Google puts just 10 patents under the Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge
0. phoneArena 28 Mar 2013, 17:56 posted on
This isn't the first time that Google has promised not to use its patent portfolio offensively, but to only use it in defense against lawsuits, but it is the first time that Google has announced it would be part of the official Open Patent Non-Assertion (OPN) Pledge. The OPN Pledge states that Google won't use these patents offensively specifically against open-source software. The only trouble is that there are just 10 patents that Google has put in the pledge...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. appleDOESNT.com (banned) (Posts: 456; Member since: 19 Nov 2011)
Even when Google does something good, it's not good enough for PA, the slant on this article is so iOSvious... lol, Apple does nothing but crap on their customers with highest margins, behind the times tech, same ol same ol year after year but nothing but love from PA :(
2. jroc74 (Posts: 6004; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
The article writer called Apple lawsuit happy....how is this slanted towards Apple?
I agree with the article that 10 isnt the same as what others offered....but its a start.
3. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2703; Member since: 26 May 2011)
As I've said many times before, people will find bias where they want, no matter what they have to ignore in the process.
4. roscuthiii (Posts: 2217; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
I thought it was pretty established that compared to other companies out there that Google is very light in the patent saddlebags. That's why they bought Moto, patents right?
Looking at it from a percentage equivalent, their ten patents is probably similar to the percentage of patents put up by the likes of MS, IBM, Sun, etc.
My ponderance, is this: Are these ten patents actually relevant patents or are they fluff pieces just to put their name on the list of contributors to OPN?
6. papss (unregistered)
While not many it's still some...I doubt that their ten is even remotely close percentage wise... Way to spin it a bit
7. Hemlocke (unregistered)
Somehow I see this playing out just like the Open Handset Alliance behind Android. Ask Acer how that worked for them. This is a lot of pomp and circumstance for something that is not what it seems, as usual. It is comparable to the U.S. proposing a nuclear weapons treaty with Russia while developing a super nuke.
8. VZWuser76 (Posts: 4175; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
Do you even know the story behind that? Acer entered into that agreement of their own free will, and then violated it. Put simply, by entering into it, they get access to android and all of Google's services, as long as they promise not to fork android. Acer's phone forked android, and they were told they could go ahead with it, but without Google's services, or cancel the phone if they wanted to continue to have access to them. They could've forgone the services, just like Amazon did, but Acer doesn't have the ecosystem that Amazon does.
As far as Google's stance on android in the OHA, you can do anything you want to android, change it to the point that it's unrecognizable, but if you do, you lose Google's services. The reason is to cut down on fragmentation. If android is changed to much from it's stock state you'd have to cook up a custom build for each update, which lengthens the time it takes to get the update to the end user. The whole point of the OHA was to try to get updates to the end user for a certain period of time in a timely manner.
No one forced a gun to Acer's head to enter into the OHA, they could've went with windows, but they didn't. Now they're angry because they did something that violated their agreement and are paying for it. How is that Google's fault? If Google had let them get by with it what message does that send to the other OHA members? The moral is, if you enter into an agreement you need to abide by it or there will be consequences.
9. Aeires (unregistered)
Back in 2005, the patent lawsuits weren't out of hand like they are today.