Google Fights Back Against Rockstar Consortium To Protect Android OEMs From Patent Infringement

44

Rockstar Consortium

Two months back, we reported that Rockstar consortium which is jointly owned by Apple, Microsoft, Blackberry, Ericsson and Sony has sued Samsung, Huawei, HTC and Google for patent infringement in U.S. District Court in Texas. Rockstar consortium was formed by Microsoft, Apple and others after they won the Nortel’s patents in a bidding for $4.5 billion.

Today, Google responded to this lawsuit in court that Google and Android OEM’s products does not infringe any of the patents cited in the lawsuit. They also mentioned about the Rockstar consortium’s status.

Rockstar produces no products and practices no patents. Instead, Rockstar employs a staff of engineers in Ontario, Canada, who examine other companies’ successful products to find anything that Rockstar might use to demand and extract licenses to its patents under threat of litigation.

I’ve no idea how Google went on to claim directly that Android devices does not infringe any of the patents because the patents include basic smartphone functions such as “mobile hotspot functionality,”  ”VPN management functionality” and “Messaging and Notification.

Google Complaint 1

via: Gigaom

About Author

Pradeep, a Computer Science & Engineering graduate.

  • Asgard

    It is quite wrong that a business which doesn’t produce any products can do this kind of IP trolling business. However I’m quite mad how Google makes stuff that is always just a copy from others and can succeed only because its business model gets privileges in anti-trust cases. They copied linux and java to build the core of Android. I just dont like to see a big monopoly company getting everything free.

    • Socius

      What are you talking about? The consortium doesn’t produce anything, but its members do. And they didn’t pay $4.5 billion dollars to buy these patents to not get any profit back on them. Keep in mind that if it’s such a bad practice, why was Google involved in the bidding themselves? They just ended up not winning, and disregarded the validity of the patents that the other companies invested heavily into.
      Again keep in mind that this is not patent trolling as it is Microsoft, and Apple against Google. These are the top 3 smartphone OS manufacturers. And one party, being Google, constantly disregards patent laws and copies others. That’s why so many Android products have had judgments handed out against them in court. It’s why Steve Jobs said that he’s going to get Google back for ripping him off, if it’s the last thing he does.
      Google is a monopolizing pariah who thinks it’s above the law. Hopefully this lawsuit will put a stop to it so that Google can focus on innovating instead of imitating.

      • Nham Thien Duong

        Exactly, Google wants to put everything up for free for their advertisements, Google is actually whats wrong with the internet, they enable manufacturers to halt their own innovation and jump on the Android bandwagon.

        • Vu Nguyen

          Merry Christmas Nham! Oh yeah, google gets no presents cuz they been bad

        • pdouglas

          A monopoly is not allowed to lower the price of its products to drive out competition; and Google in particular, which has a monopoly on operating systems in the mobile market, is not allowed to give away its operating system for free, since this severely undermines competition, and violates anti-trust law, in the US, Europe, and elsewhere. Google, by giving its products away for free, is far worse than Standard Oil, and is one of the most egregious antitrust violators in history.

          MS, Apple, et al need to go after Google on the antitrust front in a hard way. Also, ISVs should go after Google via regulators as well, because the company’s practice makes it very, very difficult for many ISVs to make money. Google should not be allowed to obliterate commercial opportunities for software, since commercial software has been an integral component of the growth of the computer industry.

          • Roger

            Microsoft only give office away for free on Windows Phone, while ios and android have to pay……is this the sort of behavior you are talking about ?, or maybe you are talking about the free vdi licence with RT Tablets, while ios and android must purchase a licence ? and don’t forget MS effectively gave Nokia WP licences for free with its $1Bn annual “Platform support’ payments

          • pdouglas

            MS can do what it does in the mobile market, because it doesn’t have a monopoly in this market. Whatever MS does in the mobile space, barely has an impact in the overall market. That is the main reason the EC and other regulators had no objection to MS’ acquisition of Nokia’s mobile business.

            I believe when monopolies and oligopolies use their influence to try and eliminate competition in various markets (e.g. mobile, server OSs), trustbusters need to step in and right the situation.

          • freeman

            No company has abused its monopoly position in the IT industry more than Microsoft. Mainly its desktop platform.

            Are you really telling me that in order to influence a market you need a monopoly position. I just don’t by that. Windows mobile once had an almost 30% market share. iOS started at 0%. A year later Android started at 0%. How come these companies had no problem?

          • grs_dev

            Every for profit enterprise should exist with the sole purpose in life of dominating its market, otherwise that business is on its way to be extinct sooner or later.

            Schooling kid is getting to be a full time job.

          • freeman

            This is garbage the sole purpose of a profit enterprise is profit. I will let you into a secret there is a hint in the name you called it profit enterprise. This is the core principle of capitalism. Some companies try to do this by controlling the market like Microsoft. However others like Apple just don’t chase market share.

            http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-clearly-doesnt-care-at-all-about-winning-smartphone-market-share-2013-9

            http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-5c-decision-2013-9

            You wouldn’t be fit to school kindergarden.

          • grs_dev

            LOL you’re a joke

            I bet you get a kick from talking smack on a forum that is slanted towards a brand or a company you clearly don’t think much of.

            Why are you here if you’re not having a blast? :) I guess you are enjoying the shit slinging after all…

          • freeman

            “Every for profit enterprise should exist with the sole purpose in life of dominating its market, otherwise that business is on its way to be extinct sooner or later.”

            Apple blow this nonsense out of the water. I noticed you can’t even argue that one. Another point won by me.

            So here’s another question regarding more BS you posted.

            If Java isn’t a JIT compiled language then why have Oracle listed it as such. If Java was a compile once language as you claim

            http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E13150_01/jrockit_jvm/jrockit/geninfo/diagnos/underst_jit.html

            May aswell chalk up another

            If Microsoft where worried about UI/UX in regards to Java, then why to they build RNI to replace JNI considering it has no GUI.

            Infact you know less than nohome who mysteriously disappeared after being exposed as being disingenuous and thats being kind.

          • grs_dev

            FYI Apple dominates several markets its in. I think now I beginning to see English might be a challenging language for you.

            I never said Java is not JIT. I said you don’t understand what JIT actually means. Again English, or your lack of understanding of the English language is getting in the way of you getting somewhere.

            I see your cry for help kid…

          • freeman

            Really tell me what market it dominates in?

            This is a direct quote from what you said.

            “Regarding Java being JIT compiled, you must be confused as to what JIT means. Java is an interpreted language.”

            Here are direct quotes from Oracle.

            “the JIT comes into use whenever a Java method is called, and it compiles the bytecode of that method into native machine code, thereby compiling it “just in time” to execute.”

            “After a method is compiled, the JRockit JVM calls that method’s compiled code directly instead of trying to interpret it, which makes the running of the application fast.”

            Yikes guess that’s another one you got wrong.

          • grs_dev

            For this one I will autograph a copy of DOS 6.1 on 3.1 inch disks and send them your way my loyal fan.

          • freeman

            Don’t worry your autograph is just like your posts worthless.

          • grs_dev

            Thank you for being my #1 fan.

          • freeman

            lol clearly you find it hard being proven wrong time and time again. “Every for profit enterprise should exist with the sole purpose in life of dominating its market” Seriously you have posted some dumb and inaccurate nonsense on here but this by far is the funniest.

          • grs_dev

            Thank you for being such a fan of my comments. I will autograph a boxed edition of Widows Me and send it to you by first class mail.

          • grs_dev

            Let’s be clear. Google does not have a monopoly on operating systems in any form factor. Google’s monopoly is on the way advertising is served up to eyeballs looking at digital content across platforms. Desktop/Web, mobile, and now moving into TV/Radio.

            Yes, Android is a dominant product, but it’s far from a monopoly and frankly none of the other players really care.
            Contrary to what most believe, Google has very little allegiance to Java and Linux. They adopted them because they’re at no cost to Google to do so. At one point they considered going with Microsoft.NET technologies before they elected Java.

            What Google’s competitors are complaining about is not Google’s OS or Search dominance as much as Google’s grip over the digital advertising ecosystem.

            To sum it up, Google dominates where eye balls looking at digital content dwell, BUT they control the underlying engine that supplies ads to all these front ends at which consumers ultimately slurp content from, regardless of whether Google owns them or not.

            Google runs very dominant content factories like Chrome, Android, Google Search, Youtube, Blogging Products, Maps, Gmail, GDrive, Google Docs, Hangouts, Wallet, etc. So do their competitors. However, Google also runs Google Analytics, AdWords, AdSense, AdScape, Doubleclick, AdMeld, AdMob, AdManager, and such.

            Their clients are Microsoft, Coca Cola, Ford, Chevy, Nike, etc, etc, etc.

            Yahoo was the dominant player in digital advertising but Google nearly put them out of business.

            Facebook sort of threatens Google’s dominance, but in the last 18 months they seem to have cooled off tremendously.

            Microsoft tried to compete with them on digital ad delivery and fulfillment and they failed miserably and ended up writing off the $8 Billion dollars they went to battle with on that front. They ended up selling that business to Facebook for a fraction of the cost in a fire sale.

            So until someone is able to unseat Google from their monopoly on digital ad delivery and fulfillment, this evil called Google is here to stay.

          • pdouglas

            Google owns several monopolies, including digital advertising, and mobile OSs. In fact, if you were to narrow down the field to mobile OSs distributed to hardware manufacturers, there is no doubt that Google has a stranglehold on this critical market in the US, Europe, and around the world. Therefore by law, Google cannot keep the price of its Android OS so low, as to stifle competition – something that MS can attest that Google is doing, from MS’ difficult efforts to sell its own Windows Phone OS to hardware manufacturers. Also Google releasing key, strategic software repeatedly for free (e.g. Chrome OS, Google Docs, QuickOffice) shows a deliberate, systematic effort on the monopolist’s part, to devalue software in the commercial software market, wiping out competitors.

          • freeman

            wow just more trash.

            “Google’s monopoly is on the way advertising is served up to eyeballs looking at digital content across platforms. Desktop/Web, mobile, and now moving into TV/Radio.”

            This is just garbage. How can you have a monopoly position on “the way” ads are served up?

            Microsoft complain as there out of date business model cannot comprehend how giving out software for free or radical risk taking and crazy research can generate profit. They have gone from trend setters to followers. Without Google search there would be no Bing. Without iPhone you would still be using windows mobile(maybe not a bad thing it was kick arse). Without Firefox you would still be using IE6.

            Also I am still waiting for you to give me a link to a version of windows that did not ship with mshtml.dll.

          • grs_dev

            You claim to have a MSDN subscription. Go download Windows Server and install core only. Now get lost kid.

          • freeman

            lol, server core comes with Shlwapi.dll is an IE dll and comes on even the minimal install of server core 2012. You even need to set the macro _WIN32_IE to go back to earlier version of the interface. Also there are others also. It shipped with IE 4 onwards.

            Fraid you lost that one

            So here’s the other one Microsoft believing IE is a OS. Lets see that screen shot or link that proves this. Then we will as if you think its right or Microsoft don’t know what an OS is?

          • grs_dev

            I didn’t lose anything. You clearly have some weird sense of winning and losing.
            First you said, Microsoft Windows cannot be installed without Internet Explorer.
            Then you changed your tone and made it more specific to mshtml.dll.
            I clearly showed you that both claims you made were false, so now you want to argue which libraries do get installed and which ones do not? Grow up kid.
            Shlwapi.dll is a library that provides a bunch of commonly used routines for URL handling. Surely you’re not implying that deploying Shwlapi.dll will single handedly enable me to open HTTP streams, transform HTML and process JavaScript, are you?
            In any case, what would you need to read from me to make you truly feel like you won something? LOL. I am not sure what your function in life is, but it’s clear you’re angry at something. Maybe you know what it is, maybe you don’t. Somehow you feel like taking your anger out on this forum.

            I am glad I can provide you with free therapy for now. Oh wait, did I just pull a Google on you? Watch out, I just might be scroogling you! LOL

          • freeman

            lol, clearly your brain cells are incapable of engaging. I asked for mshtml.dll as its part of IE, just as shlwapi.dll is part of IE.

            I am not implying anything you are. I am simply saying shlwapi.dll is a part of IE. This means even the minimal install of windows server core still ships with at least a part of IE.

            The as you can see in the header file linked to below. Its explicitly sets its interface version using the IE macro _WIN32_IE.

            You can also see

            “#if (_WIN32_IE = 0x0500)
            #error _WIN32_IE setting conflicts with _WIN32_WINNT setting
            #endif”

            So here’s the other one Microsoft believing IE is a OS. Lets see that screen shot or link that proves this. Then we will as if you think its right or Microsoft don’t know what an OS is?

            This proves without doubt that this IE dll still ships with even a version of windows without a GUI. Again the point is fact IE has never been completely removed from windows.

            http://yabause-rr.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/windows/ddk/shlwapi.h

            Now I don’t expect somebody who isn’t fit to teach kindergarten to understand this so something simpler.

            So here’s the other one Microsoft believing IE is a OS. Lets see that screen shot or link that proves this. Then we will as if you think its right or Microsoft don’t know what an OS is?

          • grs_dev

            shlwapi is not part of IE. Just because IE has a dependency on it, it doesn’t make it part of IE. It’s clearly a Shell API.

            By the way you din’t link a file you merely pasted. Again English is not your strongest suit.

            Pasting header file info where it Shell Web API is checking whether it’s being invoked by _WIN32_IE version 4.0 or later doesn’t make IT part of IE it just means IE has a dependency on it.

            Wait, so let’s get something clear. If Internet Explorer has a dependency on stdio.h does that make stdio.h part of IE?!

            What a fuck tard! Stop pretending to know anything about software development. You clearly have no business being on this forum. Hell you’re a disgrace to Linux, Open Software, Android, Java and any community you claim to represent…

            Moving on.

          • freeman

            Have you really thought about what you have posted here. I am flabbergasted at how dumb this post is.

            So your claiming that non IE but windows dlls have code in them defining IE compatibility macros and versions just in-case IE is there and has a dependency on them. lol. Then considering the DLL has shipped as part of IE since version 4. Its just idiotic.

            The header file is the header file for shlwapi. Clearly you don’t know what the macro _WIN32_IE is for or doing. I knew it was outside your grasp.

          • grs_dev

            For this comment I’ll send you an AOL CD autographed again by yours truly. This is vintage material and you’ve proven your loyalty as a fan. You have earned it.

          • free2

            Its true your the best comedy act on here. Nobody could be so dumb to post the garbage you have been posting on here. It must have been for comedy value. In fairness I did laugh a lot at your silly ill informed posts. Your a prime example of a numpty trying to bend facts to the hatred of all things Google and looking stupid for it. Kinda like the scroogled ads.

          • grs_dev

            You’re a joke. I guess your stupidity is not tolerated on the Linux/Android formats so you think it’s easier to come and just bash the competition.
            Go learn how to write hello world then we’ll talk

          • free2

            Lol, your calling me stupid but this apparent stupid person just taught you in fact java isn’t an interpreted language. You are learning from a stupid person so ur clearly not too bright.

          • grs_dev

            Go read again what I said. You are clearly finding a hard time understanding the English language. I said, Java is compiled into bytecode, and that the JVM interprets the bytecode.
            Happy new year. I hope you decide to grow up in 2014.

    • Steve Fobs

      “They copied linux”…………..do you know what the GPL licence is ?? I didn’t think so…………asshole

      • grs_dev

        I think he meant they hijacked [Java and] Linux… But so did Red Hat, Facebook, and most other modern day digital businesses.

        The only difference I see is that Google is the only one trying to commoditize the underlying technologies it uses.

    • KelvBlue

      Someone did spend time and money to research and develop the IP. You want to use other people stuff you pay for it, changing ownership just mean you pay to the different owner, it does not matter whether they produce any products at all. Nokia sold their handset division and is not producing anymore handset but they still have their IP to generate profits.

    • Zicoz

      If it had ¨been a 100% random company with no ties to serious companies I would have agreed, but this is a company that is owned by companies that are victims of Googles terrible practices when it comes to patent violation.

    • grs_dev

      Look Intellectual Property protection is par for the course and part of doing business for a “technology” oriented industry.

      It’s like saying placing fencing around your property is land trolling! LOL

      Those who call it trolling, often simply don’t know how the process or the system works.

  • xma1e

    Maybe ripping everyones ideas and giving it away for “free” wasn’t such a good idea after all.

    • grs_dev

      At Google, Don’t be Evil is just a phrase they use to counter anyone who tries to call them out on their unethical and illegal practices…

  • reKitab

    Rockstar consortium, formed by Microsoft, Apple et.al. do produce products, imho!:)
    http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/12/google-tries-to-get-rockstars-android.html

    • free2

      Really ur linking to fosspatents. This guy has already been pretty badly discredited.

  • DarthTigris

    Google knows they can’t win this. That’s why they’re transitioning to the real world Cyberdyne Industries so that they can do away with these things called rules and laws … and humans.

  • Pingback: Google contra Rockstar para proteger las patentes de Android