Feeds

BT's gift to Google: A patent war over ads and Android

Music, Maps, Adwords and mobile OS land Google in court

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk

It's open season now. BT is the latest company to sue Google, alleging patent infringement, but this latest barrage extends beyond Google's Android software - it touches to other Google services too. These include maps, music, social networking and its advertising services, including Adwords, claims BT.

Although only the six are mentioned - which is not untypical for an opening salvo - it appears BT has chosen the carefully to encompass a broad range of Google services and business areas as possible. Google+ and Offers even merit a mention.

BT has filed the suit in a Delaware court and alleges that six patents are violated. These are: USPTO 6,151,309 (the 'Busuoic' patent); 6,169,515 ('Mannings'); 6,397,040 ('Titmuss 1'); 6,578,079 ('Gittins'); 6,650,284 ('Mannings 2'); and 6,826,598 ('Titmuss 2').

The IP protected by these six, says BT, can be used to stream music over low-bandwidth connections, provide route guidance and produce location-based shortlists. The telco claims this technology is used by Google Maps and Adwords. Titmuss 1 describes location-based advertising services, directions and other services that are alleged used by Android market and Google Books.

Barely any area of Google's business is untouched by the six - except possibly Google's Space Elevator.

A neutral may feel that this is a confrontation in which both sides, given past form, deserve to lose.

In 2000, BT filed lawsuits against US ISPs claiming they violated an old patent on hyperlinks. It gave up in 2002 after a judge ruled that the 1976 Hidden Page patent didn't cover the infringement claim.

On the eve of its 2004 IPO Google had to pay Yahoo! a substantial settlement for vital IP relating to its core money-making asset: context-based keywords. With Android, Google rushed to market without sweeping for patent mines by performing due diligence checks, and then refused to indemnify its partners. This has given Google, and its partners, a pile of avoidable headaches and legal costs. And Google lobbies hard to weaken IP protection in overseas countries, threatening the local tax base, where it makes little fiscal contribution of its own.

A bully and a scofflaw? A cynic might be tempted to conclude that the two deserve each other. ®

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

More from The Register

next story
Microsoft on the Threshold of a new name for Windows next week
Rebranded OS reportedly set to be flung open by Redmond
'In... 15 feet... you will be HIT BY A TRAIN' Google patents the SPLAT-NAV
Alert system tips oblivious phone junkies to oncoming traffic
Apple: SO sorry for the iOS 8.0.1 UPDATE BUNGLE HORROR
Apple kills 'upgrade'. Hey, Microsoft. You sure you want to be like these guys?
SMASH the Bash bug! Apple and Red Hat scramble for patch batches
'Applying multiple security updates is extremely difficult'
ARM gives Internet of Things a piece of its mind – the Cortex-M7
32-bit core packs some DSP for VIP IoT CPU LOL
Lotus Notes inventor Ozzie invents app to talk to people on your phone
Imagine that. Startup floats with voice collab app for Win iPhone
prev story

Whitepapers

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk
A single remote control platform for user support is be key to providing an efficient helpdesk. Retain full control over the way in which screen and keystroke data is transmitted.
Intelligent flash storage arrays
Tegile Intelligent Storage Arrays with IntelliFlash helps IT boost storage utilization and effciency while delivering unmatched storage savings and performance.
Beginner's guide to SSL certificates
De-mystify the technology involved and give you the information you need to make the best decision when considering your online security options.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops
Balancing user privacy and privileged access, in accordance with compliance frameworks and legislation. Evaluating any potential remote control choice.