Slashdot Mirror
Google Reaffirms Stance Against Software Patents
An anonymous reader writes "Google has again publicly affirmed its stance against software patents during an announcement over a potential defensive acquisition. These days, when Microsoft, Apple, and others are abusing software patents, it's nice to see one large company calling them junk."
See Microsoft suing Android users...
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/microsoft-sues-barnes-noble-foxconn-inventec-over-android-e-readers/46314?tag=nl.e589
Microsoft has already said that Linux infringes on "multiple" patents. They are only not suing because Linux is "small" threat, but if it ever becomes significant threat for Microsoft, lawsuits will start flying!
I know. Like when they never sued Motorola or Barnes & Noble.
Nowhere in the article does it say that Google is against software patents. I only see them pushing for patent reform.
Well, we know that isn't true. Try this: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/03/google-android-microsoft/. According to that, an MS rep said, "Microsoft has taken these actions against Barnes & Noble, Foxconn and Inventec because they are commercializing products that infringe our patented innovations.” That pretty much shows your "only defending against patent trolls" to be patently (pardon the pun) false. Microsoft historically has not been quick to sue for patent infringement, but in recent years has been much more likely to go to court. How about this one: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3807801/Bruce-Perens-Analyzing-Microsofts-TomTom-Lawsuit.htm where they went after Tom-Tom for the patent on FAT32 of all things. You can no longer just claim that Microsoft doesn't go after patent infringement and doesn't attack other companies.
Now, your statement that MS isn't a patent troll is, of course, true. MS hasn't sued people over patents that MS isn't using in devices of their own. They aren't just an "IP holding company" like your normal patent troll. But they have clearly gone beyond the days of holding patents merely for defense.
Red Hat relies on software for their money as well. And they give it away.
These days, when Microsoft, Apple, and others are abusing software patents, it's nice to see one large company calling them junk.
Before you call them 'junk' in the courts of law, where it matters, things might not be in agreement with your line of view.
I will quote Gosling...
"In Sun's early history, we didn't think much of patents. While there's a kernel of good sense in the reasoning for patents, the system itself has gotten goofy. Sun didn't file many patents initially. But then we got sued by IBM for violating the "RISC patent" - a patent that essentially said "if you make something simpler, it'll go faster". Seemed like a blindingly obvious notion that shouldn't have been patentable, but we got sued, and lost. The penalty was huge. Nearly put us out of business. We survived, but to help protect us from future suits we went on a patenting binge."
So it's not over yet...not even close.
Software patents?
Patent/copyright abuse goes way beyond that including the genes in your own body which may be the property of some corporation. And how can a corporation copyright a 400 year old music score and extort money from those who simply want a look? And when taxpayers fund a discovery made by university employees and students, why does a corporation get to take the patent and all the profit?
Patents and copyrights are critical to drive research and new ideas but there has to be a sensible limit. With software patents in particular and the outrageous lawsuits, patents are serving to stifle innovation. Only a very well funded corporation can afford to cope with the problems, and the small inventor/programmer is at the mercy of attorneys.
I defer to Don Lancaster, an early protester of patents who offers thought provoking ideas on the subject:
http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp
Thanks for your patience with this rant
...omphaloskepsis often...