Back then on iOS via ANCS, the watches wouldn't receive much more than the textual payload you'd see on the phone. We envisioned to be working with partners such as WhatsApp et al. to encode deep links/message ids into the message so one could respond directly from the watch.
It's just insane to ever call that "an invention".
Sure, some can use patents as swords, to suppress legitimate competition, or to extract undue rents. But you can also use patents as shields, to protect in various ways against those swords.
If I ran a BigTech (like the original warm-fuzzy Google reputation), I'd be registering any plausible patents, and have lawyers figure out how to freely license-out the ones that weren't key secret sauce, under terms that figuratively poisoned anyone doing illegitimate sword patents.
History tells us that those who run a BigTech become crazy narcissists serving their own interests :).
Because of this, there is absolutely no point in shaming someone for patenting a thing, especially when they are apologetic about it like parent is, and most especially when they are not threatening to weaponize the patent themselves.
Freely licensing your patents doesn't protect you against patent trolls. I wrote out how patent fights work in another comment, but here it is again.
Company A comes to Company B and says, "Hey! You are infringing on one of my patents!"
Company B says, "oh really? Well let me look through my collection of patents and see if you are infringing on any of mine."
Company A says, "oh, um, nevermind, I think I was mistaken."
Company B says, "yes, that's what I thought"
Now, imagine if Company B had already freely licensed all their patents. That defense wouldn't work.
I agree with you that it's a crappy system, but simply standing with your arms folded and saying, "I'm not playing," isn't going to work.
> Our Promise also does not extend to the actions of a party (including past actions) if at any time the party or its affiliate asserts a patent in proceedings against Red Hat (or its affiliate) or any offering of Red Hat (or its affiliate) (including a cross-claim or counterclaim).
Company B may still consult its portfolio and exercise it against Company A defensively, because Company A revoked its license of Company B's patents by asserting against Company B in the first place.
Not just formally, but in a legally binding manner, including if the patent is acquired by another company (eg during a company purchase). Even if the original filer has the best intentions, companies change ownership or change legal strategy or go out of business. Patent trolls buy up those patents from closed companies. Legally licensing your patents for defensive-only purposes means they can't ever be used by any of those bad actors.
If the intent of these patents is truly only for defense, then why isn't it common to use a license like this? They lose nothing by it.
> Yet you berated the poor guy from Pebble for even obtaining the patent he did??
Yes. It is IMO unethical to create software patents that aren't covered by such a legally-binding license.
Honest questions, I promise: Is that true? Has that ever been tested in court? Why don't more corporations or patent lawyers advocate for this? Is it because the types of engineers that post on hacker news are requesting it not be done?
Look, nobody likes patent trolls, we all hate weaponized patents. It's great that you want to fix the situation. I just think you are barking up the wrong tree trying to lay guilt trips on engineers for doing what their lawyer advised them to do.
> Red Hat intends Our Promise to be irrevocable (except as stated herein), and binding and enforceable against Red Hat and assignees of, or successors to, Red Hat’s patents (and any patents directly or indirectly issuing from Red Hat’s patent applications). As part of Our Promise, if Red Hat sells, exclusively licenses, or otherwise assigns or transfers patents or patent applications to a party, we will require the party to agree in writing to be bound to Our Promise for those patents and for patents directly or indirectly issuing on those patent applications. We will also require the party to agree in writing to so bind its own assignees, transferees, and exclusive licensees.
If a court somehow overturned that, I wouldn't hold it against the patent filer.
> Why don't more corporations or patent lawyers advocate for this?
My opinion is it's because the patents have value as a weapon, not only for defense (this here is my disagreement with your original claim that these patents only exist for defense). De-fusing the weapon by using a legally binding license like this lowers the value of the patent in a potential purchase scenario. In other words: "money."
> I just think you are barking up the wrong tree trying to lay guilt trips on engineers for doing what their lawyer advised them to do.
Nah. If you do a bad thing, you are responsible for the bad thing you did. I think the OP can probably handle a little light scolding from some anonymous person on an Internet forum. My hope is that they, and other readers, learn from this mistake and don't do it again.
Well I wouldn't shame someone whose job was to patent something absurd. I was just saying that this is not an invention at all, and any system that protects that "innovation" is a broken system.
It's like those completely abusive non-compete clauses in work contracts (yes in some countries that's the norm). They are completely abusive and therefore illegal. But it still hurts the employee: I have friends who have been declined a job in a company because the company did not want to take any risk. The company was like "okay, it's most likely an invalid clause, but if your previous employer sues us it will anyway cost resources we don't want to spend, so we'd rather not hire you". So an illegal, invalid clause had the effect that the company who abused it wanted. Which means it's a broken system.
In fact it is your comment which to me seems a little hateful , yes the above comment also felt a little hateful
Hate doesn't counter Hate , I guess.
Come on, what does this contribute to this conversation? The poster clearly is aware of the drawbacks of such patents, and didn't clearly play any role in filing the patent (they said "we … filed it," not "I filed it"). This kind of response just encourages people not to mention such things; it can't possibly change their past behavior, and, since Pebble the company per se doesn't exist any more, is also unlikely to change future behavior.
A person with the same name as that commenter is listed as an inventor on the patent.
> it can't possibly change their past behavior
Obviously, but it can change future behavior. Maybe realizing that they made the world a worse place by filing that patent will prevent them, or a reader of this discussion, from doing it again in future.
And, no, they couldn't do anything meaningful to the author of the article. They could get them ordered not to do it any more, and they could recover their economic damages... which are obviously zero.
What percentage of your actions are based around making the world a better place, instead of personal fulfillment or gain?
Okay, change "sue" to "prevent from creating a marketable product without paying a royalty to the patent owner in return for having provided nothing of value." The point remains.
> What percentage of your actions are based around making the world a better place, instead of personal fulfillment or gain?
Many harms are unavoidable, but I make a point to at least not go out of my way to make it a worse place, for example by filing software patents. The company I work for provides financial bonuses for filing software patents, and I will never participate in that program. (I've even tried to convince the lawyers to license our patents similar to Red Hat's open patent promise, because they claim they are intended only to be used defensively... but no luck so far.)
1) thats really good im gonna, strive to keep it.
2) " " tell all and those who want will build one.
3) " " make lots and give them to everyone.
> may only be used for defensive purposes
It's done with a clause in the public license like "if you sue us, then we revoke this license to you and may in turn sue you." You retain the MAD defensive benefit of the patents, while also not hampering innovation with your patent's existence. If the patents truly exist only for defense, then there is no reason not to do this.
So, in my extremely unqualified opinion, just the encoding technique alone is not covered by the patent, only when combined with some action performed based on the encoding?