Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
gaah! Can't edit to save my life...
"broken/in crisis" and 'the best in the world' might actually BOTH be true!
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.
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'."
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.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
I'm awake! The answer is BONK!
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.
stuff |
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.
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...
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.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
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'."
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.
"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
Better known as 318230.
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?
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
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.
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.
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.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
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/
I don't think it was intended to be rescuing Apple so much as a dig on lawyers.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
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.
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.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Ah, and I thought this was "news for nerds." How foolish of me.
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.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
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.
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.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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.
This is my sig.
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.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.