They're "the victim" of patents only because they have chosen to pursue a pattern of willfully infringing on competing companies patents.
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?