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.'"
...it never needs replacing!
That's easy for them to say when they got into the game early and established a metric fuckton of patents.
doesn't believe there is an issue, why attend the "Patent Crisis Panel"?
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
gaah! Can't edit to save my life...
"broken/in crisis" and 'the best in the world' might actually BOTH be true!
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!
Jonathanjk.com
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?
My blog
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.
From TFA:
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?
Heh :-)
Calling it 'the best in the world' is quite an insult to other patent systems.
Google: karma +5
Apple: karma +5
"current patent system is broken": +5
"current patent system is fine": -5
Verdict: Google Wins!
This is infinitely worse than anything Microsoft has ever done.
Apple hates Microsoft who hates Google... Which do we listen to?
It's an iPod shuffle! oooh, burn!
I like basketball!!1!
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.
What patent of Apple's is Google infringing on?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
getting in early doesn't preclude others from bracketing you. :(
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
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 |
Instead of "hate", the word "envy" might be more appropriate.
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
It's the best mud-hut on the fault-line.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
well, it sure was no Newton
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?
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
technical writing / development
said the patent lawyer
...the best in the world at keeping armies of patent lawyers well paid by large corporations
the us patent system IS "the best in the world"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
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?
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
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
I have already "fixed" my Mac.
It is now running Gutsy Gibbon.
No Kidding.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
... because (s)he is indeed whiney, but certainly no mac-fanboy.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
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.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Yes and, furthermore, Apple's and Google's views are not necessarily opposed.
... "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.
The other quote from Apple, "Most patents issued are never litigated and never licensed,"
Saying the patent system is the best in the world doesn't mean it isn't hopelessly corrupt.
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.'
.... difficult at best.
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
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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/
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?
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
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.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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..)
which is totally what she said
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.
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.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
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.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
>>> 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.
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.
--
Try to get a job destroying the worthless patents of trolls. I'm sure you can find business willing to hire you for defense...
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
allowing software to be patented is proof that it is broken.
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.
Everything is subjective.
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.
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.
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.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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*
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.
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.
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...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Apple ought to patent "A method and apparatus for installing Linux on a Macintosh computer". That should take care of traitors like you...
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.
``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.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
... 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?
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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).
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
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.
Who is John Galt?
No sig for you!!
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.
So how many patents does Apple hold? I'll wait while you look it up before asserting that they have a "metric fuckton".
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.
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.
Kevin Smith on Prince
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.
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Considering that Google does software, for which the idea of patents is just ludicrous, whereas Apple does hardware
Apple does both hardware and software.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"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.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
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.
"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.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
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.
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.