft will make an official statement on the issue but I am not holding my breath. If the succeed in getting this patent approved it will be a great tragedy and I am sure the source of some serious litigation.

[Scripting.com] [Scripting.com] [Nick Bradbury] [Nial Kennedy] [Open] [WatchMoJo.com]

AT&T received a U.S. patent earlier this month that will give intellectual property (IP) attorneys ground on which to stand when pursuing spammers.

The patent, number 6,643,686, grants AT&T IP protection for its system and method for circumventing schemes that use duplication detection to detect and block unsolicited e-mail (spam). What this means is that spammers can now be sued under the patent infringement laws for trying to defeat the anti-spam filters that run on mail servers.

In its patent application, AT&T provided significant details regarding how spam filters work and how they can be defeated, and this release of information has brought on a firestorm of protest from the e-mail security and anti-spam communities. However, AT&T anticipates that creating the legal grounds, however technical and specific, to pursue spammers will, in the long run, benefit the general Internet community more than the risks posed by releasing the details of anti-spam filtering systems.

Dave’s Opinion
AT&T is following a tried and true legal tactic of patent and then sue. These booby-trap or submarine patent suits are a staple of the legal profession, and in many cases they work well. I hope that AT&T shares its IP rights freely with those who want to put spammers out of business and are willing to pursue the legal process to do so.

Call for Comments
What do you think? Leave your comments below.

References
AT&T Patent