Google said the same about checkout, but they lied and tried to ambush the annual eBay seller convention held in Boston, back in June, to promote Google Checkout with a slogan, “let freedom ring!”

What a way to treat, eBay, your biggest customer, right? In retaliation, eBay bitchslaps Google by pulling their ads worth millions from Google search.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,132880-c,adsvisitortracking/article.html

Did anyone see this coming?

I like BOPO more because you can have the actual card that you can design ^_^

You guys might also want to check http://www.obopay.com, which allows mobile users in the US to perform funds transfers. Their service is offered exclusively within the US. I’m not sure how Google’s GPay will be novel to what’s already being offered. Again, their patent is still in the application stage. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to be approved.

If it’s still in the application phase then it can be easily challenged. Though if it was granted already, that is where it is hard to challenge.

Atleast from what I had read from patent sites and history, unless there were changes?

Is that why there’s no PayPal?

Also, in challenging patents, the challenger does not have to have a patent and they do not have to explain why they did not file any patents. If there’s demonstrable prior art for that patent, then that patent should be invalidated.

Furthermore, whether or not a patent holder stole the idea from a prior art has no bearing on the validity of the patent. So you don’t need to prove that Google stole the idea from Globe/Smart/others to invalidate the patent. If the claims (only the claims matter in a patent, not the abstract nor the description nor the illustrations) cover the prior art, then the patent should be struck down.

If Google’s Patent was approved then there are two things:
1) Globe and/or Smart never filed a patent (which is weird); or
2) Google’s “GPay” doesn’t cover Globe’s and Smart’s.

In Intellectual Property Rights, the one holding the “right” have a stronger stand than those who do not have regardless if the one holding the “right” was filed and was approved years or decades after the first ’similar’ product and/or service was used publicly in a wide range of environment.

If Globe and Smart will want to go after Google they will have a very hard time to win the battle, not counting the fact that Google is bigger than Globe and Smart combined, we have the ff:
1) They will have to prove that Google’s Patent covered Globe’s and Smart’s, if a success,
2) they will have to give a plausible defense as to why they (Globe & Smart) did not file a Patent for it.

Someone who owns the right still outweighs those who first implemented it. We Filipinos lost many money-earner “rights” in the past and we are continually losing more, for the simple fact that people in other countries, especially the Western world, were able to Patent it first.

If they win, Google will of course bring it to the next higher court, and so on. Google will never give up their GPay Patent. And I think the GPay inventor knows about Globe and Smart’s similar service. But it is hard to proof he got (or stole) the idea from them.

Again, back to square one, hard evidence.

What really worries me is that Smart and Globe might litigate to keep Filipinos from accessing Gpay. The Philippines would be left out once again.

BrianB has a point, G-cash and Smart Money is also rarely used here in the Philippines too.