Microsoft states that both Google and Motorola had infringed on mapping patent. The patent in question covers "computer system for identifying local resources and method". It was filed in 1995, and it covers to meet an emerging need in the growing ecosystem. Furthermore, "According to the patent, it is not possible, using existing web search tools to answer questions such as 'where is the nearest hamburger restaurant?'" To solve this issue, the patent laid out a method of storing map data on a server. Then it attaches to another content, then makes it accessible by client devices.
However, the court in Germany invalidated the patent stating that the patent lacked invented step, according to the article.
Inventive step means that patent should not be obvious. It should be sufficiently inventive, and that no one should think of an idea easily. To clarify, this may help people to understand the term. Taken from Wikipedia directly, "In other words, "[the] nonobviousness principle asks whether the invention is an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art."
If the court in Germany ruled in favor of Microsoft, Google Maps should have shut down. Can you imagine it being gone suddenly due to patent infringement? That just shows why so many companies are trying to acquire patents to protect their products that they invested so much on. Microsoft is being aggressive with their tactics. They are suing other companies like LG, Samsung, and HTC to demand license costs. All these companies signed license contract with Microsoft, so they need to pay $15 per phone sold.
They are appealing to court in Germany. Will they win? Or will Google win? It would be interesting to see what happens next. I understand that they are filing litigation in order to get the most out of their patents. The battle will continue.
http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-loses-mapping-patent-tussle-in-german-fight-with-google-and-motorola-7000026978/
Thank you for writing about a recent case regarding the "nonobviousness" component of patents. It's really interesting that this a relevant example of something that was a new idea in the past but is so integrated into our daily life today. The mapping tool may have not been obvious twenty years ago but the patent failed to recognize a "inventive step."
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply! Yeah it's interesting how a patent that was previously approved cannot be applied on this case. As you stated though, I also feel that it's reasonable because time changes. The mapping tool is indeed used all over the world.
DeleteHi Dong, I was just going to address the nonobviousness that VK brought up. I had initially thought that it was strange that the USPTO approved all sorts of applications, only to have them rendered useless in court. Seeing that so much has passed though, it makes sense. There's just so much pressure to be precise and detailed in the patent filings such that the patent won't seem obvious 20 years down the line.
DeleteHi Nidhi,
DeleteDefinitely, I agree. This patent was accepted years ago, but German court decided that it was invalid because it was obvious. There's a great deal with this because anyone can basically decide it can be invalid. Basically put, I think it's proving that things can change depending on time.
"They are suing other companies like LG, Samsung, and HTC to demand license costs. All these companies signed license contract with Microsoft, so they need to pay $15 per phone sold."
ReplyDeleteCan you please elaborate more on this point? What did Microsoft sued these companies for? And why these firms are all paying the same exact amount, $15 per phone?
I am guessing it's about phone patent that Microsoft has since Microsoft is also a patent giant. It wasn't mentioned in the article, but it's probably related to phone patent similar to mapping patent. The companies mentioned agreed to pay $15 to use the patent(as license). It's the same thing as the request of $40 per phone sold by Apple to Samsung recently.
DeleteWow, even in a fast-moving technology driven world, a patent filed in 1995 can still allow litigation against one of the most successful companies in the world. I would imagine that Microsoft would rather Google accept a licensing agreement with Google for maps rather than have them take it down, as that patent (aside from for litigation purposes) probably isn't being put to much use. Also, assuming the rules are the same in Germany, the patent will be expiring shortly.
ReplyDeleteI guess some patents may have been too far ahead of their time and thus lose their usefulness when the time has caught up. For example, touchscreen technology came up way before the iPhone, but it never got popular enough because of the resistive sensing nature of the touchscreen. Only when Apple released the iPhone with capacitive touchscreen did it revolutionise the world. But Apple may have drawn inspiration from the failed touchscreens and modified them to success, and thus not actually be the pioneers. Whoever came up with the touchscreen idea, if the patent had not expired, probably deserves to earn some money for if it had not been them, who knows if iPhones would be so popular now. The point is we don't know, and since Apple is earning so much from it, it may be fair to give the benefit of doubt to the first inventor while the patent is valid. Same thing goes for Microsoft and Google, although Microsoft will still need to prove Google maps reads on their claims, which apparently is not the case. Too bad for Microsoft (for now).
DeleteHi Jun,
DeleteThis is one example in which a court can do regarding patents. Even though it may have been approved in this past, it's clear that it can be invalidated if it is way too general. I think it paves a way that everyone should write their patents the concise way. I also didn't know Iphones would be so popular, let alone smartphone. It's amazing though how companies file patents like this 20 years back. And it comes to be so important.
I’m not sure how much this would effect us here in the United States. I understand that if Microsoft won this case in Germany, that all iPhones/Android devices/etc. that use Google Maps would have to remove the application. However, since there has been no such decision made in the United States, I’m inclined to believe that it wouldn’t have much impact here (especially because the Germany IP courts don’t really have jurisdiction over the laws in the United States. I doubt the US will allow a simple patent like that cause such a major upheaval (similarly to how the executive branch intervened and overturned the ruling of the appellate court that Apple had infringed on a few Samsung patents—forcing them to pay billions to Samsung in reality). The implications would be massive and I don’t think the USPTO wants to create such waves in the tech community. Furthermore, this patent application seemed pretty vague. I find it difficult to believe that someone nearly 20 years ago thought of the first idea for a navigation application for a “smartphone”. Remember, 20 years ago, we barely started receiving a cell phone as a consumer, let alone an iPhone. I find it difficult to believe that Microsoft was trying to patent this invention back in the mid-1990s, when the mobile revolution was still in its infancy and smartphones were nothing but a dream. I think the patent is too broad and the German courts rightfully struck it down.
ReplyDeleteHi Jega,
DeleteThanks for the analysis. I agree. Microsoft has big patent profile, and they are the giant of the patent world. But I agree that this patent is way to general and German court did a good job discerning what was acceptable or not. It's indeed difficult as this was implemented 20 years ago. Everything has changed. Back then, cellphones were just starting to surface, so this indeed creates a controversy.
Hey guys,
DeleteI think this ties into the "unwritten" rule of patent litigation. Usually, if a patent hasn't been acted on for an extended period of time, the courts will rule against it as "obvious". One thing that I'd like to know is how Microsoft could have gotten a patent like this. In class, we learned that patents need to be for inventions/methods that can be implemented with existing technologies. I don't remember cellphones being anywhere near capable of storing map data back when they just began becoming consumer products. To me, this seems like another erroneous patent awarded to a big company.
Continuing with what Jega said, I think this decision would only affect Germany, given patents are regional. Saying that such a technology is not inventive seems to be somewhat counter-intuitive. On one hand we this technology which practically everyone in the world utilizes, and on the other hand there is the court saying the technology is not diverse from the perspective of being inventive. I think this is drawing a lot of attention, and hopefully that attention might steer the patent decision in the right away. Finally, Roshan does bring a very important point: the expiry of the patent?
ReplyDeleteYes, it affects German court as it was filed in Germany. It's a bit odd that some courts decide to rule out this decision, but reading after the article, it does make sense. I still believe it's obvious as it may have not been so clear back then, but it's really widely used. I feel like it gets extremely tricky when the patent goes internationally.
Delete