When patents attack Android
googleblog.blogspot.com
googleblog.blogspot.com
And they claim that they aren't litigious with patents, and they haven't been yet. But to paint them as the victim is disingenuous -- while they don't use patents offensively, they have many other tools at their disposal that they do use offensively, market share in advertising and search amongst them.
Google is a massive company with massive resources. They happen to be exceptionally smart and know how to use tools outside of litigation to achieve their means -- but that doesn't make them any less a monopoly or anti-competitive company; far from it.
It's impossible to view Drummond's post in a box -- it's not just about how patents hinder innovation -- /everybody knows that/ already. But Google does everything for a reason, they are very strategic. Since Google knows it has better tools to be competitive outside of patents, it is in their interest to eliminate patents as a source of pressure from competitors.
And if you invent something amazing, and you patent it, and then Google decides to copy you -- you may not feel that patents hinder innovation as much as you do right now. But since they are a behemoth with lots of other tools at their disposal, they want to eliminate a favorite weapon of their competitors. Smart, but altruistic it may not be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/05/intellectual-ventur...
Amazon, Apple, Cisco, eBay, Microsoft, etc. are also investors but they are not acting like whiny babies and acting all high and mighty going around preaching about how patents are destroying innovation.
Fact 1:
-------
Google was willing to pay for $3-$4 billion for the same Nortel patents.
Fact 2:
-------
Google's page rank algorithm is patented. if you don't believe in patents then why the hell do you own patents?
Fact 3:
-------
Let me quote another commenter on another blog: "How many small and innovative companies has Google killed off by replicating what they do and making it available for free? Great way to keep the next Google from springing up."
Message to Google:
------------------
You can use other people's technology, you just have to pay for them. You are being sued left and right not because there's some organized propaganda against you, it's because you STOLE from other companies.
Also, some of these companies, including Google and Cisco, have been investors for many years, and in the early years IV had a very different tone. Back then, the giant patent-holding company, which was founded by ex-Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold, billed itself as a “patent defense fund.” (Clearly, it hasn’t turned out that way. ) http://paidcontent.org/article/419-giant-patent-holder-intel...
IV was founded in 2000 and they didn't file their first suit until 2010. Companies certainly change their business model ("pivot," if you will).
Regardless, I'd like to see Google (and many others) divest themselves of their interest in IV.
2) See #1. Stanford owns the patent on PageRank because it was developed by Stanford graduate students on an NSF research grant. Not really relevant.
Also, it is a mathematical algorithm in every sense of the word. A lot of patents aren't.
I'd agree it would be even better if Google never gave a dime to patent trolls but there's a little more to the story than just Google investing in IV.
See: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_27/b3991401....
Those products that, to put in your don't-understand-software-patents way, STOLE from other people's innovations?
Because it's coming, and it's going to be ugly for everyone. The patent nuclear war approaches.
Your facts seems to opine that Google should simply suffer the system. They didn't make the game, but they are a young company in a industry of longstanding titans. Apple nor Microsoft nor anyone else has a right to billions in quarterly profits for perpetuity.
Google is a young company, but it's been in the phone industry at least since it bought Android in 2005. Apple created its iPhone and released it in 2007, so in the phone industry, Google's the senior.
No one has a right to billions of quarterly profits, but no one has a right to violate others' intellectual property, either. Apple and Microsoft are profiting at these levels despite the infringement of other companies.
They may be anti-competitive in other areas (although I don't know specifics). Can you provide some sources?
There needs to be significant patent/ip reform in this country, there's no question about that. Google isn't necessarily a "good guy", though. There is a lot of money to be made out there and all of the big guys are using everything at their disposal to gain the upper hand.
Google is a major investor in patent troll firm Intellectual Ventures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/05/intellectual-ventur...
Amazon, Apple, Cisco, eBay, Microsoft, etc. are also investors but they are not acting like whiny babies and acting all high and mighty going around preaching about how patents are destroying innovation.
The name "PageRank" is a trademark of Google, and the PageRank process has been patented (U.S. Patent 6,285,999). However, the patent is assigned to Stanford University and not to Google. Google has exclusive license rights on the patent from Stanford University. The university received 1.8 million shares of Google in exchange for use of the patent; the shares were sold in 2005 for $336 million.
Could be wrong, though, but I seem to recall a similar story in the news not too long ago.
But I don't think Google actually sued anyone when most other search engines started using that method. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Totally irrelevant to the current conversation. No one thinks all patents are good or valid. Contrast with what Google does: (1) copy exactly what the leader does as close as possible, (2) not license any of the innovations we're copying and (3) push propoganda that any patents we might walk over are "bogus".
It is a fact that nearly all software infringes at least some patents. I do not believe I could write any significant program that was entirely patent free. As a result, I would say that I believe every software company is "willfully infringing patents". After all, they chose to ship software instead of spending years and thousands of dollars in a combination of patent discovery and crippling their software to avoid patents.
As far as walking over patents -- Google is being sued less than many other major players at this point:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4128/5061246255_45a015568b.jp...
Well that's a different claim then you made earlier. At any rate as I said above I don't think Google is just infringing on silly, obvious and clearly invalid patents. I think they willfully infringe on clear, major innovations.
I'm also not seeing the difference between "It's nearly impossible to write a nontrivial program that doesn't infringe patents" and "I do not believe I could write any significant program that was entirely patent free."
Java ("everything else sucks" - Google), miscellaneous mobile innovations belonging to all sorts of companies via proxy (because they don't actually ship phones). They haven't been sued over VP8 yet but it's likely coming barring licensing.
...
"I'm also not seeing the difference between ..."
Well now you're putting words in your own mouth. What you originally said was:
"point to a single nontrivial piece of software that doesn't infringe on someone's patents."
And I pointed to every piece of software over 20 years old, /hangs mission accomplished banner. Again this is excessively derailing...
VP8: the fact that Google has been using VP8 in WebM for 14 months now, with no clear allegations of wrongdoing, kinda kills your "willful" argument. If Google was fully aware they were infringing on patents, don't you think someone would have brought this up and/or sued them by now? (I could also start ranting about submarine patents, but I'll leave that alone.)
The parent poster also didn't really ask the right question. "Point to a single nontrivial piece of software that doesn't infringe on someone's patents" may indeed be solved by pointing to anything written over 20 years ago, but how is that a useful measure? We're not going to just say that we only need software written by 1991 and everything written in the past 20 years is useless. So sure, maybe "mission accomplished", but that's like saying "mission accomplished" for successfully going to the bathroom. Sure, well done!
The more useful question is -- "can you write a nontrivial piece of software today that infringes no patents?" I don't know the answer to that, but I suspect it's hard to do.
I believe exceptions for prior usage are one of the things being messed with in the current "patent reform" legislation, though, IIRC, they're being influenced in a negative direction disappointingly and unsurprisingly.
VP8 was designed to avoid patents, but there's so much stuff patented in the audio and video fields that it's nearly impossible to avoid infringing.
Do I realize that Apple infringes patents? Yes. Are you aware that Apple doesn't cry about how it's the end of the world and we're all going to have to pay more for the next iphone because they had to write Nokia a check for Nokia's previous and substantial innovations to mobile?
Wow, seems like you have a pretty big bias here. That hurts your argument quite a bit.
Are you aware that Apple doesn't cry about how it's the end of the world and we're all going to have to pay more for the next iphone because they had to write Nokia a check for Nokia's previous and substantial innovations to mobile?
It's one thing to license a patent filed and wielded in good faith. Google already does that as well for lots of patents.
It's quite another to collude with other companies to buy up huge patent portfolios for the sole purpose of extorting your competitors and stifling competition. That's what Apple/MS/etc. appear to be doing here. Obviously I can't speak to their motivations with authority, but that's how it looks from the outside.
Wait I'm biased but according to you, Apple is using this for the sole purpose of extortion? Come off of it. Back here in the real world Apple has probably paid out many times more in patent suits then it has or will collect any time soon. Why can't Apple be using these defensively as well?
Patent litigation is simply a weapon used by companies offensively or defensively.
When in a fight with your competitors you look at your weapons and theirs. When evaluating the visible weaponry of their competitors they see patent litigation near the top of the list. When they look at their arsenal of weapons, they do not see patent litigation at the top of the list. Therefore, they have decided it's better to eliminate patent litigation as a weapon rather than to go into battle against it.
Their strategy is to change the rules of what weapons can be used in battle. :-) It's very smart.
1. Build innovative products that your customers want, and keep iterating and innovating to keep your customers coming back for more.
2. Use the legal system to force your competitors out of your market, or make it so expensive to stay that it's harder to gain market share.
Apple has a long and brilliant history of #1, which makes it even more disheartening that it seems like they're resorting to #2 here.
While both may be legally valid, which is more beneficial to consumers and society as a whole?
Bogus patents = military power
useful innovations = effective societies.
Trying to remove bogus patents/military power and shift the center of gravity over to useful innovations/effective societies, isn't nefarious despite advantaging one particular party.
This is nonsense. Google has a huge number of smart people working for them - if they wanted to enter a patent war they are extremely well equipped to do so. Everything I've seen from them tells me that they simply culturally biased against doing that. They'd just rather spend their time inventing cool new stuff than suing about old stuff.
Android is just a very small part of the open source ecosystem, and the platform was clearly not created to promote open source, but to use it as leverage to quickly spread a free (as in beer) mobile operating system.
Regardless of one's feelings about software patent lawsuits (I'm opposed), a better phrase than "instead of" might be "in addition to".
Is android a better platform than Java's? Yes, definitely. But that's not the right question. The right question is: was it right for Google to take someone else's IP and give it away for free?
Frankly I hate the way people view Google, as some righteous white-knight out to save the world from having to pay for anything that's worth buying. Instead "just give me all your personal info, and look at a few advertisements, and be on your way" (pat on the head).
I think Oracle has every right to go after Google for hijacking Java and turning it into another add-generating revenue stream, without so much as a tip of the hat to the company that spent decades and billions of dollars building it into what it is today.
Just my $.02.
Honest questions, BTW, if there's anybody with answers who are allowed to give answers...
http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
The timing is certainly convenient for Google.
Edit: I will add that I personally have done exactly this in conversation. But, in the worst case, Google is exploiting a sentiment that already exists, rather than creating it from nothing.
This is exactly as true as the claim that all scientists support AGW theory.
Reality-- most scientists don't support that theory.
But proponents of the theory say that they all do, all over the place. And since there is nobody who actually speaks for all scientists, there's nobody to prove them wrong.
So they repeat it over and over and over and over again, even though it isn't true.
Logically, your statement is easily disproven. I have been developing software for two decades, including open source, and I support software patents.
Now you can never make that statement again. Well, you can't if you're honest.
This is exactly as true as the claim that all scientists support AGW theory.
Reality-- most scientists don't support that theory.
But proponents of the theory say that they all do, all over the place. And since there is nobody who actually speaks for all scientists, there's nobody to prove them wrong.
So they repeat it over and over and over and over again, even though it isn't true.
Logically, your statement is easily disproven. I have been developing software for two decades, including open source, and I support software patents.
Now you can never make that statement again. Well, you can't if you're honest.
At the risk of sounding like I'm retroactively changing my argument, I didn't say "all software developers." My intended meaning of "software developers" and "Open Source developers" was many, not all, which I believe is a common and valid grammatical interpretation of a pluralized noun without a specified quantity.
Sites like Groklaw and organizations like the FSF (though FSF is a bit more extreme on most things than I am) show that there is a sizable group of people against software patents, and whether you yourself are for, against, or neutral, your position does not disprove the harm done to OSS/FS, small companies, and general innovation by software patents.
Finally, though this is off topic, do you have evidence that most scientists don't support the theory of anthropogenic global warming? From the perspective of a non-climate-scientist, non-politician such as myself, it seems like most climatologists do consider anthropogenic greenhouse gases a problem. It also seems that claiming that most scientists disbelieve in AGW is a hallmark of conservative arguments (as in preserving the legal status quo, not as in right wing), as is claiming that patents help the small inventor.
powerje 3 days ago | link [dead]
>> Reality-- most scientists don't support that theory.
Citation needed.
Anecdotally I think the statement about software
developers in general being anti-software patent is true,
but especially OSS developers - you really think this is
incorrect?
While the patents Apple are using to attack Android with seem dubious, the motivation for this tactic is obvious. Google extremely blatantly cloned the look and feel of the iPhone and have pursued a strategy of dumping Android in an attempt to reduce smartphones to a commodity. Of course Apple will try every trick in the book to prevent them doing this.
As a strategy for Google this makes perfect sense, but playing the wounded party as they do in this post is ridiculous, whichever horse you have in the smartphone OS race.
There are actually quite a few differences between Android and iOS in terms of interface, and there always have been -- in fact, many features found in later versions of iOS were found first in earlier versions of Android, such as copy & paste, wallpapers, and the upcoming notification area. In addition, applications are presented differently (you have to slide up a panel, generally, or tap a button somewhere to get to them), wallpapers can be dynamic (Live Wallpapers), and Android is, in general, much more reliant on menu structures than iOS, which seems to take a more simple and transparent route to most functions.
Sure, there are similarities -- like the fact that it's a touch interface and applications are represented first as icons -- but I'm inclined to think they're less prevalent than seems to be thought, and the ones that are there are (more or less) common sense. (I could be wrong, of course :))
I would say that both iOS and Android are touch enabled versions of this from more than 20 years ago: http://images.yourdictionary.com/images/computer/_PROGMAN.GI...
For a truly innovative mobile UI, look at WP7 and Metro.
The US patent system, is broken. The cases as far as I know are being fought in the US, I doubt any of the claims would be accepted by a European court, though feel free to correct me.
Indeed, one of the main courses of action they're taking is to "strengthen our own patent portfolio"…
Interesting to see this blog post on the heels of Google buying 1000 patents from IBM.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/in-battle-for-patents...
He is accusing them of illegal behaviour. He is accusing them of impeding innovation. And he says they will increase their own weapons arsenal to defend their products as well as fight through other channels.
Due to him being a Google official this means this is officialy a confrontation course. No more diplomacy.
This will be fun to watch. I'm for google :).
http://twitter.com/#!/bradsmi/status/98902130412355585
Brad Smith (Microsoft General Counsel): Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no.
I think by being offensive and teaming up with Microsoft, Apple is risking being at the losing end of a huge PR and mind share battle here. Microsoft still makes money using their market position but they are no longer in the mind share race.
Apple's business is in a position right now where they aren't a monopoly yet to start abusing it - unlike Microsoft which has so much leverage that losing mind share and having bad PR doesn't do much in terms of being a dent in existing, established business. However, for Apple if the rising tide against their close-ness continues with the help of economical realities and being perceived as a bully in the same league as Microsoft - they could see stagnation.
Apple has really no reason to pick that bullying route - they are always first to create new market categories, they are the most profitable ones, they still have lot of novelty factor going for them and they can compete in every better way if they wanted.
Mobile and Web are the same thing, its just we have a legacy crud that needs to be factored away.
Ideally my phone runs linux with a GPU accelerated HTML5 UI, and has a javascript programming model with open API to get to hardware features. We are nearly there.
I believe Objective-C and Java languages are ultimately unsuited to phone app development. [ because phone app development _is_ web app development ]
This would be a bold, unifying, visionary strategy. You already have this in place, it just needs to be amplified - doing so could be the perfect strategy to win the patent game by making the patent game largely irrelevant.
I do believe, though, that there are plenty of people at the companies driving these current litigations that hate what they are doing. It's just the rules of the game that let aggression emerge.
And then there are the tech giants, they do not notice you until you get real big yourself.
So yeah, the situation sure is depressing, but then again at the end of the tunnel is money and fame, it is only reasonable the path shall be difficult.
This isn't a valid use of the patent system - it's an abuse of that system. This is very clear to both people that suppose software patents and that oppose them.
If someone can show a valid, nontrivial patent that Android is being attacked with, I might change my mind.
Lawsuits over trivial patents scare me because I might be the next target. If I found another startup some day, and develop all my own technology, I can still be sued over trivial patents. If it can happen to Google, what's to stop it from happening to any of us, if we become successful enough to be targets for this sort of thing?
But legally speaking, none of us have the authority to determine what qualifies as trivial. Google certainly has the fund to battle it out and demands re-examination of every patents involved. Just recently Apple got USPTO to declare several S3 patents invalid.
Just do it.
Technically we can be sued and the court will decide what is 'trivial'. But that is completely messed up. We, the software engineers, know what is trivial or not in our field - software engineering.
If lawyers decide what is trivial and what isn't in software, then every software engineer founding a startup needs a lawyer to go over all the code he or she writes. That's a horrible burden on innovation!
The question remains to what extend do we protect IP so the system yields net benefit to the society, not the opposite?
I have no answer, but I'm Chinese, I've witnessed a complete disregard for IP in practice facilitates intellectual cesspool and general lack of innovation. I hesitate to join the chant for total software patents abolishment.
And should not the professionals in this case - software engineers - be the right people to make that determination?
> What's obvious and trivial after the fact may not be trivial at all before someone come up with it in the first place.
Yes. But in practice, no one reads patent filings. So the act of filing patents doesn't spread information that makes an idea seem trivial later on. Of course the act of making a successful product might do that.
> The question remains to what extend do we protect IP so the system yields net benefit to the society, not the opposite?
That's a tough question. But it is clear that suing over trivial patents is detrimental to innovation. Software patents of actual substance, on the other hand, are a debatable issue.
None of the patents being sued over in the mobile space so far appear to have any substance.
Note that I don't count the Java patents here - Oracle isn't a mobile company, and the patents aren't mobile in particular. Oracle's lawsuit against Google isn't of the same category as the other anti-Android lawsuits. The other ones come from competitors in the mobile space.
Regarding the Java patents themselves, I haven't read any, so I can't say I have an opinion.
And really the merits of various patents these companies holds are not the focus of my argument, I understand you feel quite differently.
I can't disagree more.
Should common sense be how we decide what medical option to pursue? Or whether a mathematical proof is valid? Or even whether a legal argument is allowed - in the US judges determine that in many case, not juries?
What possible reason is there for common sense to determine whether a software patent is trivial or not? The only question should be whether it actually is trivial or not. The people who know that are software engineers.
We let doctors do whatever they suggest a lot, we also have the right to refuse medical help if deemed mentally capable. Random people with common sense decide for theirselves.
and in most of microsoft's existing licensing agreements with android vendors, that haven't even disclosed what patents are being licensed. there's just some vague threat that they have a claim, and you're expected to pay up if you don't want to get sued.
I'm not happy with the current system either. But I do not see IP legal actions as all evil, the purpose can be purely to set road blocks for competitors. But as long as it is within the bound of law. After all Android's price barrier is also pretty insurmountable.
I'm very skeptical that HTC does not know what Microsoft's been licensing. Others do not, sure.
and yes, i'm sure HTC knows what they are licensing. but they've signed NDAs as part of their agreement, and microsoft refuses to publicly disclose what patents they think they hold. if google could learn what patents microsoft is charging license fees for, they could potentially write android in a way that didn't infringe on those patents. microsoft doesn't want this. they want android to infringe, so they can continue to collect money off it. this is a malicious abuse of the patent system. there is no other way to describe it.
The core idea of Free Software is the notion that one's own creations have every right to be free. If I create something independently, it is my right to give it away for free. Why should some other company I've never heard of and/or never done business with get to charge license fees for something I created myself, without their help?
Same with Java. Name one feature of Java that hasn't been done 100 times in one form or another in some other language
This is why software patents are absurd. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants.
In the tech industry, 20 years are couple of lifetimes long. I'm in favor of shorten the period too.
Oracle is another matter entirely, and arguing that case requires discussing whether an unoriginal programming language and associated virtual machine should be patentable. Oracle gets no sympathy from me because of the way they've treated the various communities that built up around Sun's products, but beyond that, I think a rational case can be made that Google's independent implementation of a register-based VM should not be seen as infringing patents on Java's stack-based VM, and/or that Java's patents cover things that are obvious or non-novel.
Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
I wonder if all parties involved would lobby for the destruction of software patents - wholesale - and call a ceasefire.
coming out of the 2008-2009 recession, companies are flush with cash, of which shareholders encourage companies to invest in various operations, assets, etc. using these cash stockpiles to buy nortel patents and prevent google from enhancing their dominance / protection against litigation in the android space is a form of competition. it is all a game.
I would love a deal on a phone, but I think it is unethical to bundle products in this way. I would rather have the opportunity to switch carriers anytime I want.
I love mobile devices and mobile services, but the market conditions are too restrictive. I'd like to be able to (for example):
o Have multiple devices from different vendors on the same carrier plan o Have multiple carriers for each of my devices, so I can use whoever has the best service at any particular location o Pay a fair price for the data I send and receive to/from each carrier, and not pay for what I do not use o Sign up only for internet service from a carrier, without anything else bundled in that I do not want, such as voice service, SMS plans, etc. Only internet protocol, thank you. o Use my phone, which I bought, on any compatible carrier, in any country in the world, for a fair price.
If Google offers an android phone with these terms on their main search page, I will gladly pay a fair price for it.
I seem to remember them trying this originally, with the nexus one, and it didn't go very well. But, the nexus one was a mediocre phone and it was relatively early days for android. Now the phones are better, and android's market share greater. I want to see them take this idea seriously again.
But yes, you are right. The real problem in this case is the carriers.
If Google's phones are not SIM-locked, that's great :)
My main remaining gripe is that if I can save on the price of a phone by entering a contract with a carrier, I want to also be able to go the other way: get more favorable contract terms if I already have a phone. Or get month-to-month service at a reasonable price without the need for any contract at all.
To the extent that these options are not available, the market for mobile internet service is not as open and efficient as it really ought to be.
The system is broken but at the same time I suppose we need patents in some form at least for hardware. Apple couldn't make phones if it wasn't for innovative suppliers. The only thing between them going it alone and taking orders from Apple are patents. It's a bit tricky because if this patent battle plays out, Apple, Microsoft, and HP/Palm would be the only players able to make smartphones on their own without fear of patent suits. That's a near monopoly.
It's enough of a tricky debate and politics usually favors entrenched interests of large corporations. Despite Google's clout they couldn't match the sheer magnitude of Apple, Microsoft, and others. Plus, Google has always had an antagonistic relationship with government, since government keeps trying to pry sensitive personal information from Google.
As this blog is definitely not just a random rant against patent from some random lawyer. Its intention is more interesting. Is Google crying out loud just because it sees the patent system unjust? or is it really because they believe they are gonna lose most of their android related lawsuits, so they want to cry "its unfair!" earlier before the final whistle? just a thought...
reading a post that starts with "I have worked" makes me immediately stop reading and scroll around to find out who "I" is.
If google wanted to compete, they could have spent 7 years investing in fundamental innovations-- like Apple did with touch-- to create their own new UI. Maybe they could have done a voice driven phone. OR, if touch was inevitable, they could have done their own, innovative take on touch UIs.
They did not. They turned around and cloned the iPhone and then gave the OS away for free. They were able to do this because the patent system requires Apple to publicly disclose their inventions. In exchange for this disclosure, Apple gets a monopoly on the use of their inventions. If you don't like this, that's fine, amend the constitution, and take it up with your congressman.
Google is now claiming that the government should step in and use force-- that is, decrees backed by men with guns and the threat of violence-- to allow google to steal other companies innovations and get away with it.
Think about that. Google cannot compete fair and square, so they steal their competitors technology. When this is pointed out, they call for the use of violence to let them get away with it! Talk about Doing Evil!
Apple learned their lesson last time around. They relied on copyright and license agreements to protect the invention of the GUI. The government did not have their back when Microsoft stole their invention, so this time, Apple made sure to patent their inventions.
This is not "anti-competitive", this the very definition of competition. Apple made a better widget to break into the fiercely competitive mobile phone market.
People only say "anti-competitive" when someone is competing successfully and they don't like it.
If justice prevails, Google will become the wholly owned search and advertising subsidiary of Apple. If corruption prevails, Apple will be prevented in succeeding against google in court. We'll see how it turns out.
Either way, Once again, Apple-- the only company in Silicon Valley with a track record of genuine innovation-- is being attacked by counterfeiters who can't be bothered to spend any R&D on coming up with something new themselves, and once again, the thieves are claiming that they're just "competing."
If you hope to ever profit form doing something innovative... and not get squashed by a company like google ripping you off... you really should be on Apple's side on this. They have always been the underdog that stuck to their guns and innovated really hard. That they've been successful at this shows that the underdog can sometimes win.
If its taken away from them, it will not be justice, and it will not be moral.
If google wanted to compete, they could have spent 7 years investing in fundamental innovations-- like Apple did with touch-- to create their own new UI. Maybe they could have done a voice driven phone. OR, if touch was inevitable, they could have done their own, innovative take on touch UIs.
They did not. They turned around and cloned the iPhone and then gave the OS away for free."
Fundamentally incorrect; the T-Mobile G1 running Android 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 (with modification), did, in fact, come with its own user interface, utilizing widgets on the home pages, wallpapers before iOS was even capable of such a thing unjailbroken, and a different method by which the applications are accessed -- those particular elements are present to this day in Android software. Notably, it wasn't until 2.x that the G1 gained multitouch. Back then, Android's home screen metaphor more resembled the standard desktop of a computer than anything else -- of course, with the addition of widgets. On top of everything else, Android did notifications in a brand new way -- in fact, in a way that was so innovative, Apple ripped them off in iOS 5!
Also, in 2.x, Android gained the feature of dynamic image wallpaper -- i.e. "live wallpapers" -- where the wallpaper is quite dynamic. This is a feature Apple simply does not have yet.
Furthermore, there are different interface conventions in application design, different methods of application development -- in fact, an entirely different language with a platform-agnostic binary format, and, in general, different UI mechanisms for everything.
This is not even to mention copy & paste, which Android had before iOS proper did.
In short: they did not clone the iPhone nearly as much as you say they did. Manufacturers are the ones that did that later, with form factor.
"They were able to do this because the patent system requires Apple to publicly disclose their inventions. In exchange for this disclosure, Apple gets a monopoly on the use of their inventions. If you don't like this, that's fine, amend the constitution, and take it up with your congressman."
Actually, just because Apple publicly disclosed their patent doesn't mean Google read the patent and purposely implemented anything exactly the same way Apple described. In fact, I'm absolutely positive that multitouch doesn't work quite the same way simply because the API to access touch is completely different. The end (user-facing) result winds up the same, though -- but the end result is what's at issue here, isn't it? To that end, I'd say, sure, multi-touch is copied -- but, there aren't a whole lot of common-sense ways, on a screen like that, to enlarge something (beyond buttons and such).
"Google is now claiming that the government should step in and use force-- that is, decrees backed by men with guns and the threat of violence-- to allow google to steal other companies innovations and get away with it."
Blatant, incorrect hyperbole -- unless you can back up the "use force" part. No, the DoJ is stepping in because the major parties involved with the Nortel patent acquisition are also direct competitors with Google -- in fact, the parties are all the major mobile companies that aren't Google. These are companies that did not invent or patent the technologies themselves, but the patents are going to them and are potentially usable for the purpose of crushing Android with litigation rather than by the merit of the products themselves.
"Think about that. Google cannot compete fair and square, so they steal their competitors technology. When this is pointed out, they call for the use of violence to let them get away with it! Talk about Doing Evil!"
"They call for the use of violence" -- citation needed. Honestly, the fact that Google's competitors seem to be (may not be, but the patent acquisition seems to be far more than coincidence here) colluding to squash Google by means of patent litigation is more evidence that Google's competitors can't compete "fair and square", that is, by technical merit.
"People only say 'anti-competitive' when someone is competing successfully and they don't like it."
This sounds like something that would be strangely pro-Microsoft back when MS was abusing its monopoly... but a move to block new competition from entering a market, or a move to exclude (by disqualification) a very specific competitor seems pretty anti-competitive to me.
"Either way, Once again, Apple-- the only company in Silicon Valley with a track record of genuine innovation--"
Are you ignoring Facebook or something? I'm fairly certain Google's search engine indexer is genuinely innovative, too. Oh my.
"If its taken away from them, it will not be justice, and it will not be moral."
If it's not, it will not be moral to allow three out of the four mobile companies to arbitrarily kick the fourth out just because none of them can top it or stop it on technical merit alone.
Oh -- as for Apple being the most innovative company... http://www.gsmarena.com/showpic.php3?sImg=newsimg/11/06/ios-...
But "wallpaper", "copy and paste", and even "live wallpaper" are not new. Physics-based scrolling responding to touch input as if it was actual physical objects you're manipulating? That was new. Android's innovating (and not at all bad) notifications interface? That's new, although it's not quite at the same scale.
But it's hard to argue that Apple did not make serious progress in computing as a whole with the iPhone. Even if you believe that Android (and webOS, Windows Phone, etc) should be able to use some of those same elements, or if you believe that Apple shouldn't be able to patent them.
Not necessarily my point of view, but isn't that how patents should work? Protecting prior art.
Software patents are a joke, just listen to this now famous 'This American Life' piece: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w...
In this case it's so blatantly anti-competitive you have to be blind no to see the problem with it, we have all of Android's competitors consorting together, time and time again to block Google from buying patents so they could kill it.
Even if you are pro-patent (slim chance if you are a HN member) you should appreciate the anti-competitive risk of these patent consortiums. And if the government wasn't infested with IP lawyers (former RIAA, MPAA, BSA; None reformists) this issue would have taken center stage ages ago.
Google wanted the Nortel patents very badly but couldn't find enough fellow bidders whose interests matched its own to overcome the concerted efforts of Apple, Microsoft, and others who have a stake in pulling Android down. An interesting analysis of who the winners and losers were in this bidding process appears here: http://www.tangible-ip.com/2011/what-does-nortel-mean-for-th....
Having lost that bid, Google is in a far worse position to defend Android from patent attacks than it ever has been before. Essentially, all of its competitors now have formidable new weapons to use against the Android platform. This isn't so much an issue of "trolls" as it is conventional large players who use patent portfolios as arsenals for both offensive and defensive purposes. Google's enemies are now much more formidably armed as a result of the bidding.
Google therefore hopes to stir the DOJ into doing something about this on the antitrust front. The DOJ is scrutinizing this deal and may wind up imposing conditions that could be vital to Google. Its antitrust chief, Christine Varney, had represented Netscape while in private practice years ago in its antitrust fight with Microsoft and she has publicly expressed concerns about the misuse of patents by trolls and others for anti-competitive purposes (for those with a subscription, see this WSJ piece: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230365740457636...). Quite apart from her personal views, however, it is problematic that competitors can collude horizontally to do a major IP acquisition for what seems like an obvious anti-competitive purpose.
Google is not a "little guy" that might elicit sympathy in battling over the mobile space but it clearly has had its competitors gang up on it in pulling off the Nortel bid. Android will undoubtedly survive this attack but Google is seriously worried about being besieged in this way. In this piece, it is essentially looking to its last best hope in the DOJ for attempting to block this attack by competitors who hope to win by artificial legal means that which they can't win in the marketplace.
Let's hope this gets the scrutiny it deserves.
Not to downplay the importance of losing the bid, but is it possible Google simply decided there are more effective ways to get what they want than to spend an extra $2 billion on top of their highest bid? $2 billion can buy you a lot of lobbying. Patent reform or action by the DOJ could greatly decrease the value of the $4.5b of patents Google's competitors just bought.
You bet! Nortel is a household name for all they have done to advance technology and for the smartphone industry in particular, I am shocked that anyone could dispute the validity of these patents. We owe them a debt of gratitude for the Nortel PalmPilot, the nDroid, nPhone, the nPad, and all the other consumer products Nortel has poured their innovation into. They gave so much, in fact, that they went into bankruptcy. If it wasn't for Nortel, why, who knows where Apple, Google, Microsoft, and the others would be? The bones of Nortel are probably brimming with innovative new product ideas that only need cash from Apple or Microsoft to see the light of day.
Timescale? Today's innovation is at an incredible pace. To grant patents that don't reflect that is absurd, what was innovative 20 years ago is utterly mundane today. Because what was a difficult problem 20 years ago is trivially solved today even without that innovation.
That so many patents are used offensively without ever seeing their inventor use them practically is evidence of this.
To pretend otherwise is to grant monopolies to people who have already reaped the benefits of their inventions at a massive cost to society, the very people these laws were meant to benefit.
Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no.
https://twitter.com/#!/BradSmi/status/98902130412355585
Why would Google decline to be a part of this consortium? It would have disarmed its competitors.
It's one of those things where people weren't out to get you. But they played their hand so poorly they've made themselves the obvious target.
Curious if the Nortel deal happened in at all the same way.
I believe Microsoft was referring to a different patent auction, when Novell was being carved up for parts.
My suspicion is that SE actually need the patents in order to continue produce devices. Whereas Google can take the money/time they were prepared to invest and clean up the code removing infringing components for the Icecream sandwich release.
Thats ignoring the "lets play patent monopoly" and just focusing on the core products being produced. Code and Handsets.
Did you have to spoil the ending? Come'n, I was hoping for a little suspense at least!
If they thought patents were more strategic for them, they wouldn't be anti-patent. For them it's purely a strategic viewpoint that benefits them due to their current size.
That patents are grossly abused is a serious issue that is quickly coming to a head, so it won't take ages from now for major reform to occur.
>If they thought patents were more strategic for them, they wouldn't be anti-patent.
This needs a gigantic [citation needed] next to it.
I am pro IP protection (IPP) and but I strongly dislike the existing IPP system we have.
So sure, I guess it's nice that in this instance your company's strategy lines up with your ethical beliefs.
Strongly disagree. This kind of statement really needs some supporting evidence.
http://infochachkie.com/fast-followers-i/
"Whenever creating an imitation of a successful leader, great care must be taken to avoid outright intellectual property infringement; the closer the duplication, the greater the care which must be exercised. MGA Entertainment (MGA), which produced the Bratz dolls, learned this the hard way. Late in 2008, U.S. Courts forced MGA to cease and desist in the manufacture of the dolls. A jury deemed that the creator of Bratz, Carter Bryant, devised the idea while he was an employee at Mattel. In the Spring of 2009, a U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the jury decision, mandating that the intellectual property associated with Bratz dolls was the sole property of Mattel."
Regardless, reading your linked article, it seems to have a pretty positive (or at least neutral) view of being a so-called "follower". It's interesting to point out the NKOTB-follower groups like Backstreet Boys and 'NSync. Regardless of whether or not you like their music, it's hard to deny that they were hugely successful and helped push the "boyband" genre of music into greater popularity. Not saying this is good or bad from an aesthetic point of view, but it sounds good from a business perspective.
I'm surprised at the level of disagreement this assertion has provoked. How much evidence do you really want? Are the Chinese vendors hawking illegal Harry Potter books for or against greater penalties in China for violating IP? Are the fake Apple stores and fake iPhone "KIRF" makers for or against greater IP penalties?
I mean I guess this classification loses value when you start talking about companies like Zynga that both steal and are stolen from (today's injunction). And that probably applies to Apple and many other large businesses but it seems to me that most of these companies put up a fight but ultimately accept that they have to pay for many things -- as Apple did with Amazon's One Click or the IP they buy or the Nokia settlement. OTOH Google seems to have adopted something scarily close to the Chinese pirate model.
Many of the commenters here on Hacker News are innovators in the sense that they are creating new software with new combinations of ideas that have not previously existed. They are also against stronger IP protection, because to date, "stronger IP" has meant ridiculously long copyright terms, broad, non-novel, and painfully obvious patents, etc. Many obvious patents cover things that are essential to the writing of software and have been previously documented by academics, but companies are still using them to demand a tax on the work of true innovators, large and small. A sufficiently-skilled corporate lawyer can paint broad and obtusely-worded patents as covering anything they want in the minds of a lay jury. Patent holders claim to have "invented" things that are considered by programmers as trivial, everyday tasks in their programming. We are not "stealing" their ideas, as we never even hear they exist until a lawsuit comes out of the blue.
I could go on. Such are the landmines facing small, independent and/or open source software creators, and they do nothing but slow down innovation and limit the growth our sector of the economy. Alas, this thread has long since fallen off the front page, so it is probably best left to rest.
The Bratz case seems entirely unrelated to the matter at hand, though in the closest comparison I can see, Mattel is a parasite trying to use IP laws to reap the benefits of creative work done by MGM and the designer of the Bratz dolls. The pro-IP Mattel is not the leader in this case.
[0] Edit: and, according to your article: "A jury deemed that the creator of Bratz, Carter Bryant, devised the idea while he was an employee at Mattel."
I think a better framing of your latter point would be - incumbents are pro-IP newcomers are contra-IP. Just being first in a field does not mean that you are innovating in it currently.
Well 'empire' has some connotations you may not be aware of.
Let me take an example to clarify this situation - Lets assume a hypothetical situation where Nokia has reached its limits of what it thinks a Phone could be it has stopped doing fundamental innovation ie it has a well defined empire with a well defined cost structure and a well defined revenue model. In such a situation it is in Nokia's self interest to use their immense patent portfolio to create a moat around their business to keep upstarts like Apple / Google away.
On the other hand lets consider another hypothetical situation where Nokia were innovating and trying to reimagine what a phone could be. Perhaps they were doing interesting things in software to displace desktops and make the phone the central location of the users global state. In this case they would be encroaching onto areas where other entities (like Microsoft, Google) might hold significant patents. In this case it would be in Nokia's self interest to be the anti patent candidate.
I have often found that when I use more words to clarify a miscommunication I often end up causing more damage. I hope that is not the case here.
Now that this issue is Apple vs. Google, the discussion has turned into a huge number of namecalling arguments with conflicting upvotes vs. downvotes.
My take:
Patents need a MUCH higher bar than what's currently out there. Eg. RSA patent = VALID and the Apple patent of using accelerometer to rotate a display, but-on-a-mobile-phone-instead-of-camera = LAME & INVALID.
Kind of going off on a tangent, but Android didn't bring nothing much new to the UI(except maybe notifications?), it's mostly a pale imitation of iOS. WP7 on the other hand, atleast has an innovative mobile UI in the form of metro.
http://www.riagenic.com/archives/487
Some android apps are copying it verbatim...
Apple zealots
Mostly rational people who prefer iOS
Mostly rational people who like both
Mostly rational people who prefer Google
Android zealots
There should be some way algorithmically to determine the people who are in the extreme categories, say...
extremism quotient:= (|upv| + |dwnv|) / max (1,|net score|)
Then if that exceeds some threshold over a certain period the person's votes could be ignored or diluted.
This is a fantastic episode but you don't seem to have paid much attention: it's a piece against patent trolls, not patents.
Patent trolls need to go, but the jury is still out on software patents.
To a software engineer it is clear that patents on software are worthless (i.e. don't serve society) and hamper innovation.
At it stands I predict that we'll either have a 5 year all out patent war after which companies will beg law makers collectively to abolish patents on software or have 5 decades of patent cold war.
I know the anti-patent people like to pretend that all programmers are anti-patent. I find it shameful to see how shoddy the thinking is when anti-patent people are confronted with pro-patent arguments.
I'm an HN member and have been participating in this website since 2006 or 2007 (though I got the boot for having a minority opinion.)
Patents are not anti-competitive. They actually force competition-- and they give a leg up to all of your competitors by quickly bringing them up to speed on the state of the art.
If the patent system didn't exist, and Apple didn't reveal its inventions, android would be 7 years behind the iPhone. In fact, android phones wouldn't exist. They'd still be at the drawing board trying to figure out how to make multi-touch work.
Its not like Apple just had this idea and then 7 months later introduced the iPhone!
I think people who are anti-patent don't actually understand what it takes to be innovative. It isn't easy, and it is silly to think that android would exist if Apple hadn't revealed its secrets as part of the patent process.
The thing is, in exchange for this revelation, google is required to come up with something new using this knowledge, not just copy it and sell it.
Wait... what? No, seriously... what? Somehow you've bought into this patent-everything nonsense so deeply that you think patents are good because having patents protects you from other companies with patents? I'd be hard pressed to find a pro-patent argument that makes less sense.
For the record, I'm not anti-patent. I'm anti-stupid-dumbshit-patent. Patents were designed to provide an incentive to invent when the cost of invention is high, and others "freeloading" off your sunk cost could severely hurt you.
When your "cost" of invention is simply "I sat around for 5 hours and thought of this cool idea to patent", you've come up with a stupid-dumbshit patent. Unfortunately it just seems that most of the patents that fall into this category are software patents.
If, however, you spent millions of dollars developing something that, after being specified and documented, can be reproduced at a fraction of the cost, sure, by all means, get yourself a patent on that and enjoy it.
Obviously it's hard to draw the line: at what dollar amount or length of development time should we consider something patentable? It's a hard question, but surely we can answer it better than we are now. At the very least, limit damages or licensing fees to be gained off a patent to some multiple of the difficulty in developing the patent. That's a hard thing to measure too, but again, it'd be much better than what we have now.
However, on slashdot, people claimed that this patent was a patent on "the idea of online games!!!!!!". Later there was a big discussion claiming we'd patented IRC and oh, how bogus that was, because IRC was around for YEARS before we filed our patent!
Nothing in the IRC protocol, or any of the online games at the time (or most of them sense) solved the problems we were solving in our patent.
The thing is, the anti-patent people never read the patent. The Amazon "one click patent "is not a patent on putting a "Buy now" button on a website. Our patent didn't cover IRC, etc.
I haven't done a survey of patents, and so I can't say what percentage of them are bogus, and what aren't. I can believe a bogus patent could exist, and there is a remedy for that-- present prior art and the patent gets thrown out. This is a pretty functional solution, and anyone pressing their case better be prepared because the possibility of prior art always exists.
So, I doubt there are many bogus patents, at least, not many that ever make it to court. I do think there are a lot of patents that are presented as "bogus" that aren't. My other patent has a headline that makes it sound totally bogus... but it isn't. I just can imagine what people will say about it-- because they never bother to read the patent.
They already believe patents are bogus and whenever they see yet another claim that a patent is bogus they are ready to believe it.
Are you seriously arguing that competition uses software patent applications to get up to speed?
"If the patent system didn't exist, and Apple didn't reveal its inventions, android would be 7 years behind the iPhone."
Incredible.
"They'd still be at the drawing board trying to figure out how to make multi-touch work."
This is so wrong on so many levels that your argument is precisely what I criticized in my other post (that is, perhaps rightly, being moderated down to oblivion). Do you really think Apple invented multitouch? They neither invented the phsycial mechanism (they have nothing whatsoever to do with capacitive sensors), nor the concept itself. Aside from obvious examples like the movie Minority Report (and many that came before), which Apple apparently shamelessly ripped off, it has existed on industrial touchscreen for well over a decade.
The single and only reason Android avoided multitouch, despite the software and the hardware being capable, was that Apple won the race to the patent office. No one learned anything from their patent, nor did Apple invent anything beyond adding "on a mobile device" on their application.
That example alone demolishes your position on software patents.
http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/12/27/rim.thought.ap...
http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/12/a-visual-tour-of-androids...
Nobody is arguing that Apple invented every piece of technology that went into the iPhone, but it certainly wasn't the case that all their competitors were moving to multitouch based phones at the time.
As to Android, it is entirely possible that it went from being a Blackberry clone to instead being an iPaq clone. You know, the iPaq circa 2000 or even earlier. The one that was all screen. Sure it used a stylus, but that was courtesy of the limits of the resistive touchscreen technology.
I believe they're called HTC. They've built tons of phones that resemble an iPaq, plenty of them before the iPhone was launched.
Both have significant similarity to a year 2000 iPaq. Full screen mobile device using a touchscreen against an icon grid, onscreen keyboard, etc. The iPaq was a "PDA", however, which somehow differentiates it. I owned one. I know how they are similar.
>You keep inferring that everything presented in the original iPhone was an obvious extension of what we'd seen before, but it simply wasn't.
No, I'm not inferring that whatsoever. I am arguing whether its uniqueness is patentable. We've seen with various iterations of iOS that it is borrowing from its competitors as well. That's how the world works.
I've learned that you cannot argue facts with ideologues-- you will just make up your own facts, as you have done.
You can have the last word. I'm not going to debate this. I really, actually, don't care that you're anti-patent. I believe the anti-patent position is an ideological one that doesn't care about the facts... it is purely political. It is also anti-startup and anti-capitalist.
Sit a UI designer and an engineer down for a couple of sessions to talk about a touch screen (x,y coordinates coming into software from human hands) anytime in the last fifty years and they will come up with the concept of gestures in at most a few hours. What about Douglas Engelbart's work or the work at Xerox in relation to Apple's later ridiculous attempts to claim the windowed GUI as their own?
You accuse others of making up facts but you are ignorant of quite a few.
If someone develops warp drive or the transporter, does star trek count as "prior art"? That would be ludicrous.
(trying to figure out what comment you're replying to is exactly why whitespace-as-blocks is a brain-dead idea in python/coffeescript)
While the discussion was targeted more at the actual value of software patents (i.e. what specifically Apple 'invented' with their multitouch patents), in actual practice yes such a movie is prior art if the novelty of the patent is the application of multifinger gestures. The idea that you need to show a working implementation is nonsense, and has never been a requirement of the patent system.
Regarding warp drive, the novelty of multitouch is the mere concept of using multifinger gestures on an interface. The novelty of a warp drive is the mechanism of achieving warp drive, not the concept of it.
To put it another way, if you patent a method (or system) of making a car fly, maybe that's an invention. Patenting the concept of flying cars, however, is not.
I know exactly what the multitouch patent covers, and yes the basic principals are almost entirely demonstrated in the movie Minority Report. Apple did not invent or have anything to do with multitouch sensors, nor were they close to the first to implement such a sensor.
But you're sure that Android "stole it" (or apparently that they learned great insights from Apple's patent application), which is PERVERSELY wrong on so many levels.
When people say "I'm not going to debate this", it's because they have nothing to debate. You've said nothing of value beyond alluding to a laughable patent example while making absurd claims about the insights gained from patents.
That Stephen Spielburg was able to do it with computer graphics has no bearing on the validity of someone making it exist in the real world.
The reason I am hesitant to debate this issue is because, as you have amply demonstrated, the anti-patent people often don't even understand what a patent IS, let alone what is relevant as "prior art", and are so exceedingly hostile, and often, quite frankly dishonest (e.g.: you'd have to understand what a patent is in order to understand the multi-touch patents.) that it is just a waste of time.
Literally, I am tired offending the trolls. There is nothing to debate, because I've made my case, and you're just going to object and object and object and find another movie to reference and be proud (rather than humiliated!) at doing so!
This is false. I could patent the idea of using, say, a camera's sensor to recognize the species of a plant based on a leaf without any idea of how I would actually build such a thing (what algorithms would be required, etc). I could similarly patent the idea of tracking a user's eye movement to control a user interface, without the slightest clue of how to track a user's eye movement in realtime.
To take one small example - if you were to pull up patents related to virtual reality, the claims (which tend to be written in the mid-1980s) are all ridiculous, the dreamy technology simply didn't exist to build the proposed ideas (i.e. computers small enough to stick on people's heads), but they were still patented anyway.
"In order to patent something, you have to reduce it to practice. That is to say, you have to actually make it work, in the real world."
In reality you do not, otherwise there would be not patents for perpetual motion.
"Literally, I am tired offending the trolls."
I do not think you are dealing with trolls in this thread. Believing so will probably only block you from understanding and possibly convincing your the person on the other side.
You spend a good 90% of each of your posts saying nothing of value but instead offending me and pandering to the crowd, desperately trying to drag yourself to some higher ground where your complete lack of facts is overlooked. I hope no one falls for it.
>That Stephen Spielburg was able to do it with computer graphics has no bearing on the validity of someone making it exist in the real world.
Again, what did Apple invent? The concept of multitouch? No, not at all. The screen itself? No, not at all. The interface rudiments? I will say it again that most of them were demonstrated in Minority Report. Specific algorithms to detect movement?
You are the one claiming that Android stole this grand invention, so I ask again - what did Android steal? We know it wasn't the idea, or the physical sensor...and I highly doubt they stole the algorithm...so what?
Maybe you can submit a copy of Minority Report on DVD as an amicus brief and the judges in those cases will say "oh shit, hn_decay's brilliance hath shone a light where before therewith was only shadow" and declare Android "free and open forever[1]"
[1] exceptions apply
Do you really think Apple invented this? http://www.google.com (turning a URL or other recognizable text into a clickable link).
That's one of the patents being asserted against HTC (which has made it past the first round of the process that leads to an import ban).
You say so much while saying so little.
Apple's assault on HTC is a perfect demonstration of the failure of the patent system. Dozens of trivial, laughable patents such as "recognize an email address in a string of text", patented decades after such techniques were commonplace. Do you want to show one with actual value, instead of alluding to some great argument foundation that you don't actually have?
Oh, hey, look, Android isn't actually open. Yuk yuk. What relevance does that have, beyond just partisan posturing? Who cares?
You know thousands of patent holders are realizing the potential value of their patents, looking longingly at Apple's $75 billion dollar cash pile (poor guys. Everyone is stealing their stuff). It will be interesting to see how positions change after Apple comes under constant, unrelenting assault. I already see people like Gruber trying to differentiate patents by their holders, which is so ignorant and fanboy-driven that it should embarrass him.
And you clearly aren't either, even though you can dismiss every possible patent Google might be accused of infringing on while accusing everyone else of being a fanboy...
....
"Oh, hey, look, Android isn't actually open... What relevance does that have"
I was referencing the iceberg of irony that your good ol' ship (the HMS Zealotry) keeps crashing into.
Apple themselves distilled their own patent into the specific infringement. Their reading was identical to mine.
>the HMS Zealotry
You are in the wrong place. Every one of your tactics is bog standard on borefests like Engadget comments.
http://wearables.unisa.edu.au/projects/mpx/
http://gizmodo.com/278613/linux-mpx-multi+touch-table-may-be...
fwiw
If you do, you'll find that there is no prior art, otherwise Apple wouldn't have had to invent something new.
I've learned that I cannot stop people from constantly making these kinds of claims. You don't actually make a claim-- you just give me links and then assert there is prior art. This is not an argument, because you have failed to address the issue of what the patent actually says.
You can produce links to other websites all day long and then make it beholden on me to prove that they are not prior art. I'm not going to play that game.
Prior ... constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality
OK, so you're saying the links above don't have any bearing on the originality or otherwise of iOs multi touch? That's absurd. If what you're getting at is that there's some legalese-technical argument as to why a seemingly obvious prior occurrence of the "invention" then this indicates to me that the system is broken.
Strawman, unfair, bigotry, whatever -- I would love to be proven wrong. I have yet to hear a pro-software patent argument that isn't littered with corporate partisan nonsense.
I'm actually neutral on patents in the sense of "what would be best in an ideal world". But the bottom line is this- my work is not free unless I choose to donate it. Thus in exchange for giving you my work, I'm going to require a license. If you steal it, you've stolen it, just as if you stole a car.
But wait-- if you steal my car I don't have it anymore, you say, but if you steal my technology, I still have it, you say.
And yes, that's true, but it is irrelevant. If you want my technology enough to steal it, then my technology has value, and it is property, just as anything else I might build with my own hands is property. It isn't that technology can be replicated-- after all, I don't hear you saying software shouldn't be copyrighted or sold-- it is whether you can get your copy without paying me for my work or not.
Just because software or a patent can be replicated, doesn't mean it isn't property and isn't valuable.
Am I knocking down a straw man? Well, you didn't actually make any argument-- you just disparaged people who have a different point of view. So, that forced me to guess what your argument was, and then respond.
I do this so you understand that I am capable of making an argument... I just find the anti-patent people rarely give actual arguments to rebut.
I don't know what "patents are wrong" ideology you refer to. The arguments I see against patents over and over are concrete examples of small companies coming into trouble because they did something obvious, and do not have the legal and financial muscle to handle it, to for example have the patent invalidated because it is on something obvious.
Patents are supposed to help small actors fight big ones, not the other way around. Software patents have come into a bad light because they frequently do the latter.
Perhaps, but the market for this technology is completely inelastic. Regardless of the money/effort/time required to develop this technology, you get the exact same monopoly guarantee in the form of the patent. And you can charge whatever you want for a license, even if that price is entirely unreasonable. You can even be discriminatory, and charge different people different amounts. Or, worse, you can refuse to license to some people, or to everyone.
For a technology that took significant money/effort/time to develop, I can agree with patent protection. But most software patents are comparatively trivial.
An odd position, as it penalizes the thoughtfully elegant lateral thinking solution, which is arguably harder to do.
Patents are an economic tool, not an "I'm clever so I should get paid" tool. The point is to help people push aside concerns about time and money when developing a new idea. Because if a competitor of equal skill can duplicate your work in a fraction of the time, just because they have access to the results of your R&D, that's a strong incentive not to even bother in the first place. So it's about time and money, not about smart thinking or elegance.
(Regarding patents in general, even this argument falls apart a little bit for me. I think trade secret law is sufficient in many cases where patents are traditionally used.)
There are novel software implementations. That applies to vanishingly few software patents.
Go ask the guy who made fingerworks whether he is better off with Apple paying him or if Google had just ripped his shit off.
I don't see either of those as particularly compelling alternatives. Patents need some major reforms but not abolishing.
I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that weak IP protection leads to less innovation. I'd argue that it's equally as likely that the causation is reversed; that is, countries that do more innovating will eventually have stronger IP protection, whether the actual innovators want it or not.
Massive secrecy is the current state of things even with patents. Patent language rarely discloses any information that would be of use to a software developer. Software developers almost never read patents when implementing their own systems, with a few notable exceptions (such as the case where someone wants to implement a well-known patented algorithm).
Let's go back a few years and remove all IP protections for media. Does Avatar still get a half billion dollar budget to get made?
"Massive secrecy is the current state of things even with patents. "
This is just arguing degrees. Whatever it's at now, I think the alternative is far more massive secrecy then currently.
Patenting a specific very complex algorithm -specifically- might be ok, but general ideas are not.
THAT is the Apple multitouch patent that the industry holds as fearsome. No one gives a shit about the Fingertouch patents.
I believe that software patents are overwhelmingly farce, whether they support Microsoft in attacking Apple, Apple against Samsung, Samsung against Apple, or any of various IP ventures against App Store developers. It is not a position that varies based upon the actors.
The pro-Apple lobby, however, has a position that essentially holds Apple's patents as legitimate and righteous to enforce, but everyone else's as illegitimate for various reasons. It is farce to criticize lodsys and others for entirely legal IP protections -- as the system supposedly encourages -- while supporting Apple and their like behaviors. Whether a company is open to counter-attacks is irrelevant to the legitimacy of patents.
Virtually everyone who interacts with HN relies upon Linux (for instance as the foundation of their startup). Linux infrgines on countless Microsoft patents. Thus far Microsoft has treaded lightly, but I don't think it's tough to imagine how sentiments would change if they started laying the hammer down, shutting down every cloud host, etc. The simple love of a gadget has many supporting an incredibly dangerous position.
But sentiments are changing. I argue for the exercise of it, but there is no doubt that dramatic software patent changes are coming due.
P.s. we're talking about prior art for multitouch, the Fingerworks patents seem far more relevant than your hardon for Minority Report and Microsoft Surface.
You're absolutely uninformed about even the basic facts or timeline, yet you're happy to make broad assertions and engage in attacks to the person. Well, where I come from, that means you lost buddy, and I have no further need to rebut you.
Have a nice day!
Surface was unveiled in 2007, with the final hardware design being completed two years prior. The project itself started based upon, humorously, Minority Report.
"Well, where I come from, that means you lost buddy, and I have no further need to rebut you."
Yeah you've said that a couple of times now. Kind of funny, really.
The answer is simple:
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-is-a-religion-neuroscie...
They don't need paid PR when the best techies like some of the ones on HN are abject fans of their beloved company. Gruber makes thousands per ad off his pro-Apple RSS feed ads.
Also, did Google not just try to buy the Nortel patents? Weren't they in an auction with the same companies called out in this blog post? I wonder if we would be reading this post at all, had Google won that auction.
Ultimately, patents are not good for our industry, obviously. And if Google manages to bring about change in this area, we will no doubt be the better for it. But it just seems a little funny to strike this "patents are bad" pose when they just bid like $3B for a bunch of 'em.
Whether or not they like patents, they still have to deal with the effects. They claim that they tried to buy the patents as a defensive move to keep them out of the hands of their competitors.
Noone's saying their business is on the verge of collapse, just that Android is a strong competitor.
They banned Google Voice (eventually relenting), Google Latitude, and even apps with references to "Android" in the past (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/app-store-craziness-banning-...)... doesn't seem weird they'd use the legal system to strike at their competitor as well.
If Google really cared about the issue of PATENTS they'd be putting as much leverage behind changing the patent laws and not just calling sour grapes for themselves. I haven't seen them jumping in and defending (actually small) tech companies from litigation or doing much more than... a blog posting.
They're also saying that the Nortel patents are dubious, but I doubt it. A legacy company like Nortel probably had a lot of patents made long ago that are worth their weight in gold.
What is Google doing about it (based on this blog post)? Not fighting the patent system itself but of course trying to overturn the patent sale, buy more patents for themselves and basically become involved in the back and forth that had predominated software patents for a while now.
This is a blog post from Google about how they want to be heavy hitters with patents too. They want to throw their weight around with patents just like everyone else and use the system in the exact same way as this axis of evil who are conspiring against them.
After pi billion they went up to over $4B before giving up.
They want to throw their weight around with patents just like everyone else and use the system in the exact same way as this axis of evil who are conspiring against them.
This is utterly unsupported by anything.
The alternative to patents is massive secrecy, sorta like Google's search algorithm.
Of course, Google's search algo has evolved considerably from the early Stanford days and is secret.
I'd prefer that to patents in most cases, though. Trade secret law should be good enough for most things. And I think if it's not, then it shouldn't be patentable. If I can figure out how to make a decent multi-touch UI just by taking 10 minutes and playing with a device that has one, that feels unpatentable to me.
That's more than one bid.
Edit for people downvoting: As I say in my comment below, this is one of the definition of a patent troll according to wikipedia[1]:
> Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;
This is what Apple and Microsft did by buying Novel and Nortel patents, making them de facto patent trolls.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll#Etymology_and_defi...
Microsoft and Apple actively ship product. They're playing the patent game but they're also doing real shit that impacts users every day. This is a far cry from the Intellectual Ventures and Lodsyses of the world.
> Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;
Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service;
Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base;
Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights; or
Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers.
I mean, sure, they respond to one of the criteria any time they buy a patent and later use it in a complaint that includes many patents, both homegrown and acquired. But I think it's reasonable to say that the rest of the criteria are a lot more egregious, especially when a company fits most or all of them.
It's same way that calling both a jaywalker and a burglar criminals just because both have committed acts against the law dilutes the word "criminal."
Has this happened?
Consider these patents cited in Apple's HTC complaint:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/02/the-complaint-apples-patent...
Steve Jobs and Scott Forestall are mentioned as inventors in some, and plenty more are attributed to one Bas Ording, who is a UI designer at Apple.
Even if fully half of Apple's patents in this complaint were acquired from an outside source, I have a hard time begrudging them their application of patent law in the protection of a business that makes a real product that required significant investment to create.
> Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;
You disagreed, then I demonstrated that it was patent trolling. So, doing you little tap-dance, you're now saying that Apple never did that. Funny huh? As for the patents that Apple is suing HTC over, they are ridiculous just like any software patent as explained by many people (including Bill Gates and Larry Ellison) and others who pioneered modern computer science:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Bradley_Kuhn_on_software_patents
Regardless, Apple and Microsoft have been attacking other companies by using their patents, some which were bought and that, my friend, is patent trolling.
Perhaps Apple bought them so that Google couldn't use them defensively against Apple's own legitimate patents? Perhaps Apple bought them so that Google couldn't use them offensively against Apple?
I am open to correction, but my understanding is that so far, the only suits Apple has launched against Android manufacturers (not Google!) are with respect to patents Apple has filed itself.
Buying the Nortel patents doesn't mean anything one way or the other until such time as someone files a lawsuit based on one of the Nortel patents. Which is, you must agree, the second part of the definition you quoted, the "and then sues someone for violating one of the purchased patents" part.
Because Google never sued any one on patents without being on the defensive. Apple and Microsoft have a track record on attacking big and small companies on patents.