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."

Comments

Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[devoks]

Nice to see yet another twisted summary. As everyone knows, Microsoft doesn't really abuse their patent portfolio. They have never used it to patent troll. Only times they've used their patents is when defending against patent trolls themself. Otherwise Microsoft never has attacked other companies.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[devoks]

I don't know what you're smoking, but Linux already is a serious competitor to IIS web server. On normal web hosting it's used just as much as IIS - only place IIS wins is enterprise hosting and intranets.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[killmenow]

I know. Like when they never sued Motorola or Barnes & Noble.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[Anonymous Coward]

STFU you MS shill.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[GIL_Dude]

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.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[Anonymous Coward]

Joke or astroturf?

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Microsoft's puppets are quite aggressive.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[revscat]

Oh look, another quickly-posted reply that attempts to paint MS in a positive light. What are the odds.

EABOD, astroturfer.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[pieterh]

"Microsoft never has attacked other companies"

Microsoft files rare patent lawsuit against Salesforce.com
Microsoft Slaps Motorola with Patent Lawsuit over Android
Microsoft wins big on PND patent lawsuit
Microsoft Files Patent Lawsuit Vs TiVo Again
Patent Lawsuits Filed by Former Microsoft CTO’s Firm

Further, Microsoft has lobbied extensively in Europe for a software patent regime, funding numerous attempts to modify the current situation where a patent has to be litigated in each country separately. If they were being defensive, they would not do this, the current European patent system favors defense.

And further, Microsoft has pushed very hard, for many years now, to find a way to extract a toll on Linux, via patents.

They are not a patent troll, mainly because they delegated that job to Intellectual Ventures, a pure patent troll firm. They are repeatedly attacked by firms who hold patents, though often it seems Microsoft stole the technology, and the small firms are justified in seeking compensation. But they do abuse their patents, and they do abuse the patent system in an attempt to fight competitors like Linux and Android that they can't beat on technical merit.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[_0xd0ad]

Shhh, if he says it often enough it becomes true. Magically. Like unicorns.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[binkzz]

They are only not suing because Linux is "small" threat, but if it ever becomes significant threat for Microsoft, lawsuits will start flying!

Linux already is a significant threat to Microsoft, otherwise they wouldn't care. Not on the desktop mind you, but server side.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[MozeeToby]

Shhh, if he says it often enough it becomes true. Magically. Like unicorns.

Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! It's not working! _0xd0ad you lied to me!

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[Tanktalus]

Damnit, MozeeToby, I now have a dozen unicorns trampling what little vegetation survived the winter in my back yard. STOP IT.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[torre]

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.

I'd just like to point out its not much of a defense if you don't enforce your ownership at some level. If people feel that you won't defend what's your's they'll simply use it especially if they question your right to own an item in the first place. Case in point people who cut across railroad tracks even though there are signs that say no trespassing, people who park in no parking zones, or in the tech side people who take open source material from others and sell them on "App" stores to turn a buck without regards to the original authors. Though I don't agree with the current regime of software patents and think it seriously needs major reforms, I don't hold it against anybody who fires warning shot every now and then to remind people you're stepping on their turf. Don't blame legitimate companies who spent money to research/create products then want to protect them the best they can through patents: they're just protecting their assets, blame the legislators for allowing ridiculous assets (though a broken patent system) to exist in the first place.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we please learn to just ignore these obvious astroturfing posts on every damn thread so they can die a nice quiet death at -1. Instead everyone has to justify their crap with a response, which obviously one of the few dozen other MS astroturfing accounts will reply to and we wind up hijacking every single goddamn IT related thread on this site with arguments about Microsoft.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[westlake]

Oh look, another quickly-posted reply that attempts to paint MS in a positive light. What are the odds.

about the same as a geek shouting "astroturf" the moment anyone paints Microsoft in a positive light.

no need to subscribe.

there is never the slightest difficulty in guessing which posts on the Firehose will make the front page.

and the canned response from all sides is no less predictable.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[Surt]

A band-saw, a glue gun, a horse and an antelope will solve your unicorn problem faster than wishing.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[Dishevel]

I am not sure what you are smoking but not only is Microsoft suing android users, but they were financing SCOs fight against everyone using linux.
Microsoft is very much in the software patent offensive game.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[sortadan]

If google could patent "a system and method for searching the web" that would ensure their monopoly for years to come i imagine they would change their tune...

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[king neckbeard]

Of course, you can't blame the legislators because they are enticed by lobbyists, who in regards to patents, are paid off by patent holders, who use the patents that legislators let exist, and the cycle repeats itself. I will admit that MS is not the only party to blame when MS sues, but that doesn't make them not to blame. Both legislators and corporations are to blame. In regards to defense, the argument is that, for example, Google only acquires patents so they will not be as vulnerable to Microsoft or Apple's patent portfolio if either party sues them because they have patent that MS and Apple are infringing. Actively using patents against competitors is not defensive. One might argue that it's a justified action, but it is an offensive move.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[imric]

It's like deregulating the market. If it didn't work, that means you just didn't try hard enough. You must BELIEVE until you TRANSCEND reality.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[jgagnon]

The fix, of course, is unicorn steaks.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[The End Of Days]

Well it helps that you moonbats react with such predictable vitriol to anything that doesn't paint Microsoft as the company of the devil. If you want an unpolluted echo chamber for you own opinions, go to reddit.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[_0xd0ad]

EABOD

Eat A Bluescreen Of Death?

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what you're smoking, but Linux is an OS, whereas IIS is a web server. IIS competes with Apache, not Linux (though they often go together).

But more importantly: IIS winning in enterprise hosting?! IIS only runs on Windows. What kind of enterprise would use that as a serious server? It is in any kind of webhosting, enterprise or not, that Apache dwarfs IIS. At least, that's how it's always been. Some googling turned out that over the last decade, IIS has slowly been gaining ground over Apache, and at Fortune 1000 companies, IIS apparently even has a larger share now. The reasons for that mystify me. Apache has been the standard for almost as long as the Web has existed.

Still, while Linux is tiny on the desktop, it has been incredibly popular for servers for quite some time now, and I've rarely met people who truly like Windows as a server OS.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you could rape a girl and be sure to get away with it, I imagine you would do it... See how stupid your argument is?

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[KillAllNazis]

Except raping a girl doesn't secure your company's future, thereby securing your future, your friends' futures and your family's future for generations to come. See how stupid your counter-argument is?

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[Doomdark]

I'd just like to point out its not much of a defense if you don't enforce your ownership at some level.

Usually defensive here means using patent lawsuits in defensive way (against other companies suing you); not so much defending patents themselves. There is no need to defend patents, per se, unless someone is specifically trying to get them invalidated. As in not initiating the court process, but responding.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[MrLizardo]

Or unicorn bacon. mmmmm.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Microsoft is much much worse then Satan, they even bought him out: Microsoft Purchases Evil From Satan

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[DarwinSurvivor]

That may be because other linux-based web servers (lighttpd, etc) are starting to take some share. People *already* on linux servers are eyeing lighter and/or more specialized alternatives (apache is a "does everything" type of server), but I'm sure VERY few places are replacing their linux servers with windows ones.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[Phoghat]

Citation needed, see below.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[Phoghat]

From TFA:

The tech world has recently seen an explosion in patent litigation, often involving low-quality software patents, which threatens to stifle innovation. Some of these lawsuits have been filed by people or companies that have never actually created anything; others are motivated by a desire to block competing products or profit from the success of a rival’s new technology. The patent system should reward those who create the most useful innovations for society, not those who stake bogus claims or file dubious lawsuits. It's for these reasons that Google has long argued in favor of real patent reform, which we believe will benefit users and the U.S. economy as a whole.

I read this as "Google has long argued in favor of real patent reform, because that would really benefit us." I kid because I love. Or not. Read "Scroogled" by Doctorow free at his Craphound site. "Do no evil" my lily white ass.

Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not

[lsatenstein]

I believe that in suing Linux distributions, what will surface from underwater is probably going to be more harmful to Microsoft, or any other adversary. Linux has not flourished by patent infringement, but by innovation.

Yawn

[Haedrian]

Wake me up when a government says the same thing.

Re:Yawn

[CastrTroy]

Many governments already have this stance. Maybe not the USA government, but many other countries around the world have rejected software patents.

Re:Yawn

[drb226]

Wake me up when a government says the same thing.

In other words, when Google takes over?

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

At least we have a chance of Google being a benevolent dictatorship.

Re:Yawn

[PPH]

We are the government. By 'we' I mean us corporate interests who want to securitize every activity the public engages in. And have the money to convince Congress to pass laws to that effect.

'You' are just a bunch of peasants who need to learn your place and shut the hell up.

Re:Yawn

[Americano]

Sure, they'll be benevolent, right up until you refuse to let them access some aspect of your personal data to tailor your 24x7 in-home ad display in your own "best interests."

Re:Yawn

[kevinNCSU]

And yet no corporation would ever dare say this publicly because they fear the public's reaction and backlash against them because we the public actually are the government when we aren't lazy and apathetic.

Re:Yawn

[Drakino]

Exactly. "Hey Google, we want to ship a new location API inside your open OS, you mind?" "Sure, thats cool, go ahead, and we will even certify the devices since it passes our tests. Oh, wait, you convinced two manufacturer to ship this? STOP SHIP!!!!"

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

... we the public actually are the government when we aren't lazy and apathetic.

Woahhh. When did all this happen?

Re:Yawn

[The End Of Days]

Well there's also the "duh" fact that the people running corporations are also citizens... and they happen to the be effective ones with abilities and resources. Shock! They run things, not the lazy whiners who want everything handed to them. Crazy, I know.

Re:Yawn

[Anthony Mouse]

I'm sure you know that the objection was to the software (apparently intentionally) breaking the equivalent Google API, not to its being created or shipped on actual phones.

Re:Yawn

[cforciea]

Yes, clearly the meritocracy is in good working order. Every CEO makes 100x what their entry level employees do because they work 100x as hard as those lazy whiners.

Re:Yawn

[Drakino]

It was intentionally replacing the Google location API, a component that was considered on the open side of the OS. The phones with Skyhook passed all of Google's certification procedures, and several phones have it today. Only over time did Google get pissy about it, likely because they wanted to own the location API for ad revenue reasons.

Just as Microsoft got pissy with OEMs for making deals to bundle Netscape Navigator, since it meant people might not use Internet Explorer.

Re:Yawn

[Anthony Mouse]

It was intentionally replacing the Google location API, a component that was considered on the open side of the OS.

There was no reason for them to have to remove the Google API instead of installing along side it, except that Skyhook wanted to harm their competitor by depriving them of location data. No one is even stopping them from doing that on a non-Google-branded phone, but they wanted to do it on a Google-branded phone. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Only over time did Google get pissy about it, likely because they wanted to own the location API for ad revenue reasons.

Google's entire business model is to supply ad supported services. All they're doing is saying that you can't have the services without the ads. I mean what are they supposed to do, continue to provide the services while competitors swap out the components that supply the revenue to pay for them?

Just as Microsoft got pissy with OEMs for making deals to bundle Netscape Navigator, since it meant people might not use Internet Explorer.

Microsoft didn't want them to include Netscape at all. Nobody was removing Internet Explorer from Windows, which would have been a far less Machiavellian thing to complain about.

More to the point, that would have been a whole different story if Microsoft's business model was to give away Windows for free and put ads in Internet Explorer to pay for it, and somebody was then taking the free Windows and distributing it having removed IE and replaced it with their own ad-supported browser.

Re:Yawn

[PPH]

Nah. We (corporate America) will just slip our astroturfers in groups like the Tea Party a few bucks to get the masses running off in a different direction screaming about something inconsequential.

Re:Yawn

[Drakino]

From a business standpoint, I can see why Google did what they did in regards to Skyhook. However, they could have handled the situation better. Instead of throwing a fit only after "Company X" in the complaint had already shipped phones, they could have raised the issue ahead of time. Their inaction earlier, and green light probably cost Company X a decent bit of engineering time. Their touting of "open" led Skyhook to believe they could replace the location API, and Motorola and "Company X" were also under this same impression.

From an "Open" standpoint, what Google did was just wrong. If they really want their OS to be open, then they need to let it be open even if it's not the exact result they intended. If they want to close things down, then fine. But they need to make a decision and hold to it, instead of trying to straddle the line. Their indecisiveness is harming more then just Skyhook, Motorola and "Company X". I'm sure Barnes & Noble picked Android for their Nook e-readers due to the promise of "open", and their engineers are now stuck maintaining the Nook Color on an OS that Google says is only for phones. The more appropriate tablet OS is closed off to them for now, possibly halting progress on a Nook Color 2.

And as far as Microsoft and the OEMs of the time, several did want to remove Internet Explorer. Microsoft prevented this by embedding it deeper into the OS then any other optional component. I don't remember which companies exactly wanted it out, but it's all in the findings of fact published from the antitrust case.

Re:Yawn

[AmonTheMetalhead]

And yet there is ever more lobbying to shove software patents down other countries their throats. Remember ACTA?

Re:Yawn

[Anthony Mouse]

I completely agree that they could have handled it better. I just feel like it was more of a stupid oversight mistake than some kind of intentional malice.

From an "Open" standpoint, what Google did was just wrong. If they really want their OS to be open, then they need to let it be open even if it's not the exact result they intended. If they want to close things down, then fine. But they need to make a decision and hold to it, instead of trying to straddle the line.

Trying to straddle the line is kind of the whole point. Android is open in the sense that you can do whatever you want; the Google services aren't. If you want the former, it's Apache licensed and you can do whatever you please with it. If you want the latter, it comes on different terms.

I'm sure Barnes & Noble picked Android for their Nook e-readers due to the promise of "open", and their engineers are now stuck maintaining the Nook Color on an OS that Google says is only for phones. The more appropriate tablet OS is closed off to them for now, possibly halting progress on a Nook Color 2.

The OS they used is the same OS it was when they decided to use it. The fact that Google is going to make something better adapted to tablets hasn't changed it. And they can still get earlier access to the "tablet OS" if they want to join the OHA.

Realistically the only reason they're holding it back is because they don't want to have a million Chinese junk tablets on the market running a development version of the OS and ruining their reputation. What I wish they would do is publish the development code but under a license that says you can't ship it on a device, and then once the final version is ready release it under the Apache license without that restriction. But I don't always get what I want.

Yet they still file them.

[HerculesMO]

Heh, funny that.

Re:Yet they still file them.

[hedwards]

Because if they didn't file them, clearly nobody else would. Which is the problem, patents are both offensive and defensive tools depending upon the situation.

Re:Yet they still file them.

[HerculesMO]

Sorry, I just saw some irony in it is all.

Re:Yet they still file them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so naive.

Even if you don't like the playing field, you have to utilize it the same as your competitors or be left behind.

Then we'd be left with no one to champion the cause.

Re:Yet they still file them.

[alen]

not really, if you can prove prior art then the patent is worthless. google just needs to announce whatever they patent without patenting it

Re:Yet they still file them.

[RazzleFrog]

Didn't read the article, did you? They are rebelling within the system. The best defense is a good offense.

Re:Yet they still file them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except prior art can be tricky to prove. Patent gives you documented evidence to point to which can quickly invalidate other patent claims.

Re:Yet they still file them.

[drb226]

RTFA; Google's not trying to stifle that detail

...we’ve decided to bid for Nortel’s patent portfolio...In the absence of meaningful reform, we believe it's the best long-term solution for Google, our users and our partners.

Re:Yet they still file them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately 'prior art' only holds in the US. You're fucked if you try that in the EU.

Re:Yet they still file them.

[kabloom]

Under the USA's first to invent system, some other company can still claim they invented whatever product before Google announced it even though they only filed the application after Google announced it. I'm sure there's lots of incentive to lie and make the invention date earlier in order to defeat prior art, or even steal prior art.

Under the S.23 reform to change us to first to file, prior art can be considered from the filing date, rather than the invention date, and publishing instead of patenting will be more effective at establishing prior art.

Re:Yet they still file them.

[Dragonslicer]

Under the USA's first to invent system, some other company can still claim they invented whatever product before Google announced it even though they only filed the application after Google announced it. I'm sure there's lots of incentive to lie and make the invention date earlier in order to defeat prior art, or even steal prior art.

You can't simply lie to get an earlier date of invention, you have to be able to show some evidence to support your claim. There may be incentive to fabricate such evidence, but the penalty for getting caught would be pretty substantial.

Re:Yet they still file them.

[Overly Critical Guy]

No kidding. Can this site be any more insufferably pro-Google? I love the throwaway accusation in the submission that "Microsoft, Apple, and others are abusing software patents" without any citations. I guess we're supposed to forget that they're a multi-billion dollar advertising company with a history of violating privacy rights because they publicly took a stance that makes Slashdot feel warm and fuzzy.

A large number of anonymous posts on Slashdot are pro-Google, including the submitter of this story. Doesn't anyone else wonder if there's an astroturfing PR campaign going on around here, or is Google considered above such things?

Re:Yet they still file them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed.

Re:Yet they still file them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, just like how Apple does it, right?? Right!

Re:Yet they still file them.

[psithurism]

patents are both offensive and defensive tools

if you can prove prior art then the patent is worthless.

Big companies often like to take the counter suit approach, where if you sue me for violating your patents I'll sue you for violating mine. (like http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/11/motorola_countersues_microsoft/) The mutually assured destruction is the deterrent to a lawsuit in the first place. Otherwise, the prosecuted company may have to spend hundreds of thousands on researchers and lawyers to try to prove prior art on the possibly dozens of frivolous patents they are accused of violating. So companies have to stockpile patents like missiles in the cold war. "For defense."

We had an article here recently from an employee of Sun about it, but I can't find it right now.

Re:Yet they still file them.

[Anthony Mouse]

google just needs to announce whatever they patent without patenting it

The problem is that not all patents can be easily invalidated. If Microsoft sues Google over the FAT32 patents, Google isn't going to have any internal prior art -- they didn't even exist when Microsoft filed for that patent. But if they patent a bunch of search-related stuff, Bing will be infringing it. So then if Microsoft comes after them for FAT32, they can go after Microsoft for Bing, and in the end it all cancels out. And since both companies know that, they don't generally sue each other. But if Google didn't file for patents, they wouldn't be able to cancel out their competitors' patents and they would be in trouble -- unless we got rid of software patents, in which case all of these companies could fire their armies of patent lawyers, stop wasting engineers' time with patent filings and save everyone a huge pile of money.

Re:Yet they still file them.

[Anthony Mouse]

I guess we're supposed to forget that they're a multi-billion dollar advertising company with a history of violating privacy rights

Google gets plenty of shit for privacy violations, and most of it is well deserved.

But most of the anti-Google propaganda, isn't. The WiFi data collection thing is a perfect example. The real privacy problems Google has are to do with collecting everything you do with their services, but all their main competitors do exactly the same thing so they have no room to complain. But as soon as Google does something that isn't anywhere near as serious, like capturing unencrypted WiFi traffic on unlicensed spectrum, all of a sudden there is this huge investigation -- because their competitors (mainly Microsoft) can point to something that Google did that they haven't, so they can complain about it without fearing that the investigation will get turned around and end up focusing on their own practices.

I also think a lot of the pro-Google comments come because the things people attack Google for are so inane, and you get lots of people defending them because the attacks are such blatant frivolous astroturf and sour grapes from competitors. Like the stories we keep getting from Florian Mueler, e.g. that they're distributing stripped Linux headers and claiming they aren't copyrightable so they're going to be in trouble, except that if you ask the free software people whose copyrights are allegedly being infringed they say that what Google is doing is not a violation and is common practice.

Re:Yet they still file them.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=apple-fanboy

Good enough?

Re:Yet they still file them.

[mcvos]

Google gets plenty of criticism on privacy issues (though lately Facebook seems to be the worst offender). But that's completely irrelevant on Google's stance on software patents, which is praiseworthy. Unless you love patents, of course, in which case I can understand you're upset that there's a big player that doesn't serve the Dark Side.

Re:Yet they still file them.

[DMiax]

The first problem is that you can file with a later date. The cost then is on Google that must invalidate the patent. This is risky because it first involves showing that Google's product actually *is* covered by the patent and then that it *was* covered by the patent at the time of the fiiling.

The second problem is that you can file a generic patent and "refine" it later, after Google releases a product that you want to target. This is effectively moving the official filing date way in the past, even if the patent is actually reverse engineered from a real product. Google still has to fight the patent in court to make it invalid and additionally they have to show that the patent did not cover their application *before* they released the product or that it was too broad and would not be granted before the final refinements.

Fixing this hole alone would be a giant leap forward in the patent business.

sounds a lot like Jeff Bezos

[Anonymous Coward]

pontificating about the evils of software patents. Then he turned around and sued his biggest competitor, Barnes and Noble for infringing his one-click patent. Because when push comes to shove, those who have the weapons will use them.

The proper reaction to Google's statement is a collective eye roll.

Re:sounds a lot like Jeff Bezos

[EdIII]

No Kidding.

Talk is cheap. If they really feel that way they will offer a FRAND license on their software patents....... anytime now..... right??

Re:sounds a lot like Jeff Bezos

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit, When push comes to shove those who are greedy or in desperation will abuse any avenue they can. Google is in neither position, and have show time and time again the opposite. Paying a ridiculous amount of money for the VP7 Codec, then turning around and fucking open sourcing it, essentially throwing away over a hundred million dollars. Haters gotta hate, but seriously shove your shit at someone who deserves it. I suppose repeatedly paying people to work on whatever open source projects has no merit in your mind either?! (http://code.google.com/soc/)

Get real and maybe find a girlfriend or at least some damn lotion and stop spreading your pessimistic ignorant hate.

Re:sounds a lot like Jeff Bezos

[cavreader]

Google is not a software or a technology company so promoting open source is not hurting their profits. They are a marketing and information collection and management company that just happens to use some of the newest technology available. They are sitting on an advanced and solid infrastructure collecting information from every conceivable place they can get access to. Who really gives a shit about their stance on software patents? Their business model is perfect for the open source development model. They can get access to anyone else's work, improve upon on it, deploy it, and release their changes back to the community. By the time anyone else can take advantage of any changes they contributed Google will have reaped the benefits and moved on to something else. It's their policies on data collection and profiling everyone on the damn plant and using that information for profit any way they see fit that should give you a pause.

Re:sounds a lot like Jeff Bezos

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised Bezos got his lips off Lieberman's cock long enough to say anything.

Re:sounds a lot like Jeff Bezos

[Draek]

So what do you propose? not having patents, then be sued the everlasting shit of by any lawsuit-happy competitor with an axe to grind? *cough*Apple*cough*.

It's one thing to be against software patents, and another one to be suicidal.

Re:sounds a lot like Jeff Bezos

[ajs]

pontificating about the evils of software patents. Then he turned around and sued his biggest competitor, Barnes and Noble for infringing his one-click patent. Because when push comes to shove, those who have the weapons will use them.

The proper reaction to Google's statement is a collective eye roll.

Bull.

I'm sorry, but you're so far off-base, there's no way to even evaluate your statement. Google has been entirely on the side of patent reform since they started. We might disagree on some points (among ourselves and with Google), but there's no arguing which side of this battle they've been on.

Instead, let's try a history lesson:

• 2009 - Google files an amicus brief with the Supreme Court along with others who "share a grave concern about the threat to innovation posed by the issuance of patents on abstract ideas."
• Also in 2009 - Google works to support the Patent Reform Act, saying "Once a driver of creativity, our patent system now poses a hurdle for innovation."
• 2007 - Google argues for damages apportionment, among other useful reforms.
• Google is also a member of the Coalition for Patent Fairness, an industry lobby that attempts to push forward an agenda of patent abuse reform.
• Google also releases their specifications with patent licensing that explicitly allows open source implementation

Once again, Slashdot take careful aim at the supporters of our favorite causes... go us :-/

In fairness...

[jadavis]

Google keeps all of it's software entirely secret, so they don't really have any use for software patents. It's all upside for them.

Not saying I like software patents, though.

Re:In fairness...

[poetmatt]

entirely secret?

Have you ever even heard of open source?

Granted, there are things they don't open source, but they do release a lot.

Re:In fairness...

[alen]

i bet if someone stole the algorithms they keep secret they would be suing under trade secret laws and taking out mafia hits to keep the information secret

Re:In fairness...

[earls]

How much?

Re:In fairness...

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are you talking about?

http://www.google.com/patents?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_pnum=&as_vt=&as_pinvent=&as_pasgnee=google&as_pusc=&as_pintlc=&as_ptype=11&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_drrb_ap=q&as_minm_ap=0&as_miny_ap=&as_maxm_ap=0&as_maxy_ap=

Re:In fairness...

[jadavis]

OK, I meant that those things that are of competitive advantage to Google are kept secret. It doesn't need to patent the search algorithms or the details of the ranking algorithms or the details of adwords pricing because those things are all secret.

Sure, it open sources other stuff, and that's good. But it would not have patented that stuff anyway. I didn't mention that because it seemed obvious to me, and seemed like a frivolous disclaimer.

Re:In fairness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. There is a patent on pagerank and million other search related algorithms. You don't know what you're talking about.

http://tinyurl.com/3u2ymau

Re:In fairness...

[jadavis]

I am not going to bother reading that, because the existence of a patent doesn't refute my claim that most of their core business algorithms are secrets (which is an educated guess; I certainly don't know first-hand). The patents are probably just there because they feel like they should have some patents, and they are probably watered-down or old versions of what they actually care about.

Other companies that release their software actually are releasing many of their core secrets, so they patent them because they have nothing to lose.

Re:In fairness...

[Anonymous Coward]

They release a lot that helps ppl to use Google's core services (search/advertising). They do not release anything that would endanger that. They do not need patents to defend it since you will never get your hands on a piece of hardware/software that would allow to reverse engineer their secrets.

Now they are trying to get into markets that are governed more or less by patents because every single piece of information about the methods is out in the hands of the customer to reverse engineer them. So saying that they want a patent reform is really just saying that 'please let me play on this field for free since you can hardly compete with me on my field'. Since they are not getting into these markets to get an alternative revenue source but to strengthen their core business they are happy to give everything away for free.

Check the things that google opensourced, they are all pointing to or contribute to the standardization and sharing of information. Google wants to flood everyone with the internet because they are pretty good at indexing the information and that cements their position in the search/advertising market.

Re:In fairness...

[jadavis]

Just because they have a patent with the title "page rank" doesn't mean that they have divulged all of their secrets.

Re:In fairness...

[Desler]

Granted, there are things they don't open source, but they do release a lot.

Get back to us when they actually open source something of value. Not these little bread crumbs that make them little to no money. And before someone says BUT ANDROID!!! the part that makes money on Android is not Android itself its the ad platform on Android and that is closed-source. Get back to us when they open source GoogleFS, make public all their private Linux kernel changes, open source the Adsense/Adwords platforms, open up things like Google Earth, make their implementation of PageRank open source. Until then, you can bleat on and on about Google is some grand open source company yet anything of real value is almost always kept proprietary.

Re:In fairness...

[MarkvW]

Who cares about protecting jerks who steal and copy? That's not what the hate about software patents is all about.

Software patents are hated because they limit the personal freedom of any person to independently write his or her own code.

Re:In fairness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, like Honeycomb! Free & Open Source 4-EVA!

You're a fool if you think that any of Google's core business algorithms (you know, the *advertising* ones) are open source.

Google contributes to open source because it gives them cheap operating systems & web server software to run their advertising^H^Hsearch business on, and allows them to build cheap infrastructures for advertising venues^H^Huseful tools like Gmail.

Re:In fairness...

[jadavis]

I should also point out that even if they do rely 100% on patents today, then they wouldn't have much to lose if no new software patents were granted. That's because they could keep future developments secret, because they don't depend on publishing their code (as many other software companies do).

So, we can quibble over the details (and I still think they keep the current core algorithms secret), but it's really irrelevant to my point: Eliminating software patents is nearly all upside for Google.

Re:In fairness...

[Anonymous Coward]

entirely secret?

Have you ever even heard of open source?

Granted, there are things they don't open source, but they do release a lot.

They don't release anything of value to themselves. They release things that will result in more ad revenue.

Re:In fairness...

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet to me, all of those things which you stated are of "real value" are of lesser value. IMO, just this list of Google projects listed here are greatly more valuable to actual programmers.

Re:In fairness...

[p4ul13]

Droid is open sourced, so they aren't entirely secretive either.

Re:In fairness...

[SiChemist]

So, just to clarify, Google has to give away everything they create of any value in order for you to consider them "open source friendly"? That seems a bit...extreme.

Re:In fairness...

[Just Some Guy]

Google keeps all of it's software entirely secret, so they don't really have any use for software patents. It's all upside for them.

You're subject to patent law even if you only use your creations internally. Obligatory car analogy: if a computer patented a type of diagnostic equipment, Ford can't use it in their factory without clearing it with the patent holder - even if Ford never distributes their infringing, internally-built equipment.

Re:In fairness...

[multipartmixed]

What parts of the google empire are open source? Parts which are "castle", or parts which are "moat"?

Hint: an open-source browser counts as "moat" when your castle is "search"

Re:In fairness...

[cavreader]

It is in Googles interest to use software patents or lack there of to imped those companies that depend heavily on technology sales because that in turn keeps those companies out of Googles main area of interest which is data collection and dissemination, not technology. You notice that Google might contribute to the Android and Linux communities but I have never seen them open up their proprietary database and search algorithm technology.

Re:In fairness...

[cavreader]

Real value is what puts food on the table and pays the bills not something to teach basic programming skills. And I am pretty sure Google is getting some real value out of everything they do whether that be generating more revenue or producing effective "love me" propaganda in the tech and business community.

Re:In fairness...

[cavreader]

No, You should just not try to judge Googles open source and patent policies without taking into account their buisness objectives. They are not a software technology company so I would expect their policies to be a little different than a company who derives their revenue solely from software or hardware products. Context is everything.

Re:In fairness...

[mldi]

No kidding. And I wouldn't expect them to release the secrets of their search engine either.

Hey Little Debbies! You guys are total bastards because you refuse to give me your exact recipes! ARRGGGHHH!

Re:In fairness...

[Anonymous Coward]

They dont release as much as Apple, who are the GOLD STANDARD of open source. Hell, Apple's entire operating system is open source! What has google ever open sourced? Android? NOPE, that's 100% closed source now (in case you missed the news). Google is an EVIL company that wants to destroy open source. By sheer co-incidence, they use and promote the GPL which is anti-open source and anti-business. Thats why I sun Lin-sux and all GPL'd code, and why you should too.

Re:In fairness...

[Anonymous Coward]

What is your point? That IS the upside - since Google would rather rely on trade secret protections than patents, they have no use for patents, so nothing would be better than for the liability presented by others' patents to go away, as it should.

Re:In fairness...

[thehodapp]

So how is Google not contradicting themselves when they say they are against software patents and they are patenting algorithms? Is it that they are patenting the algorithms and not the software in which they implement the algorithms? I don't know much about this stuff and I'm sure there is someone on Slashdot who could explain this further.

Google wants patent reform

[BurfCurse]

Nowhere in the article does it say that Google is against software patents. I only see them pushing for patent reform.

Re:Google wants patent reform

[rvr777]

Nowhere in the article does it say that Google is against software patents. I only see them pushing for patent reform.

You don't believe we can eradicate software patents in just one step, do you?

Re:Google wants patent reform

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe public companies are more self-interested than idealistic and shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Google wants patent reform

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent reform would equal no software patents, in my book.

If it doesn't, it's a crock.

Re:Google wants patent reform

[Anonymous Coward]

Same as Apple and Microsoft.

The statement isn't strong enough (by far)

[FlorianMueller]

There are some things to like about Google's statement, but let's be realistic: this isn't a clear statement against all software patents including their own PageRank and Google Doodle patents. They complain about "low-quality software patents". That's absolutely not the same as being against all software patents. It means that they just believe many of those patents aren't good enough. However, the answer that politicians give then is to provide more funding to the patent offices of the world, not to abolish software patents.

I've done a lot of work on patent policy (with my NoSoftwarePatents campaign in 2004/05 and otherwise) and I know that the difference between saying "some [or even 'many'] software patents are bad" and saying that "all software patents must be abolished" is like a difference between night and day. Actually, lobbying entities working for Microsoft also call for more patent quality all the time. That's definitely not a sufficient statement to be interpreted as a call for the abolition of all software patents no matter how "good" they may be relative to other software patents.

It's like saying "we are against unjust wars" as opposed to saying "we should never go to war."

I also analyzed Google's amicus curiae brief in the Bilski case and found that it advocated higher patent quality and raised issues but didn't go far enough to really demand the abolition of software patents.

Re:The statement isn't strong enough (by far)

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like saying "we are against unjust wars" as opposed to saying "we should never go to war."

I wouldn't use that comparison too often, because 'all software patents must be abolished' would naturally be analogous to 'we should never go to war', which makes it seem like a nutty, irrational position. In other words, that comparison could be used by a software patent supporter more effectively than somebody who disagrees with them.

Re:The statement isn't strong enough (by far)

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no software and non-software patents. they are blended together. For example, method implemented in machine instructions on a general purpose, programmable chip is software, but if you burn this logic into a chip, it is not software anymore. In patent you don't even have to specify implementation details, so one patent covers both cases.

Problem is that software is not a special entity, it doesn't exist without hardware it runs on, and is/can be integral part of a bigger piece of technology (and still be fully implementable in sw for example). If a company goes belly up just because everything they do is based on complex software which is a result of years of works and a lot of invested money, I'm against completely invalidating sw patents. The triviality bar should be placed much higher however. Lots of sw patents are trivial work, that someone was able to patent due to being early in the field (and because the field has gone mainstream so suddently that there are a lot of these still around).

In 50 years, we won't care. 99% of trivial patents will be expired with lots of prior art for most other attempts. Unless you do a very specialized work, which deserves a patent. The biggest danger will remain the legal uncertainty, i.e. submarine patents, and patent pools of big companies for which you need a fortune to defend yourself, even if you are completely clear.

Re:The statement isn't strong enough (by far)

[Thing 1]

It's like saying "we are against unjust wars" as opposed to saying "we should never go to war."

How about, "We should never go to war to enrich a subset of citizens"? "We should never go to war if it's only about depriving someone else of resources"? "We should never go to war unless the leaders (and/or family) are in the front lines"?

Re:The statement isn't strong enough (by far)

[tomhudson]

I also analyzed Google's amicus curiae brief in the Bilski case

We've seen what your so-called "analysis" is worth

Posted Apr 10, 2011 17:57 UTC (Sun) by cyd (subscriber, #4153)
Hi Mr. Mueller,

I am flattered and pleased that you have deigned to reply! Not even in my dreams have I conceived of conversing, even over the Internet, with someone worthy enough to have been credited in three separate (!) Blizzard Entertainment titles. However, I sense that you are being overly coy in stating your qualifications. No doubt there are numerous employee-of-the-month and high school yearbook awards that you have omitted to mention, due to a misplaced sense of modesty. Please, don't hold back on this account.

Posted Apr 10, 2011 18:01 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (subscriber, #32048)
@cyd, you are actually right that I didn't list all of them. CNET Networks UK handed me (jointly with an activist organization) the Outstanding Contribution to Software Development Award, Silicon.com put me on the list of the 50 Silicon Agenda Setters, Linux Magazine named me runner-up to its Outstanding Contribution to Linux & Open Source Award. But the reason I didn't mention those awards is because I wanted to focus on those with the most impressive fellow laureates -- more impressive than any fellow laureates Groklaw can point to.

Groklaw shutting down in May
Posted Apr 10, 2011 20:11 UTC (Sun) by elanthis (subscriber, #6227) [Link]
I think you failed the sarcasm test, buddy. :)

I know you're responding to someone claiming you're a nobody, but just as a friendly (really) bit of advice: waving your fame-dick around in public just makes you look like you're trying to compensate for something else, and doesn't impress anybody at all.

Really, you are priceless ... but not in a good way :-p

Do no EVIL.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it a new age, were a company is willing to burn 900 million dolars, on pattents that will not enforce copyrigths?

They can afford it

[CruelKnave]

It's easy for Google to call software patents junk when their primary source of income is advertising. They can afford to give all their software away (or provide access to it online, whatever) for free. Microsoft, on the other hand, relies on its software to make money.

Re:They can afford it

[MrMista_B]

Lack of patents does not mean you're unable to charge money for software.

Re:They can afford it

[Anonymous Coward]

Red Hat relies on software for their money as well. And they give it away.

Re:They can afford it

[Anonymous Coward]

Google relies on its software to get users to get advertisers, and its software uses complex algorithms that are as patent-worthy as any software. If some other company just up and used the same algorithms as Google, suddenly Google would have to change their business from the ground up.

Re:They can afford it

[Batmunk2000]

The point is valid though. Google can pretend to be on higher moral ground because they don't sell many consumer products and their core business likely never will.
Even then, they didn't call for the eradication of all software patents.. only reform. Most politicians are lawyers and large companies set their policy on what their own lawyers say. Software patents are going nowhere... it's bad biz for lawyers if they vanish.

Re:They can afford it

[JustinOpinion]

Yes, Google can comfortably decry software patents because their business model is not dependent on them. But that's the point, isn't it?

Google's point of view deserves to be heard because it informs the debate. They are an example of a big software company innovating and making money without relying on software patents. This weakens the argument for software patents being absolutely necessary for economic progress in this sector. Moreover Google can make a compelling case for how they could innovate/produce more if software patents were not standing in their way.

Of course just because Google has a business model that doesn't rely on software patents doesn't mean that all software companies will be in the same position. (Certainly not all software companies can become advertising companies!) But that's fine, too: we hear the opinions of those companies who "rely" on software patents to remain viable. But Google's opinion is not invalidated just because they don't need patents; that is the very crux of why their opinion is relevant!

Besides, let us not forget that the primary question in this debate shouldn't be "what makes companies the most money?" We should be asking about what kind of wealth we want to generate in our society (money? innovation? health? happiness?), and then optimizing laws to achieve said goals. No matter what laws we enact, there will be some losers and some winners. The idea is to find the balance where the overall social gains are maximized. If we got rid of software patents, there would be losers (e.g. Microsoft), but possibly more winners (Google, all the small-time businesses, open source, etc.). Even within a "loser" things might not be so bad: some parts of Microsoft's business would suffer, but others might flourish (e.g. there is certainly a cost for Microsoft to have to defend itself against other's patents).

Re:They can afford it

[steelfood]

I think you're mixing up patent infringement with copyright infringement.

Not that, as a sibling has stated, any of these "intellectual" property rights or the lack thereof preclude them from charging for their software, or making a business out of it. Sure, they might not necessarily make as much money, but boo fucking hoo.

Re:They can afford it

[gad_zuki!]

> Microsoft, on the other hand, relies on its software to make money.

MS doesn't often engage in legal patent action. For a giant company its pretty rare. They're much more likely to be the victims of submarine patents by firms that do nothing but buy out patents.

MS has spoken against the patent status quo a lot, especially when it is sued monthly for some obvious patent and often loses because a jury in the most conservative part of the country doesn't give two shits about technology nor will they ever understand anything past 'how to reboot your computer.'

If MS can make the billions it does by engaging mostly in defensive patents, then anyone can. Sorry, but using MS only continues to nullify your position.

Re:They can afford it

[Lord Kano]

It's easy for Google to call software patents junk when their primary source of income is advertising. They can afford to give all their software away (or provide access to it online, whatever) for free. Microsoft, on the other hand, relies on its software to make money.

You have conflated Software Patents and Copyright.

LK

Re:They can afford it

[yuhong]

I consider google neutral regarding software patents for a while now.

independent foundation

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice to take them at their word. Maybe they truly will keep them in a defensive war-chest.

Of course, if they really wanted to demonstrate their commitment to patent reform, they could cede their patents to an independent foundation mandated with the administration of patents, and the expressly forbidden from suing anyone for infringement.

Of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they want to copy and profit from every good idea that anyone else has. Don't be evil, my ass.

patents are useless to google

[Anonymous Coward]

Their core business is kept in secret so no software patent issues there. They are actually harmed by patents without gaining anything since they want to push into markets where patents does count.

I am not liking patents, but google's stance on patents is not something they do to not be evil, they do it cause that serves their interest the most.

Re:patents are useless to google

[morgauxo]

No problem. The enemy of my enemy is my friend!

Re:patents are useless to google

[Night64]

No problem. The enemy of my enemy is my friend!

Obviously you never heard of the book formely know as "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates" (now called "The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries" after a cease and desist from FranklinCovey. How appropriate). Rule 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.

Sound weird

[gmuslera]

The only way to avoid being assimilated by the Borg is to become Borg ourselves.

After spending miilons in "defense", how much willing you will be in trying that it bercomes obsolete?

No Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a quote from a soon to be released book by Paul Allen, "Idea Man". looks to be very interesting reading. "In building our homegrown basic, we borrowed bits and pieces of our design from previous versions, a long-standing software tradition. Languages evolve; ideas blend together; in computer technology, we all stand on others’ shoulders." the full excerpt from the book can be found at http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/05/paul-allen-201105?currentPage=all I wonder what would have happened to Micro-Soft (it's first name) had the "borrowed bits and pieces" were covered by a patent. Maybe the patent holder would have sued them out of existence. I am against software patents. I think they are protecting only ideas (which I understand cannot be patented), when they should only protect the implementation. In software engineering, there are a myriad of ways to implement an idea, so patents would be a waste of time. I may be mistaken but I do remember when Fox Pro was first released they had developed a search technique which was very advanced for the day and it was protected as a trade secret not a patent. This is how software IP should be protected, by trade secret, not patent. Patents require that the solution be published, trade secret are not published. If someone comes up with an identically coded solution then it seems obvious to me that the idea was not a very original piece of work. I am against patent trolls as they are not bringing any value to any industry. they just sit on their patents until they see someone implement something that closely approximates their IP and it's off to court. Down with Software Patents.

Re:No Patents

[PickyH3D]

If someone comes up with an identically coded solution then it seems obvious to me that the idea was not a very original piece of work.

You had me with most of your post, except that.

In programming--as in life--hindsight is 20/20. There are many times where a problem can be solved in many ways, but often times the best way presents itself after someone else solves it. Look at the implementation of many duplicate UNIX/Linux services to see this.

Even so, "exact" matches would still represent some sort of breach, but proving it would be quite difficult I imagine.

Still, I fully agree that software patents need to go, at least in their current form. Inventors do deserve some sort of protection, especially from big companies, but the current system is ridiculous.

Not so fast...

[bogaboga]

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.

They are calling them junk.....

[ThisIsNotMyHandel]

Google is calling them junk because Google is the "new kid on the block" and doesn't have any software patents other than those they bought.

Any reward at all?

[Twinbee]

Okay, going against the flow a bit, I think that those people who take the time, effort, money and energy to create complicated software algorithms should be rewarded. Surely, the potential compensation is partially what motivated them to create it in the first place (as would be the case with in-house company research anyway).

Granted, really stupid, short patents should be given a miss entirely, though thankfully, often there's prior art to the rescue to invalidate those.

And it should also be a lot easier to use another company's patent easily and cheaply when appropriate. But they still deserve something, no matter how small.

Re:Any reward at all?

[ejtttje]

often there's prior art to the rescue to invalidate those

Which might mean something, if the patent office actually cared about prior art. They don't, so you'll still spend a fortune paying ransom money either to lawyers or patent trolls instead of doing something useful.

The "something" people deserve for coming up with an idea is "first mover advantage". That is what keeps people doing further innovation. If an idea is simple enough to be easily copied, it's also obvious enough it shouldn't qualify for patent protection in the first place. A discriminating patent office could help protect innovation, but what we have is actively hindering innovation by rewarding the trolls and penalizing the people who actually try to bring things to market.

I think if companies want to claim an exclusive right to a piece of "Intellectual Property", they should pay a property tax over time, just like they do with physical real estate. That would encourage judicious use of claiming intellectual property instead of the spam we have now.

Re:Any reward at all?

[Dachannien]

Which might mean something, if the patent office actually cared about prior art. They don't

Actually, we care a lot more about prior art than most Slashdotters do, because we actually have to read the stuff, at which point we find out that the prior art (at least, the prior art we have access to) doesn't have sufficient detail to reject the claims we're examining.

On Slashdot, you can just read the abstract and say, "WTF! That's obvious!" but in the real world, we have to follow the law.

Re:Any reward at all?

[snadrus]

Agreed! All US property should be subject to US property tax. Go simple: Suing for $10B? Pay $1B tax upfront since you have valuable "high rent" property.

Re:Any reward at all?

[raftpeople]

Ok, here is a challenge for you then: can you name one single software patent that rises to the level of patentability?

I can't (there may be some in cryptography, optimization or image identification types of areas, but not in run of the mill applications that we all use).

And don't take this as egotistical, but myself and other skilled developers churn out these solutions in our sleep and we don't think anything of it because to a skilled developer it's almost all "average", it's just what we do.

Re:Any reward at all?

[aaaaaaargh!]

I think that those people who take the time, effort, money and energy to create complicated software algorithms should be rewarded.

Nobody is against that. It's called salary.

Or wait a minute....you don't really think that the people that made all the fancy patented algorithms get rewarded for the patent or that they even hold the patent for their work themselves, do you? Because that is definitely very rarely the case.

Re:Any reward at all?

[Twinbee]

In that case, replace the word 'people' in my first sentence with 'companies'.

Re:Any reward at all?

[ejtttje]

For a well-known example, the age-old bar tab should have invalidated Amazon's "One-Click". That was well publicized and still got approved. You can claim to be following some set of guidelines, but that just shifts the blame to whoever is making the idiotic guidelines that adding 'on the internet' or recently 'on a mobile device' is somehow a non-obvious extension of prior art. This is an ongoing problem of having the bar set way too low. I don't care whose fault it is, I just want it fixed.

But to counter your direct claims, what do you say to reports of the patent office clearance quotas ([1] [2]) The idea of hurrying up to clear out the backlog only inflates the problem of companies needing to file defensive patents on every trivial little thing, causing even more backlog...

And then there's the whole aspect of "when in doubt, approve and let the courts figure it out" (e.g. [3]) which certainly isn't helping.

Re:Any reward at all?

[Just Some Guy]

I think that those people who take the time, effort, money and energy to create complicated software algorithms should be rewarded.

Why do you hate mathematics? Specifically, why do you wish Newton (or Leibniz) had exclusive rights to their algorithms so that no one could build upon them? Why do you wish that Einstein was able to patent his theory of relativity so that physics could be put on hold for 30-years-or-however-long? What do you hate so much about cosmology that you wish Hawking was the only one legally allowed to do it?

I will never understand the level of hatred and contempt for science you'd have to have to truly believe that algorithms should be patentable.

Re:Any reward at all?

[Dachannien]

In response to your citation of the WaPo and NC JOLT articles, you're misreading the purpose of the production system. Our performance is based on work product, but this includes first action rejections, allowances, abandonments, writing answers to appeal briefs, and RCEs (which are follow-ons to final rejections).

The NC JOLT article explains this in pretty good detail, but it is outdated. The count system was adjusted a while back. Before the adjustment, we received 1 count for first actions on the merits (i.e., rejections or allowances but not restrictions), and we received 1 count for disposals (abandonments, allowances, answers to appeal briefs, or RCEs; an RCE is when the application has been finally rejected, and the applicant pays us for another go-around). We got 0 counts for final rejections and for any non-final rejections aside from a first action. After the disposal from an RCE, we would get another count for the subsequent "first" action and another for the subsequent disposal, which could be another RCE if it hadn't made its way to allowance or wasn't abandoned.

After the change, we get 1.25 counts for a first action on the merits; 0.25 for an "intermediate" action, i.e., an action that closes prosecution, usually a final rejection; and 0.5 for a disposal (as above; if there was no intermediate action, then we get the 0.25 at the time the 0.5 for the disposal is awarded). After the first RCE on a case, the subsequent "first" action receives 1 count, and after the second (or third, etc.) RCE, the subsequent "first" action gets 0.75 counts, with the corresponding intermediate and disposal counts being the same.

Note that there is no specific quota on allowances.

In any case, I would argue that the NC JOLT article misses the fact that first actions after RCE are usually much easier than actual first actions. Usually the full claim set isn't amended with an RCE, but instead, primarily the independent claims are amended. If the claims can still be rejected, then frequently, the next rejection involves a lot of copy/paste from the previous one. So, an examiner making proper rejections can get a lot of easy counts by continuing to reject the claims and getting RCEs, if the applicant refuses to sufficiently amend the claims or abandon.

"Approving something when in doubt and letting the courts figure it out" is one outsider's interpretation of some statistics on allowance rate. But ultimately, if we can't formulate a proper rejection for the claims, then we're supposed to allow the application, and the applicant gets a patent. Having a gut feeling that something shouldn't be allowable isn't enough to reject a claim, so given that we have a (very) limited time to find some way to reject the claims, sometimes we do have to call off the search, issue the patent, and (if the patent gets asserted) let the courts take a crack at it. If you think we missed something, and you have prior art evidence to back it up, you can file for a re-exam.

Re:Any reward at all?

[Dachannien]

I took another quick look at the NC JOLT article, and it actually does discuss what they call "RCE practice". Mea culpa. What I don't get is why they acknowledge its existence but then ignore it when discussing conflicting pressures between quality review and production.

Re:Any reward at all?

[ejtttje]

Thanks for the behind-the-scenes tour :)

Re:Any reward at all?

[eriqk]

Companies don't "take the time, effort, money and energy to create complicated software algorithms". People do. These people may or may not be employed by companies.

Google should create a YouPatent.com site

[foolish_to_be_here]

Come on Google. Create a YouPatent.com site for the little guy to flood the world with frivolous software patents. (They also need your expertise and money to file them too, hint, hint.).

Re:Google should create a YouPatent.com site

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on Google. Create a YouPatent.com site for the little guy to flood the world with pirated copies of other people's frivolous software patents. (They also need your expertise and money to file them too, hint, hint.).

FTFY

Re:Google should create a YouPatent.com site

[PickyH3D]

Why not PriorArt.com?

Re:Google should create a YouPatent.com site

[imric]

Why not? It's the same level of patenting that patent trolls use, typically.

The anonymous submitter is confused

[DavidinAla]

When the anonymous submitter of this item refers to companies "abusing" software patents, what he really means is companies that use software patents in accordance with current law. If the idiot who wrote that submission would like to change the law, that's fine. He ought to work to get the law changed. But companies reasonably work within the framework of the law as its written. Google can make all the noises it wants to in order to try to make the open source fanboys happy, but Google has to work within the SAME framework. It's idiocy to pretend that companies don't have the right (and the responsibility to their shareholders) to protect their intellectual property in ways that are specified in the law.

Re:The anonymous submitter is confused

[ejtttje]

Most laws have a underlying intention, that's where the whole concept of "letter of the law" vs. "spirit of the law" comes from. When someone/corporation is technically following the law but undermining the intention of the lawmakers, I think it's perfectly fair to call that an "abuse". GE paying $0 in taxes through creative bookkeeping may be legal, but it's also an abuse. Companies spamming the patent office with crap IP just to bolster their legal threats is also an abuse.

And yes, I can call it an abuse, still do the same to protect myself, and call on my lawmakers to fix the problem, hopefully all at the same time.

Re:The anonymous submitter is confused

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but when the law is faulty and we keep using the law because of it's faults and not its intentions... would that be considered as abusing the law?

Re:The anonymous submitter is confused

[Anonymous Coward]

So if murder and rape was legal according to legal law, it would be perfectly ok?

Re:The anonymous submitter is confused

[SiChemist]

Very astute observation on "spirit" vs "letter" of the law. Plus one (+1) insightful virtual mod points for you.

pardon my rant

[swell]

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

Re:pardon my rant

[Anonymous Coward]

> Patents and copyrights are critical to drive research and new ideas ...

Why ? I'm pretty sure when fire and the wheel were invented there were no patents or copyrights, so they are not critical.

We've been experimenting so many issues with patents that I would like to see more investigation on other mechanisms to align interests to foster research.

Re:pardon my rant

[Urkki]

Why ? I'm pretty sure when fire and the wheel were invented there were no patents or copyrights, so they are not critical.

I think there may very well have been something to the effect, that is the inventors of fire burning infringers, and inventors of wheel mowing down infringers with chariots.

The scary thing is, modern software patents and lawyers hunting down infringers doesn't sound much nicer or any less arbitary than the above (pre-)historic methods...

The wrong story!

[morgauxo]

I almost didn't bother to read the article because the summary is non-news. I'm as glad as anybody that at least one large company out there speaks against software patents but until Google owns as many congressmen and judges as the rest of the industry together it really doesn't matter.

The real story here is Google stepping up it's own patent portfolio. Is this Google about to swoop down and rescue Android? The article I want to read now is just what are these Nortel patents? What kind of stuff do they cover? Will this be sufficient to stop the attack? Does this mean that Google will have to be evil and sue the 'little guys' in order to keep their patents valid? What are Google's chances of winning the auction? They only have the starting bid now, are they determined enough to keep upping it or is this all just for show?

world+dog intends end to repeated depopulationing

[Anonymous Coward]

pure intentions are unstoppable. real math, physics, & soon to be improved history.

Even better...They buy them

[bogaboga]

Here is the evidence:

make them public

[FunkyELF]

Buy the portfolio and make all patents public domain.
Add a clause that makes them unavailable to companies that sue over software patents.

Unless they're made freely available and public, they're not helping the situation.

Re:make them public

[cbhacking]

Your first two sentences are contradictory. It looks like you're trying to create an "unpatent" that is to patents as "copyleft" is to copyright. I like the idea. However, I don't think you understand what you're talking about in implementation. Public domain means you *can't* put any restrictions on it. You can only restrict something if you have any control (for property, typically ownership is required) over it. Public domain means relinquishing all control. The only restriction on public domain is that nobody can take something *out* of the public domain. That's it. Once released, anybody and everybody can use it for whatever purpose they want, produce derivative works, restrict those works however they please, and there's not a single thing you can do about it.

The reason for the minor rant above is because I see in your post the same kind of misunderstanding that leads to people thinking that open source licenses are the same as being in the public domain. Even things like the BSD or MIT licenses, much less the GPL and its bretheren, maintain more control than public domain.

In other news Google just bidding 900 million...

[Anonymous Coward]

.. on Nortel’s patent portfolio. The hypocrisy of Google fanboiis and Google itself knows no limits. You can spin the news this and that way indeed.

Summary = misleading

[Twinbee]

Summary is exaggerating. Google are not calling software patents 'junk'. They want "patent reform", as the current system is broken, but that's not quite the same thing is it.

This below paragraph quoted from their previous entry summarizes their position much better and is also interesting in and of itself, because it seems like a big factor of exactly HOW the software patent system is so brain-deadingly broken:

The most pressing of those is ensuring fair damage awards. The current system too easily allows damages to be assessed based on the value of the whole product often containing many features — not just the value of the innovation of the allegedly infringed patent — which means the threat of potentially massive awards forces defendants to settle. Balance should be restored by requiring damages to be based on the value of the innovation's contribution to the product.

Re:Summary = misleading

[Overly Critical Guy]

This place has become a community of Google cheerleaders, so of course the summary is going to make Google out to be anti-software patents in some exaggerated fashion.

The biggest problem with Slashdot is that it's abandoned all nuance in perceiving Google. Everything is exaggerated and absolutist. Google uses open source? It must be a benevolent open source company fighting for freedom. Google gives out free services like Gmail? They must love technology and their users and aren't simply out to get their data indexed for advertisers.

There's been a major controversy going on the last two weeks about Google withholding the source code to Honeycomb from its non-privileged partners as well as making Android licensees sign non-fragmentation clauses that give Google approval over all source changes. There are even accusations that Google is intentionally obstructing Android phones modified to use Bing. Yet if you visit Slashdot, not a word of any of this has been mentioned. If it was Apple or Microsoft, it would get posted on day one.

Re:Summary = misleading

[hxnwix]

There's been a major controversy going on the last two weeks about Google withholding the source code to Honeycomb... Yet if you visit Slashdot, not a word of any of this has been mentioned

Try again. Slashdot has more important things to do than conform to your agenda. Deal with it.

Ban All Smart Phones

[paulsnx2]

Every single smart phone violates patents for which the manufacturer and network has failed to license. This situation will never change either, if you look at the patent thicket involved, and all the lawsuits currently in play.

You want patent reform, then pass a law that no lawmaker can use a product that the lawmaker knows infringes on a patent. This would either result in patent reform, or the removal of all smart phones, tablet computers, laptops, and desktops from Washington D.C. No matter how unlikely the government might be to reform patents, even that is possible if that's what it takes to keep their electronic lifeline to their champaign contributors.

Now they realized they need defensive acquisitions

[boorack]

Too bad they haven't bought Sun when time was right. It would solve most problems with both Oracle and Microsoft at once.

In other news

[black_lbi]

Microsoft reaffirms stance against web ads: "The web should be clean and free of these obtrusive, virus laden, obnoxious commercials"
All I'm trying to say is that's easy to attack something that is not part of your own business model. Google doesn't sell software for a living. Of course they don't care about software patents. Even more so, they profit the most if everything is "free". Well not really free, but paid through ads.

Software patents are fine, enough kneejerk

[metrix007]

Software patents are no different than normal patents in that it restricts one group from solving a problem. That is what a patent does, to reward the person who solved it first for a fixed period of time.

Really, any argument you make for the physical analogy...i.e. physical patents are for specific implementations can be applied to software equivalents.

The problem is that software patents are not screened and are granted without any process...eg granting a one click purchase patent...that was not something that was invented or a problem solved. Software patents themselves however are not a bad thing. If an AV company comes up with an amazing heuristic to negate malware they should be able to protect and license their solution if they want, something copyright and trade secrets don't allow.

An Algorithm is a specific implementation of a solution to a problem. To use an example in my previous post, if an AV company comes up with an amazing methodology to preemptive detect viruses and remove them, then they should be allowed to protect and license this. copyright and trade secrets are simply not enough.

The problem is where to draw the line. At the least, a certain level of complexity should be enforced. This would prevent people getting patents on things that inevitably have been thought of and used by many other people, i.e. QuickSort.

It is not enough with a software patent to patent a specific implementation of the algorithm, as this could be easily bypassed by making some modifications. Of course the current system is far too abstract, there needs to be some compromise.

Another example, RAR archives. AFAIK know the format and algorithms were the work on one guy, but even if not lets assume it was. The format is sufficiently unique that the work done was not negligible, and is complex enough that someone inventing the same thing by accident are unlikely. So, that guy should not be allowed to license and profit of the fruit of his labors? Nonsense.

A complicated software patent is not simply a mathematical equation. It can simply be reduced to that, but any digital TV show can also be reduced to math,you would hardly say it is just math however. A lot of work goes into an advanced program, and the fact that it *can* be reduced to just math is basically irrelevant. A main point of consideration is that it is much easier to program things than it is to actually physically invent them, so we have a higher occurrence of people trying out ideas and coming up with implementations than we do in the real world. The main difference this would make in my mind is only that there should be a much shorter time period for a patents lifetime. Maybe 7 years as opposed to 20 for physical patents.

As per your last point....I don't see how that has anything to do with software patents. That is something that affects inventors in the real world two...., all the time. History is full of people who invented the same thing at near the same time, but didn't realize they got beat to it or didn't get to the patent office first(which is meaningless in the US, which is a first to invent not first to file country). As above though...ensuring a minimum level of complexity and uniqueness for software patents along with a shorter period of enforcement to compensate for the much greater number of developers and ease of development would be a start.

Bloomberg says a comletely different story....

[r_jensen11]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-04/google-enters-pact-to-buy-nortel-networks-patents-for-900-mln.html

Relevant quote:

“One of a company’s best defenses against this kind of litigation is (ironically) to have a formidable patent portfolio, as this helps maintain your freedom to develop new products and services,” Google General Counsel Kent Walker said in a blog post today.

Google 2012

[BobbySkillzz]

I wonder if Google plans on establishing their own political part any time in the near future.

Software patents are idiotiotic!

[BudAaron]

When I was young patents were issued to people who built something, presented a model (real piece as in my granddad's dripless molasses pitcher). Then came the software patent which - to me - is the epitome of stupid ideas. It doesn't really impact me but that's NOT what the patent system was supposed to be about.

if you define "reaffirm" ..

[BigGerman]

..as "we give up and will participate in doing evil", then yes.

Abusing patents, nah

[bryan1945]

My take on the whole software patent debate is that the law allows such actions to take place, and that is the problem. If you can create something and make money off it, why would you not? Unless you are a good Samaritan type person. There have been a myriad of articles detailing all types of ridiculous patents that have been granted. Next up- "A process to determine the amount of licks needed to get to the middle of a Tootsie roll." It's a broken system, but since it makes money for the gov, no one in power really cares.

Google Telecom Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile in other headlines today, Google Bids $900 Million for 6,000 Telecommunications Patents http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Mashable/~3/knVFgPmoWxM/

At the basic level

[Anonymous Coward]

At the basic level, software is very very closely related to mathematics. Every program can be rewritten in mathematical symbols. Since programs are largely highly deterministic, they should be all regarded as mathematical, and thus, ineligible to be patented. American Big Business(tm) has conned the USPTO, and bribed too many elected public officials into believing that software patents are something else. Sun boffins hated patents, but got sued by IBM over something very obvious (the suit was for a lot of money, and nearly killed the company), and started getting a lot of their own patents. At various times Microsoft hates and loves patents. Google hates patents, but has had to get some because Oracle is suing them over Android/Java/Sun patents and alleged infringement. The Free Software Foundation and Electronic Frontier Foundation both abhor software patents, but due to potential law suits, are stuck getting as many as possible to fend off lawsuits. Patents are an artificial contrivance, primarily designed to create as much money as possible for lawyers.

And that's why they're spending $900 million ...

[algoma69]

to buy the patent portfolio of bankrupt Nortel ..... "The extensive patent portfolio touches nearly every aspect of telecommunications and additional markets as well, including internet search and social networking," Nortel said in a release. No software patents there .....

Re:Unicorns!

[TaoPhoenix]

Maybe it only works if it's Steve Ballmer.

Software patents aren't bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Software patents aren't bad--they just last too long. 17 years is way too long for inventions that can be almost effortlessly integrated into a shippable product and will be obsolete in 10 years.

Re:Unicorns!

[jgagnon]

That's Steve Balljobs.

apple an abuser?

[LoganDzwon]

Why is Apple being called out as a patented abuser? My understanding is that they were known specifically for ONLY using their patents against people that sue them first.

WTF??

[E IS mC(Square)]

>> Google keeps all of it's software entirely secret

Of course. All 442 articles listed on this blog are nothing but utter bullshit - http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/

Now if you are done with your ignorant google-whining, can you please fuck off?

Instead of supporting patent non-proliferation...

[Anonymous Coward]

google has decided to join the cartel of nuclear (patent) wielding states (large companies). It won't be long until google is starting their own nuclear (patent) wars.

They'll continue to deal with the terrorists (patent trolls), and we'll hear all about how patents need reform from the big companies, yet nobody is disarming (or even lobbying to make it possible, I mean what fraction of $900m has google spent lobbying for reform?).

All the while the small-time one man shop can keep on believing that patents protect their inventions. One day those inventors will get a clue and realize that they have to cross a thousand miles of heavily mined nuclear testing grounds to bring their products to market. Good luck to the idiots that believe patents help the little guy.

States have ICBMs and jets and submarines (lawyers) to deliver their weapons. The little guy doesn't have anything but his own pants to pee in before his company is wiped off the face of the planet by a threatening letter.

So they do like the communists...

[ltning]

...collect all the money so the rich capitalist bastards won't get their hands on them.

(s/money/patents/)

misleading

[PoolOfThought]

Nothing in this article stated that Google took some kind of stance AGAINST software patents. What was stated was that they believe that patent trolls are a problem. But that's okay, don't let your own (anonymous) feelings get in the way of a providing a summary that is actual based in reality.

rtfa

[Anonymous Coward]

A prize to the first slashdotter who makes it as far as the third paragraph:

"So after a lot of thought, we’ve decided to bid for Nortel’s patent portfolio in the company’s bankruptcy auction. Today, Nortel selected our bid as the “stalking-horse bid," which is the starting point against which others will bid prior to the auction. If successful, we hope this portfolio will not only create a disincentive for others to sue Google, but also help us, our partners and the open source community—which is integrally involved in projects like Android and Chrome—continue to innovate. In the absence of meaningful reform, we believe it's the best long-term solution for Google, our users and our partners."

This is about a 900bn dollar bid for a patent portfolio.

Re:rtfa

[Anonymous Coward]

900 million dollars, you thundering idiot

Bullshit

[TekPolitik]

Google is as much into patenting stuff as anybody else. They aproached me a few years ago to join. When I told them I would only do so if I had a term in my contract saying I had no obligation to assist in obtaining any software patents, they said they could not do that because they have a policy of protecting their developments with patents. I wasn't prepared to compromise my ethcs that much, so now I'm a lawyer. The pay's lower, but at least I have my self-respect.

Google to pay billions...

[Anonymous Coward]

in their fight against software patents. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/04/ammo-for-oracle-fight-google-spends-900m-on-nortel-patents.ars

Open search algorithm technology

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want a preview of what those search results would be like, look in your spam folder.