Google-Motorola deal highlights patent arms race

Aug 18, 2011 By PETER SVENSSON , AP Technology Writer
In this Jan. 6, 2011 file photo, a buyer tests Motorola's Droid Bionic 4G phone at the Consumer Electronics Show, in Las Vegas. When an Internet company plunks down $12 billion to buy a cellphone maker for the sake of its intellectual property, it's another sign that for the high-tech industry, patents have become a mallet wielded by corporations to pummel their competitors. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson, File)

(AP) -- When an Internet company plunks down $12.5 billion to buy a struggling cellphone company for its collection of patents, it's another sign that, for the high-tech industry, patents have become a mallet wielded by corporations to pummel their competitors.

Google Inc. announced the deal to buy Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. on Monday, specifically for its trove of 17,000 patents. needs them to shield companies like HTC Corp. and Co. -who make phones based on Google's software- from lawsuits filed by . and Apple Inc.

"Google is not acquiring Motorola for the sake of its technology or its research," said James Bessen, a lecturer at Boston University and co-author of a book on the system. "Patents have become legal weapons - they're not representing ideas anymore."

The trend, decades in the making, raises questions that pending patent legislation in Washington only begins to answer.

Google's multi-billion bid to get its hands on Motorola's output of legal paperwork is the culmination of a "bubble" in the value of patents relating to smartphones that started last year, as Microsoft and Apple mounted their legal attack. Industry watchers say that bubble may deflate now that Google is set to gain the protection of Motorola's patents in a deal that's set to close late this year or early next.

But an underlying problem will keep growing: patent filings and lawsuits that distract companies and sap resources that are better spent on other things.

Engineers spend their time writing patents rather than inventing things, or reworking products just to avoid patent infringement. Customers put off purchases because of pending lawsuits, and independent software developers close up shop because they can't afford licensing fees.

"If you have to pay $12.5 billion dollars to play, you can sense why maybe an individual who has a great idea would feel discouraged," said Julie Samuels, a patent lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a technology-oriented civil liberties group. "It affects the whole economy."

It wasn't always this way. The U.S. software industry got its start with nary a patent filed, and on the hardware side, patent suits were rare until the mid-1980s. That was when calculator and chip maker Texas Instruments Inc., on the brink of extinction, decided to see if it could make some money from its patent portfolio. It started filing patent lawsuits and demanding money from companies with infringing products. It saved the company.

IBM Corp. latched on to TI's lead in patent licensing in the mid-90s, when it was down on its luck. That coincided with courts broadening the types of patents allowed. Patents on software and "business methods," with vague, broad claims, were now accepted.

Since then, an arms race has slowly escalated in the industry. Companies found that the best defense against a patent suit from a rival was to have a patent portfolio to wield as a deterrent: "Sue me and I'll sue you back," is the message Google is sending by buying Motorola.

Motorola is already suing Apple over several patents, including one that purports to cover the act of sending address data between two phones. Another patent at issue covers the idea of concealing a phone's antenna in its outer case, which Apple arguably does with the iPhone 4.

It's a situation reminiscent of the nuclear standoff between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. But just as the threat of nuclear weapons didn't stop third-world guerillas during the Cold War or deter terrorists today, the patent arsenals are useless against "patent trolls" - companies that own patents but don't do actual research or development. Since they don't make anything themselves, they can't be the targets of patent suits, says Colleen Chien, assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

"Mountains of patents have proven useless against the patent system's `stateless actors,' non-practicing entities who are invulnerable to patent counterclaims," Chien writes.

In one example, a company with a 1980s patent on a kiosk that made music audiotapes on the spot for customers in stores tried to levy license fees from tens of thousands of technology companies, claiming that the patent covered any downloading of media from the Internet. Microsoft was among the companies that settled.

Bessen puts the cost of dealing with "patent trolls" at half a trillion dollars in the last two decades. Yet patent trolls account for only one in six patent suits, by his estimate, so the patent system's burden on the economy is much higher.

Just as we worry about old Soviet nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, Chien says that the patent hoards accumulated by corporations as "defensive" measures are starting to end up with "non-practicing entities" who use them for lawsuits.

For example, memory chip-maker Micron Technology Inc. in 2009 sold 4,500 patents to a patent lawyer in 2009. Chien points out that the patents are worth more to "non-practicing entities," because they can sue without fear of retaliatory patent suits.

During the Cold War, there were arms limitation talks. Similarly, many of the big technology corporations want the patent bombs taken away, or at least limited. Google's lawyers are critical of the patent system, and it's clear the company would rather not have to strike deals like the one to buy Motorola. Cisco Systems Inc., the world's largest maker of networking gear, wants damages to be based on the value of the component in question rather than the entire product.

Tech companies can expect little help from Washington. After a decade of wrangling, Congress is set to approve a patent reform bill when the Senate reunites in December. It will be the largest legislative change to the since 1952. Even so, experts say its effect on the high-tech industry will be marginal. It had sought more sweeping changes, but resistance from the pharmaceutical industry, which is much better served by the current system, has kept out the more radical proposals.

The legislation will make it marginally harder to get and hold onto patents, Chien said, but that's unlikely to cut down on the number of spurious patents, she believes.

And paradoxically, the bills could expand the glut of patents that's plaguing the industry, since one of its goals is to reduce the three-year backlog of patents pending at the Patent Office.

"It's going to take a long time for Congress to tackle patents again, and that's really a problem because this troll problem is going to continue to fester," Samuels said. "We all feel the effects."

Explore further: Sony's quarterly loss balloons on mobile woes

5 /5 (2 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

HTC accuses Apple of patent infringement

Aug 16, 2011

Taiwan's HTC Corp. accused Apple of patent infringement on Tuesday in the latest salvo in an ongoing legal battle between the smartphone giants.

Google buys IBM patents to beef up portfolio

Jul 30, 2011

Google has bought more than 1,000 technology patents from IBM as the Internet giant seeks to build up its portfolio and head off potential intellectual property suits.

Patent holder sues smart phone makers over patents

Jul 09, 2010

(AP) -- The patent-holding company that won a settlement of more than $600 million from the maker of the BlackBerry said Friday it has sued six other companies in the smart phone industry.

Google backs HTC in Apple patent suit

Mar 03, 2010

Google on Wednesday threw its backing behind HTC, maker of the Internet giant's Nexus One smartphone, after Apple accused the Taiwan company of infringing on iPhone patents.

Recommended for you

Sony's quarterly loss balloons on mobile woes

13 hours ago

Sony's losses ballooned to 136 billion yen ($1.2 billion) last quarter as the Japanese electronics and entertainment company's troubled mobile phone division reported huge red ink.

Will Apple Pay be mobile pay's kick-start?

21 hours ago

If anyone can get us to use our smartphones as wallets, it's Apple. That's what experts think about the recent launch of Apple Pay, the first mobile wallet to work on an iPhone.

Google execs discuss regulation, innovation and bobble-heads

22 hours ago

Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg help run Google, one of the world's best-known, most successful - and most controversial - companies. They've just published a new book, "How Google Works," a guide to managing what they ...

LinkedIn reports 3Q loss but sales climb

23 hours ago

LinkedIn Corp. posted a third-quarter loss on Thursday, but its results were better than expected as revenue grew sharply, sending shares of the online professional networking service higher in extended trading.

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Sin_Amos
not rated yet Aug 18, 2011
Intellectual property doesn't exist.
LuckyExplorer
5 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2011
"Patents have become legal weapons - they're not representing ideas anymore."

Unfortunately this is the truth. - Especially since patent and trademark offices don't only grant patents with novelties and innovative steps but very obvious patent applications. This tendency is getting worse from year to year.

The engineer is not that important anymore, but it is the patent attorney. If he manages to write a patent complicated enough, even a simple and clear technical change (I don't want to use the word improvement) can become a granted patent.

In addition, rich companies that can afford the money to file and keep many patents clearly have the edge over smaller, often much more innovative, but less affluent companies.

The real sense and value of the patent system is reduced to absurdity
dogbert
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2011
The patent system was originally intended to encourage invention, creativity. It has evolved to the point that it is actually resulting in the demise of companies.

The patent system is severely broken. We even have patents on living creatures and DNA.

Patents are another huge barrier which prevents new companies from starting up. How can any software/tech company survive legal challenges from patent holders?

Perhaps it is time to reduce patents to their original intent and do away with these intellectual property patents.
sherriffwoody
not rated yet Aug 19, 2011
The patent wars highlight one thing. Its time to do away with patents or at least the current system.
Gena777
not rated yet Aug 23, 2011
Although its entry into the patent-war big leagues didn't start out very smoothly, perhaps Google is better off now with the IBM and Motorola portfolios than with the Nortel patents. It will certainly have more patents at its disposal now than if it had bid higher than Pi at the Nortel auction.
http://www.washin...deo.html

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.