Masnick's Smartphone Lawsuit Diagram
So try to follow the bouncing ball of this gargantuan patent-caused waste of energy and resources.
First, Google’s Android smartphone platform is under attack from a number of competitors, all using patents against Android–including competitors Apple (iPhone), Microsoft (Windows phone), RIM (Blackberry), and Motorola, as well as Samsung. ((Android in trouble; Samsung strikes back at Apple with ten patent infringement claims; Apple sues Samsung over Galaxy products; Microsoft Demands Samsung Pay $15 Royalties For Every Android Phone It Sells; Android Patent Trouble Worsens: Motorola Considers Collecting IP Royalties; see also other posts about the Android mess here.)) (The diagram above right is an improved version, by Mike Masnick, of earlier, flawed diagrams depicting patent lawsuits in the smartphone space, shown in miniature below.)
Now the Samsung part is a mess: apparently Apple sued Samsung for patent infringement, as part of its attack on the Android platform. It seems Apple needs the state’s help to fight off competition. And then Samsung strikes back against Apple with its own patent infringement claims. And at the same time, another division of Samsung is one of Apple’s key suppliers of SSD drives, memory chips, and displays. Got it? Apple sues its key supplier, to stop Android competition; its key supplier sues it back; and yet the arrangement between Apple and the Samsung division supplying it with these components continues on. Wow.
Meanwhile, Apple is also at the receiving end of patent aggression, e.g. the lawsuits by Lodsys, the Intellectual Ventures-connected patent troll, who is suing Apple’s iOS developers, and the recent suit by HTC.
As for Microsoft, which is also attacking Android with patent threats and suits, it has also been on the receiving end of patent attacks, recently losing a $300 million patent judgment against i4i. ((Microsoft Demands Samsung Pay $15 Royalties For Every Android Phone It Sells; i4i recently won $300M from Microsoft.))
Google, so far reluctant to go on the patent offensive, has been trying to acquire more patents to defend itself from the onslaught of suits by its competitors. If it has enough patents in its arsenal, then Apple and Microsoft might lay off suing Google, for fear of a counter-patent suit. Which is why Google’s $3 billion bid was not enough to acquire bankrupt Nortel’s 6000 patents: a “consortium” (hello, FTC!) of its competitors, including Apple, Microsoft, and RIM, obtained the Nortel patents for $4.5 billion. ((Apple, Microsoft, Sony, RIM et al. won for $4.5B.)) (RIM, apparently now seeking to use patents to hammer the Android competitor, of course was previously forced to pay $600M to NTP for patent infringement; and it has recently made a licensing deal with Intellectual Ventures for 30,000 IP assets–whether this is defensive, or for offensive purposes, I can no longer keep track.)
Source: New York Times
Back to the subject of this post. A recent entry into the patent club using the club of patents to hammer Google’s Android platform is Motorola. ((Android Patent Trouble Worsens: Motorola Considers Collecting IP Royalties)) And yet today it’s reported that Google is buying Motorola Mobility for $12.5 Billion. Yet another enemy-friend deal. The WSJ says that the purpose of the acquisition is to “make Google more competitive in the mobile-computing market.” Yet, can it be doubted that a major reason for this huge purchase is to “give Google control of Motorola Mobility’s attractive patent portfolio after the Internet giant recently missed out on a bid for Nortel Networks Corp.’s portfolio”? This follows on the heels of Google’s purchase of 1,000 patents from IBM, and its possible acquisition of Interdigital patents. ((Google buying more patents to defend itself.)) (Apple Apple has also sued Motorola for patent infringement.)
So let’s get this straight. Apple and Samsung are suing each other, while Apple relies on another division of Samsung for key parts. Apple and Microsoft–and apparently RIM–are using patents aggressively to stop competition, despite each having been hammered hard by others (including patent trolls) for patent infringement. Google, who seems to want patents for defensive purposes, lost out on the Nortel patent shield (acquired by its competitors Apple, RIM, Microsoft, etc.), but has paid billions of dollars now for patents from IBM and even from Motorola (recently its patent enemy), and may pay more for Interdigital’s patents–in a continuing escalation of the patent war in the smartphone segment of the market.
Which, of course, is just one part of the market. Similar battles are being fought all the time, on all different fronts. I wonder if this is what the Founders had in mind when they put that unfortunate patent clause in the US Constitution?
[c4sif]
{ 12 comments }
I reckon this shows the world has far more copyright and patent lawyers than it really needs. Shame the first one didn’t think to patent his own job and prevent anyone else from doing it.
Apple sucks so much. They’re the biggest IP whores ever.
I don’t think so judging from the diagrams. If Intellectual Ventures was included in the diagrams then you’d see a solid mass of black arrows.
These charts show mostly inter-company patent battles; Intellectual Ventures seems to farm its patents out to shell companies that it owns or has ties to (like Lodsys, currently suing iOS developers). The ‘This American Life” episode details this — http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110724/22250715225/when-patents-attack-how-patents-are-destroying-innovation-silicon-valley.shtml
Customers? What customers?
“This American Life” gave fair coverage to this issue recently and hopefully listeners will find your article in order to understand the IP monster.
Why doesn’t google just attempt a constitutional amendment that gets rid of the patent and copyright system altogether and puts a link on their homepage and youtube to collect signatures?
Because it’d be a token gesture. The signatures would be absolutely meaningless: The only way any one company could pull off something like that is if they were able to outmatch the lobbying resources of every company whose business model relies on IP put together. Google is a powerful player, but not THAT powerful.
My guess is because google benefits more from patents than loses from them.
Google probably wants to keep “quality patents”.
As for signatures, we really need to spread the word far and wide of the problems with “process”/information patents in terms of how they affect ordinary people [hint, tie it to jobs and to exploitation by the super wealthy in order to get people's attention]. And it isn’t just Google that has a problem with some part of patent law, so other firms would help; however, we need grassroots effort. As long as many people don’t know what software is or think patents are an honorable thing, the effort will be just an effort.
Progress is not being promoted. That should be the end of the conversation with a ruling of unconstitutional.
Part of a letter I wrote recently (which takes a compromise position on patents/copyrights):
****
[It would be a good idea to change patent law]
(a) Small firms and individuals (and even research institutions) should get FAIR USE exceptions automatically, as patents are rather broad and were intended to help the small inventor with little capital fight off large “imitators” with lots of capital and potential scales of efficiency.
(b) The inventiveness bar of patents is extremely low. Many average inventors can stop cold many above average and genius inventors. This is because patents go to the first description of an invention (not the greatest version of the invention), and this description can be extremely broad. It need only be “non-obvious” to a person having “ordinary” skill in the art! For example, if many practice a particular art (eg, software development.. as it has very low overhead and zero money, time, and energy costs of replication), then many broad patents will be awarded to many writing ideas down fast and without major insight. These many broad ideas will kill off “Einstein” contributions and those of many other inventors (who either are above “ordinary” or else are willing to work through what is “non-obvious”). This low bar also encourages those wanting patents to follow what others do and then add just a bit more to place a significant hurdle in front of these other inventions.
(c) Independent invention should be a cheap and sufficient defense.
(d) A monopoly grant on descriptions is a monopoly grant on ideas, and the US Supreme Court has ruled that ideas cannot be owned.
(e) Information, eg, software (sw) and business methods, should not be patentable, as these “processes” are frequently accessible to too many people for too low costs. Patents are too broad, and copyright may apply but would be neutered by broad patents.
Sw development is virtual and cheap, so it naturally results in quick and complex creations by many collaborators who number in the millions, adding serious cost-efficiencies to our economy.
****
Mee-Go! Mee-Go! Mee-Go!
Comments on this entry are closed.