web analytics
infinix flip

Is Google not aware of Smart Padala and Globe GCash?

A recently published patent application by Google refers to a new payment method which others dubbed as GPay. This patent was filed back in February 28, 2006 and published on August 30, 2007.

If you’d read the abstract of the patent filing, you’d be surprised to think that Google hasn’t heard of Smart Money, Smart Padala or Globe GCash here in the Philippines.


SEO by the Sea has some details:

Screen shots from the filing show the name Gpay attached to this system, a name that Eric Schmidt had been using to refer to a payment system during the March Analyst day in 2006.

Google’s CEO insisted that Gpay was “not made to compete with PayPal or to replace existing peer to peer payment systems but that it’s meant to be a new solution to a new problem.”

If this new patent application is any indication of what problem Gpay was intended to solve, it is a much broader payment method than Paypal. The patent is detailed in:

Text message payment
Invented by Ramy Dodin
US Patent Application 20070203836
Published August 30, 2007
Filed: February 28, 2006

The abstract says this new invention will cover…

A computer-implemented method of effectuating an electronic on-line payment includes receiving at a computer server system a text message from a payor containing a payment request representing a payment amount sent by a payor device operating independently of the computer server system, determining a payment amount associated with the text message and debiting a payor account for an amount corresponding to the amount of the payment request, and crediting an account of a payee that is independent of the computer server system.

Google hasn’t heard of the international GSM Association Awards 2005 that selected Globe GCash M-Commerce Service as Best Mobile Messaging Service while Smart Communications won the Best Mobile Application or Service – Consumer Market in 2004.

Here’s some useful links for Google GPay inventor Ramy Dodin – Globe GCash m-Commerce Solution launched in 2004 and Smart Padala (international mobile driven money remittance) also launched in numerous countries including the US since August 1, 2004.

Either that, or Smart and Globe did not file their own patents in the US in the last 3 years.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,116 other subscribers
Avatar for Abe Olandres

Abe is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of YugaTech with over 20 years of experience in the technology industry. He is one of the pioneers of blogging in the country and considered by many as the Father of Tech Blogging in the Philippines. He is also a technology consultant, a tech columnist with several national publications, resource speaker and mentor/advisor to several start-up companies.

19 Responses

  1. Avatar for Berlin Berlin says:

    [Google’s CEO insisted that Gpay was “not made to compete with PayPal or to replace existing peer to peer payment systems but that it’s meant to be a new solution to a new problem.”]

    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

  2. Avatar for HAK HAK says:

    $1-remittance fee through the N-Cash.
    http://www.gmanews.tv/story/59057/1-remittance-fee-for-overseas-Pinoys-bared

    Did anyone see this coming?

  3. Avatar for godie godie says:

    So it means Google haven’t heard also of KayaMoney.com nor BOPO.com.au

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

  4. Avatar for Laura Laura says:

    Eugene raises several good points. Also, patents need to be applied for in the country/countries where the patent is to be implemented. So, in the case of Globe and Smart, it’s possible that they have patents but not necessarily in the US.

    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.

  5. Avatar for JC John SESE Cuneta JC John SESE Cuneta says:

    Ahh, I understood it as GPay already 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?

  6. Avatar for Miguel Miguel says:

    No, the PayPal Philippines issue has nothing to do with our local mobile operators.

  7. Avatar for BrianB BrianB says:

    “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”

    Is that why there’s no PayPal?

  8. Avatar for Eugene Eugene says:

    JC, Google’s patent is still in the application stage. It has not been granted yet. So Globe and Smart can challenge this patent application by citing prior art. The USPTO has put up a way for others to cite prior art for patents in the application stage.

    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.

  9. Avatar for JC John SESE Cuneta JC John SESE Cuneta says:

    Patent works for any invention regardless of where you are, it is not affected by state borders.

    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.

  10. Avatar for Mike Abundo Mike Abundo says:

    The reason Smart Money and GCash missed the boat here is because they’re such walled gardens. Gpay’s API will globally bitch-slap them both with the Long Tail of m-commerce.

  11. Avatar for Jon Limjap Jon Limjap says:

    And that, my friends, tells you how bad Americans are at business — they actually need patents to protect them from competition.

  12. Avatar for Mike Abundo Mike Abundo says:

    I don’t think Google cares. Frankly, neither do I. Gpay will include an open API, something Smart and Globe conspicuously lack. Anything Google comes up with will be better than any telco’s proprietary crap.

    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.

  13. Avatar for Kevin Yapjoco Kevin Yapjoco says:

    Smart and Globe will have an uphill battle. They could be completely shut out of the US market if Google will pursue its legal options and threaten both companies to cease their operations. Just hope Google’s lawyers don’t patrol patent filings looking for cases to file against competition. The US may still be lagging behind other countries in terms of using mobile phones for various activities, but it is quickly catching up.

  14. Avatar for minor minor says:

    Philippines dont exist :D

  15. Avatar for Eugene Eugene says:

    Abe and Jhay, no. If and only if the claims in Google’s patent can directly describe the GCash and Smart Padala system, then the U.S. patent not valid. Globe and Smart’s services are the basis of prior art that can invalidate a patent. Remember that prior art does not have to have a patent to be effective.

  16. Avatar for jhay jhay says:

    So does it mean that G-cash or Smart Padala could no longer be used in the US because Google has patented a similar service? Correct me if I’m wrong on this one. :D

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

  17. Avatar for BrianB BrianB says:

    I take it back. doesn’t seem like many people are going to use the method anyway, in the U.S.

  18. Avatar for BrianB BrianB says:

    Too bad Philippine corporations are not very savvy when it comes to marketing what they own abroad. Billions yan.

Leave a Reply