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!
Many governments already have this stance. Maybe not the USA government, but many other countries around the world have rejected software patents.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I know. Like when they never sued Motorola or Barnes & Noble.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh look, another quickly-posted reply that attempts to paint MS in a positive light. What are the odds.
EABOD, astroturfer.
"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.
My blog
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.
Shhh, if he says it often enough it becomes true. Magically. Like unicorns.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
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.).
Please mod me 1 or troll. It's where the truth is these days, even on Slashdot. Beware the power of moderators everywh
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.
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...
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
A band-saw, a glue gun, a horse and an antelope will solve your unicorn problem faster than wishing.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
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.
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.
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.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
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.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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.
Grey's Law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
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.
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.