Slashdot Mirror
Are Google's Patents Too Weak To Protect Android?
An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian published an opinion piece written by former-NoSoftwarePatents-activist-turned-controversial-patent-blogger Florian Mueller. He lists 12 patent lawsuits instigated against Android last year, says there are many more to come, and believes that Google's portfolio of only 576 US patents is dwarved by those of Apple, Microsoft, Oracle and others. So Google can't retaliate against aggressors such as Oracle. Consequently — he argues — Android makers will have to remove functionality or pay high license fees, and the operating system will become unprofitable for handset makers. Even the app ecosystem could suffer, he says. Since Google received only 282 new US patents in 2010, the gap between Google's portfolio and those of its competitors is widening further: Apple produces about twice as many, and Microsoft gets more than 3,000 new ones a year. Let's discuss this: is Android really in for so much trouble? Can't Google find other ways (than owning many patents) to defend it than countersuing? How about its vast financial resources?"
If Google can defeat China, they can defeat anybody.
How much does anyone want to bet that this supposed "anonymous reader" is Florian himself?
more money for Oracle. I think Google will lose to Oracle. but they can't let android go. so google will probably end up paying Oracle.
Google, about the experience is.
- Yoda
That's amazing.... where are we?
So they will probably be fine in the long run.
The value of a patent portfolio would be less badly estimated if each one was multiplied by some probable value factor (be it on technical or judicial criteria). Wanna bet this would reduce Microsoft's patent portfolio value by a much larger factor than Google's?
What makes almost 600 patents too small a number? It sounds to me like a few effective, relevant patents are better than a hoard of patents most which are completely unrelated and exist only because nobody yet has the incentive to contest the patents. The author claims that Google needs more raw patents, but I don't see the case for it.
Can someone explain what this means? Is he pro-patent now?
Android runs on... oh... ...Samsung phones and ...Sony-Ericson phones and ...creative device and ...sharp devices and ...benq devices and ...motorola devices ...NEC devices ...LG devices.
If these conpanies put together a paten pool to protect android, then its enough to sue Apple and Microsoft together to Hell and back (not to mention Oracle is not goiung to make these customers angry). All of the companies sold mobile devices long before Apple thought about it. Even Nokia should fear such a consortium when it comes to patents regarding mobile devices.
It's not the number of patents, but the likelihood of a patent being actionable, and/or enforcible.
In any case, if there is a court judgement that sufficiently harms innovation because of the escalating war in software patents, you will be sure that there will be a change in the direction in jurisprudence with regards to these "soft" patents. You have to remember that most of hte world don't have software patents, and many places (like Europe) would like to keep it that way.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
So according to the article, nearly half Google's patents (282 of 576) were granted in 2010... that's quite a change in attitude towards patents at Google then if they are suddenly getting so many!
So what ? I have 4 limbs, but I can certainly kill a spider with 8. It all depends on the essence of the patents themselves. What do they cover, are they very broad ? Are they specific ? etc etc...
Actually I would like to suggest that Google's main approach and threat would be to counter the whole software is patentable paradigm in ways that the big three (Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle) will not want to defend against. Plus the likely scenario that IBM would rather see Google succeed than the other three, and their patent portfolio in the form of prior art assistance to Google would change the game entirely, or the fact that Google is likely to code around any patents more quickly than any trial can move forward. So I think that trying to take Google and Android down via patents is a losing proposition.
Plus the Google ecosystem can effectively fight off alot of threats simply by the fact that they are have no obligation to play nice when it comes to search engine trafficking/optimization and/or investments.
For example, picture what happens if Google puts resources into Postgres, MariaDB, or any of the other major database platforms that would cut into the profitability of Oracle or Microsoft. Or takes up the banner of Open Office to free it from the clutches of Sun, further weakening Microsoft profit margins. What people are learning is that Google at least so far tends to be a very worthy adversary. So far we also like Google more than the billionaires clubs as run by Gates and Ellison.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
It could be that Google plans on taking on the patent system itself. That would certainly be the "good" thing to do (as in good for everyone as a whole).
Hasn't anyone noticed? Over the past few years, the rate in which software patents result in legal action has increased dramatically. Where previously "non-aggression agreements" were the norm and the nuclear patent arms race was all about deterrence. Starting with patent trolls (some of which were owned and/or controlled by big players in the background) testing the waters by filing suits to extract money from others and being successful, the big players themselves are now feeling increasingly comfortable with the idea of nuclear patent assaults.
I think it would be a rather nice gesture if Google were to enlist a large partnership for the purpose of having ALL software patents revoked. Software is simply not worthy of patent protection. What's more, the rate in which software changes and evolves makes the term of software patents highly inappropriate -- entire markets for software can rise and fall before a patent associated with it can expire making a software patent "life long" rather than the temporary monopoly in exchange for disclosure. In fact, the fact that software source code for a software patent is not a requirement should also make software patents invalid as this is necessary for disclosure of the "invention's details."
Google should simply work to kill all software patents in the U.S. to protect themselves but also to bring peace to the land.
Any cases that go to court will already be dwarfed by the massive sums of money Android will have earned Google.
I mean have any of the hundreds of infringement lawsuits against the large patent holders listed in this article (Apple MS, Oracle) harmed them in any significant way? No. They wear their battles scars as a badges of honor.
I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank.
How about, by not violating other people's patents?
I know, not a popular notion in the land of "all ideas want to be free."
For Google to buy off more senators and congressmen than Microsoft and Apple ;)
It will be us, consumers. that is where allowing feodalization of intellectual creativity and innovation ends up eventually. harms the people.
Read radical news here
All Google has to do is say to Oracle, or IBM, or anyone that tries to sue them for violating their ridiculous patents is this:
"Okay. How about we de-list all of your sites from our search engine, and block all of your IP space from using our search engine, or any of our other sites, like YouTube? Oh, and we'll renegotiate all of our peering agreements, so that we don't route any traffic from your networks over our network, too."
I mean, Google isn't *required* to index anybody's site, or offer service to anyone it doesn't want.
just because a company holds a patent doesn't automatically mean someone is infringing on something. Many patent disputes can be solved by simply changing the code. For instance, if microsoft were to patent, lets say, a protocol to create a botnet over port 80, one could simply not use port 80 to infect a machine and not include IE or ActiveX in the software stack.
Another example would be if your product restricted users to run a handful of apps which you deem appropriate, or locked up their content in DRM, then you would simply not include support for Apple or iTunes in your device.
seriously, until something substantial comes out of an infringemnt claim, it's just a bunch of saber rattling and out-of-context interpretations and allegations on 'some dudes blog'. Remember the sco debacle.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
These articles bother me. Google called a couple of colleagues and asked "Hey, how many patents you got?" They got the answers back, and still decided "No problem. Let's go make a mobile OS."
One month's work by a Chief Strategist has already dealt with this ages ago. These articles are like stones chewing up open spots on the bloGOsphere. Just put an article down, and now it's there. Some combination of them "decides" the "mood of the consumers".
Articles speculating about someone sinking Android are trying to block the key points in a Life-Or-Death problem for Google. They're trying to create negative self fulfilling prophecies.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Just sell the devices and give away an OS (Android) that makes the device function.
Be sure to patent this process.
You might want to check your NTP settings...
Palm trees and 8
That would put more parasite IP lawyers out of a job, and free up money to hire people who actually make stuff like scientists, engineers, and technicians.
The reason that Google has comparatively fewer software patents issuing every year is because there's often a massive lag behind filing a patent and having it issued. I've seen software patents that have taken as long as 6 or 7 years before it gets issued due to the amount of prosecution done on it. 6 or 7 years ago, Google was a much smaller (and newer) company with much less resources to file software patents. In comparison, the reason Apple gets 3000 patents a year is because they've been in business for over 20 years.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
That would put more parasite IP lawyers out of a job, and free up money to hire people who actually make stuff like scientists, engineers, and technicians.
So long as most laws are written by lawyers, they won't be queueing up to eliminate the laws that keep them in jobs just so that non-lawyers can make actual stuff that produces actual wealth without fear of being put out of business by a patent that should never have been issued.
...if the assholes want to play hardball and attack google, google could retaliate and remove any mention whatsoever of those companies from search results. I ain't kidding either. Type in oracle or apple or mac or iphone or whatever for a search, results = zero.
See who blinks first. The zero results page could have an explanation of what is going on..blah blah company wants to hurt you as a consumer by making it so android just won't work on phones or devices, etc, plus a little editorial and explanation of why software patents are just a bad idea and why all consumers should lobby their elected officials and bureaucrats and fav hardware company to have them made null and void across the board.
If you can't hold it in your hand..no patent allowed. No business method patents, no software patents, they are just beyond ridiculous. Copyright, sure, trade secret, OK..a patent? Absolutely not.
Nice patent portfolio you got there. Sure would be a shame if anything were to happen to you because of it.
Uhm, that WAS the analogy. The article states the NUMBER of patents, but not the SIZE. Your complaint that the OP did not consider the size of him wrt the spider is EXACTLY THE POINT of the analogy.
Or, short version: Whooosh.
It all comes down to where the money resides. What is the impact on Google revenues if Android adoption is limited by patent liabilities and resultant licenses? There is a lot of ballyhoo over phone OS "wars", but I do not see where there is any software money at stake. Hitachi has settled with Microsoft already, so at least one of the OEMs involved sees settlement as an acceptable way of continuing to do business. Companies cross-license or agree on license terms for patents all the time, what is so special here? The idea of spending a lot of money to develop a competing product in the database server arena that Google would give away to spite Microsoft is rather ludicrous. GOOG is a public company and that kind of frivolity would surely spark a stockholder lawsuit.
Hasn't anyone noticed? Over the past few years, the rate in which software patents result in legal action has increased dramatically. Where previously "non-aggression agreements" were the norm and the nuclear patent arms race was all about deterrence. Starting with patent trolls (some of which were owned and/or controlled by big players in the background) testing the waters by filing suits to extract money from others and being successful, the big players themselves are now feeling increasingly comfortable with the idea of nuclear patent assaults.
Well, bear in mind that the current "nuclear patent assault" over smartphones is almost certain to never see the inside of a trial court. This is about the establishment of a new patent pool, with players trying to position themselves to get a larger share of royalties. Same story has occurred in many different industries over the past hundred and fifty years.
And that said...
Software is simply not worthy of patent protection.
Why not? How is software unlike any other industry? If you're going to go on that old exception about algorithms and "all software is math," then that argument has lost many times and is unlikely to ever succeed. You're going to need a really good policy argument to explain why we should strip IP protection from a multi-trillion dollar industry, particularly in this economy.
What's more, the rate in which software changes and evolves makes the term of software patents highly inappropriate -- entire markets for software can rise and fall before a patent associated with it can expire making a software patent "life long" rather than the temporary monopoly in exchange for disclosure.
The same is true in many other fields. Look at the humble portable discman. Had what, a 15 year run, tops? Are you arguing that all electronics should be exempt from patentability, too?
In fact, the fact that software source code for a software patent is not a requirement should also make software patents invalid as this is necessary for disclosure of the "invention's details."
No, it isn't. 35 USC 112 requires sufficient written description to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. If you've got a flow chart and a step by step description, a good programmer should be able to code the method in any language they know. Why do you view that as legally insufficient?
I hate patents with a passion. Especially as something like the fashion industry does so well without such restrictions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
While you are it, why not ask for a pony as well ?
Patents aren't of equal value.
1 enforcable patent on key technology can easily be negotiated against many more less important patents.
Companies build massive patent portfolios not to have a large number of patents, but to try and ensure that they have the patent for what ends up being an important widely deployed technology.
Is the fact that Google doesn't provide legal protection for Android licensees, whereas Microsoft does to its licensees. Samsung is going whole hog with WP7 despite having great success on Android, so it makes me wonder whether or not some of this has a hint of truth.
Of course, it could have none at all too. But the lack of protection is an interesting thing to note.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
GOOG does not seem to have any revenue model for Android. There are no massive sums of money to use to offset any legal costs of indemnifying OEMs who are offering "Droid" phones.
We should abandon the concept of software patents. They don't make sense and they're in the way of innovation. If abandoning patents can't be done, then limit their validity to six or twelve months. That's enough to recoup your software development investments, but not long enough to prevent others to invent your wheel too.
The whole issue with software patents is that 99% of them are so obvious that any programmer would have come up with the same idea and the same software, independently. Patents are supposed to protect inventions that are not obvious.
no, I don't have a sig
Does each individual patent cancel each other out? I'd always assumed if you owned a patent on a technology that was rather fundamental to the functioning of an entire industry it trumped 30 patents in a specific branch of that industry. I'm not saying those are the patents Google owns, I just didn't think that it was necessarily a #'s game.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
I rather feel this falls squarely in the court "FUD".
What a waste of energy.
Florian is an "interesting" character. He consistently denigrates the efforts of: Groklaw, the Open Invention Network, FSFE, Eben Moglen and now Google. Sounds to me like he's positioning himself as the loyal opposition.
Not all patents are equal. And more importantly PATENTS ONLY BENEFIT THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD TO GO TO COURT.
Google has a big enough warchest to take on any patent claims.
If you're going to go on that old exception about algorithms and "all software is math," then that argument has lost many times and is unlikely to ever succeed.
It succeeded in part in In re Abele. It also succeeded in cases focused more on formalistic hoops, like In re Warmerdam or In re Lowry, and we never did find out whether Beauregard claims would pass judicial muster. SCOTUS avoided the question in Bilski v. Kappos, and AFAIK, has yet to address the question directly.
I realize this is only tangentially related, but doesn't this argument also strengthen Google's argument for open and patent-unencumbered formats like WebM? If something like Android can be seriously harmed by patent-holding competitors, then it only makes sense that we need more open and patent-unencumbered formats and systems wherever possible.
Now here's an interesting change of attitude on Slashdot.
With regards to Other Companies: They have too many patents! Patents are evil! Death to the infidels! Grrr!
With regards to Google: Do they have enough patents? Maybe they need more.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Why not? How is software unlike any other industry? If you're going to go on that old exception about algorithms and "all software is math," then that argument has lost many times and is unlikely to ever succeed. You're going to need a really good policy argument to explain why we should strip IP protection from a multi-trillion dollar industry, particularly in this economy.
B/c simply adding the phrase w/ a database or on the internet to existing activities is not novel ergo not worthy of patent protection. Or for 2011 adding the phrase using social media to share thoughts about some activity is not patent worthy. Unfortunately, the patent examiners have been slipping up and there is no stake in getting rid of truly awful patents.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
How is software unlike any other industry?
* Extremely low barrier of entry. When you can essentially develop a product for free, filling a patent is often unfordable. Hence, they benefit large established players against small competitors - especially those who don't seek a commercial gain (see multiple Open Source projects)
* Fast paced development. For many industries, 20 years is a limited period of time. For software, it's an eternity. Patents are supposed to convince inventors to open up their inventions in exchange for a limited monopoly. 20 years from now, how will the H.264 patents benefit society?
* Patents are not a inalienable right - they're a right designed to promote innovation. Anyone who knows the software industry knows its completely absurd to say that patents are a condition for innovation.
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."
--Bill Gates (1991)
Dilbert RSS feed
Patents and pissing contests.
Bread and butter.
My peanut butter is better than your jelly!
Why not? How is software unlike any other industry? If you're going to go on that old exception about algorithms and "all software is math," then that argument has lost many times and is unlikely to ever succeed. You're going to need a really good policy argument to explain why we should strip IP protection from a multi-trillion dollar industry, particularly in this economy.
Software isn't inherently undeserving of patent protection, but it is presently inappropriate to grant patents in that field.
The purpose of patents is to encourage the invention, disclosure, and bringing to market, of patentable inventions (i.e. novel, nonobvious, useful, etc.) which otherwise would not have been invented, disclosed, and brought to market. It's an artificial subsidy, and should only be applied where it is necessary, and never where it is redundant, because there are costs involved. In most cases it's not really possible to tell, particularly on the level of a specific patent for a specific invention. However, the software industry is fabulously inventive, is very good at bringing things to market, and almost inevitably seems to involve disclosure, at least to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Frankly, the software industry doesn't need patents. It isn't being spurred on to greater heights of inventiveness, etc. by the availability of patents. In fact, the costs of patents (read broadly; not just the cost of getting one, but the minefield) are probably dragging it down. We'd better achieve the desired goals of the patent system if we didn't grant patents in that field. At least not for the time being. Eventually, the industry may settle down, and it would become appropriate to grant patents in the field, but that time isn't now. Business methods are the same sort of thing; patents aren't acting as a necessary incentive, and aren't doing more good than harm.
So one of the reasons we should strip those protections is to turn a multi-trillion dollar industry into something even bigger. We don't need to chain ourselves to anchors in this economy.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I patented the 'button' a few years back. (both hardware and software buttons) Proving no prior art was tough, but our government is easily bribed. I like Apple so I went ahead and let them in on it. That's why apple devices have so few buttons. I get $25 for each button they use.
Anyway, lookout google... I see you're using a lot of my buttons.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
As they find ways to process MORE applications, and approve them at breakneck speed.
Google may have to defend Android and other stuff by defeating patents. Somehow, for instance, I wonder if anyone has ever built a similar architecture to Android and if they did it before the Java patents were applied for. Prior art is their best defense.
IANAL, so I can't tell if failing to defend a patent against infringment is a defense against selective prosecution. Google may be a target for several reasons, but others may have been ignored in the past.
There is little good about software patents any more. True innovation is crushed too often, and trying to re-use anything, while it's probably fundamental to patent protection, leave you wondering if anything new can be built.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I don't have a problem with abolishing software patents -- at least until it appears that it would be more beneficial to the industry to have them, than to not have them -- but you're quite wrong about much of the rest. First, lawyers don't really care about work for other lawyers. The professional courtesy joke is just a joke. Second, there is a reason that laws tend to be written by lawyers; that's the field we work in. You'd probably want an architect to design your house, an engineer to design your bridge, a plumber to install your plumbing, and a computer programmer to program your computer. A law written by a layperson is prone to not be a very well-written law that accomplishes its intended purpose and lacks bad side effects.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Android is a product by the Open Handset Alliance and not Google alone!!! Stop FUD, please :-)
How is software unlike any other industry?
* Extremely low barrier of entry. When you can essentially develop a product for free, filling a patent is often unfordable. Hence, they benefit large established players against small competitors - especially those who don't seek a commercial gain (see multiple Open Source projects)
Small electronics also have an extremely low barrier of entry. Should they also be unpatentable as a field?
Additionally, I think a blanket judgement that all software development has an extremely low barrier of entry is a bit broad. There's a lot of money that gets spent on software development - is your position that it's all wasted, since you could essentially accomplish the same for free?
And finally, there's no requirement that someone get a patent, and since the patent system is supposed to encourage public disclosure as opposed to keeping trade secrets, it's really irrelevant to open source.
* Fast paced development. For many industries, 20 years is a limited period of time. For software, it's an eternity. Patents are supposed to convince inventors to open up their inventions in exchange for a limited monopoly. 20 years from now, how will the H.264 patents benefit society?
But for many other industries, 20 years is an eternity. But no one's calling for the abolishment of patents on, say, dermatological products, or nanotechnology. In fact, while 20 years may be a short time in mature industries, when those same industries were young, development was very fast. The Wright Brothers made their first powered flights in 1904. 7 years later, there were dozens of different types of planes of myriad designs in operation in WWI. But no one was calling for the abolishment of patents on airplanes.
* Patents are not a inalienable right - they're a right designed to promote innovation. Anyone who knows the software industry knows its completely absurd to say that patents are a condition for innovation.
Actually, they're designed to promote efficient innovation. People innovated before patents existed: they just kept everything as a trade secret. As a result, people had to keep re-inventing the same solutions since they never got shared.
As for the claim that patents aren't needed in the software industry, because look how innovative it is... you do realize that there are software patents, right? So, it's a bit odd to claim "see how fast this industry with patent protection is developing? Therefore, it doesn't need patent protection."
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."
--Bill Gates (1991)
How about the full quote? Deliberately clipping off the contradictory clause is not just misleading, it's lying.
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today... The solution to this is patent exchanges with large companies and patenting as much as we can."
B/c simply adding the phrase w/ a database or on the internet to existing activities is not novel ergo not worthy of patent protection.
Yeah, thing is, no patent actually claims that just that is worthy of patent protection. You're confused and looking at some of the dependent claims.
There is a doctrine called "claim differentiation," which is based on the fact that each claim in a patent is claiming a different scope. So, if claim 1 says, "A method for X, comprising blah blah blah blah, via a network," and claim 2 says, "the method of claim 1, wherein the network is the internet," that doesn't mean that they're claiming to have patented the internet. It means that the network in claim 1 can include other networks, like LANs, MANs, satellite networks, peer-to-peer networks, etc. That's all. No one's claiming "[doing already known activity] but on the internet!" is patentable. It's a myth. Simply not true.
His 15 minutes of fame are over. Sadly he has not realized this.
Apple was filing patents on handset software and hardware as far back as before 2004 at the latest and has first mover advantage.
The question is the significance of the patents in question. Just because you get a patent doesn't mean it is so basic, that it precludes accomplishing the task another way.
The article is not done by a rigorous patent attorney team that analyzes things in enough detail to understand significance of each patent.
[Anon because I'm tired of Florian attacking my free software project with pro-patent-FUD and I don't want to draw more attention from him]
Florian Mueller was a failure at discouraging software patents in europe, but rather than evaluating his techniques and redoubling or moving on to something else, he has become so pessimistic that he's actually become an enormous pro-patent troll-- advancing arguments of infringement wider than even the attorneys of the most ambitious patent trolls.
It's shameful and sad.
As far as I know, Google develops Android internally, then spits out versions every so often, kind of like laying an egg.
What part does the OHA play?
coding is life
It's already possible to buy a chinese clone phone that does everything an Nokia E-71 or I-Phone does for half the price.
Honestly, does anyone check spelling anymore?
This is troubling. The poster makes it seem that it's the number of patents that protects IP. It isn't.
Also, all because something has a weak patent doesn't mean that someone else has a patent for it. It may just already be well known those skilled in the art.
Of course in the US, the test for obviousness in software patents is almost completely absent.
I've got to be honest here. I really liked the idea of MeeGo, but I'm almost beginning to feel embarrassed to even talk about the OS given the fact that the project was announced 9 months ago, was based on two existing OSes that were usable, and still doesn't have any handset hardware shipping with it. Heck -- as far as I know the functionality of MeeGo on the n900 isn't even up to par with Maemo.
Anyhow, getting back to the point of this post, I wonder how the Oracle/Google kerfuffule is affecting Meego. If MeeGo were mature enough to ship on hardware, I could see a persuasive argument being made against Android. The uncertainty around the Java base of Android might convince some hardware manufacturers to try building their next toys on top of MeeGo. The problem is that I don't get the perception that we're going to see anything shipping w/MeeGo soon, and by the time that comes to pass, Google and Oracle will likely have worked out some kind of deal in mediation -- Groklaw has already noted that the two parties have agreed to hire an external mediator to sort out their issues.
Of course, there's something even worse than MeeGo missing this opportunity to grab a little marketshare: Android losing marketshare. Looking out at the landscape right now, Android is the only thing standing between you and a completely proprietary OS running on your mobile device. Think about it.
Sure, I was okay running whatever dinky OS they wanted to put on my old cell phone. It didn't even take pictures, and I only made calls and sent txts with the thing. But the problem is that our cell phones are now being used to store tons of private data. I'd wager that, Megabyte for Megabyte, for a large number of people there is more personal data stored on their cell phone than on their laptop. Just as I run FOSS on my laptop, I'd really like to run FOSS on my mobile devices.
So while I don't expect Nokia to go bail-out Google, it's worth considering the fact that Google is holding its own here. Hopefully Nokia and Intel can crank on MeeGo and bring another powerful FOSS mobile OS to the party. We're all waiting with baited breath.
coding is life
hardware has to deal with "Real Life" whereas code resides in a limited perfect universe. So hardware, even small hardware, has a long development time.
"There's a lot of money that gets spent on software development - is your position that it's all wasted, since you could essentially accomplish the same for free?"
No, just that there's no need for patents. Go copyright your diode. Oh, that's right: you can't. So you have copyrights for the code and therefore your problem is null and void.
"As for the claim that patents aren't needed in the software industry, because look how innovative it is... you do realize that there are software patents, right?"
Right. And...?
Well, the software industry is almost entirely ignoring software patents and where patents ARE being pursued by government bodies, the industry IS stagnating. Kind of proving the GP post's point.
PS leaving off the "solution" bit doesn't make it lying. The industry would STILL be a complete standstill today.
Right now = present
compared to my statement:
" ...money Android will have earned"
earned, as in the future.
I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank.
Wow. How NOT to read the comments. Which DO NOT say "Google needs more patents".
The ARTICLE may *infer* that but it's being propounded by a patent troll solicitor who loves software patents, so OF COURSE he's going to want more software patents for google.
You're going to need a really good policy argument to explain why we should strip IP protection from a multi-trillion dollar industry, particularly in this economy.
Software is covered by copyright; removing the ability to patent it would not strip the industry of IP protection.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
It's not the size of the patent portfolio that matters, it's its quality.
Furthermore, nobody other than google knows how many patents they have, since the USPTO info just doesn't tell you.
Small electronics also have an extremely low barrier of entry. Should they also be unpatentable as a field?
Compared to 'free', it's damn high.
Additionally, I think a blanket judgement that all software development has an extremely low barrier of entry is a bit broad. There's a lot of money that gets spent on software development - is your position that it's all wasted, since you could essentially accomplish the same for free?
Dumping money into a project merely accelerates it - it's not a barrier to entry. And that acceleration provides the advantage you need - reaching the market sooner. There's no need for patents.
And finally, there's no requirement that someone get a patent, and since the patent system is supposed to encourage public disclosure as opposed to keeping trade secrets, it's really irrelevant to open source.
Except that many patents are 1) bad (too broad, for example) or 2) have prior art, and OSS projects don't have the funds to fight them.
But for many other industries, 20 years is an eternity. But no one's calling for the abolishment of patents on, say, dermatological products, or nanotechnology. In fact, while 20 years may be a short time in mature industries, when those same industries were young, development was very fast.
Maybe they shouldn't. That's not really an argument for patents.
The Wright Brothers made their first powered flights in 1904. 7 years later, there were dozens of different types of planes of myriad designs in operation in WWI. But no one was calling for the abolishment of patents on airplanes.
Are you kidding?
The creation of the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association was
crucial to the U.S. government because the two major patent holders, the
Wright Company and the Curtiss Company, had effectively blocked the building
of any new airplanes, which were desperately needed as the United States was
entering World War I.
http://www.essentialdrugs.org/edrug/archive/200203/msg00040.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war#Patent_war
Yes, lots of people did. And it was extremely prejudicial to the industry. The only reason it wasn't more, it's because nobody respected them and the courts failed to uphold them.
Actually, they're designed to promote efficient innovation. People innovated before patents existed: they just kept everything as a trade secret. As a result, people had to keep re-inventing the same solutions since they never got shared.
Which is irrelevant for software, since by the time they can be used, they're already useless and have been re-invented.
As for the claim that patents aren't needed in the software industry, because look how innovative it is... you do realize that there are software patents, right? So, it's a bit odd to claim "see how fast this industry with patent protection is developing? Therefore, it doesn't need patent protection."
That would be true if 1) all innovative soft. companies had many patents, which is clearly not true 2) there existed no countries without software patents.
How about the full quote? Deliberately clipping off the contradictory clause is not just misleading, it's lying.
I'm sorry, I got it in that form. On the other hand, I don't see how it takes away from my point. Just because Microsoft specifically (which had the luck to enter the "patent market" very soon) has a solution for themselves, doesn't mean it doesn't hurt the industry as a whole, as my part of the quote says.
Dilbert RSS feed
If an 800 pound gorilla can't innovate successfully in the US because it doesn't have enough patents to play Mutual Assured Destruction with trolls, then America is doomed.
The simple rule with patents is "would this happen without patents". Drugs simply won't happen without patents, and I suspect things like video compression improvements might not happen with it. But some of Apple's patents are just ludicrous. There's one which is little more than about making windows minimise and maximise in a pretty way, and people have been doing things about prettiness in computing without patents for decades.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You're going to need a really good policy argument to explain why we should strip IP protection from a multi-trillion dollar industry, particularly in this economy.
Software is covered by copyright; removing the ability to patent it would not strip the industry of IP protection.
I didn't say all IP protection. Software can also be covered by trademarks. This is because copyright, patent, and trademark law all have different scope of protection and apply to different aspects. Contrary to the "software doesn't need patents, it has copyright" crowd's belief, they do not overlap.
but aren't we all expecting a major change in patentability, especially wrt this kind of software-related topics? the current territory-denial (landmine) approach to patents is pretty doomed...
That would protect it from any patent attack by Oracle, who is also a licensee.
If you go through the coverage of this sorry little chap on Groklaw, the evidence speaks for itself. Florian Mueller is a Microsoft stooge, who poses as some kind of supporter of open source.
He is spreading FUD as usual.
Apple is way bigger and richer than Google, and has over 30 years of making operating systems. Google is the new guy with a plagiarism problem and less money.
The problem with Android is it is not original. It's not meant to be original. Never mind the patents, just consider that we are taught in Kindergarten not to copy someone else's work and put our own name on it. Copying someone else's work so you can sell ads on it may be innovative advertising, but it's not innovative operating system design.
So yeah, Google is heading for legal disaster with Android, and with WebM also. They come in to a field they don't know, buy something cheap, and clone the hell out of whatever is the most successful, Microsoft-style. First it was BlackBerry in pre-release Android, then iPhone, and with WebM/VP8 it is a clone of h.264. Doesn't matter what noble intentions you fill your PR with.
Another problem for Android is it is not even popular amongst many old school Google people. Many see it as being more trouble than it is worth. Andy Rubin is hated by people who have done much more for Google, some of whom have left just to get away from him. The opportunity cost for Google with Android is outrageous. Same way Microsoft is missing out by not making 100 iPhone apps by now.
The Google brand uses to be first-class. They were seen as invulnerable and omnipotent. Android has severely damaged that.
And for what? To provide the core of Chinese and Indian feature phones? To sell 100,000 boutique Nexus phones every year?
I'm going to start a company, patent 1 million things (shouldn't be too hard considering the garbage the passes for a patent these days) and then I'll be invincible?
And here I thought you had to patent something useful to be successful, it's only the number of patents that you have that counts.
Thanks for clearing that up!
~Syberz
Dumping money into a project merely accelerates it - it's not a barrier to entry. And that acceleration provides the advantage you need - reaching the market sooner. There's no need for patents.
Except, once you've spent all that money accelerating your project to get to market sooner, someone else can quickly reverse engineer or rewrite it without violating your copyright and, absent patent protection, you just wasted a ton of money reaching the market sooner since they're only a week or two behind you.
Thus, people wouldn't spend tons of money accelerating their research, and innovation...would...draggggggg. Good thing we have patents, huh?
Except that many patents are 1) bad (too broad, for example) or 2) have prior art, and OSS projects don't have the funds to fight them.
That's an entirely different issue. I think anti-software patent people go to it because it's a good argument for what it stands for, and they hope no one will notice the goalpost moving.
"Should software be patentable" is a really broad question: provided an application meets all of the requirements of the patent act, including novelty and nonobviousness, should it be denied "just because it's software"? That's the issue.
When you instead say, "so many applications aren't novel or are obvious," you're disregarding that first clause.
Say you have a brand new invention, that is completely unknown and stunningly revolutionary... you should be able to get a patent on it if it's in any field except software? That makes no sense.
Maybe they shouldn't. That's not really an argument for patents.
It's merely pointing out that the argument against software patents is at best, naive, and at worst, hypocritical, since it's really a question about mature vs. immature industries, rather than some actual distinction between software and, say, airplanes.
Are you kidding?
The creation of the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association was crucial to the U.S. government because the two major patent holders, the Wright Company and the Curtiss Company, had effectively blocked the building of any new airplanes, which were desperately needed as the United States was entering World War I.
http://www.essentialdrugs.org/edrug/archive/200203/msg00040.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war#Patent_war
Yes, lots of people did.
No, actually, they called for patent licensing and pooling. Not the granting of patents on any machines except airplanes.
As a result, people had to keep re-inventing the same solutions since they never got shared.
Which is irrelevant for software, since by the time they can be used, they're already useless and have been re-invented.
... if they "can be used", they're not "already useless," by definition.
That would be true if 1) all innovative soft. companies had many patents, which is clearly not true 2) there existed no countries without software patents.
Not so. You're trying to make a prediction about an entire industry based merely on a belief that "if only it were different than it has ever been, it would be better!"
That some companies don't acquire patents doesn't mean that the industry isn't advanced by patents. There are companies in every industry that don't acquire patents - therefore, we haven't had any advances over the past 500 years?
No, if you want to make an argument that we could advance faster without patents, then you either have to look to the pre-patent era for evidence of rapid technological development, or to countries without patent law for the same. And neither evidence exists.
Just because Microsoft specifically (w
if the author has to pimp their own story.
It has already been proven that just because you bring a website online it doesn't mean anyone will find it. Without some sort of creative marketing it's hardly likely anyone will find the website. Volumes and volumes have been written about online marketing. And I bet every one of them says to start with self-promotion.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I'd prefer it if patents were vetted more thoroughly in the first place,
The problem with this is that a more thorough vetting of patent applications will drive up the cost of getting patents. So only the already wealthy and powerful could afford to get patents. The solution is abolishing patents. The only reason patents are granted, yes granted as they are not a right, is to encourage progress. But when you have to hire and pay for the multitude of lawyers who them spend their tyme making sure their employer isn't infringing on another corporation's patents that drains money from being spent on research.
If you can't compeat on quality, low cost, and/or extras then you need to get out of business. This is especially true in electronics and semiconductors.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I don't think Google is remotely invested in Android as a platform. They're interested in getting more ad revenue, and Android provides a convenient vector for that right now. But once the lawsuits start coming to completion I suspect the economic incentive to supporting the platform will dwindle to the point where Google will let it whither on the vine. It's a business decision; Google doesn't care about free and open, they need to make a buck just like everybody else.
Almost nothing that is innovative comes from MS. The last, er only, thing I can think of from MS that was innovative was MS BASIC. Though BASIC itself had been around, Bill Gates and Steve Allen created the first version that ran on a microcomputer, the Altair 8800. Everything else MS bought, or like Steve Jobs, copied or stole then brought to the masses.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I used to have some respect for Florian Mueller, but this article is a piece of trash. You absolutely cannot measure the impact or worth of a patent portfolio in a patent war in terms of a sheer number of patents. Especially when all parties involved have enough money to burn in the judicial system to contest any weak patents at will. In theory you only need one strong patent that can shut down your competitor as a deterrence. On the other hand, you can have a thousand patents yet lose a patent stand off if they can all be contested in court or easily worked around. To get an idea of who has actual patent strength, you need to read the patents. But I guess that takes actual work.
The Google brand uses to be first-class. They were seen as invulnerable and omnipotent. Android has severely damaged that.
I see no evidence to support that claim.
And for what? To provide the core of Chinese and Indian feature phones? To sell 100,000 boutique Nexus phones every year?
To prevent any one non-Google company from controlling the mobile market, and to drive the features in the mobile market in a direction which supports Google's broader strategy for online services.
Both of which Android is doing quite well.
Say you have a brand new invention, that is completely unknown and stunningly revolutionary... you should be able to get a patent on it if it's in any field except software? That makes no sense.
Do you think authors should be able to patent novel plot points? Or mathematicians novel proofs?
If not, why not?
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
protected.
Why?
Patents exist just as much for the "little guy" as they do for big business.
But if the cost of patents go up only those with money could afford them.
All I see happening if we just get rid of patents is a company like Sony or Microsoft catching wind of some little guy's cool new idea, and then utterly appropriating it without compensating him at all.
And how does this happen? They pay people to spy on others? What may happen, as does with FOSS, is a company will hire the person to work on the invention. Being where it's invented said company should have the capability and facilities to manufacture an item before anyone else. With First mover advantage they can then bring something to market ahead of everyone else.
Of course later a competitor can come along and either make it cheaper or make it better but that's progress. And for the first seller to stay in business they will have to do so itself thus creating more progress.
Oh and you mean Microsoft doesn't steal and infringe on others' patents now? HAHA!! And all these lawsuits don't hinder progress? HAHA!!! All the money spent on lawyers could be spent on research instead. Heck MS, who argues against FOSS, hires and employs FOSS programmers. I believe Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, even said he'd work for MS if they allowed him to do what he wanted and they paid enough.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Say you have a brand new invention, that is completely unknown and stunningly revolutionary... you should be able to get a patent on it if it's in any field except software? That makes no sense.
Do you think authors should be able to patent novel plot points? Or mathematicians novel proofs?
If not, why not?
Wouldn't it depend on what the plot point is? I mean, if the plot point is the existence of some new machine, and the author can fully describe it sufficiently such that one of skill in the art could build it, then shouldn't it be patentable?
But, that aside, I know what you're getting at. And the distinction between what you've suggested and software is that the latter is executed by a machine, and it is this implementation - executed by a machine - that is patentable.
Here's why. If you patented a mathematical proof, and someone read your patent specification and followed your example or proof, they would have just infringed in their head. How can you get an injunction to stop someone from thinking? You can't. That's why this is unprotectable.
However, if your patent claims explicitly rule that out, by requiring execution by a processor of a computing device, then someone can think it or use a pad and pencil, and they have not infringed. Math is not patentable - applied engineering is. Similarly, software in a vacuum is not patentable - but when executed by an actual device, it is.
with the articles hypothesis, Google doesn't make handsets nor does it commercially distribute the code thats all done by the Open Handset Alliance and its members. When you look at the members of OHA including the likes of Sony, Motorola, Samsung, LG you start to realise between them they have far more patents on mobile technologies than apple and microsoft combined.
Florian has done amazing service for the anti-patent cause, and while I doubt he needs to bother submitting articles to Slashdot, I would not find it in any way inappropriate or unhelpful if he did, quite the contrary.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
anti-patent cause
It sounds like I should support him them. Despite what Adam Smith said patents are an unnecessary evil.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
> No, it isn't. 35 USC 112 requires sufficient written description to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. If you've got a flow chart and a step by step description, a good programmer should be able to code the method in any language they know. Why do you view that as legally insufficient?
Usually, it's because they're written by patent lawyers who are trying to draft good claims instead of writing anything that would actually be useful to anyone and because there's no reason why this shouldn't be required, because it would stop a lot of "wish" claims where they claim patent protection for things they've never actually made.
But even then, the more comprehensible they make their patent, sometimes the more ridiculous it is. I understood the patent on the multiply-linked list perfectly well. Enough to see that they very well ought to have known what a doubly-linked list was in 2006 and enough to wonder how that patent got through the system, especially when it appears to read on a doubly-linked list (all you need is a list with two or more pointers that each link the list in some arbitrary order).
Talk about ridiculous.
Just a grammatical bone to pick, put a comma after "taken out patents". It alters the meaning of the sentence in a confusing way. Don't be a patent lawyer (IANAL also though).
Software is simply not worthy of patent protection.
Why not? How is software unlike any other industry?
Software is already protected, by copyrights. Even if protection is needed, which I dispute, software doesn't need twice as much protection as other things.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I have seen plenty of laws that have weird side effects and are prone to be abused.
I would not suggest that every layman should write the laws. I would suggest that mathematicians and the likes write the laws, because they tend to know how to apply logic.
Software is simply not worthy of patent protection.
Why not? How is software unlike any other industry?
Software is already protected, by copyrights. Even if protection is needed, which I dispute, software doesn't need twice as much protection as other things.
Machines are frequently protected by trademarks, as is software. So really, software only has three-halves the protection as other things.
Wait, what's that you say? Trademarks and patents cover different aspects of the IP? You're right!
Sorry, your argument is simply incorrect. Software doesn't have twice the protection as other things.
Except, once you've spent all that money accelerating your project to get to market sooner, someone else can quickly reverse engineer or rewrite it without violating your copyright and, absent patent protection, you just wasted a ton of money reaching the market sooner since they're only a week or two behind you.
Thus, people wouldn't spend tons of money accelerating their research, and innovation...would...draggggggg. Good thing we have patents, huh?
No, it wouldn't, because it wouldn't suddenly become unprofitable to sell new devices to consumers. And if it only takes "a week or two" for your competitors to catch up with one of your features, then was it really so innovative it deserves a patent?
No, it's not, because bad patents are inevitable in the current patent system - you can't separate the two and pretend it doesn't matter.
Well, that depends on whether the software industry ever becomes 'mature' (also known as stale). Considering the other differences between software and other industries - especially the low barrier of entry - I'm not sure that will happen.
Not everyone - see the lawsuits in France and other countries.
'useless': having no beneficial use or incapable of functioning usefully.
They can be used. But by that time, they're useless, because they serve no useful purpose.
I don't need the make that argument. On the contrary: patent proponents need to provide evidence that patents do make the industry advance faster. If the rate is equal with or without patents, then patents have failed to achieve their goal and should not be implemented. And I don't see evidence of that.
No, keeping competition out is more valuable than licensing. Always was, always will be - competition kills profits.
Dilbert RSS feed
is "would this happen without patents".
I can agree on that. And science studies have shown that progress would "happen" without patents; Promoting Intellectual Discovery: Patents Versus Markets.
Drugs simply won't happen without patents
But, besides the above science link, I totally disagree with this. There are alternatives to pharmaceutical patents. Governments fund drug reseach too. The US's National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars developing and testing Taxol, a drug used to treat breast and other cancers. The NCI then sold all the exclusive rights to the use of the research for FDA approval to Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). How much did BMS pay? A fraction of NCI's costs. Add how much money did BMS make? In 2000, BMS bought the rights in 1988-9, BMS made almost $1 Billion. Besides that, answering the question Do drug companies do more marketing or research? is answered as thus: Drug industry spends nearly twice as much on marketing than on research and development. Beyond that, Economists say copyright and patent laws are killing innovation; hurting economy. Thomas Jefferson once said "inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
No, if you want to make an argument that we could advance faster without patents, then you either have to look to the pre-patent era for evidence of rapid technological development, or to countries without patent law for the same. And neither evidence exists.
It does exist for software. The software field exploded before software patents applied to it. Networking, graphics, all kinds of programming languages, all kinds of operating systems, databases, all kinds of applications -- all of it was created without software patents and forms the bedrock of software today.
Now we have all this red tape and worries over patent lawsuits. Where's the patent-inspired innovation? The vast majority of software patents are rubbish. To quote more from that Bill Gates memo: "In many application categories straighforward thinking ahead allows you to come up with patentable ideas."
And that's exactly what happened. There's been a huge rush to patent the next straighforward thought.
No, the quote discusses a solution for any standstill.
It's a partial solution to a government-imposed problem.
I have seen plenty of laws that have weird side effects and are prone to be abused.
Sure. That doesn't have to happen, but sometimes people make mistakes, sometimes errors creep in due to the political process, and sometimes hidden 'features' are snuck in. If possible, problems like that should be fixed once found, but this is not always easy, again due to the politics involved.
I would suggest that mathematicians and the likes write the laws, because they tend to know how to apply logic.
Of course, you'd probably do that at the expense of clarity. This is a common complaint: write something plainly, and it's subject to various interpretations; write something precisely, and it's too difficult for people to understand. It's very difficult, and very rare to manage both.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Software doesn't have twice the protection as other things.
My argument may be incorrect but so is yours. Patents are not needed. Many Economists say copyright and patent laws are killing innovation; hurting economy. If you disagree with this, argue with economic studies or facts not your opinion.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Google doesn't always patent under google. Instead they patent under their developers names, with a contract that says that google has unrestricted access to those patents.
their patent portfolio is huge.
"How about its vast financial resources?"
You mean the resources that Apple and Microsoft have more of than Google?
Doesn't Oracle own Java? and don't android apps run a ripped off version of Java? I'm no patent lawyer but I can see no way that the Dalvik VM DOESN'T infringe some Java patents.
This will be a BIG payday to Oracle. Or it will be resolved by some cross branding ...
"Android - powered by Java"
Strange, I havent noticed it.
SlashResponse: the patent system is broken and needs to change to support innovators, not lawyers.
SlashResponse: the patent system is broken and needs to change to support innovators, not lawyers.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
No, if you want to make an argument that we could advance faster without patents, then you either have to look to the pre-patent era for evidence of rapid technological development, or to countries without patent law for the same. And neither evidence exists.
It does exist for software. The software field exploded before software patents applied to it.
There was software before the 1910s? Huh. Who knew?
So you know, people were patenting software in the 60s and 70s, in much the same way as they do now - tied to specific machines.
So, with that in mind, your post is quite a nice explanation of how innovation boomed in an era of patent protection.
Where's the patent-inspired innovation? The vast majority of software patents are rubbish.
Again, this is a different argument: if patents are poorly granted, then argue for better examining or tighter requirements. Arguing that an entire category of invention should be exempt is simply out of left field. There are stupid automatic transmission patents granted... Should "automobiles" be exempt from patenting? Should Congress amend 35 USC 101 to say "Any process, machine, article of manufacture or composition of matter... EXCEPT cars, because the USPTO sucks at examining them"?
Explain how that makes logical sense.
Your previous post was "software is protected by copyright, and therefore doesn't need patent protection." Now, having conceded that that's clearly incorrect, you're now insisting that I should debate economics and that by failing to do so, I'm just arguing my opinion?
You accuse me of moving the post yet you do the same. It's bad if I do it but it's good if you do the same thing? I've argued all along I believe patents should be revoked. I've posted the same thing for more than 10 years on Slashdot.
Opinion? Excuse me, but we were talking about scope of coverage of different laws. If you want to change the topic to a different area, don't be a dick about it.
Yes opinion, but you're moving the post again. In the post where you replied I was wrong I stated I disputed the need for any protection. Right here I say "Even if protection is needed, which I dispute,". That was posted Thursday January 20, @02:50PM but the one above it was posted Thursday January 20, @01:21PM, an hour and a half before.
If you want to change the topic to a different area, don't be a dick about it.
I was replying in kind and if you think it was being dick then perhaps I thought yours was too. As a matter of fact I think in the post I am replying to now you're being a dick.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
There was software before the 1910s? Huh. Who knew?
Nice try, software patents only became enforceable around the 1990's onwards
So you know, people were patenting software in the 60s and 70s, in much the same way as they do now - tied to specific machines.
Software patents itself was a very murky area until the 90's because a few notable court cases in that time frame established them.
Hell the EU doesn't recognize software patents and yet STILL grants them in case it does in the future, go figure.
People weren't stupid enough to think ideas should be patented back then only implementations of ideas... and implementations of software ARE covered by copyright.
If patents are needed to "protect" your "invention", something is seriously wrong with your patent law. Patents are there to give an inventor the first chance to profit from his invention - they are about protecting financial interests of the inventor.
If you are going to have an invention (does Android count as an invention?) then you need to make sure that it does not infringe on any patents; if it does, you need licenses for them - it is that simple. If you find you can't make a simple OS *without* infringing someone's patent, that suggests either you're granting too many patents, too broad patents or patents for too long (OSes have been around for some time now).
The same applies to copyright; copyright does not "protect" content, if anything it puts it at risk of being lost for ever (both thought experiments and real-world examples support this), all the copyright does is increase the opportunity for the author to make money (although it is neither necessary nor sufficient).
The whole software patent idea is ill and slows down the industry.
Why I cannot make program "which shows x with y"?
You can compare software to painting. Current situation in US allows patent trolls to prepare patents stupid on the same level as "method of painting cows with using only black and white paint".
I'm reading about patent wars for several years and I see no cure or hope for this law cancer.
Hell the EU doesn't recognize software patents and yet STILL grants them in case it does in the future, go figure.
That's simply not true. European law has the same requirement that the USPTO now applies, post-Bilski: process claims must be transformative or tied to a specific machine. And yeah, they're enforceable in member countries once you pay your country registration fees.
That didn't hold in this case. As has been pointed out elsewhere, Google's patents are probably a better quality than Microsoft's average patent. They're also more focused. A number of the plaintiffs (perhaps as much as 2/3rds of the mentioned lawsuits) are patent trolls or people outside the market who wouldn't be deterred by a larger patent holding. The number of lawsuits isn't unusual so there's no indication that the Android platform is attracting legal trouble. And perhaps most important, Google isn't the only Android patent holder in town. Only three of the lawsuits mention actually involve Google. The rest involve other patent holders such as Motorola and Samsung. I don't know how big their patent holdings are, but it's downright idiotic to consider only Google's patent holdings under such a situation especially when those patents are probably irrelevant to most of the listed lawsuits!
Does news really have to be asked in the form of a question? What's the point? If you have the answer, don't ask things. It makes people skeptical about the whole article.
I am not devoid of humor.
I'll be Google has been working on alternatives to Android, just in case, they lose partly or fully to Oracle. It will set them back, some, but they have built a reputation for being able to build a good mobile OS and that will help them in the next round. Besides, they have a very good case that many of the Oracle patents are invalid due to prior use or obviousness.
I'll be Google has been working on alternatives to Android, just in case, they lose partly or fully to Oracle.
Android was always a short-term bridge in Google's OS strategy, Chrome OS is more like their long-term vision.
Yes, it's the programming language
Okay.
GHC is also not a Microsoft project - it's an open source (BSDL), community-developed project with many contributors.
SO you admit Haskell is not an MS innovation, that MS joined the project only after others were working on it?
So as I said MS does not innovate. Others do then MS buys, joins, or steals.
it's rather surprising that a Slashdotter wouldn't know what Haskell is.
No I don't know what it is, nor do I expect other Slashdotters to know everything about computers, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Information Management, or whatever. And from the looks of it, all the posts from Apple, Microsoft, or Open Source fanboise it's justifiable. Afterall computers and software are means to an end.
What's in it for Microsoft? Well, FP is emerging in mainstream software development in the last few years
I know or knew some BASIC, C/C++ (and want to learn Objective C), FORTRAN, Java, and Pascal as well as know of SOAP and Extreme programming but not Haskell or Functional Programming. SO I'm even further behind on new tech than I thought.
Falcon
Oh and I don't have a degree or work in any of the above areas. I haven't even worked in almost 15 years, since I was disabled in an accident. I was majoring in Computer Engineering then but my career path was derailed due to the accident.
Should there be a Law?
So another person realizes the truth.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
No, it's not - it's an alpha testing opt-in program.
Google testing isn't research? It most certainly is! Just as much research as when Microsoft does it.
If you want a Google example, Wave was a genuine innovation and was based on some clear new R&D. Few other Google products are innovative in that sense, though. They're masters of creatively reusing mundane things to great effect, but they don't advance science nor engineering.
Neither does Microsoft, which if you go back up the thread was my point, that MS does little if any innovation. My first post started with the sentence "Almost nothing that is innovative comes from MS."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Though patent litigation might seem like the most obvious way to confront "aggressors" like Oracle, I would posit another option: partnership. The weaker parties in the smartphone wars seem to have little viable option other than to join forces with the big guns. How about a Google/Apple alliance? Seems almost inevitable.