Broken Patent System? Google, Apple Disagree

Whiney Mac Fanboy writes "The AlwaysOn Stanford Summit featured the panel discussion 'The Patent Crisis: Crossroads for the Business of Technology.' Speakers included patent lawyers from Google, IBM, and Apple. According to The Register, Google's and Apple's patent jocks had diametrically opposing views. Google's head of patents believes the system is in crisis: 'The Patent Office is overburdened,' she said. 'The volume of patents going in is huge. And the quality of patents coming out — it could be better.' But Apple's chief patent counsel said the US patent system was 'not broken' and 'not in crisis,' calling it 'the best in the world.'"

Comments

Apple Says Patent System is Like a Battery...

[bcolflesh]

...it never needs replacing!

Re:Apple Says Patent System is Like a Battery...

[Anonymous Coward]

Elton John says Internet is destroying patents.

Re:Apple Says Patent System is Like a Battery...

[The13thSin]

And Google just perceives everything to be still in beta!

Re:Apple Says Patent System is Like a Battery...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note who said what: "But Apple's chief patent counsel said the US patent system was 'not broken' and 'not in crisis,' calling it 'the best in the world'."

Re:Apple Says Patent System is Like a Battery...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod this one up. It's beyond funny.

If the U.S. patent system is the best in the world, that doesn't mean it's not broken. Whether best or worst, it's broken.

Re:Apple Says Patent System is Like a Battery...

[E IS mC(Square)]

Lame excuse to save Apple's ass.

Please note who said what: "But Apple's chief patent counsel said the US patent system was 'not broken' and 'not in crisis,' calling it 'the best in the world'."

Re:Apple Says Patent System is Like a Battery...

[bberens]

I don't think it was intended to be rescuing Apple so much as a dig on lawyers.

Re:Apple Says Patent System is Like a Battery...

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace "Apple" with "Microsoft" and there would not have been one mention of it. It would have all been "MS proven Evil Again" and you know it.

Re:Apple Says Patent System is Like a Battery...

[HermMunster]

Luckily we are smart enough to know we are listening to corporate dogfish that are in it for the money. They are the reason for every incredibly ugly lawyer joke. Bottom line, the system sucks. Soon we are going to have patents covering the sounds of a song or the look of a picture so that no one can create that same sound or produce similar pictures.

Of course it is broken. Patents for real products made of real materials are one thing but patents for ethereal objects made from ideas are not valid and due to the complexity of software engineering it would be nearly impossible for a patent clerk to understand and apply all the rules of law accordingly. So, of course it is broken, because it is impossible.

What Microsoft and other patent holders are relying on is that the system that grants these don't have a clue about how to decipher them adequately in order to determine prior art or obviousness. The only saving grace is that the Supreme Court of the US adjusted the rules about how to determine those things granting a much broader examination across any industry.

The only other saving grace here is that the world is producing software at a much more rapid pace than Microsoft ever could and are ESTABLISHING a HUGE body of PRIOR ART. The end result will be patents that are easily over turned due to prior art and the obvious obiousness.

Re:Apple Says Patent System is Like a Battery...

[HermMunster]

By your command. Microsoft is the biggest threat to the industry because they are a monopoly, period. Ending that monopoly should be a big priority for everyone in the software industry specifically because it means a lack of competition and it also means a company with an arrogance willing to destroy the privacy of the average consumer in order to keep their profits high.

We are talking about a system that can be abused and yes Microsoft is the prime candidate for that abuse because they have a history of abuse, and beyond that, they are criminally convicted monopolist what used illegal predatory practices to kill their competition. If they had not be convicted and were ruled a monopolist that'd be one thing but they are a criminally convicted monopolist that harmed the economies of many a State and of the US as a whole. Luckily the minds in the EU are more astute and have taken measures to quell any attempt at the same there.

Unluckily I don't think the other parts of the world are as keen as the EU. Maybe someday we'll see the important changes there as well.

So, ask us to replace Apple with Microsoft and we have a much more severe picture being painted there. Very severe as a criminal monopolist will always abuse especially when they know that they won't be pursued by representatives of the current administration.

Re:Apple Says Patent System is Like a Battery...

[godglike]

Which doesn't preclude the possibility that it is still in beta.

best != perfect

It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

But Apple's chief patent counsel said the US patent system was 'not broken' and 'not in crisis,' calling it 'the best in the world.'"

Something from the US, "the best in the world"? How dare they say such a thing!

This is infinitely worse than anything Microsoft has ever done.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[Vokkyt]

RTFA, not the summary, which is a poor one at that.

From TFA:

But he acknowledged that there was a "huge bubble" of patent assertions that needs to be scaled back. "The question with this bubble market, as with any bubble market, is 'Can we solve it without a crisis arising?'" he said.

Lutton believes that the key to fixing the country's patent problems lies with the courts, not the patent office. "Most patents issued are never litigated and never licensed," he said. "We need to focus on fixing the litigation system. That's most relevant."

The issue that Lutton takes with Google's stance is that it's destructive and costly, and basically calls for something else, without any real indication of what that else is. Apple certainly has had fun with patent whores in the past, but they usually come out on top or take care of the issue. Lutton wasn't saying that the patent system is absolutely perfect, that is, without flaws or error. What they did acknowledge is that given the alternative options in other parts of the world, it's best for them. Why is that so bad?

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[witte]

Heh :-)
Calling it 'the best in the world' is quite an insult to other patent systems.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[another_fanboy]

This is infinitely worse than anything Microsoft has ever done.

Apple hates Microsoft who hates Google... Which do we listen to?

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[cerelib]

Instead of "hate", the word "envy" might be more appropriate.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Here comes Apple apologists!

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[trolltalk.com]

Parent poster asketh:

Why is that so bad?

Look at what you quoted :

But he acknowledged that there was a "huge bubble" of patent assertions that needs to be scaled back. "The question with this bubble market, as with any bubble market, is 'Can we solve it without a crisis arising?'" he said

If the patent system has generated a "patent bubble", then it already IS f$cked up, same as the housing bubble, and the dot-com bubble before it.

Apple is just being a dickhead because they profit from the current b0rked system, same as real estate agents profited from the housing bubble to put people into homes they can't afford, and stock brokers got people to buy stocks that had no underlying real value.

First item on the agenda should be abolishing all software patents and all business method patents. Neither one is a "device" as understood by the original framers of patent law.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[dfghjk]

Apple is, itself, quite the patent whore. Look no further than the iPod click-wheel patent for evidence of that. Apple may not be in the same class as IP-only companies, but it uses its patents destructively as much as any. Unlike the vast majority of larger companies that use their portfolios defensively, Apple actively surpresses competition with its patents.

It's no surprise that Apple argues against reform of the patent process. They are one of the big players of the system.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[nine-times]

Well, for Apple/IBM/Microsoft, the current patent system is probably sort of OK. It's not just about money. These companies have each build up large patent portfolios, so to some extent they have their weapons and shields. When they get into legal wrangling, they have the money to buy lawyers, and those lawyers can probably find some way in which their opponents are infringing on their own companies patents.

The situation is a bit worse for the little guy or the newcomer. Google isn't little, but they are a relative newcomer.

I don't know though-- I like both companies in general. Neither seems highly evil. I wouldn't necessarily take their lawyers' views as a general mission statement for running their companies or anything.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[Vokkyt]

So...lemme get this straight.

Apple sees an issue in the patent system and says, "Let's address it."

You see an issue, and say, trash the system, it's worthless.

Why? There is no logical reason why it needs to be trashed when the problem can be dealt with quite easily with a relatively simple (oh, and common) moderation system which the patent office apparently does not have in place. Trashing the system is really destructive, not only to big businesses, but also small businesses. That means time of uncertainty when all businesses alike can (and most likely would) lose profit because nothing ties their product to them. Nothing is stopping someone from taking another person's idea once the system is abolished, submitting it as their own, and basically stealing the patent under the new system. An abolishment of the prior system is BAD, and that's in capitals, so you know it's bad. Transition? Maybe, if the new system is proven to be more efficient. But no, abolishment = BAD.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[MightyMartian]

It may be the best for Apple, but that doesn't make it the best for anyone else. A system that permits patent trolls to produce dozens, if not hundreds, of worthless patents, and then basically make a business model that is nothing more than extortion, all because of the understaffing at the patent office and the absurdity of some of the kinds of things (ie. software patents) that even get patent protection is not a system that's functioning.

If a developer who creates a piece of software over a few thousand lines has to, almost by default, worry that some nebulous, vague patent somewhere out there in the world is going to cause them grief, then what you've got is a system that's primed to stifle innovation, not promote it.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[somersault]

Actually, Steve Ballmer really does hate google, though Gates and Jobs don't seem to hate each other of course. Apple users hate Microsoft (well, anyone who has ever used a decent OS, or who has ever been subjected to a BSOD hates Microsoft.. and anyone who has to suffer inconvenience caused by malware and the spam from zombie botnets - which is everyone who has ever used the internet, really - should hate Microsoft..)

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[addicted4444]

Apple is not arguing against the reform of the process. In fact they are asking precisely for that, and they believe the reform must happen at the courts. Whether you agree with their assessment is a different issue altogether. What they are arguing against is a revolutionary change, which will unsettle what undeniably is the best (not perfect, maybe not even good) system in the world. Without lack of precedence of a better system, its probably better to take small steps than a revolutionary change.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue that Lutton takes with Google's stance is that it's destructive and costly

Of course - its best for them! Because it works for corporates with deep pockets AND thousands of frivolous patents on their name.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[Gregb05]

As well they should be; If they'd taken that position 15 years ago with the mouse and their UI, Microsoft wouldn't have broken into the consumer market, and we'd have a a much more Apple-centric universe, with turtlenecks and goatees.

Probably not the best for everyone, but much better for Apple. Typically doing what's good for your company is regarded as a good business move.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[abaddononion]

You are referring, of course, to the mouse and UI that Apple stole from Xerox?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_mouse

Yeah... they really SHOULD have worked a lot harder to make sure that stuff didnt get ripped off from the people who invented it. *cough*

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[SnowZero]

And if Xerox had taken the same view, we wouldn't be using mice or GUIs at all; They'd still be locked up as some research project that got patented.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[ajs]

But Apple's chief patent counsel said the US patent system was 'not broken' and 'not in crisis,' calling it 'the best in the world.'"

Something from the US, "the best in the world"? How dare they say such a thing!

This is infinitely worse than anything Microsoft has ever done. OK, I'm confused. How is Google doing the wrong thing, here (per your subject, "It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil")?

Google is coming out against the current patent system, and you attack them. I'm sure if they came out for it, you would attack them. What could they possibly say that would make you happy? ... On second thought, never mind. Making happy those who will take any opportunity to attack a company that tries to do the right thing is probably always a bad idea. Let them stew in their misery.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[greenbird]

Actually they're both right but Apple is also wrong

The issue that Lutton takes with Google's stance is that it's destructive and costly, and basically calls for something else, without any real indication of what that else is.

The problem isn't with Google's stance. The problem is that the current patent system is destructive and costly. It's slowly destroying innovation especially in fast moving technology fields. It is currently impossible to develop a non-trivial computer program without violating one or more patents. To even try you are forced to hire a battery of lawyers to poor over patents since a technical person won't understand the subtle nuances of legalese in a patent. But that won't do any good because a lawyer isn't going to understand the complex details of a piece of software. So the only thing to do is to push on and hope and pray no one notices you before you have enough money to deal with the patent trolls.

Apple certainly has had fun with patent whores in the past, but they usually come out on top or take care of the issue. Lutton wasn't saying that the patent system is absolutely perfect, that is, without flaws or error. What they did acknowledge is that given the alternative options in other parts of the world, it's best for them. Why is that so bad?

They're not unhappy with the current system because they have the money to game the current patent system for profit. It's the new innovators that might challenge Apple that are prevented by the current patent system from entering the market.

Apple also stated that the patent court system needs to be fixed. They're right on that account because there is no financially viable way to challenge a patent no matter how idiotic it is. The patent holder either makes the licensing fees less than what it will cost you to invalidate the patent or if the patent holder feels the patent fight will destroy a challenge to their current market they simple set price to license too high for competitors to make it in the market or they refuse to license it. Either way there is no financially viable way to get rid of a bad patent.

Also, on the other hand, a major contribution to fixing the patent court system would be to fix the way patents are issued such that they actually do what they were intended to do. If you don't remember what that was, I believe the US Constitution said something about "promoting innovation" which is the exact opposite of what the current system is doing in the vast majority of cases.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[trolltalk.com]

Software patents and business method patents are both BS and should never have been allowed - in fact they weren't allowed for the longest time.

So yes, to the extent that apple and google like software and business patents, they ARE evil.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[Weedlekin]

"And if Xerox had taken the same view, we wouldn't be using mice or GUIs at all"

If anyone had the right to patent mice and GUIs, it was Doug Englebart, who demonstrated working examples of both (together with hypertext and video conferencing) at MIT in the 1960s. It's rather sad that Xerox PARC seems to get credit for something they didn't invent, while the likes of Englebart and Ivan Sutherland are largely forgotten.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[SnowZero]

Note that I didn't claim that Xerox invented those technologies; They were simply the first large company to use them AFAICT. In the world of patents, that is unfortunately all that matters. The concept of the lone inventor getting a patent, and getting rich licensing it, is only a dream in the current state of affairs.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[Weedlekin]

"Note that I didn't claim that Xerox invented those technologies; They were simply the first large company to use them AFAICT. In the world of patents, that is unfortunately all that matters."

Not if there's prior art, as was the case with both Englebart and Sutherland, who not only published papers, but were filmed demonstrating their ideas on working systems (Englebart's demo was also attended by around 3,000 people). Alan Kay has categorically stated that the teams involved with UI concepts at PARC in the 1970s were aware of what Englebart and Sutherland had already done, and had great respect for them (Kay reckons Englebart is one of the greatest thinkers in computing), so it's likely that they'd have been very pissed off indeed if Xerox had made them look like a bunch of cheap plagiarists by trying to patent ideas that most of the computer research community knew they hadn't invented.

"The concept of the lone inventor getting a patent, and getting rich licensing it, is only a dream in the current state of affairs."

It was even more of a dream for programmers in the 1960s and 1970s, because software and the ideas it realised couldn't be patented. We are extremely fortunate that this was the case, otherwise large swathes of what we currently take for granted would have been owned by the likes of IBM, DEC, Data General, etc., which means that they'd have taken decades longer to make their way into the mainstream, and some probably wouldn't have appeared at all.

Re:It's Official: Apple & Google are Evil

[dfghjk]

Apple didn't invent those technologies so they couldn't patent them (that is, without committing patent fraud). Furthermore, surpression of competition through refusal to license is within a patent holder's rights, but it is not automatically in their best interests to do so. I completely disagree that it would have been much better for Apple had it been possible at all.

Apple might not be wrong

[FreezerJam]

Of course 'not broken'/'not in crisis' and 'the best in the world' might actually BOTH be true!

Re:Apple might not be wrong

[Spudtrooper]

That's easy for them to say when they got into the game early and established a metric fuckton of patents.

Re:Apple might not be wrong

[FreezerJam]

gaah! Can't edit to save my life...

"broken/in crisis" and 'the best in the world' might actually BOTH be true!

Re:Apple might not be wrong

[morgan_greywolf]

Of course 'not broken'/'not in crisis' and 'the best in the world' might actually BOTH be true!

What are you talking about? Back away from PowerBook! Slowly! Put down the iPhone, too! Is that an iPod in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

Re:Apple might not be wrong

[Sciros]

It's an iPod shuffle! oooh, burn!

Re:Apple might not be wrong

[conspirator57]

getting in early doesn't preclude others from bracketing you. :(

Re:Apple might not be wrong

[*weasel]

It's the best mud-hut on the fault-line.

Re:Apple might not be wrong

[everphilski]

well, it sure was no Newton

Re:Apple might not be wrong

[jedidiah]

I have already "fixed" my Mac.

It is now running Gutsy Gibbon.

No Kidding.

Re:Apple might not be wrong

[dfghjk]

Yes and, furthermore, Apple's and Google's views are not necessarily opposed.

The other quote from Apple, "Most patents issued are never litigated and never licensed," ... "We need to focus on fixing the litigation system. That's most relevant.", is most certainly disingenuous. Patents are very rarely litigated because the stakes are so high. Apple plays the patent game as aggressively as anybody and this is an attempt for them to direct attention away from the process of bogus patent hoarding which they so eagerly participate. Unlike the majority of large corporations, Apple uses its patent portfolio offensively.

Saying the patent system is the best in the world doesn't mean it isn't hopelessly corrupt.

Re:Apple might not be wrong

[SnowZero]

Apple ought to patent "A method and apparatus for installing Linux on a Macintosh computer". That should take care of traitors like you...

Re:Apple might not be wrong

[trentblase]

So how many patents does Apple hold? I'll wait while you look it up before asserting that they have a "metric fuckton".

Re:Apple might not be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there are lots of patent systems which don't allow patents on software or genes. Couldn't they be a tad bit better?

Apple: Yeah! Patents!

[ghostbar38]

So nobody could ever steal my so original idea of a cellphone with a touchscreen without buttons!

If apple's lawyer

[cyphercell]

doesn't believe there is an issue, why attend the "Patent Crisis Panel"?

Re:If apple's lawyer

[rolfwind]

The biggest winners are always laywers, regardless of which side they represent.

Though, considering the amount of times Apple has been bitten in the ass (and will be in the future) I am surprised.

Re:If apple's lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

What, you've never attended a wedding just so you could read off your list explaining why the couple shouldn't get married?

Re:If apple's lawyer

[Vokkyt]

What better place than a discussion panel to bring up their viewpoint? If only people who believed the system was flawed attended, it would be just like an internet forum, except replace porn and furries with patent office.

Re:If apple's lawyer

[morgan_greywolf]

doesn't believe there is an issue, why attend the "Patent Crisis Panel"?

Apple has always used its arsenal of patents to exert some level of control over certain markets, particularly when it comes to add-on products for their own computers. A reform of the patent system wouldn't be in Apple's best interests, because it works just fine for them.

Re:If apple's lawyer

[Dog-Cow]

I realize you can find every sort of fetish out on the 'net, but that is just so, so wrong.

Re:If apple's lawyer

[AKAImBatman]

why attend the "Patent Crisis Panel"?

If Apple didn't attend the panel with the excuse that they "don't believe there is a crisis", you or someone else here would ask, "Why didn't Apple attend to make their point of view heard?"

When there's a prominent industry function, it should be a matter of course that the industry leaders would attend to make sure their views are heard. Suggesting that they should or shouldn't go because of their views can create an impossible double-standard.

They have interests that are being discussed at the panel. Therefore they should attend. End of story.

Re:If apple's lawyer

[dfghjk]

Of course that's right. What's more interesting is that there are people naive enough to ask this question in the first place.

Re:If apple's lawyer

[Prof.Phreak]

I think the Google's lawyer isn't very experienced---doesn't understand that being part of the problem is what his job is all about. Apple's lawyer seems to understand that if the system is fixed, their `patent lawyer' jobs will become pointless.

Re:If apple's lawyer

[cyphercell]

Not really, his job would be at risk if patents were completely eliminated, but this is really an argument about who is guiltiest for the broken patent system, where the glaring issue is specifically software patents.

Lutton believes that the key to fixing the country's patent problems lies with the courts, not the patent office. "Most patents issued are never litigated and never licensed," he said. "We need to focus on fixing the litigation system. That's most relevant."
- FTFA

Not only confusion with the patents

[CrackedButter]

But who do I take sides with? Who is the evil one here, the one in the wrong? Are you sure the article isn't missing a paragraph by a Microsoft manager or something, I need to attack somebody needlessly and follow someone mindlessly!

Re:Not only confusion with the patents

[krakelohm]

The presentations were done using Powerpoint... there ya go GET'EM!

Re:Not only confusion with the patents

[iknownuttin]

But who do I take sides with? Who is the evil one here, the one in the wrong? Are you sure the article isn't missing a paragraph by a Microsoft manager or something, I need to attack somebody needlessly and follow someone mindlessly!

Me too! And I need a clear direction. None of this shades of gray bullshit: I want a black and white decision!

Re:Not only confusion with the patents

[Ugtar]

If you feel like attacking microsoft then you should take a look at your motives and realize that Apple are clearly the "evil" ones in this situation. Apple represents the evil monopolistic corporation that Microsoft can only dream of becoming. Everything Apple makes is completely closed and proprietary, hey use their patent portfolio aggressively to stifle competition, and they take from the open source community without giving back.

Not to say that Google are saints, but of course Apple will defend the current patent system. It serves to squash small independent inventors who could never afford to litigate, and bolster companies with teams of lawyers and large portfolios of "inventions" which are patently obvious (no pun intended).

Re:Not only confusion with the patents

[CrackedButter]

Nice troll but it was clear that I was making a joke, don't take my post seriously otherwise I'd have to take your post seriously.

If it isn't done much yet, maybe there is a reason

[dingleberrie]

Our judges and juries attempt to settle items that they can relate to and understand the importance of, such as loosing life, property, or liberty.

Is the judicial system really qualified to test for items such as obviousness in a technical field in order to dismissing a patent. For every witness that says it is obvious, I'm sure the opposing side will say it's not. Perhaps we should have a select group of technical judges just for this purpose.

Slashdot verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

Google: karma +5
Apple: karma +5

"current patent system is broken": +5
"current patent system is fine": -5

Verdict: Google Wins!

Re:Slashdot verdict

[Spy der Mann]

How about this one:

Truth: +5
FUD, lies: -5.

Verdict: Apple loses!

Re:Slashdot verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

More like

Truth: +5
FUD, lies: -5.

RDF +100

Verdict: Apple wins!

Re:Slashdot verdict

[Nazmun]

Why does apple have such a good karma rating? They file tons of pretty much bogus patents AND use them offensively. While companies like IBM will only use their massive portfolio in defense cases.

I see apple as bane to our society, if some of their designers weren't completely awesome the company would be completely worthless.

Re:Slashdot verdict

[trentblase]

Well, except saying "everything is fine" is the complete opposite of FUD.

In other news...

[cerelib]

That night Apple submitted a patent for "A handheld device capable of playback of digital audio."(No link needed, this is the full text of the submission) which was immediately, and without review, approved by the head of the USPTO himself.

Oh crap...

[LWATCDR]

What patent of Apple's is Google infringing on?

Re:Oh crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, did they patent a method of maintaining internet 'geek cred' while simultaneously screwing competitors, customers and clients just as badly as Microsoft does? Google would definitely infringe on that, and Apple have been using that patent continuously for many years.

Re:Oh crap...

[jc42]

What patent of Apple's is Google infringing on?

We can't know that until the courts decide.

This simple fact is the main evidence of how broken the system is. Current patents, at least in the US, are unreadable by the engineers that they are ostensibly written for. Even if you read one and think you understand it, fact is that if you aren't an experienced patent lawyer, you do not understand it. In Legalese, there are a lot of English-like words whose meanings are rather different than in normal English, and there are many more words whose meanings are very different from Engineering English. In the case of computer-related patents, many of the patents deal with new concepts that the legal system hasn't yet adjudicate, so the legal meaning of much of the text hasn't yet been decided in court. Google can't know what patents they are infringing, any more than Apple can.

Considering all the new stuff they're involved in, Google can be reasonably sure that they're violating some of Apple's (and Microsoft's and IBM's and ...) patents. They just can't know which ones, until the courts tell them.

Re:Oh crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

What patent of Apple's is Google infringing on? I believe that would be "excessive use of the color white".

Re:Oh crap...

[LWATCDR]

Actually I do know. I am working on getting a hardware patent. Frankly for some reason the examiner for my application is really tough. He lists 7 patents three of which I don't have the faintest idea why he is referencing them claiming that if you look at all three of the patents a person that is reasonably skilled in the art would see this as obvious.
I guess I don't have a good enough lawyer writing my patent.

Re:Oh crap...

[toddestan]

I believe that would be "excessive use of the color white".

It would appear that we have found the real reason behind Blackle!

Broken AND world's best???

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are bad and you are the best, then the whole world is in trouble.

Not mutually exclusive

[Jtheletter]

The patent system can be BOTH 'best in the world' and 'broken and in crisis'. I don't know about being the best in the world, but I think it's completely obvious to anyone who's salary is not directly tied to the system that it is, in fact, a mess. Somehow I don't think patent attorneys really are the best qualified to make these statements. Yes, they know the industry exceedingly well, but it is their direct best interests for it to be complicated, hard to navigate, and functionally impossible to use without hiring one of their ilk. Having researched the costs and difficulties (and chances) of getting a simple patent I feel confident in saying that applying for a patent without an attorney to assist 99.99% guarantees you will not get the patent. Or it will cost you as much as hiring a patent attorney in the first place, or you'll get the patent but the wording will not be 'just so' and it will give you no protection.

If an inventor can't get a valid patent for a (let's assume) perfectly novel and new invention on their own with reasonable cost and chance of success then the system is BROKEN. That's how it should be defined.

Re:Not mutually exclusive

[noidentity]

And if a corporation can get a valid patent for a perfectly obvious and well-known device on their own with reasonable cost and chance of success then the system is also BROKEN. That's how it should be additionally defined.

Re:Not mutually exclusive

[nine-times]

If an inventor can't get a valid patent for a (let's assume) perfectly novel and new invention on their own with reasonable cost and chance of success then the system is BROKEN. That's how it should be defined.

I do like this way of thinking of things. It could be productive to think of situations which would cause us to say the thing is broken. Some ideas come to mind:

• If an individual inventor can't reasonably get a patent in spite of having a truly novel design
• If that same individual inventor can't reasonably protect that patent once granted
• If people can get patents to things that are obvious and unoriginal designs
• If people can get patents to ideas rather than designs
• If people can get patents for designs that are inevitable (meaning it is *THE* solution to a known problem which will be solved in the course of normal progress)
• If whole industries, scientific progress, or the productivity and well-being of a society can be held up by a patent

These are just suggestions, and you might disagree. However, even if you do agree, I still don't know what should be done about it. How can we improve our current system or build a new one which won't have these problems?

Re:Not mutually exclusive

[dfghjk]

While everything you say is true, it's also true of the entire legal system. The patent system is broken in far greater ways than just its accessibility to the layman. You CAN get a patent on a "perfectly novel and new invention" on your own, it simply costs money and involves hiring someone to help with the process. Hell, filing your income taxes is, for many people, the same way.

Re:Not mutually exclusive

[Jtheletter]

Not that I disagree with you, but I would like to point out I did specifically word the criteria as being an actual "novel and new invention", that's sort of a given.

Re:Not mutually exclusive

[Jtheletter]

You CAN get a patent on a "perfectly novel and new invention" on your own, it simply costs money and involves hiring someone to help with the process.

I'm not sure if you noticed but hiring someone is a direct contradiction of doing it on your own. And while understandably the process does cost money, the problem is that without a patent attorney to assist in every step of the process it becomes very likely that the patent will be rejected for any number of procedural/wording reasons, at which point there are various resubmissions, fees, etc that come into play and drive the price up a lot. When you do an analysis of the likelihood of getting a patent that will protect your invention, along with how much that will cost with all these fees, you quickly see that hiring a professional to do it for you is really the only viable choice.

I think income taxes are a bad comparison for two reasons: 1) a person CAN reasonably fill out their own taxes correctly for reasonable time and cost up to a certain level of income complexity. Personally I have a couple bank accounts and stock trading accounts, work that often includes bonuses or payouts not part of my regular salary, and a few other various deductions year to year. I can with no problem complete my own income taxes at what I would gauge is the low-middle end of complexity. A person applying for a patent of a novel physical device with 3 claims would also be a similar low-complexity situation, yet they will most likely fail w/o professional help.
2) The tax code, like the patent system, is already broken in much the same way. The tax code is over 13,000 pages long! Saying that because you need professional help filing your taxes, the same should be true of patents is ridiculous when you look at how unnecessarily complicated much of the tax code is.

I'm not saying either process should, or even could, be reduced to a simple form. But to think that there's no way to streamline or correct a process overrun by red tape and legal obsfucation is false. At the start of the century inventors were able to get patents by going to the office and filling out a form! "Legalese inflation" has caused the whole process (taxes too) to become so complicated that no layman can reasonably use it. That's a crime against society. Would you think it were fair if you needed an attorney to help you renew your drivers license at the RMV? The patent system is a service by the government, there should be low and reasonable barriers to using that service but not more than is necessary for it to function as intended.

Re:Not mutually exclusive

[Penguin Programmer]

If an inventor can't get a valid patent for a (let's assume) perfectly novel and new invention on their own with reasonable cost and chance of success then the system is BROKEN. That's how it should be defined.

I disagree. If it doesn't take considerable effort and cost to get a patent, then people will (even more than they do now) patent every little idea they have. The cost and effort that it takes to get a patent force inventors to decide whether getting a patent is actually worthwhile for the idea they have. A patent is meant to guarantee inventors who have new ideas the right to exclusively implement their idea for a limited period of time. If an inventor decides that the cost of the patent is greater than the value of the patent to him/her, then chances are s/he isn't going to implement it anyway. The money you spend on on getting a patent, you should be able to make back on the product that comes out of your patent. If you can't make that money back, then perhaps your invention isn't as great as you think it is.

Re:Not mutually exclusive

[jc42]

It could be productive to think of situations which would cause us to say the thing is broken. Some ideas come to mind: ...
      . If whole industries, scientific progress, or the productivity and well-being of a society can be held up by a patent


Various historians have written about how this has been true since the early days of the patent system. Using our current terminology, the patent system was broken by design. Its supporters always claim that patents encourage improved technology, but history says that patents primarily impede advances. In many cases, this doesn't even benefit the patent holders. Thus, in Levine's first example, James Watt spent most of his life in court, suing people. He made very little money from his big invention, until after his patents ran out, and only then did he settle down to building and selling the steam engines that eventually made him rather wealthy. His patents effectively set back the development of steam transport by several decades.

How can we improve our current system or build a new one which won't have these problems?

Considering that we've had this sort of problem with patents from the start, it doesn't seem likely that we can fix the problems. If we could, you'd think that some country would have stumbled onto the solution by now.

The only approach that seems to have helped at all is the compulsory licensing system that many countries use with copyright. This involves taking control of the "invention" away from the patent/copyright owner, and decreeing that anyone can use it for a standard, fixed license fee. Needless to say, the owners of such "Intellectual Property Rights" don't agree with this, though history shows that it seems to be about the only thing that takes the profits away from the lawyers and gives them to someone else. Of course, the "someone else" is usually a corporation, not the actual inventor, but that's another topic that we could flame to death in another thread. ;-)

Re:Not mutually exclusive

[LuSiDe]

The patent system can be BOTH 'best in the world' and 'broken and in crisis'.

Or: How I stopped worrying and started to love Apple and Google

Re:Not mutually exclusive

[dfghjk]

"I'm not sure if you noticed but hiring someone is a direct contradiction of doing it on your own."

Not that it's important, bu that depends on your perspective. If you are an inventor in business for yourself, you are "doing it on your own". Just because I hire lawn guys doesn't mean I don't take care of my own property. Furthermore, I have personal friends that have done the work necessary to file their own patents and do so. Being heavily involved in the patent process myself at one time, I know what it takes but I can't do that kind of work.

Further, I don't see the comparison to to income tax preparation invalid at all. We all deal with filing taxes, and there are some of us who absolutely can't, or shouldn't, do it ourselves. Hiring professionals sometimes just makes sense.

""Legalese inflation" has caused the whole process (taxes too) to become so complicated that no layman can reasonably use it. That's a crime against society."

I agree, but that's not a patent problem but far more fundamental. I think we agree that the patent process is broken because our legal system is broken.

Settle it in court?

[Thrip]

[Apple's] Lutton believes that the key to fixing the country's patent problems lies with the court Easily said, if you're a lawyer retained by a company with a huge wallet.

Re:Settle it in court?

[Vokkyt]

So...the solution is a complete re-write of the patent system? Why is Apple's stance so bad? If a patent is challenged, litigation is needed to help settle the claim. Why trash the system just because patent trolls screw things up?

Let's think of it this way; message boards have trolls. They basically do the same thing that patent trolls do -- they exist to annoy, trying to get their little bit of the pie (with message boards, that's the 15 seconds of fame. With patents, it's the $$$) Would you seriously spend hours upon hours rethinking and redoing the entire message board style just because of some annoying trolls, or would you just squash the trolls under your mighty bannination powers? The latter is much easier, and makes a lot more sense.

Re:Settle it in court?

[kebes]

Your message board analogy is correct, but only so far as the only problem we are trying to solve is the minority of trolls.

The problem is much bigger. There are patent trolls, but there are also well-meaning companies who get patents for things that they shouldn't (too obvious, etc.), and there is the ensuing escalation of patenting (if company X gets an obvious patent, then we need to file obvious patents also, to keep up and be defensive). In the view of many, the problem is not a minority of trolls or bogus patents, it's that the majority of patents are bogus, which buries the legitimate patents and creates a massive legal and economic burden all over society.

In your analogy, when a message board is over-run with trolls and worthless posts, such that it is difficult to even find the good content among all the fluff (basically every post gets accepted and promoted to the same visibility status), then yes a rethink of the entire message board structure is needed. Hence why slashdot has moderation. Only a small fraction of posts are considered "worthy."

Similarly, many of us believe the patent system is now so over-run with bad patents that it has be be thrown out, or at least wildly altered, so that the productive patents get the priority they deserve, whereas the massive number of bogus patents get ignored.

(So, the question comes down to a matter of degree... it all depends on what percent of patents you think are illegitimate.)

Re:Settle it in court?

[Thrip]

Would you seriously spend hours upon hours rethinking and redoing the entire message board style just because of some annoying trolls, or would you just squash the trolls under your mighty bannination powers? The latter is much easier, and makes a lot more sense. Are you joking, or is this a metatroll? You're posting this on a board that has an incredibly elaborate system to minimize the impact of trolling, and still barely copes with it. Banning is pretty well proven not to deal with trolls, even if you disallow anonymous posting.

Anyway, your comparison of forum trolls to patent trolls is specious. Patent trolls have a large economic incentive, and their actions are significantly more damaging.

Re:Settle it in court?

[Vokkyt]

I can certainly understand that many frivolous patents are given. But I must reiterate that a dramatic rewrite isn't necessary (obviously IMO), simply because a major rewrite, or even a mass retraction of patents isn't the best answer either. Small steps are the answer; tweaks and such, IMO.

There are a lot of good patents out there, even in relation to the bad. What can simply be edited is the way in which patents must be worded so as to not allow ambiguity. From there, a review of the patents that are in question can be held; it doesn't have to be a court proceeding, it can just be controlled by the patent office. From there, the patents which really are questionable can be reviewed, and continually reviewed. This method allows for a careful examination of the patents to ensure that the patent is not too broad or frivolous, and also gives both large companies and small companies a fair chance to ensure that their voice is heard on the matter.

You mentioned Slashdot's moderation system; I think that is exactly what is needed. Not mass banning of patents or a complete rewrite of it, but moderation, to ensure that the patents are relevant, reasonable, and concise.

Re:Settle it in court?

[Vokkyt]

Answer me this; when trolls appear on a major message board, is the solution to close the board altogether?

(my personal answer is no)

There isn't an answer to patent trolls or patent warlords other than to deal with them on a case to case basis, IMO. There isn't going to be a reliable fool proof way to prevent it. Even if you rewrite the entire patent system to specify what can and cannot be patented through the system and what can and cannot be used in wording, you're still not going to please them all; there will STILL be trolls and warlords even with a rewrite.

Why bother with a rewrite when making dedicated teams to deal with questionable patents takes care of the problem more directly without interfering with patent holders that already follow the rules and don't have problematic patents.

Oh, and the purpose of an example is just that; it's an example. I have suggested in this thread that a moderation system is exactly what is needed; not a rewrite or a remake of the system, but a moderation system added to it. I think my example stands; closing a board is a terrible solution to trolls (unless there truly are nothing but trolls there); maintaining the law and dealing with the trolls as they come is really the best you can do. Or, remove the system out right. I prefer the former.

Re:Settle it in court?

[MightyMartian]

I would even agree with you, providing patent trolls, once caught in the act of extorting licensing fees based upon faulty patents, be permanently banned from ever submitting patents again. They should also be due to pay punitive damages to those who they extorted money from. The system needs to have a severe and permanent punishment mechanism.

Re:Settle it in court?

[Thrip]

Answer me this; when trolls appear on a major message board, is the solution to close the board altogether? I didn't (or at least, not today) advocate completely ending the patent system. I just pointed out that Apple's lawyer has a vested interest in preferring litigation to patent reform.

Why bother with a rewrite when making dedicated teams to deal with questionable patents takes care of the problem more directly .... I have suggested ... not a rewrite or a remake of the system, but a moderation system added to it. To my mind, such changes are more logically made by legislators than judges. If you think (as I do) that a lot of the problem stems from judges' bad interpretation of vague laws in the first place, then the logical conclusion is for the legislature to step in and clarify the law. Whether they do that by rewriting it or amending it doesn't matter.

Oh, and the purpose of an example is just that; it's an example. Sure, and I was just saying that in my opinion this is a bad example. By "bad" I mean "not shedding light on the topic" because the analogy is not close enough. If you ignore a forum troll, you render them completely harmless. If you ignore a patent troll, you stand to lose your shirt. Also, forum trolls exist in a semianonymous world, such that they can endlessly reinvent themselves, whereas patent trolls are relatively few in number and exist in a world where they could effectively be banned, if you could agree on how to identify them.

Re:Settle it in court?

[teflaime]

But I must reiterate that a dramatic rewrite isn't necessary (obviously IMO

And obviously, there are many who disagree with that point of view. Personally, I believe that software patents should be eliminated all together. But the whole concept of intellectual property is so screwed up in this country that it will take a major overhaul of the laws to fix it. First step is to undo the influence of corporate money on the process.

Re:Settle it in court?

[jfuredy]

Yeah, that sounds like a noble way to help solve the problem with the patent system, but who is going to be doing all of this continuous reviewing and re-reviewing? The problem is that the patent office is already overworked and prone to accepting every patent application that they receive a) for the money and b) because it's faster than actually researching it.

How does your proposal of asking the overworked patent office to do MORE REVIEWS help to alleviate the problem??

Re:Settle it in court?

[steelfood]

Would you seriously spend hours upon hours rethinking and redoing the entire message board style just because of some annoying trolls, or would you just squash the trolls under your mighty bannination powers? The latter is much easier, and makes a lot more sense. Actually, message boards have been doing both. The former comes in the form of registration, verification, etc. E.g. the CAPTCHA for unregistered users in /. There is a whole industry segment devoted to the former. This is in response to robots, spammers, etc. that flood things like message boards or blog posts or guestbooks, which is exactly the state of the patent system.

And then there's the latter solution, which is useful for when the trolls are legitmate human beings who have passed all the test, but who are there on a board to stir up trouble. These would be the patent holders holding perfectly valid patents, but whom are using their patents contrary to the spirit of patents. The idea behind patents is to reward the patent holder for innovation through licensing or a limited monopoly, afterwards which society benefits. This type of patent troll would be the one who uses patents as a means of hindering technological progress instead of fostering it.

Message boards are constantly evolving both forms of regulation. Look at /.'s registration and moderation systems. Look at how it has evolved over time.

In this sense, both Google and Apple are correct. There are gross abuses on both ends of the process. The application process and the litigation process are both broken and needs reform.

Re:Settle it in court?

[The_Wilschon]

Software shouldn't have ever been patentable. You mentioned that any rewrite will be unsuccessful because there will still be loopholes and ways around the rules. Well, allow me to point out that the only reason we have software patents at all is that there is an officially ignored loophole. Patents on software are actually expressly forbidden. However, patents on using a general purpose computing machine to execute a particular piece of software are not, and this end run around the rules is routinely and consistently overlooked by the patent office.

I don't think that the patent system is broken, I just think that what is enforced needs to follow the spirit of what is on the books a little bit better. This would have an extremely large scale effect, of course, invalidating huge numbers of patents, but really wouldn't change the business model of any real software houses; only patent trolls would find their business damaged.

FWIW, it makes sense to forbid software patents. Software is already covered by copyright, and does not need further protection. You can't patent a recipe, which is, after all, a set of instructions, just like software.

best/worst in the world

[192939495969798999]

My dad used to say, 'The US Government is the worst, except for all the others.' This feels like what Apple's argument is-- that because we have the best patent system, thus, our system must be good enough to rely on forever. Google seems to be saying that we don't have forever to resolve some issues our current patent system presents. I don't see Apple as having much of an argument to the broken elements of our patent system.

Re:best/worst in the world

[Anonymous Coward]

Er... Your dad was wrong (Link to the Top 10 Least Corrupt Countries in the World).

Re:best/worst in the world

[cyphercell]

Corruption doesn't necessarily equate to a miserable quality of life. Everyone here has likely worked somewhere where a particular rule got in the way of completing a job the way it needed to be. Your boss looks the other way and you do the job, sometimes it's better that way. Funny though, this line of thinking leads to people abusing the system of corruption.

Re:best/worst in the world

[Anonymous Coward]

Your dad was mis-quoting Churchill.

In other news, after deciding that US patent system is the best there is, US also claims to be the most peaceable, cultured, intelligent and humble nation on Earth.

Shortly afterwards, US points out that as everything good, brave and beautiful comes from the US, so there is no need for the rest of the world, and declares nuclear war on it.

Re:best/worst in the world

[feijai]

My dad used to say, 'The US Government is the worst, except for all the others.'

Your dad was Winston Churchill?

Re:best/worst in the world

[Merk]

Nah, his dad was probably just one of the many people who misquote Churchill:

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the 'worst' form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.

A Blinding Flash of the Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple takes existing technology and puts it behind a slick interface. They do not innovate as Google does.

Re:A Blinding Flash of the Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah very innovative with email, spreadsheets, and document management....i wouldn't say that is very innovative. Innovation is getting a car to run on my stinky garbage, or changing political crap to actually be effective in the world.

Re:A Blinding Flash of the Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ignorance amuses me :-)

Of course it's the best system in the world!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's the best system in the world. This is a _lawyer_ talking. And this lawyer can patent _anything_, which means every tiny aspect of the new iSomething.

Hardly surprising....

[demallien2]

Considering that Google does software, for which the idea of patents is just ludicrous, whereas Apple does hardware, where patents are clearly much more applicable. To be honest, it would have been surprising if the two didn't disagree...

Re:Hardly surprising....

[mpapet]

Apple does hardware, where patents are clearly much more applicable.

Except when a mom-and-pop builds a clever and Patented asic that Apple wants. Most likely Apple gets one of it's off-shore suppliers to copy the ASIC. Goodbye mom-and-pop.

Except when Apple doesn't like some competitors hardware and discovers they have enough money to go a few rounds in court. Then an absurd patent/trademark violation case is started for no reason other than to kill a competitor.

Both situations happen regularly. The patent system has been twisted into a tool to supress competition.

Re:Hardly surprising....

[demallien2]

Ohmigod!!!! You're right! Patents supress competition! Quick, call the papers!

Oh, hang on, what's that you say? Patents are supposed to supress competition? Oh, never mind then...

Re:Hardly surprising....

[profplump]

I keep hearing that "software patents" are bad, but "hardware patents" are not. Could someone please explain to me why it's worse to patent software than hardware? As far as I can tell the problem with patents on obvious ideas, and the abuses of patents by people with enough money to bring or withstand a legal challenge are the same for both hardware and software. I'm not saying there aren't problems with the system, I just don't see what software vs. hardware has to do with it.

Re:Hardly surprising....

[dgatwood]

Simple. In hardware, compatibility with other hardware/software is not a requirement. If Intel patents something that AMD needs, AMD can implement something equivalent that doesn't work the same way, and software developers will write compiler extensions that take care of the details (for the most part).

In software, the fundamental functionality of software requires that data files be able to be read by other applications. Often, these patents cover the only possible set of steps to decode a file format. Thus, these patents take control over content created by an end user away from the content creator. This is fundamentally wrong. Also, since you can't force a company to provide open APIs for writing importers, the customer gets screwed if it is not possible to also write the competitor's file format.

Software changes much more rapidly than hardware because of the lack of physical form. Most computers still use the same basic instruction set that was created over thirty years ago. Most computers use an operating system written in the last ten years. Most computers have at least one application that was been updated in the last 3-5 weeks, while their CPUs were only upgraded within the last 3-5 years. Thus, the duration of absolute protection currently provided by patents is entirely unreasonable for software. Some might argue that it's unreasonable for computer hardware as well, but it is definitely unreasonable for software. This can be fixed, but until it is, it still represents a good reason not to allow software patents.

Algorithms are either mathematical in nature, in which case they should not be patentable because math is considered to be factual and unpatentable, or they are so trivial that a description of the result to a programmer will get you a similar (if not identical) piece of code. The complexity of software is not in creating anything new, but rather in the constructing of a whole from lots of standard parts in useful ways. The more complex the piece of software, the less likely that the whole piece will match someone else's, but the more likely that some smaller piece will be an almost exact match. As such, it is far closer to an art form than a science, and thus should be protected by copyright, not patents.

That brings us to the last point: prior to the recent allowance of software patents, nothing was eligible for both patent and copyright protection. It was always one or the other. This was very much intentional in the creation of these laws. They were supposed to be mutually exclusive. Right now, we have a situation where a small percentage of software authors want to have the extended duration provided by copyright and the absolute protection from fair use that patents provide. It's a clear power grab that should not be allowed. Allowing both types of protection on the same piece of technology gets around all of the protections built into each individual protection against abuse.

I'm sure folks can come up with other reasons, but those are the ones that are most obnoxious in my view, and are pretty fundamental to the nature of patents. Of course, if a software manufacturer is willing to forgo copyright protection in exchange for patent protection....

Re:Hardly surprising....

[king-manic]

Software is a set of instructions. Just as patenting tying your shoes is ludicrous, patenting a optimal flow algorithm is similiarly ludicrous. Patenting a program that implements that algorithm is also silly. Should you be able to patent something liek "1 click buying" or "click to link to a hyper page"? This is tantamount to patenting "breathing", "opening a door". The fact that prior art exists doesn't seem to deter courts from awarding damages to these patent trolls. This signals the judges weren't compitent to actually try the case and the system lacks enough people who understand the actual technologie seven in a general way. Particularly that one patent troll judge in Texas shoudl really get the boot.

Re:Hardly surprising....

[profplump]

Hardware patents cover processes -- sets of instructions for completing a task using physical parts -- not just finished products. I don't see the fundamental difference between that and software.

Likewise, the "obvious" factor and bad litigation can be applied to hardware patents as well. Should you be able to patent the wheel? It's been done.

Re:Hardly surprising....

[profplump]

Simple. In hardware, compatibility with other hardware/software is not a requirement.

Right. Because desinging film that fits into Kodak's camera or tires that fit on to GM's car are not relevent in the hardware world. And no one would want to make a processor that 100% compatible with the instruction set of another processor.

Software changes much more rapidly than hardware because of the lack of physical form.

That's possibly true, though I think you underestimate both the amount of time it takes to complete large software projects and the speed with which new hardware can be fabricated. At best though, this is an argument for creating a different duration for software patents, not eliminating them.

Algorithms are either mathematical in nature, in which case they should not be patentable because math is considered to be factual and unpatentable, or they are so trivial that a description of the result to a programmer will get you a similar (if not identical) piece of code.

Again, you can say the same thing about hardware, and it's just as true. "Mechanical processes are physical in nature, and should not be patentable because physics is considered to be factual and unpatentable. Or they are so trivial that a description of the result to an engineer will get you a similar (if not identical) piece of hardware."

That brings us to the last point: prior to the recent allowance of software patents, nothing was eligible for both patent and copyright protection.

On that point I agree wholeheartedly. You should have to choose copyright or patent protection, just like you have to choose patent or trade secret protection. Though it's worth noting that copyright only protects actual copies of the specific implementation, not the process or algorithm -- IBM's BIOS was protected by copyright, but was legally reproduced though a clean-room process. Even if the re-implementation were 100% identical it would not have been a copyright infringment.

There are certainly problems with the system -- obvious patents, terms that don't reflect the amount of work that went in to a patent, one-sided litigation, etc. -- but those are all problems faced by hardware and software patents alike.

Even after you explaination, the only problem I see that's unique to software is the patent + copyright issue, and I have a hard time buying that the only solution (or even the best solution) to that issue is to ban software patents. I think a better solution is to make copyright and patent terms fall in-line with each other. That way when the patent expires the copyright will also expire, and the required-to-be-public-by-the-nature-of-patents implementation would then be available to everyone.

Re:Hardly surprising....

[dgatwood]

Hardware patents aren't supposed to cover processes. That's a relatively recent abomination.

I have three rules about what patent law should look like:

1. You should be able to patent an implementation of a novel way to perform a step in a process, but not the act of performing the step itself, nor of performing the step in a particular order.
2. If there exists another way to get from the input of a step in a process to the output, it should not be possible to prevent someone from implementing the same process using that alternative implementation. The corollary is that it should never be permissible for any single entity to hold a complete monopoly on all possible ways to perform any step in a process.
3. If there cannot possibly be another way to get from the input of the step to the output, then that step is not sufficiently complex and therefore should not be patentable on grounds of obviousness.

Re:Hardly surprising....

[quanticle]

Its the difference between an idea and a realization. For example, take automatic harvesters - when John Deere patented his automatic harvester, others were still free to create other automatic harvesters that worked differently. In software, though, a patent covers an algorithm, rather than the particular implementation. Example: if I patent the MP3 algorithm, then no one can build a software MP3 encoder or decoder without paying me. That's exactly why Linux distros in the US don't come with MP3 codecs; the algorithm has been patented by the Fraunhofer institute and one is supposed to pay royalties for using that algorithm.

Re:Hardly surprising....

[LuSiDe]

Considering that Google does software, for which the idea of patents is just ludicrous, whereas Apple does hardware [...]

What is this MacOSX thing people talk about?

For the last time: Apple (and e.g. IBM) do not simply 'do hardware'. They make (slick) end solutions glueing together hardware (some proprietary), software (some proprietary) and service (in-house or outsourced). This comes with a price tag, ofcourse. I'd call it simply "end-solution". Apple has both patents on their hardware as well as their software.

AMD, they do primarily hardware. VIA, hardware. Intel, hardware as core business too. Microsoft and Google, mostly software but I'd differentiate Google primarily does service (advertisement) and some hardware whereas Microsoft also do service and hardware while their traditional core business was software (and IMO still is but less dependant on it). If Apple did hardware or software you'd be able to run MacOSX on your own AMD64 w/o a hardware vendor lock-in. Or an Apple computer w/o having to buy MacOSX w/it. I mean, compare it with the old SGI (though price diff is apparent).

Many businesses which sell software as core business are pro software patents. Those involving mostly service (Google, Red Hat) and those which are underdogs are usually against software patents.

Besides, one can be pro patents while anti software patents.

Re:Hardly surprising....

[profplump]

Hardware patents aren't supposed to cover processes. That's a relatively recent abomination.

I'm not talking about business process patents. I'm talking about good, old-fashioned hardware patents, like the one on your air conditioner compressor.

The patent does not cover the specific implementation of that particular compressor. It covers the process (or some part thereof) by which the refrigerant is compressed in that device; any device that uses the same process to compress the refrigerant, even if the device is physically different, would be in violation.

And your three rules for patents would essentially eliminate all practical uses for patents -- essentially you'd be making patents into copyrights, and they are not intended to serve the same purpose, either for the holder or the public. Copyright covers copies of a specific implementation, but allow re-implemenation so long as care is taken to avoid copying. Patents cover a particular process, regardless of implementation, but would not necessarily protect a specific implementation from being used for another purpose. And neither of those is a recent change.

Re:Hardly surprising....

[profplump]

Its the difference between an idea and a realization. For example, take automatic harvesters - when John Deere patented his automatic harvester, others were still free to create other automatic harvesters that worked differently. In software, though, a patent covers an algorithm, rather than the particular implementation.

In hardware patents also cover the process, not the particular implementation. You said so yourself: "others were still free to create other automatic harvesters that worked differently". If they had created automatic harvesters that looked different but worked the same way they'd be in violation of the patent, because it covers the process used by the harvester, not the specific implemenation.

Re:Hardly surprising....

[ben there...]

Oh, hang on, what's that you say? Patents are supposed to supress competition? Oh, never mind then... No, patents are supposed to make R&D costs for inventions pay off. Suppressing competition is an unfortunate side effect.

Re:Hardly surprising....

[dgatwood]

Right. Because desinging film that fits into Kodak's camera or tires that fit on to GM's car are not relevent in the hardware world. And no one would want to make a processor that 100% compatible with the instruction set of another processor.

Instruction sets should not be patentable. Information cannot be patented. Thus, any patents on instruction sets must be patents on the process that occurs when an instruction is executed. Therefore, these are just another case of process patents, which are the very patents that are at issue that I think should not be allowed.

Film dimensions are not patentable, as they are merely a statement of fact (information). Packaging might be patentable if it has some special feature that has never been done before, but there's usually a way to get around such patents. That pretty much leaves the film chemistry, which can always be replaced with something else, so long as you get the sensitivity close enough. With hardware patents, the patent system tends to make it hard to prevent interoperability, so long as you ignore process patents.

Mechanical processes are physical in nature, and should not be patentable because physics is considered to be factual and unpatentable.

Yes. You shouldn't be able to patent that the device stamps the logo after the paint job is applied. You should be able to patent the design of the stamper. I think process patents of all forms are wrong, including software process patents, hardware process patents, and business process patents.

The point I was trying to make is that In the hardware world, though, process patents are the rare exception. Most hardware patents are not process patents. In software, everything is a process. Processes are the very essence of software. Thus, by definition, all software patents are process patents, and thus are fundamentally objectionable in my book.

Re:Hardly surprising....

[dgatwood]

Yes, I guess I'm being a little imprecise here. The air conditioner compressor would be an example of a non-obvious single step that produces a thermal change through changing the pressure of a refrigerant. There's no process there. It is a single act, give or take, which results in cooling. There are other ways to cool a surface. You could put ice on the surface. You could use a Peltier junction. And so on.

The next patent would be on an apparatus consisting of a fan that blows air across a surface cooled through decompression of a refrigerant. However, if someone else blows cool air across a surface cooled in some other way, it should not be prevented by that patent. You shouldn't be able to have a patent that does nothing but specify the process. It should have to be a patent on the process as applied to some new extension of one of the fundamental building blocks.

On the other hand, the more I think about it, the more I become anti-patent. The purpose of patents was supposed to be to protect inventors from having their invention stolen before they could bring them to market. When was the last time an individual inventor received a patent on anything useful? It seems like almost every use of patents these days is something I find objectionable---either patent trolls suing legitimate companies or companies using it to prevent the ability of new companies to enter a marketplace. If you don't have a patent portfolio, don't even think about starting a company in the computer industry because you can't scratch your back without infringing on somebody's patent. It all seems pretty screwed up to me.

Maybe I just need sleep... or caffeine.

Re:Hardly surprising....

[profplump]

There's no process there. It is a single act, give or take, which results in cooling.

So a specific action or sequence of actions designed to manipulate the properties of some object/data to produce a specific result. That sounds a lot like a process to me. With respect to a patent it's tied to an application for the process, but it's still a protection on way you do things, and not necessarily the result of those actions.

There are other ways to cool a surface. You could put ice on the surface. You could use a Peltier junction. And so on.

And those would be non-infringing ways to cool, because they aren't the same process as using a compressor/evaporator pair. But they each have unique properties (cost, efficiency, compatibility with other components, etc.) that may make them more or less useful for a particular application.

Likewise there are ways to compress audio without using the MP3 algorithm. You could use AAC. Or zip an AIFF file. They are both non-infringing and both produce compressed audio, but they may be more or less useful for a particular application.

It should have to be a patent on the process as applied to some new extension of one of the fundamental building blocks.

This is a rule for software and hardware patents alike. They only cover a particular application. A patent to compress refrigerant would not cover the same physical mechanism being used to compress air (though any good patent attorney would write "device and method for the compression of fluids").

I can see why you think patents are a bad idea in general. I don't fully agree, but I can see how you get there. I only object to the idea that software patents are somehow special and the system works fine so long as there's some bit of matter involved -- the same problems you see with software patents have occurred in the hardware world since long before the word software even existed.

Re:Hardly surprising....

[profplump]

Information cannot be patented.
What do your patents cover? Because mine cover the design of devices and systems, and that design is, in and of itself, nothing more than information.

Film dimensions are not patentable, as they are merely a statement of fact (information).
The schematics of any device are merely statements of fact. The use of any device is merely an exercise in applied physics. None of that has any impact on what is or should be patentable.

And you wouldn't patent the actual dimensions of the film -- even bad patent examiners would catch that -- you'd patent the mechanisms needed to produce film that fit into your camera, or the mechanism needed to get film from its container into the camera's film track. And why shouldn't you be able to? What if you invented a unique way to advance film through a camera, by pre-treating the film in some special way? Shouldn't you be able to patent that useful. non-obvious, unique invention?

Yes. You shouldn't be able to patent that the device stamps the logo after the paint job is applied. You should be able to patent the design of the stamper.

Isn't "the stamper" the same physical object as "the device [that] stamps the logo after the paint job is applied"? I'm really not sure what you're trying to exemplify here.

The point I was trying to make is that In the hardware world, though, process patents are the rare exception.

That's a misconception. In the hardware world. processes are what is patented, just like software or business processes. Every patent in the world starts with "a method or device to..." because the patent is designed to protect not just the object that embodies the design, but the design itself.

Software engineers like to pretend that algorithms -- ordered sets of actions used to achieve some defined outcome -- didn't exist before computers, but mechanical engineers have been using physical algorithms for hundreds of years. There is a discrete mechanical processed involved in the compression of fluids in a scroll compressor; a series of actions has to occur in a particular order to compress the fluid. The patent on the scroll compressor covers that mechanical process. The patent does not cover the use of an identical scroll-shaped piece of metal as a way to channel uncompressed fluids.

There are certainly problems with the patent system. Patents are granted in obvious ideas and on overly-broad claims, litigation is on-sided, and prior art is not adequately examined. But none of those problems are unique to software.

Re:Hardly surprising....

[Ornedan]

The hardware patent was on one particular way of doing automatic harvesting. Not on the whole idea of doing automatic harvesting.
On the other hand, the MP3 patent is on the very idea of encoding sound in a certain way. Not on a particular encoder that implements that idea.

Urrgh!!!

[mpapet]

Apple certainly has had fun with patent whores in the past, but they usually come out on top or take care of the issue

And how much does "come out on top" cost? To Apple, not much. But the companies you never hear or care about it is the touch of death. **Every** one of the companies I've worked for have been dragged into court on patent and lame trademark cases, it has directly imperiled the operation of the company for no good reason other than to drive the small guy out of business.

How much does "taking care of the issue" cost Apple? Again, not something they are willing to share with anyone because then the price Apple or any other company for extortion becomes the new lowest dollar amount to settle for.

"Best for them" is certainly not best for the consumer or the hundreds of thousands of small businesses delivering innovative products.

Re:Urrgh!!!

[Vokkyt]

First question; what the product that your company(s) produced/worked on truly unique or different, or using genuinely unique technology that was free of patent infringement?

I know the door swings both ways; patent trolls sit right next to patent warlords, blah blah blah. I'm not saying that the patent rules cannot change, and I don't think that is what the Apple lawyers are saying either. However, consider what is being said by Google; they want a complete re-write. Okay, but what will the result be? Hollering that it needs to be fixed without any real solution doesn't really do any good. Also, given that this is a rather embedded system in place, a complete rewrite and replacement would take years, what with the testing and all.

As for the small businesses you worked for, I'm sorry they got squished under the strong arm of bigger companies, but my question still stands; was the patent infringement legitimate? What, do you want to wipe the patent slate clean and have everyone start from scratch? Well that would certainly suck. Should companies with X amount of patents have to give up all their patents and start anew with a one patent per year ruling? Doesn't sound fair to them, now does it.

What if, instead of being dramatic and rewriting the entire system, the parts of the system where it falls apart, the litigation side, is scrutinized and reviewed, with necessary changes taking place. Huh, sounds familiar...oh wait; it was said already.

Seriously, if simply revising what seems to be an alright system for many companies (not just big companies, small ones as well profit from the patent system) is not enough, then what is the answer? How should it work?

Re:Urrgh!!!

[greenbird]

As for the small businesses you worked for, I'm sorry they got squished under the strong arm of bigger companies, but my question still stands; was the patent infringement legitimate?

Yeah, they stole truly innovative programming techniques like linked list. So they could either license this innovative technology for $x of they could fight the patent which would cost anywhere from $x to $5x. Oh and the cost for fighting would tend towards the higher since the case was filed in the patent friendliest court in the US, good old Marshall, Texas Just the fact of that patent being granted shows how broken the current patent system is.

What, do you want to wipe the patent slate clean and have everyone start from scratch? Well that would certainly suck. Should companies with X amount of patents have to give up all their patents and start anew with a one patent per year ruling? Doesn't sound fair to them, now does it.

No. They should have to give up the idiotic patents like the one above. Unfortunately the current system has fostered a climate where 1000's of such patents (I dare say the vast majority) are not only granted but prove profitable for the owners of the patents. The idea of patents was put in the US Constitutions, despite the reservations of most of the framers of the US Constitution, for the exclusive purpose of fostering competition. You need to show me how the current system is in any way fostering innovation because the examples of the current patent system stifling innovation are rife. Until you do that, to bad if some poor little company making money and/or destroying truly innovative companies loses their business model of blackmailing with idiotic patents. The reservations of the founding fathers have been proven more than valid. I'm sure they would be scribbling that little part out if they saw the system as it is today.

Seriously, if simply revising what seems to be an alright system for many companies (not just big companies, small ones as well profit from the patent system) is not enough, then what is the answer? How should it work?

You are completely clueless as to the purpose of the patent system. It's not there so some companies can profit from it. No shit some companies profit by being granted a monopoly. But they generally profit by stopping innovation. The whole point of the patent system is supposed to be to stimulate innovation. Until you grasp this fundamental point you'll never see how broken the current system is.

In fast moving tech fields granting monopolies do nothing but stifle innovation because the company holding the monopoly no longer has to innovate to compete.

Icky! Icky!

[Anonymous Coward]

I inadvertently clicked the link before realizing it was on The Register! Now I'm going to have to spend the rest of the day cleaning the residue.

(I wasn't expecting such a vile link in the *summary*, but hey.)

Opposing companies

[Anonymous Coward]

The first company: the highest concentration of intelligent people (PhDs and such), possesses ability to creates rad new applications and ideas, extremely high technology at some parts.

The second company then again: Marketing, fanboys, good looking trash, riding on old BSDs, great ability to create trash patents.

Which one's opinion you trust more? Please note that I am not a Google fanboy, but they have created some absolutely frontier things whereas Apple has just finished making products out of old ideas. They are fine, but not just so frontier and really not so patentable things.

Re:Opposing companies

[Senjaz]

Parent is just flame bait.

A long time ago I figured out that practically all software companies have really high concentrations of intelligent people engineers for them. The differentiating factor seems to be how badly management hold them back and fuck them over.

I don't think Microsoft ever out competed anyone on sheer engineering, only ever luck or monopoly abuse. There's been some really intelligent folks work for MS, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to work for a company with their track record for management practice.

IBM, Sun, HP, Google and Apple are all firms with strong engineering and design principles. I think that happens when managers listen to and act upon the advice of their engineers.

Patently obvious

[Dan East]

"Speakers included patent lawyers from Google, IBM, and Apple."

Um, doesn't it go without saying that a bunch of patent lawyers, who are undoubtedly extremely well paid for working and exploiting the existing convoluted patent system, wouldn't want anything to change? If software patents go away, a certain percentage of patent lawyers go away. If the patent system was better designed, easier to understand, simpler for individuals to work with, then another percentage of patent lawyers would go away.

If you've built up an entire career understanding and working within the confines of a complex system, you wouldn't exactly want the system to be made to work without requiring your professional qualifications, would you?

Dan East

Re:Patently obvious

[nomadic]

Um, doesn't it go without saying that a bunch of patent lawyers, who are undoubtedly extremely well paid for working and exploiting the existing convoluted patent system, wouldn't want anything to change? If software patents go away, a certain percentage of patent lawyers go away. If the patent system was better designed, easier to understand, simpler for individuals to work with, then another percentage of patent lawyers would go away.

So most oncologists don't want a cure for cancer to be found? I've talked with a lawyer who works on patents on several occasions about this, approaching it from a slashdot-centric the-system-is-broken kind of viewpoint, but after hearing her talk about it I've come to the realization that the system isn't quite as bad as we make it out to be here. It is not easy to get a patent; patent applications are frequently denied, or revisions are demanded, and just because we've seen some dumb patents get granted doesn't mean that the whole system is somehow irredeemably broken.

It's like the people who argue the legal system is broken because they cherry-pick instances where frivolous lawsuits succeeded (usually completely fabricated instances).

Re:Patently obvious

[cyphercell]

Except, one or two lawyers could easily use their expertise to screw the rest over, by ruining the (money printing) system, these lawyer stand to earn a great deal.

Re:Patently obvious

[cyphercell]

Every time the state sentences/executes/ruins an innocent person, the system has failed and is broken, when the guilty go free, it is broken. If "completely fabricated" lawsuits get through at all something is broken. This isn't the legal system you learned about in school, it fails, and when it fails it completely irrevocably ruins peoples lives. If you understand this and still argue that the legal system is not broken, you just might have a really big surprise coming your way.

Re:Patently obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a recent law grad who planned to practice patent law, specifically related to computer science (largely software-based in nature). After working in the area for a summer and seeing how truly worthless many of these patents were, I came to the realization that I could not pursue a career in this field with a clear conscience. It should be telling that there are some people like me who eschew a career in patent law based on the failings and injustice of the system, even with a mound of debt. The fact that some patent attorneys are speaking out against the system when they have clearly vested interests in it is further demonstrative.

Sadly, I perceive that the U.S. patent system is virtually assuring the continued decline of technological innovation in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. Not that the U.S. has some right to be a leader, but there is no good reason to shoot your own foot...

Re:Patently obvious

[SlowMovingTarget]

the system isn't quite as bad as we make it out to be here.

Many of us here on Slashdot look at the patent system through software-colored glasses, if you will. Viewed from this perspective, the patent system is the antithesis of the effect it was intended to produce.

Software patents, instead, create a system where only large firms can afford to operate in the market. Individuals can get a patent, but will likely not be able to afford bringing suit against an infringing firm. Worse, patent disputes often involve reciprocal countersuits: "Oh yeah! Well you're infringing on five of our patents..."

It is copyright that protects and encourages innovation and industry in the software world, not patents. It is copyright that makes GPL and Linux possible.

From the software perspective, the patent system is broken. If you're inventing a new drug, or a new class of machine; that's probably a different story.

Re:Patently obvious

[foobsr]

So most oncologists don't want a cure for cancer to be found?

Probably not; but the health system is as broken as the patent system - to get an idea, google for 'preventive medicine' vs. some other "specialty" like 'cardiology' or 'oncology'. And think about patenting "a gene and related applications, including carrier and related testing" (patents again, what a strange coincidence).

All in all, it is more like 'the system is broken'.

CC.

Re:Patently obvious

[nomadic]

Most complex systems have failure rates. Would you say a software application that had bugs was "broken"? That's a term that should be used for something that is basically nonfunctioning; not something with an error rate. The majority of frivolous lawsuits get thrown out. The majority of people convicted of a crime are actually guilty. Not that the system doesn't need serious improvement on both issues, but that doesn't mean the system is nonfunctioning.

Re:Patently obvious

[cyphercell]

I'm absolutely certain anyone on death row that is innocent, would not agree with you. In fact I think your tune would change considerably if the "error" was snuffing you out. And judging by your faith in the system I don't think you have the slightest clue about what goes on in the real Legal system. (too much CSI maybe?)

Quick question: Have you EVER been to court without a lawyer for anything more than a traffic ticket?

Here's a tip: if you're ever in big trouble, mortgage your house and give half to your lawyer, you want him working really hard from the very first second . If you're poor move into your car, park it next to the courthouse and visit the law library every day.

Don't EVER assume you're innocent and nothing can go wrong.

It's kinda like driving a car without breaks, yea the complex system still works, but it is very considerably broken too.

Re:Patently obvious

[servognome]

I'm absolutely certain anyone on death row that is innocent, would not agree with you. In fact I think your tune would change considerably if the "error" was snuffing you out. And judging by your faith in the system I don't think you have the slightest clue about what goes on in the real Legal system

So what is your magic fix that makes the system perfect?

Re:Patently obvious

[nomadic]

I'm absolutely certain anyone on death row that is innocent, would not agree with you.

There is a serious issue about wrongful convictions, especially on death row. However, this is something that can be improved, and is not a necessary part of the system itself. A lot of it is political; people like to vote in self-professed "law and order" types. This is something that has to be fixed in the political and cultural spheres, though.

And judging by your faith in the system I don't think you have the slightest clue about what goes on in the real Legal system. (too much CSI maybe?)

CSI doesn't have much to do with the legal system...

Have you EVER been to court without a lawyer for anything more than a traffic ticket?

Well since I am a lawyer, it's kind of hard to me to go anywhere without one. Because I'm usually with myself.

Here's a tip: if you're ever in big trouble, mortgage your house and give half to your lawyer, you want him working really hard from the very first second . If you're poor move into your car, park it next to the courthouse and visit the law library every day.

I don't have a house so I guess I'm out of luck.

It's kinda like driving a car without breaks, yea the complex system still works, but it is very considerably broken too.

A better analogy would be a working car with a lousy driver. Just because someone in the driver's seat does a dangerous job, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the car.

Re:Patently obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

(posting anonymously because i don't want to see this plastered elsewhere)
I'm a patent lawyer.
I work for Google (not as a patent lawyer, admittedly).
I certainly want to see the system change dramatically.

The assumption that all Patent Lawyers like the system, even if they've spent a lot of money to be a part of it (law school, etc), is a very bad one.

In fact, Google hires a *ton* of Patent Lawyers who would otherwise be unhireable because of their "anti-patent activities" (God that sounds McCarthy-esque)

Well, my respect for Apple just went down a notch.

[Caspian]

And I say that as an Apple user. Seriously, I never in a kerjillion years would have expected this kind of patriotic drivel from an Apple employee. Our broken-ass patent system is "the best in the world"? Nothing's wrong with it? Hoo boy. Seriously, WTF?

Translation

[athloi]

Apple: Our patent system is the best because it allows us to make money from trivial ideas before others can exploit them Google: Our patent system is in crisis because it sometimes threatens those of us who make money by exploiting your trivial ideas

"the best in the world"

[circletimessquare]

said the patent lawyer

the us patent system IS "the best in the world" ...the best in the world at keeping armies of patent lawyers well paid by large corporations

Re:"the best in the world"

[IBBoard]

They never did say how it was best ;)

I have smelled fecal matter...

[RingDev]

from animals around the world. And I have to say, the fecal matter of the North American Badger is by far the best.

All hail the Badger, its shit is the best smelling crap in the whole world!

-Rick

Havent read TFA

[GarfBond]

but this standpoint may have something to do with apple's focus on hardware. Hardware patents have seemed to work better for them in general - see multitouch, magsafe, iPod wheel, etc.

Knock knock, Neo.

[mattgreen]

That'd be the sound of your cognitive dissonance knocking. Google/Apple = good, patents = bad. But, Google/Apple like patents!

I wish they wouldn't run stories like this...now what are we supposed to think?

Re:Knock knock, Neo.

[jedidiah]

Patents aren't bad in a "categorical imperative" sort of way. They are bad when they become an end to themselves rather than a means to an end. The problem "idea" is intellectual "property". That phrase brings with it a whole bunch of entirely inappropriate conceptual baggage and expectations.

It were better if they were not thought of as property at all and not given any legal protection as such.

Re:Knock knock, Neo.

[aristotle-dude]

That'd be the sound of your cognitive dissonance knocking. Google/Apple = good, patents = bad. But, Google/Apple like patents!

I wish they wouldn't run stories like this...now what are we supposed to think? Do you make a habit of using psychological terms in your everyday speech? I have yet to encounter anyone who would use the term "cognitive dissonance" in an ordinary conversation. Why do people on slashdot insist on writing like a walking thesaurus? Rather than making you appear more intelligent, use of uncommon words tends to isolate you from the the group and can make what you are trying to express more difficult to grasp for the average reader.

I would suggest using common language to express how you feel rather than throwing in psychological terms haphazardly.

Re:Knock knock, Neo.

[Anonymous Coward]

here, this is for you
you fucking dunce

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Re:Knock knock, Neo.

[mattgreen]

Ah, and I thought this was "news for nerds." How foolish of me.

Re:Knock knock, Neo.

[Adambomb]

But...But....How am I to make myself feel superior when already a social outcast!(!!11eleventyoneetc)

Oh, and I concur. Do you concur?

Concur with what?

Re:Knock knock, Neo.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have yet to encounter anyone who would use the term "cognitive dissonance" in an ordinary conversation. You apparently converse with people much less erudite than those I converse with . . .

use of uncommon words tends to isolate you from the the group and can make what you are trying to express more difficult to grasp for the average reader. . . . care a lot more about mass appeal and communicating with average readers than I do, and . . .

I would suggest using common language to express how you feel . . . value feeling over thinking more than I do.

Which, I suggest, explains why I and others like me "insist on writing like a walking thesaurus[.]" I wish to communicate about ideas with other people who care about ideas, rather than engage in group bonding over emotional attitudes; precision is accordingly more important to me than mass accessibility.

(If that was too hard for you, here's a translation into common language to express how I feel: "Fuck off kid, the grownups are talking about grownup stuff.")

Google is right...

[josepha48]

.. and apple is wrong, take it from an ex-patent examiner.

The way that patent examiners work is by number of actions on a case. Each patent application is a case and there are only at most 2 actions on a case: first action, usually a rejection for something; final action, either the patent is allowed or denied. Allowing a patent on the first round only gives you one action. The patent examiners are expected to complete a certain number of actions each week. As the patent examiner stays there longer they need to complete more actions. A new patent examiner, GS-5 or GS-7 would have to do about 4 patents every 2 weeks, where a GS-11 would have to do about 7 every two weeks. This never ever ever takes into account the complexity of the patent either. A 10 page patent application gets the same attention as a 150 page application. It does not take into consideration that the job is boring as hell unless you like dealing with lawyers.

Many patent examiners are not from the technical fields that they are working in and some are fresh out of college. Patent examiners are government employees and thus have the same lazy attitude that most government employees do.

Anyone who has been on /. for the past 5 years and seen some of the stupid issues that have come up because of patents would know that the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) is completely jacked up and not working.

Take it from me, I worked there, and to reject a patent I would have come up with any f***ed up logic just to get it out the door on time, and usually allow them the second time around, unless I really did come up with some good BS

Re:Google is right...

[sheldon]

I knew a guy who went on to be a patent examiner.

As he explained it, they were instructed to be very lenient on accepting patents, because it was simply taken for granted that any complaints or problems would be handled in the courts.

That's the way businesses preferred it to be done, and perhaps that is Apple's position here.

Re:Google is right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit
I deal with Examiners to know that any fucked up reason is the way business is done at the PTO.

Re:Google is right...

[PatrickMMoore]

You're absolutely right. When I was fresh outta college and working as an examiner, I would use whatever f***ed up logic that made my boss happy with my production numbers. I'm not proud of that fact, but it did make my life considerably better.

I am agreeing with you that the system is pretty jacked up and no longer encourages innovation (which is what it was meant for in the first place. Thomas Jefferson would probably be working for Google if he were alive today.

Re:Google is right...

[russotto]

As he explained it, they were instructed to be very lenient on accepting patents, because it was simply taken for granted that any complaints or problems would be handled in the courts.

The courts, on the other hand, assume the patent office has done its job and apply a strong presumption of validity to patents.

Those two situations together are sufficient to provide clear and convincing evidence that Google is right and Apple is wrong (and I'm a Mac owner from the beginning)

typical goog

[Anonymous Coward]

$x sucks ... here, use our system for it instead, wink wink

Typical "Whiney Mac Fanboy" comment

[Space cowboy]

... because (s)he is indeed whiney, but certainly no mac-fanboy.

Simon

Re:Typical "Whiney Mac Fanboy" comment

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Well, it's not that typical - the editor made it much less inflamatory than my original submission.

Re:Well, my respect for Apple just went down a not

[cowscows]

You haven't been paying attention if until today you thought that Apple's legal team was any different from anywhere else, even if the rest of Apple really does have a unique culture. They have, for years, consistently been making moves and saying things that seem to go against the general outlook on life that Apple tries to express with their PR and advertising. Slashdot itself has seen lots of stories of Apple suing people who don't really deserve it, trying to suppress information that's already out on the internet, and saying dumb stuff that your average fanboy would never imagine Apple saying.

It's probably the result of a few things. One, lawyers live in their own little corner of the world, and no matter how you set up your company, you're going to have to deal with all that legalese, so you need some lawyers who live in that corner as well. Two, Apple isn't all sunshine and happiness, they're a business that needs to make money, and sometimes that need doesn't direct you towards the friendliest path. Third, despite what happens to some of their hardcore fans, Apple does not brainwash their employees into mindless drones, it's a company made up of thousands of individuals, many of which have differing opinions and views on things.

Apple has been around for decades, and has invested a lot of time and resources into building a business that works well within the existing patent system. Put quite simply, they have a lot to potentially lose if the patent system changes. They've got a big pile of patents protected by it, and they know how to get new patents. Google, on the other hand, is much newer, hasn't built up as large a patent portfolio, and as such has plenty to gain from a reformed system. You could argue that Apple could potentially benefit from good patent reform, but apparently they believe otherwise.

Patents and FOSS

[Archangel Michael]

Google's head of patents believes the system is in crisis: 'The Patent Office is overburdened,' she said. 'The volume of patents going in is huge. And the quality of patents coming out -- it could be better.' But Apple's chief patent counsel said the US patent system was 'not broken' and 'not in crisis,' calling it 'the best in the world.'

Here's a novel idea. Is it possible that these two views aren't as mutually exclusive as some think?

My thoughts as to why I postulate this idea (ignoring the obvious "broken" / "not broken" statements).

1) From a certain point of view, the patent system is broken: the infamous business model "on the web", swinging on a swing, etc.
2) From another point of view, the patent system is NOT broken: true inventions, novel approaches to solving a problem etc.

Is the whole patent system "broken" because of 1? I agree that certain aspects of the Patent process ARE broken, but that doesn't mean the whole of it is.

FOSS is just as "broken" as Patent System is. Probably more so with people starting to implement GPL3 (which isn't going to have the effect that the authors/designers wanted). Before you mod me down, I support and promote FOSS where I can, when I can. I don't use MS Office, I use Open Office. I use LAMP for all my web design work (I use Joomla, mostly). Firefox, Thunderbird etc for web applications. I think FOSS has a lot to offer, but it is far from perfect.

The different agendas and people trying to force others to their view is insane. While I like the idea behind GPL3 (protect the source), I don't like the implementation. I think it is going to hurt packaging and bundling of components together to accomplish a job because of some clause in the GPL3 is vague enough and can be interpreted in such a way that bundling of a LAMP solution would be viewed as violation of GPL3. What is the difference between linking libraries, and linking applications???? Define a library vs an application. Isn't a library a small application????? It is a bit like defining PORN, isn't it? I mean, we all know "PORN" when we see it, but actually defining it can be .... difficult at best.

Re:Patents and FOSS

[LingNoi]

Probably more so with people starting to implement GPL3 (which isn't going to have the effect that the authors/designers wanted).

Don't make a statement like that and not back it up with some information.. How? Why?

The different agendas and people trying to force others to their view is insane.

Yet here you are forcing your view on me.

Before you mod me down, I support and promote FOSS

So what? You want a medal? Oh since you support FOSS and are a fellow brother of the order I guess we should just ignore the BS you said above.

ok back on topic...

It is broken. There is only 3 countries in the WORLD that believe software can be patented. Want more proof..

Writing software is like writing a book...

One day Mary came across a scary looking mansion (STOP! scary looking mansions are patented!)... One day Mary came across a scary looking house with great glass doors. Mary decided to enter the house. Inside it smelled musty and damp (STOP! musty and damp scary houses are patented) ..... Inside it smelled old...

You see my point. You can't patent story elements but you can patent "one click buttons". Therefore forcing your competitors to change their software and make is slightly suck compared to your software without forcing you to innovate and become better.

The patent system in America is getting even dumber with the patenting of DNA. Soon I am going to be violating someones patent because 80% of my genes is owned by a corporation. Before there used to be this word it was called DISCOVERING. This word meant that when you found out a way to do something in math you discovered it. In biology if you found a new organism you discovered it.

Today we have people claiming to have invented math and DNA WTF?!?

Re:Patents and FOSS

[Archangel Michael]

Worse that your examples, in the US, it is legal to patent / copyright a number. Go Figure.

That doesn't mean the whole SYSTEM is broken, just parts.

As for GPL3, I'll let history judge it. I personally think it was designed to be viral (bad, no matter if you agree with FOSS or not), and probably unenforceable in the long run. And yes, I've read the whole thing. I actually prefer BSD style license, it is more libertarian. But that is me.

Re:Well, my respect for Apple just went down a not

[Heftklammerdosierer!]

From TFA:

Speaking alongside Lee, Apple's chief patent counsel, Chip Lutton, wouldn't go quite so far as his Google counterpart. He said the US patent system was "not broken" and that it was "not in crisis," calling it "the best in the world". But he acknowledged that there was a "huge bubble" of patent assertions that needs to be scaled back. "The question with this bubble market, as with any bubble market, is 'Can we solve it without a crisis arising?'" he said.

point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvoiusly your opinion changes depending upon whether you are screwing your customers ( or are about to ) or your suppliers or competitors are screwing you. Apple's customers better watch out.

What does this do for...

[TheJerg]

The old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

You have "The enemy of my enemy, the enemy of my enemy and the enemy of my enemy" Does that make them all my friends or all my enemies?

It may be the best in the world

[intx13]

The US patent system may be the best in the world - I'm no expert on foreign patent law, but I do know that not many people other than software folks are complaining about the current state of the US patent system. Software is still relatively young (compared to the age of the concept of patents) and it's not surprising that it is causing a lot of frustration... square pegs and round holes and so on; the patent system hasn't evolved to handle software yet.

I'll go one step farther - I don't think the patent system is necessarily broken. The current patent system is unable to handle the issue of software patents - but this doesn't mean the system itself is broken. The system wasn't designed for software! "This hammer won't screw in this screw, the hammer is broken and must be purged from the hardware store and replaced with a new device!"

You must use the right tool for the job. I think it's fair to say that the patent system is not the right tool for protecting the interests of software developers, but that doesn't mean that the patent system is broken.

Re:If it isn't done much yet, maybe there is a rea

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem, no matter how you stack things, a lot of the patents will be obvious, and they SHOULD be granted. Look around, for example, i just got a pizza, on the box, it had two patents listed. Now, im sure someone might go "bla, a patent for a box? But its soooo obvious", and they might be right, on the other hand, would the box producer have made the box was it not covered with patents?

Simple (and thus obvious) patents are a good thing, but ONLY when the patent term is a few years. The original patent term of 20 years was set a long, long, long time ago, when information moved at snails pace compared to today. The time it took to bring things to market back then was a longer then it is now, and with nation distribution pretty much commonplace for products, something im sure was very rare way back then. The point is: keep the obvious patents, but shorten the patent term for most types of patents (i cant speak for every industry) to, say 5 years at most. This way, companies will have less incentive to patent overly obvious things, as anyone can wait 5 years for the patent to expire, but if its actually a good patent, then they will have more then enough time to get a firm grip in the market before they will get competition.

The main concern tho, is the quality of the patents. Its ridiculous that Apple can claim the patent system is not in crisis when the patent office is overloaded, and the quality of patents granted is not excellent (quality, in this case, measured by how easy it is to understand the patent, for the purpose of implementing the technology solely by reading the patent).

Apple is evil.

[Jack9]

And this is yet more evidence that Apple is as evil as MS. While Apple has almost always been the underdog, geeks tend to identify with Apple without examining what Apple does. Make no mistake, it's about the bottom line for the sake of the bottom line, not for the advancement of computing.

Re:Apple is evil.

[empiricistrob]

A company cares about their bottom line, and suddenly they're evil? That's rediculous. Under US corporate law, the sole responsibility of the board of directors is to make a profit. It's the system that's evil, not Apple. Whether a corporation's profit is aligned with your standards of good or evil is purely coincidental. Sure, Google might look like the good guy when it comes to the spectrum auction -- but that's only because it will help their bottom line down the road. Similiary, Apple looks evil to you, and that's solely because profit for them involves the use of patents, which you consider to be evil.

Re:Apple is evil.

[prockcore]

It's the system that's evil, not Apple.

Apple just said the system wasn't broken. Apple supports a system that you, yourself, just called evil. Apple is evil because they support evil.

Re:Apple is evil.

[Jack9]

A company cares about their bottom line, and suddenly they're evil? That's rediculous.

That's also, not what I said.

The idea that company will financially lobby to hobble an industry politically, whatever the motivations, is specifically evil.

Going to the bathroom soon to be patented!

[voraistos]

Just the fact that google sees imperfections makes them the good guys: Everything is seen as "beta", yes, however this also means: "there are bugs, we dont know where they are, but once we find them, we are gonna deal with them". What google makes is called quality, what apple does is just called having a good time: after all they only benefit from the current patent system, why would they change it ? They take a good operating system, make it their own -without having to buy it of course- buy adding a photoshoped interface, oblige people who want to use it to buy their over-priced computers, make money, and can now afford basically anything they want. I would like to see a patent system saying: what you do is not your own, so give your code, your idea and whatever else it is you do, and if someone abuses it (for example, i could start a company called ipple and sell apods), then its illegal. -yep as you can see i have nothing to do with the dark side of the force, also called "U.S Patent"- There is no best patent system: One that protects too much would allow me to patent the idea of taking a piss, meaning that those who want to go to the bathroom would have to buy a license from me, or do on themselves. One that doesnt protect enough would just prevent anyone interested in something to actually invest in that thing. (a bit like paying developers to make GPL software: anyone can just take the code, do some small enhancmen ts on it (a bit of shiny paint "Apple style"), leave it free or even sell it.

Re:Going to the bathroom soon to be patented!

[voraistos]

Sorry: I forgot to select to "plain old text" format. Shame on me :P

People dies because of patents.

[eiapoce]

The US patent system is not the best in the world because there can't be one. As soon you accept the idea of protectiong ideas you promote the economically implicit concept of scarcity of resource and various forms of implementation that are economically inefficient (monopolies and such).

On slashdot people discusses about software patents knowing that they apply the most to high technology and computer science. Unfortunately they apply also to other things including medicine (drugs).

Do not forget what happened a short while ago in Brazil when the president was criticised for an allerged violation of a patent. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18490388/

Useless

[Duncan3]

A patent will not stop China (who makes everything) from making copies of your product, because it's not the USA.
A Patent will not stop Microsoft from using your product, because they can pay more to lawyers then you can - which is how the "legal system" works.

How are patents helping the inventors exactly?

Self Interest?

[dakameleon]

Of Google and Apple, Who has more patents and who has made use of them to protect their revenue stream(s)? Who has been affected by patent trolls? Might be interesting to see the figures against each other.

Re:If it isn't done much yet, maybe there is a rea

[Jerry Coffin]

Is the judicial system really qualified to test for items such as obviousness in a technical field in order to dismissing a patent. For every witness that says it is obvious, I'm sure the opposing side will say it's not. Perhaps we should have a select group of technical judges just for this purpose.

Yes, both sides are usually going to find experts who will testify to what they want said -- and to at least some extent, both will usually be correct. Relatively few patents are granted for things quite as obvious as most people think -- but most aren't exactly blazing new trails into completely unexplored wilderness (so to speak) either. The most obvious patents are rarely used as the basis for a lawsuit in any case. A company that's going to try to make money off their patents wants to look invincible -- to the point that if they send you a letter saying they think you're infringing on their patents, the only reasonable reaction is to settle as quickly as possible. The last thing they want is to waste lots of time and money in court with a weak patent, only to lose the case because it's obvious, and (worse) end up looking weaker so anybody else they go after for the next ten years (or so) will fight back because they think there's a good chance of winning.

As far as obviousness goes, there's also been a fairly noticeable change in the US recently. The Supreme Court of the US (in the case of KSR v. Teleflex) recently ruled that the criteria that have been used by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit were basically flawed. The rules they had previously followed said that to show a patent was obvious, you basically needed to show where previous documents showed all the elements in the patent, and you needed to show some way in which a document suggested combining those elements into a single invention (e.g. if two elements were shown in separate documents, that a third document listed both of the first two in its bibliography).

In the KSR v. Teleflex decision, the Supreme Court ruled that it was not enough to show that the particular combination of elements you used hadn't been specifically suggested previously. Rather, you have to show that you got (for example) some result beyond what would be expected by combining those elements in that particular fashion. In case anybody cares, this ruling also discusses the criteria that had been used previously.

As far as there being a panel of judges specifically for looking at patents, that already exists: I already mentioned the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This court works almost exclusively with patent cases. It was created for more or less the reasons you suggest.

Along with ruling on things like whether a particular patent is obvious, the CAFC attempts to create criteria that give the lower courts guidance in how to make that determination as well. In KSR v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court not only changed the final ruling, but (more importantly) said that the criteria that were previously in use needed to be changed. As such, this will have a considerable effect on the rulings of lower courts in patent cases, probably for years to come.

Re:If it isn't done much yet, maybe there is a rea

[russ1337]

>>> would the box producer have made the box was it not covered with patents

Yes, because people need pizza boxes.

What if I own a pizza joint and want to make my own boxes? I'd have to license with the patent holding company for something as simple and as obvious as a box for pizza. That is if the company is even willing to license their technology.

Or, if I think I've managed to make a really cool pizza box that will ultimately advance pizza box technology for the greater good of mankind, he can stop me dead in my tracks. If I was able to make my pizza box, perhaps he'd have to redesign his to try to get one step ahead, which I believe promotes innovation (instead of stifling it!)

and just for your viewing pleasure... here is the coolest pizza box out there.

Re:Well, my respect for Apple just went down a not

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because somehow every single Apple employee is inherently a "good" person that believes in exactly the same things as every other Apple employee.

You want to see a WTF, look in the mirror.

Then be paid to fight it

[paladinwannabe2]

Try to get a job destroying the worthless patents of trolls. I'm sure you can find business willing to hire you for defense...

its really obvious...

[3seas]

allowing software to be patented is proof that it is broken.

Misleading Title

[Aetuneo]

In fact, according to the summary, Apple thinks that the patent system is fine, and Google thinks that it's broken (or, rather, representatives of Apple and Google think that). The title implies that both Google and Apple think that it is not broken. A better title would be "Google and Apple disagree over the state of the patent system." Well, perhaps not better, but more accurate.

www.google.com/patents

[Anonymous Coward]

So... I think Google has a better understanding of tha patent system... as they are trying to digitally catalog it. Apple probably sees it from a purely business point of view. My friend in the patent office says they have a decade long backlog. He did Computer Engineering in college so I assume he is looking at software patents.

Vague on details of change...

[winomonkey]

As someone currently dealing with the headache of patent law first hand, I have to agree with point made by both sides. Yes, I feel that the Google stance is 'righter,' but I also feel that the process of fighting patents in court is slightly broken and could be done better.

However, a major problem will always exist - money. If they manage to streamline the process (some judiciaries are creating "rocket dockets" for patent disputes), there will still be an overhead of legal fees and expensive expert witnesses that keep small players stuck in a bind. Sure, it might cost half as much to fight an obvious case, and it might take a fraction of the time, but half of an obscene amount of money is still, well, pretty damn obscene.

So, the little guys are left with the choice to take a license and deal with it, or fight the patent in court (recent changes make it so that the licensee can take a license and then turn around and sue the patent holder for non-infringement, which is a step in the right direction) for a sum of money that may well be beyond the operating costs of the organization.

Unless Apple is proposing that these "changes to the litigation process" include making lawyers fees non-existent, allowing experts to be experts without charging five-figure fees for their testimony, and reducing the amount of time that it takes to fight such cases, I don't see there being a very useful move in the legal process that will make a court battle any more appealing to a small software company.

Re:Vague on details of change...

[winomonkey]

A troll? My organization is in the process of dealing with patent infringement for a patent that is obvious to anyone skilled in the art of computer programming (we have yet to find the perfect patent match in a preexisting patent, thereby making their patent invalid (which will still require legal council to defeat their potential suit) but we are getting close). We infringed upon this patent even though we created our application without knowledge of their patented method (because it is so f-ing obvious), and now are being faced with the license or litigate decision. We are asking the questions that I posited above ... it's not a bloody troll, it's the truth of my current situation.

The PTO is not the biggest problem here.

[muerdeme]

"Most patents issued are never litigated and never licensed," he said. "We need to focus on fixing the litigation system. That's most relevant."
I couldn't agree with Apple's counsel more.

Everyone seems content to blame the PTO for the problems in the patent system. The reason there are patent trolls applying for superfluous patents is not because they know they can sneak the applications through the PTO's inefficient, government run system. The patent litigation laws in the US are the source of the real problem. The massive potential returns on litigation make it economical for the trolls to exist, and, in turn, force the big companies to use their patents "like shields" against each other. One golden patent application in a 1000 is all it takes for a troll to pay for the fees associated with all of them.

Get rid of the trolls and unnecessary patents by making them uneconomical, not by forcing the PTO to hire PhD's. With a lower upside to litigation, every application that is filed must necessarily be of a higher quality in order to make it worthwhile economically.

Misleading Title

[nicolastheadept]

That title is extremely misleading. The way its written it looks like its saying that Google and Apple disagree with the fact that the patent system is broken.

Apple hardware vs Google software

[codemachine]

I think this partially has to do with the businesses they are in.

Apple is mostly a hardware company. They want to be able to patent their innovations involving the iPod and iPhone. Though I'm sure they have some software patents too, most of their patents are tied to hardware and the software interface to hardware. For a company that tends to lead the pack on hardware innovations, the system works very well for them.

Google's big business is web based software. Software patents have been handled fairly poorly by the patent office. And Google is arriving on the scene late. Apple and MS already have a huge patent portfolio. Google is probably building one as well, but since their business is software based, they are quite vulnerable to patent threats. Especially when a company that has stated they want to crush Google has one of the largest collections of software patents, and has already threatened the open source software that Google's business runs on.

terrible title

[Vexorian]

When I read it I thought that both apple and google disagreed that the system is broken, but the summary actually meant that they disagreed with each other. I hope that when I read the article It doesn't turn out it was about ponies...

Re:Well, my respect for Apple just went down a not

[RAMMS EIN]

Welcome to the Real World, where Apple is the world's largest seller of DRMed music, locks consumers into the iPod-iTunes combo, trumps Microsoft in terms of bundling, builds proprietary software on top of open source software, without always being eager to contribute back, sues people for spreading information, refuses to admit problems with their hardware, and on and on.

Ok, so perhaps I painted a somewhat exaggerated picture of Apple. But the point stands: they're not angels.

Re:Well, my respect for Apple just went down a not

[RAMMS EIN]

``Well, my respect for Apple just went down a notch.''

Apple: Our Reality Distortion Field is the best in the world!
Google: The Reality Distortion Field is broken and in deep crisis.

Can I ...

[PPH]

... file a patent on the business process of slipping patent applications through the USPTO by swamping them with garbage so they won't have time to review the merits of my applications?

Re:Can I ...

[genner]

Hmm broken or best in the world.
Sadly I think both are right.

KSR v. Teleflex

[Jimb0v]

Patent system has already been fixed by the Supreme Court. They made it much easier for an examienr to merely state that they believe something is obvious.

Only in the EU...

[tjstork]

Despite the imperialistic wishes of the EU, the USA does not have to abide by EU laws. People are competing against Microsoft, they just lose. Let's spell this out, after a few releases, Netscape was not as good a brower as IE 4.0, Borland C++ was not as good as Visual C++, and dBase III was certainly no match for FoxPro. On the other hand, where people make the right decisions, they gain on MS. Zune is no iPod, msnbc is no CNN or Fox, IE is no Firefox and Windows is no Linux.

Re:Only in the EU...

[HiThere]

More particularly, Netscape couldn't sell it's browser for $35 after a years trial when MS was giving away IE for free, and pre-installing it in new systems.

If you like VisualC++, all I can say is "That's a matter of taste, and my taste differs from yours". Actually, I barely ever used VisualC++, but I presume that it's like their VisualJ++ and like their VisualBasic, both of which I hated. IBM had a good IDE for Java (VisualAge), though. Pity they dropped it for Eclipse, as Eclipse still hasn't caught up to it. I've still got a copy, but it stopped running on Linux back during the days of Linux2.4.

FoxPro was, indeed, a good product before MS bought it. Superior I would call it. Pity MS decided to kill it. (Is even the remnant of it still viable?) I considered it far superior to MSAccess.

MS has frequently used it's monopoly position to kill superior products, even when it had to buy them to do so. In the case of FoxDB MS had trouble killing it even AFTER they bought the product. Users almost revolted. So they continued to sell it and stopped development and slowed maintenance to a crawl. I expect that by now they've finally managed to kill it. I saw the handwriting on the wall and looked elsewhere. But I had by then lost all delusions that MS had the good of it's customers as a significant consideration.

The US should not have to abide by the EU laws. Similarly the EU should not be coerced into following the US laws. When we see evidence that this is being done, we should be aware of the vile abuse of power that is occurring.

YES, it is broken because of that

[Anonymous Coward]

patents, copyrights, and trademarks are founded upon a hypothesis (usually confused for fact) of the free rider problem; this "problem" is a myth, however.

http://jorge.cortell.net/
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/again st.htm
http://www.stephankinsella.com/ip/
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1763

There's No Such Thing As a Free Patent
By Stephan Kinsella
Posted on 3/7/2005

The conventional defense of the patent system is that it is essential in order to stimulate creativity.[1] For example, in "Don't Believe the Hype" (Feb. 2005, IP Law & Business), patent attorneys John Benassi & Noel Gillespie conclude that our patent laws continue to "foster innovation." This is so even though many observers believe our patent system is "out of control and that overworked patent examiners are issuing overly broad patents."

Costs Must Be Considered

But the benefits that flow from the patent system are only half the story, since the system also comes with costs. Even if we are going to adopt a wealth-maximization criterion (which is, admittedly, problematic),[2] we must compare the costs to the benefits to know whether the system is worth having at all.
If costs are not taken into account, there are no limits to what could be done to encourage innovation. Some, for example, suggest replacing the patent system with a federal commission that gives taxpayer-funded rewards to inventors deemed worthy. "Under a reward system, innovators are paid for innovations directly by the government (possibly on the basis of sales), and innovations pass immediately into the public domain. Thus, reward systems engender incentives to innovate without creating the monopoly power of intellectual property rights."[3] ...

If the patent system is to be a net benefit to society, the gains it provides (the extra wealth and innovations the system stimulates) should be greater than its costs, according to standard law and economics "wealth-maximization" reasoning. As Landes and Posner--deans of the law and economics approach--point out, innovators themselves engage in a similar calculus: "For a new work to be created the expected return . . . must exceed the expected costs."[6]
In other words, the theory is that the innovator will engage in innovating activity only when he believes he can reap a profit. And the very point of a patent system is to make it easier for inventors to earn a profit, so that more of them will invest time and resources trying to innovate.
Likewise, the entire patent system's "gains"--the extra wealth or innovation it stimulates--needs to be clearly greater than the costs of the system if the patent system is to be a net benefit to society. How we are to go about measuring such costs against the benefits, and include the opportunity costs of time, is a crucially important issue. But if one is going to advocate a system on the grounds that it is beneficial, one must attempt to account for costs as well.

What Costs Are There?

And there are clearly costs to the system. Indeed, some of the purported "benefits" cited by Benassi and Gillespie may really be costs. They note, for example, that venture capitalists insist on a strong patent portfolio when evaluating whether to invest in a company. But this is because, in part, patent portfolios are necessary to defend against other companies' portfolios. If there were no patent system, one would not need to defensively spend money building up a mountain of patents to use in counterclaims or cross-licensing negotiations.
The authors also acknowledge that, "Unfortunately, there are companies that make no products and whose only business is to acquire patents in order to enforc

Easy fix to patent system

[ajs]

I've posted the easy, but radical solution before: allow patents on just about anything, and make them all last at least 20 years, but grant VERY few per year (order of 1000); do not allow transfer of patent ownership; and set a small cap on the number of people allowed per patent as owners (e.g. max of 4 inventors), all of whom must be people, not corporations. With the addition of a per-discipline review board of peers, this would turn patents into a strong incentive for innovation once again.

The harder, but less radical solution would be:

Step 1: Patents are effective on their date of granting, not filing.

Step 2: Once a patent is issued, place it into a peer review process that is semi-open to the public (e.g. anyone with passable credentials in a field can get in as a peer reviewer), via the Web.

Step 3: Any patent which is brought into question by the peer reviewers is revoked, pending possible appeal by the patent holder via the courts. This places the legal burden on the holder to defend a patent that didn't stand up to peer review.

Step 4: Shorten patent duration on a per-discipline basis, with the duration in each discipline being roughly 3-4 times the amount of time that it takes to bring a new product to market, with a cap of 20 years. In software, this would mean about a 6 year patent duration (18 month product cycle times 4).

MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

indeed, people die because of patents.

drugs are not inherently expensive to discover, they remain expensive because of government protections which provide a cushy barrier to entry for existing big drug companies (e.g. Pfizer, Merck, GSK, Roche, et. al.) to preclude competition (commonly referred to as "generic"). competition is what provides greater consumer choice and lower prices.

think of drug companies now as how IBM existed in its heyday; but what patents (and the FDA) have concocted is to circumvent the latter personal computing revolution -- or rather, the personal medication revolution.

see also:
http://www.fdareview.org/incentives.shtml
http://www.fdareview.org/devices.shtml

The US patent system may not be the worst.

[HiThere]

I'm no lawyer, and I don't know the laws of foreign countries. The US patent system may well not be the worst patent system in the world. It's bad enough.

Actually, were I to rate how bad it was, my rating would be more on an absolute scale than on a relative scale. I feel that the US patent system is so bad that we'd be better off without any patent system at all. I'm sure this isn't the optimal answer, but it's a true one. An optimal patent system would require licensing patents for a fixed amount/copy, or an agreed upon lesser rate. It would require patents to be operationally useful, rather than the basis for legal arguments. (That one would be tricky to implement.) It would include specific tests that could allow one to reliably determine whether a patent was infringed. (Another toughie.) And it would impose an absolute limit on the total compensation that could be derived from a patent, say 50 or 500 times what it cost to develop, after which the patent would become free for common use.

Optimality is notoriously difficult to prove, and even "almost optimal" can be difficult to implement. The current system, however, is closer to "almost pessimal". (Well, perhaps I exaggerate. I'm not sure. The fact that I can't be sure is a comment on the current patent system.)

BSA thinks so too...

[sad_]

the BSA and Apple agree on this one. In a recent report from the BSA they consider the US to be the top in the world on the 'protection' subject (page 16).

Slow day around here

[aztektum]

Thomas Jefferson would probably be working for Google if he were alive today. Or screaming "Help help get me out of this fucking hole in the ground!" Yeah I'm bored today.

Re:It may be the best in the world

[prockcore]

I don't think the patent system is necessarily broken.

I think it is. Not because of how the system works, but because the system exists at all.

Getting a government granted monopoly to protect your business from a competitor who is capable of building a better product than you is the opposite of capitalism.

"Patent It Yourself"

[simplerThanPossible]

Did you look at "Patent It Yourself"?

Sure, it won't be as good as getting a patent attorney to do the whole thing, but one option is to do it as well as you can alone, and then run it past the patent attorney. Probably looking at around $500.

Note also you can file a provisional patent for a very low fee (in Australia, it's $80), and then shop it around/commercialize it for a year, before having to file an actual patent. Of course, the provisional has to cover the invention fully (you can't add new stuff later), so it still takes a lot of care.

Microsoft

[falconwolf]

Unluckily I don't think the other parts of the world are as keen as the EU.

Actually other parts are just as keen as the EU. Many governments in India are switchng to Linux and China has Red Flag Linux. There are Linux distros developed in African coutries. And in Brazil Lula is pressing for open source.

So, ask us to replace Apple with Microsoft and we have a much more severe picture being painted there. Very severe as a criminal monopolist will always abuse especially when they know that they won't be pursued by representatives of the current administration.

If you mean the Bush admin, you're right. But if you mean whatevr admin is the current admin at different tymes you're wrong. Clinton's Justice Department had MS on the fence, but when Bush came into office the department gave MS a get out of jail free card.

Falcon

patents and the patent system

[falconwolf]

These are just suggestions, and you might disagree. However, even if you do agree, I still don't know what should be done about it. How can we improve our current system or build a new one which won't have these problems?

To improve the system get rid of it. While patents may have served their purpose, they now hold back innovation and progress.

Falcon

income tax

[falconwolf]

I have a couple bank accounts and stock trading accounts

Do you trade much? I don't recall what it's called but there's a special filing for traders. The only reason I know is because my sister's a CPA and her husband's a CFP and used to daytrade. Heck, he still may. These filings allow traders to deduct expenses others can't deduct.

I'm not saying either process should, or even could, be reduced to a simple form

Sure, income tax and patents could and should be simplifies. Get rid of both. There shouldn't be a tax on personal earnings, only on consumption and usage. And patents hold back progress, they don't encourage it.

Falcon

what Apple does

[falconwolf]

Considering that Google does software, for which the idea of patents is just ludicrous, whereas Apple does hardware

Apple does both hardware and software.

Falcon

patents

[falconwolf]

What if you invented a unique way to advance film through a camera, by pre-treating the film in some special way? Shouldn't you be able to patent that useful. non-obvious, unique invention?

No, neither I nor anyone else should be able to patent anything. Supposedly in the USA patents were a method be which sciences were progressed. However patents actually do the opposite. If you patent some but I am able to improve on it you can block me, therefore you are delaying progress not promoting it. Nobody's, well not me at least, is saying you can't try to make money from it but if I can improve on your invention I should be able to make money from it as well. As the inventor you have a head start therefore you should be able to benefit.

Falcon

reaso for patents

[falconwolf]

The purpose of patents was supposed to be to protect inventors from having their invention stolen before they could bring them to market.

Not it the USA, the reason patents, and copytights for the arts, were included in the Constitution of the USA was because they were supposed to encourage progress in the sciences and arts. However they don't that.

On the other hand, the more I think about it, the more I become anti-patent.

I too used to be a supporter of patents however as I've read and thought about patents I've come to be antipatent.

Falcon

broken patent system

[falconwolf]

just because we've seen some dumb patents get granted doesn't mean that the whole system is somehow irredeemably broken.

I agree the patent system isn't broken, instead the whole idea of patents is broken. Patents need to be gotten rid of, they no longer serve the purpose they were granted for, if they ever did.

Falcon

does the system work?

[falconwolf]

Every time the state sentences/executes/ruins an innocent person, the system has failed and is broken, when the guilty go free, it is broken.

True the system's broke when an innocent is made to pay for something they didn't do but it works when the guilty goes free, for it is better to free ten guilty than to falsely punish one innocent.

Falcon

justice system

[falconwolf]

I'm absolutely certain anyone on death row that is innocent, would not agree with you. In fact I think your tune would change considerably if the "error" was snuffing you out. And judging by your faith in the system I don't think you have the slightest clue about what goes on in the real Legal system

So what is your magic fix that makes the system perfect?

Get rid of capital punishment! An innocent who's been executed can't be brought back to life, but one who's in prison can be released.

Falcon

Re:Well, my respect for Apple just went down a not

[falconwolf]

And I say that as an Apple user. Seriously, I never in a kerjillion years would have expected this kind of patriotic drivel from an Apple employee. Our broken-ass patent system is "the best in the world"? Nothing's wrong with it? Hoo boy. Seriously, WTF?

While I disagree with Apple's lawyer about it not being broken I do agree it's still the best in the world. What would make it even better is to abolish all patents.

Falcon

Your anti-community anti-free-software position...

[expro]

In a nutshell, you seem to believe that I shouldn't have a right to use any idea, however original, if I am not going to charge a lot of money for it, and others who are going to charge a lot for it by monopolizing it should be able to prevent me from using it. This is evil, as are Apple and Google. This is against basic human rights, as I see them.

and so is slashdot

[sonchat]

every article is a post to arstechnica, and digg replaces slashdot too.