more on more on Google wireless patents

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Glenn Fleishman <glenn () glennf com>
Date: March 29, 2006 6:25:43 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Google wireless patents

Mark Stahlman wrote:
> Dave:
>
> > Is Google being evil yet?
>
> No, not for this reason at least.
>
> Seeking a patent doesn't grant one and getting a patent doesn't mean
> it will be used against anyone.  They could let everyone use the
> patents, for instance.

I thought it worth pointing out that there was Sturm und Drang when  
Amazon.com had patents granted left and right on things like 1-Click  
and so forth. I was working at Amazon.com from late 96 to early 97  
when some patents were written, and drafted instructions for one of  
them (but wasn't the inventor). My understanding at the time which  
has been born out is that the patents were methods to prevent large,  
direct competitors from obtaining a market advantage by describing  
technology. Without the patents, Amazon.com certainly would have been  
enjoined from all kinds of behavior and would be paying royalties  
left and right.

While they were criticized for these patents, I can think of only one  
case where they used their patents to prevent another company from  
using a business method they had been granted limited rights over --  
when they sued Barnes & Noble over the 1-Click option. Otherwise, and  
IPers could correct me, I can think of no other instances of public  
enforcement.

The existence of the patents does mean there's a chilling effect,  
because no sensible company invests in technology or an approach that  
overlaps with well-known or well-researched patents owned by giant  
firms or patent-lawsuit houses. And not pursuing action against  
perceived patent violations now or in the past doesn't preclude them  
in the future during the lifetime of the patent.

It's easier to believe Amazon.com's 2000 statements -- including Jeff  
Bezos joining with Tim O'Reilly to decry the state of patents -- in  
2006 than it was in 2000, I suppose. But I can't see why a firm that  
thinks of something that they deem unique could take the risk of not  
patenting that method. It's too risky to not have a patent. Which is  
why our patent system desperately needs reform.
--
Glenn Fleishman
seattle . washington
unsolicited pundit . glennf.com
columnist . seattletimes.com/practicalmac
daily wireless networking news . wifinetnews.com


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/