UK Developers Quit US App Store Over Patent Fears

iamflimflam1 writes "The Guardian is running a story on how app developers in the UK are withdrawing from the U.S. app store over patent fears. 'The growth of patent lawsuits over apps raises serious issues for all the emerging smartphone platforms, because none of the principal companies involved — Apple, Google or Microsoft — can guarantee to protect developers from them. Even when the mobile OS developer has signed a patent licence — as Apple has with at least one company currently pursuing patent lawsuits — it is not clear that it has any legal standing to defend developers.' This follows a blog post from the iconfactory about the death of independent developers. Have the big corporations really won? What is the future for small teams and one-man-band developers?"

Comments

This tweet (FTFA) shows how screwed up it is.

[teh31337one]

http://twitter.com/#!/simonmaddox/status/91230955863408640

Re:This tweet (FTFA) shows how screwed up it is.

[h4rr4r]

I agree, give me half a penny for every dollar you make. For insurance of course. It would be a shame if something happened to all that nice stuff you have.

Re:This tweet (FTFA) shows how screwed up it is.

[Theaetetus]

I agree, give me half a penny for every dollar you make. For insurance of course. It would be a shame if something happened to all that nice stuff you have.

But we're not talking about "every dollar" or "insurance." We're talking about a royalty of a patent only on products that use the patented technology. So, yeah, if I use your idea, and make money selling products involving your idea, then I should probably give you half a penny for each dollar I make on those products, as a royalty, for the period that the patent applies.

Or, if I don't want to, I can change the product so it doesn't include your idea. Then nothing is owed.

Re:This tweet (FTFA) shows how screwed up it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you changed it, but now it looks like it includes a different idea I own... as well as another idea a friend of mine owns....this ain't your lucky day. BWAHAHAHAH!

Re:This tweet (FTFA) shows how screwed up it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent system doesn't involve itself with seeing if you used someone else's idea, just with who came up with it first. The distinction is important: You can very well come up with something on your own, develop it into a product and then find out you have to pay someone else to be allowed to sell your own invention. Did you know that certain types of progress bars are patented? This bullshit needs to stop.

Re:This tweet (FTFA) shows how screwed up it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about looking at that horrible patent system from a different perspective? We can't patent ideas, and the american patent system is out of hand. In Norway if you want to patent something, it has to be new and it has to be working (functional, real), and the patent has to be so detailed that you can make the patented product from the patent-application. In the USA you can patent a white webpage with a box and two buttons in the middle (Google did).

If two people has the same idea, and one of them makes some software implementing that idea, while the other patents it, who owes who money? In the USA it's obviously the guy with the patent :/

So in the end it's not about using someone elses idea, as you put it, but it's about the possibility that two people has the same idea. What good is an idea if you don't do anything about it? Where would we be today if democracy was "patented"? How about the idea about breathing - you can probably get that patented and sue every living citizen in the USA, or they can change their lives so that they don't use your idea - then nothing is owed!

Re:This tweet (FTFA) shows how screwed up it is.

[spire3661]

There are too many humans to allow the continued allocation of one idea to a person. We have too many eyes now for this system to provide benefit. Very few human ideas are both unique to that human and a benefit to mankind.

Re:This tweet (FTFA) shows how screwed up it is.

[peragrin]

how about MSFT's $15 per android device fee? is that good?

Also in software patents don't cover implementations but concept. therefore there is no way around and still meet spec.

Re:This tweet (FTFA) shows how screwed up it is.

[davester666]

Sorry, that was my idea, and I filed it as being mine back in '95. By publishing it like this, you now owe me a nickel for everyone that reads your post.

Re:This tweet (FTFA) shows how screwed up it is.

[Solandri]

Yeah, half a penny per dollar app? That's clearly outrageous.

Multiply it by a couple hundred lawyers waving threats of patent litigation and you'll start to see the problem.

Re:This tweet (FTFA) shows how screwed up it is.

[Compaqt]

>In the USA you can patent a white webpage with a box and two buttons in the middle (Google did).

Do you have a link that talks about a patent for the Google home page?

I know they have a patent on PageRank, but that's a different matter.

Re:This tweet (FTFA) shows how screwed up it is.

[skiddie]

I know they have a patent on PageRank, but that's a different matter.

IANAL, but I suspect that google has more than one patent. The fact that you know that they have one patent has no relation on another patent they might have.

Do you have a link that talks about a patent for the Google home page?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=google+patent+homepage

It has to get worse before it gets better

[Flipao]

The way things are, this is as good a start as any.

Re:It has to get worse before it gets better

[mrops]

I would have given this +1 Insightful however don't have mod points.

It really needs to get really bad before people start realizing how patents are hurting economy and innovation, to a point where there vote on such matters count.

Re:It has to get worse before it gets better

[jhoegl]

How long before AT&T was broken up?
How long after is it almost back together?
Yeah, nothing changes in the United States of Corporate America

Re:It has to get worse before it gets better

[elashish14]

>It really needs to get really bad before people start realizing how patents are hurting economy and innovation, to a point where there vote on such matters count.

This statement is a little too general. Patents aren't necessarily the problem, what is more problematic is that they're being abused.

Patents were supposed to protect small businesses and startups with a new idea. Now they're being used for extortion (a la Microsoft forcing Samsung, HTC, etc. to pay for a WP7 license on every phone they sell) and manipulation (see here). And it's much easier for large corporations to acquire them becuase they can pay for the application fees or patent auctions.

What's obviously clear here is that patents aren't serving their original intention. What the US needs is legislation to stop patent abuse, particularly by large corporations. But there are too many lawyers in America, so it will never happen.

Re:It has to get worse before it gets better

[theolein]

I agree, the only way the patent suit business will ever die is if it gets so bad that only the huge developers can afford to produce products anymore. What is much more likely, though, is that people will stop selling products in the US market and that the US market will stagnate and slowly die. The Americans are extremely bad at implementing any legal reforms due to the immense amount of lobbying going on there. Frankly, given the state of the US economy, one would think that the Americans would see the need to implement reform, because all the patent nonsense does is isolate the US even more.

Re:It has to get worse before it gets better

[Mindcontrolled]

This is not a fault of patents per se. This is a fault of the US litigation system. Unregulated lawyer fees, which I agree are ridiculous, the possibility of forum shopping, so everyone ends up in Bumfuck, TX for their patent cases, non-technical judges that have no clue about the engineering aspects of a patent, jury trials, just to make sure that the deciding body has no clue about the matter at hand, and ridiculously overblown damages. The US patent system differs from the European one, but not so much as to hurt. What hurts is the difference in litigation. Over here in Europe I have seen small inventors going after global corporation over their patents - successful and on a budget. I have seen patent cases to the highest national court for a total cost in the low five figures. That won't kill a small business. Pushing the litigation costs before damages in the millions - that kills the small guys. Regulate your lawyers, guys.

Re:It has to get worse before it gets better

[Hognoxious]

Patents were supposed to protect small businesses and startups with a new idea.

Wrong. They were supposed to protect those with new inventions.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

An idea is little more than a wish. Put in the sweat and make something that works, and that's worthy of reward.

Re:It has to get worse before it gets better

[HiThere]

Patents were supposed to protect small businesses and startups with a new idea. Now they're being used for extortion (a la ...

I think you're believing the propaganda. Patents are, and always have been, about concentrating power into fewer hands. That's one reason that they are expensive to get, use, and defend against. Copyrights did not originally have that purpose, though they have come to. Copyrights should not be allowed on any material "protected" by a DRM system unless that material is filed in a library of deposit WITHOUT the DRM. In a form suitable for reproduction and use. (Yeah, I'd count source code with the toolchain required to build it as satisfying this requirement. Even a binary would do, though in that case only the binary would be protected by copyright.)

The importance of the library of deposit is that the material under copyright should be guaranteed to eventually be released into public domain, or the copyright should be invalid. That's rather clear in the constitutional provision made to justify copyrights.

As for "get worse before it gets better", it will only get better if a viable better choice appears. For software I've found GPL software to be a viable choice. Others haven't. Their tough luck. If they ask my advice, I'll advise them. I'll often even assist them...but not in making stuff work that requires that I agree to onerous terms. So "I don't do Windows.", or, anymore, Mac. (Apple crossed the line 5 years or so ago, when they slipped a line into the terms of one of their software update packages that said "You agree that we have the right to add, remove, delete, or copy any file on this computer." That could mean something innocuous, but it could also mean something I don't choose to deal with. And I know which meaning an opposing lawyer would choose.)

Re:It has to get worse before it gets better

[Hognoxious]

Garbage. "Something that works" could be a 1/24 scale prototype.

Re:It has to get worse before it gets better

[HiThere]

I can accept the possibility that there could be a reasonable patent system. We don't have one. The legal aspects that you point out do make things considerably worse, but the patent system itself is horribly broken...broken to the point that I doubt that any repair is possible. It was broken at least as early as the invention of the telephone, when three separate and independent inventors appeared and *one* was granted a patent. Evidence appears to indicate that it was broken considerably before that, but I don't know anything really convincing. A case can be made that Eli Whitney did deserve a patent on the cotton gin, but do notice that he had to spend most of his time afterwards defending against infringements. So even though he deserved the credit for the sole invention, he didn't deserve what resulted from it. I'd call that broken, even if it's broken in a significantly different way. (Then there's the question of "Was it really a social good?" considering that it made slavery profitable.)

Re:It has to get worse before it gets better

[Mindcontrolled]

If the system was broken and impeding innovation even back to the invention of cotton gin, how in hell did we actually get to the amount of innovation that did happen? In the case of Eli Whitney - which I am not familiar with in detail - well, yes, if you get the patent, you will have to spend time on defending it. If that takes over your life - well, then your law firm sucks. In the case of the telephone - of course one gets the patent. The one filing the earliest, in a sane system that doesn't open the can of worms of "first to invent". I completely agree that there are lots of points that could be improved, I see it every day at work, but I can't get from your post what you do actually think is wrong at the moment.

Re:It has to get worse before it gets better

[AliasMarlowe]

In the case of the telephone - of course one gets the patent. The one filing the earliest, in a sane system that doesn't open the can of worms of "first to invent".

Alas, this may not have happened in the case of the telephone. There is evidence that Elisha Gray both invented first and filed first. However, the examiner for Gray's application was an alcoholic who owed money to Bell's lawyer. Misery and controversy ensued, and Bell got the patent (not necessarily without skulduggery). Read this for a discussion of the evidence both ways.

Re:It has to get worse before it gets better

[zippthorne]

The Americans are extremely bad at implementing any legal reforms due to the immense amount of lobbying going on there.

No, it's due to the ability of lawyers to work odd hours and practice tear-down speeches as part of their jobs. As such, they have plenty of free time to devote to "public service." e.g. getting involved in legislatures.

It is a bad idea of the highest degree to allow lawyers to even have a say in the lawmaking process. After all, they have a vested interest not in the quality of laws but the quantity....

Re:It has to get worse before it gets better

[del_diablo]

The entire idea behind a "patented idea" is that anybody may go into a patent repositary, and fetch a copy of the patent, and study it, and then perhaps either contact the patenter and allow to develop it further, or create something that does the same but is not hit by the patent.
The reason this is a good idea is because of what happened before the patent system came: You had companies producing items, and the production techology, or how they where put together to work where trade secrets. If the correct person in the corporation died or was hit by a aciddent, then that tech would be "lost forever".

A example: People making metal back in the day, ye old smiths of items such as armor or weapons. Making the metal was a trade secret, which may or may not be given to the next apprentice. The reason the idea of "masterwork" items existed was because there was no "common low level" for metal. The metal the smith made could either be high grade steel, or really brittle iron, and you had no way of knowing.
If there was a patent system back then, the process of "what works" could have been started a lot earlier. And there would have been less attempts at forcing people to reinvent the wheel.

Re:It has to get worse before it gets better

[HiThere]

Sorry, but pre-US the "patent" was an exclusive right to do or make something granted by the government. Sometimes it was a patent of nobility, sometimes it was a patent on jam making for use by the King. Sometimes it was a patent on a kind of dyeing. The central idea was monopoly.

What the US did was extend that idea to all inventions registered with the government. And the implementation shows that the implementors (if not the originators of the idea) desired it to be another way of concentrating power. As it had been in Britain. They did, however, face political opposition which held that patents should be as you describe, so they had to make compromises that leaned in a more open direction. So, basically, anyone could potentially get a patent. But using it practically was something that only the quite rich could succeed at. And since they were practically useless without a sizable fortune, the wealthy could buy up patents cheaply...or, generally, violate them with impunity. (Though the "violate with impunity" was also something that the poor could do. Just not anyone worth suing.) Very occasionally someone who started out moderately wealthy was able to use a particularly significant patent to climb into the "very wealthy", but generally they were only useful for maintaining the very wealthy as very wealthy, and for fighting amongst themselves. And as time has gone on the "concentration of power" aspect of patents has increased, while it's utility to anyone besides either the very wealthy or the patent troll has diminished. By now that nearly all that's left.

I could see the value of a system analogous to patents in making or using inventions with a tremendous up-front cost. But not of the current patent system. And not of anything I could envision it being "reform"ed into.

Re:It has to get worse before it gets better

[Genda]

I'm sorry but this is frightfully myopic. The patent system is precisely the way it is because American Corporations have paid a lot of money to shape it into a bludgeon against small players. What works for Corporations is that every atom of IP is owned and controlled, and forced to earn back the cost of fencing it off by making the IP landscape into a patchwork quilt of defended fiefdoms.

Corporations aren't interested in innovation, they could care less. They aren't interested in human rights, diversity, or social consciousness. They have one goal, PROFIT. PERIOD. Anything else is a vanishingly distant second. Any means by which they can illicit greater profit is good, anything else is bad. Simple. By hijacking the patent system into a machine to help them carve up thought space, and arming their claims to the teeth, they exercise control with impunity, and can force lesser interests to go home empty-handed. It's the same way with recorded art, literature, and more and more that with with meaningful information.

In short, the system no longer serves the people, or the best interest of humanity. It serves its owner, the Corporation. Logic, decency, dignity, even survivability all go out the window in the face of Corporations taking what they want. The Corporate entity is a petulant child with ADD.

Last night on 60 Minutes, Billy Walters was interviewed. He's won hundreds of millions of dollars gambling on sports (of course when you watch him do it, you see how little gambling is involved.) The point he made, was that he lost countless millions on Wallstreet. Exxon, Enron, Worldcom... those are the crooks not Vegas. America Corporate enterprise, is deceitful, short-sighted, greedy, ignorant, and superstitious. It willfully lies, then believes it own lies. Anything to justify one more piece, just a little more please, another cut of the American Pie. Can anybody be surprised by what the Patent Office has become? When the Dons have to yield to the Corpos for being the top scumbags, thats a very telling state for modern America Business.

Re:Why are app stores their only option?

[master_kaos]

no kidding, the amount of clones is ridiculous, as much as I hate patents, you can't just blatantly rip off someone elses idea.

Irony

[gilesjuk]

The irony that the US market is supposedly most free in the world yet patents are screwing it up.

Surely more jobs and growth are being stifled by them than saved by them?

Re:Irony

[h4rr4r]

That is what no one seems to be noticing. This will not kill the mobile market or the app developers of the world. Just hurt folks in the USA. These are the sorts of things that export our wealth and our capital. The more of these patent lawsuits are filed over trivial software the more companies will want to stay out of or get out of our market.

Re:Irony

[elashish14]

The irony that the US market is supposedly most free in the world yet patents are screwing it up.

In America, freedom means 'freedom from government intervention.' What the translates to is slavery to private interests.

If I were given the choice, I'd much rather be subject to government control rather than private interests, seeing as I would have at least some voice against the government...

Surely more jobs and growth are being stifled by them than saved by them?

Both of these statements are true. Small businesses are muscled out and replaced with a cubicle in a large corporate tower. But a corporation can never do wrong in America, even if they spill oil all over the Gulf of Mexico, so people run to them anyways.

Re:Irony

[Hognoxious]

Hey, that was a British multinational, not an American one!

On a related note, Cuba is planning to do some deep water drilling using a Chinese built rig. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Irony

[t2t10]

Patents are screwing up the US market because there are actually many independent software companies making money, and both big companies and patent trolls are trying to cash in.

In Europe and Asia, the market is screwed up in other ways so that patents don't even have to come into play.

Re:Irony

[jo_ham]

BP is at least as American as it is British - the current BP was formed by the merger of two large corporations, one British the other American.

Also, nice racism there. Because no one but America can make something that won't fail and cause massive pollution... oh wait.

Re:Irony

[F.Ultra]

So with the Patriot Act & Co, you guys are basically slaves under both the government and the private enterprises?

Re:Irony

[twem2]

Except patents are a government creation. The corporate world rests upon government intervention upon their behalf.

Re:Irony

[Leafwiz]

You have more a voice against the private interest. You can choose them away. If you don't like what they serve you can go to their competitor. A private company can not take your life away, a private company can not take your money away.

With the state you have no options. Except move. To another state, which might not give you permission to stay.

A state take your money away. And you have no choice in the matter. You are ruled by the majority. Your money goes to make wars, found a welfare system which make people dependent. And will in the end, most likely bankrupt a country.

What do you do when the people running the state is doing the wrong decisions?

When they think it is a good thing to create money out of thin air, to stimulate the economy? When they do the same thing over and over again, and it does not work? Einstein said it was madness to do the same thing over and over again, and expect different results. Only many of the states around the world are doing the same thing, over and over again. And the whole system is going to collapse due to it.

What do you do then? When the people running the state, does not do as they promise, and we all suffer from it? Cast a vote?

With a private company , you can simply ignore them. Choose someone else. That same day. A private company can not force things of you. A state can. And to make changes to a state, you have to fight for years and years to even make a dent in the way it operates. A state can simply imprison you, if they feel like it. Just as they did with Bernard von NotHaus
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lURhIy7hxBo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_von_NotHaus

What ever you think, you don't have the right to make demands of me. Or ask someone else to do so. If I am peaceful, I should have the right to be able to be left alone. But you don't thinks so. You think you can make demands of me. In order to pay for your wars, or your welfare system, or your roads. Or your Keynesian way of thinking. I say, pay for your own wars, pay for your own welfare system, pay for your own roads. Do your own Keynesian experiment without my resources. Don't force me to pay for all of your ideas , through cohesion, and force.

But you will do it. You will force other people to pay for your stuff. Because you and your majority will think your solution is the best. And you will force the minority to also pay for it. What happens when they don't want to pay for your solutions? When they say NO! That they do not want to pay more taxes! Or use your phoney paper money. In order to pay for your crappy government solutions.

What happens when the minority say no? Will you and your government people just leave the people that say no, be? Or will you and your government people start to imprison them? What happens when they start to fight back?

Re:Irony

[Leafwiz]

It is also the failure of the government not to hold the corporations responsible for their actions. The government has been corrupted by the lobbyists.

All of the regulation the government , are making it harder for the small businesses to make business.

In stead of having more government, which can be corrupted. Lets have less of it.

Lets have more liberty.

Re:Irony

[aztracker1]

The issue here *IS* exactly government control... it's the government granted monopolies in ideas, not even inventions... especially in those that don't pass the obviousness test. As to the large corporations polluting the environment around Louisiana, I'd look first to the corrupt politicians and their appointees.

Re:Irony

[rsilvergun]

You only have those choices because the government broke up their monopolies. Ever hear the song Sixteen Tons? I sold my soul to the company store.

And we're mostly paying for wars to keep corporations happy. Meanwhile welfare makes up a small amount of money spent. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of a good right wing rant. Are you an astroturfer?

Re:Irony

[Gideon Wells]

You are either free from corporate interests or government interests. Pick a master and hope they aren't corruptible easily.

Re:Irony

[Kalriath]

You voted for Ron Paul, didn't you?

Re:Irony

[jo_ham]

No, pretty much nailed it first time round. If I'd have meant chauvinism I'd have typed that. The OP was not being patriotic.

Re:Why are app stores their only option?

[gilesjuk]

It depends on the mechanism for converting a free trial version into a full version. That is what the patent is on.

Prohibition of the brain

[belgianguy]

Poor developers, putting effort, time and money in creating something original and functional, only to get sued by some bigcorp lawyer shmuck which informs you that they own the rights on the product you just made. They'll kindly ask you to cease and desist before they unleash lawyer hell on you and sue you right into the poorhouse.

If you want to make it in IT these days, you should become a lawyer, not a software developer.

Re:Prohibition of the brain

[Macthorpe]

As someone mentioned above, this isn't about cloning concepts. This is about being unable to do trivial things like bring up a dialog box saying "Would you like to pay more for more content" on a mobile phone, because someone decided that's so incredibly inventive that it needs to be protected.

Re:Prohibition of the brain

[cob666]

Yes, and hasn't something similar been around since the earliest days of Windows applications? I remember downloaded shareware with options to pay for the full version. Why does this only seem to be an issue with mobile platforms, I'm sure there are desktop applications that do the exact same thing, why not use them as prior art?

Re:Prohibition of the brain

[Mindcontrolled]

So, TFA is talking about one, maybe two developers tweeting about retracting from the US market due to their personal interpretation of some patent, without even getting any professional advice on whether they do infringe or not. Then the sheep start bleating about "Patents killing innovation". Sure. Go ahead. Innovate for a change.The article is pure FUD.

Re:Prohibition of the brain

[gnasher719]

Poor developers, putting effort, time and money in creating something original and functional, only to get sued by some bigcorp lawyer shmuck ...

Not a "bigcorp lawyer shmuck". We are talking about Lodsys here which is a one man company. Which is in more trouble than these poor UK developers because they are themselves now being sued by server "bigcorp lawyers".

Re:Prohibition of the brain

[Lord Juan]

Ok, the article is grossly exaggerated, but it still shows that there are serious issues in the US market.

1. They are small developers, do you really believe that developers that small should be seeking professional advice over whether or not they are allowed to display a message box saying "would you like to upgrade to premium?"

2. How could a patent this obvious and so widely in use be granted?, oh, I get it, because it is "in a mobile device".

I am starting to think that this new buzzword "the cloud" was actually invented by lawyers who are now patenting every single little idea that exists by adding the words "in the cloud" to them, so when/if the could catches up, they will have a new lawsuit fest.

Re:Prohibition of the brain

[russotto]

Why does this only seem to be an issue with mobile platforms

Because it turns out that if you add the limiting clause "on a mobile computing device", everything old becomes new again.

Re:Prohibition of the brain

[Mindcontrolled]

1. Yes, they should. It won't cost them an arm and a leg with the usual European lawyer fees. That's the cost of doing business. If they can't cover that from their revenues, well, their business model has failed already.

2. Can't comment on that, since I don't know the patent.

Re:Prohibition of the brain

[Rakishi]

What legal fees? As far as I've seen, Lodsys wants money and not an insane amount of it. So you pay it and get on with life.

If you want to go to court with them for no economically practical reason, well that's your ideological problem so pay for it.

Re:Prohibition of the brain

[Hognoxious]

Top tip: Avoid being robbed by simply giving your money away.

Re:Prohibition of the brain

[Teun]

Or just avoid derelict neighbourhoods.

Re:Prohibition of the brain

[Macthorpe]

Nice of you to come back after you'd read the article (or even the summary).

Working out whether a patent applies to you doesn't necessarily need a lawyer - it needs someone with a logical brain who can go through the patent and see if all the statements apply. I would say the kind of mind that writes code for a living is exactly the kind of person who could deduce whether they have a patent issue on their hands. Regardless, even if you didn't want to take the time to read through the patent, it's prudent when you see fellow developers getting sued for something similar to what you're doing to get out while you can in order to review.

Anyway, I don't see the difference between idiots bleating "patents kill innovation" and idiots bleating "if you don't want to infringe don't copy anybody". The issue is far more complicated than either of those statements would imply.

Re:Prohibition of the brain

[Mindcontrolled]

Ok, I probably have to apologize for that first post, I was in a particularly foul mood. The issue is indeed more complicated, I give you that. I do work in the patent business though, and I can assure you, the average coder, how logical and intelligent he may be, can not in every case assess perfectly whether he will infringe or not. There are technicalities involved which he simply won't know - I can only speak for my local jurisdiction, but would you as a coder know what exactly the doctrine of equivalents means regarding your code and a patent you may or may not infringe upon? Possibly not. I am not saying this to solicit business, the Old Ones take me, but as you said, it is often more complicated than it seems. Again, excuse that post, I wanted to make a point about Sturgeon's Law, but I guess that came over a bit trollish.

Re:Prohibition of the brain

[Hognoxious]

You mean places like Wealwaysfindforthelitigant, TX?

Re:Prohibition of the brain

[Macthorpe]

All fair enough points, and I've been guilty just as often of posting while indignant :)

Re:Prohibition of the brain

[Chrontius]

This may make me a bad person, but reading this made my day.

Re:Prohibition of the brain

[PoopCat]

So that's an arm for the upgrade-to-premium dialog, half a leg for the order-save-games-by-date feature, two ribs and a kidney for the display-white-text-on-black function, and both ears for the really-you-seriously-expect-a-patent-search-for-every-little-piece-of-OBVIOUS AND COMMON functionality?

You, sir, live up to your sign-on. Mind controlled indeed; the only question is by whom.

Re:Why are app stores their only option?

[h4rr4r]

Clone or not has nothing to do with it. These patents are on things like converting free game users to paying folks. In app payments stuff like that.

US nowadays

[cjcela]

Greed for power and money is crippling the US. Hope we realize how to stop this before we become a 3rd rank nation. Software patents, corrupted politicians, shortsighted MBAs, unscrupulous lawyers ... all of them are contributing to a quick degrade of business ethical values and to the loss of opportunities of the common man for the benefit of few. Sad state of affairs.

Re:US nowadays

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem in the US is cultural. Everyone equates "prosperity", "progress" and "value" with "making more money". Therefore, it's not surprising that finance has become the central concern in business and indeed everyday life - enter the billions of MBA's to try to squeze every last penny out of every effort, the hordes of lawyers to defend those pennies, and the corrupt politicians to facilitate it all at the highest level.

It used to be that the central concern in business was how much value your proposition brought, and that the expectation was that more value would equate to higher financial benefit. Although money was certainly part of the thinking, it was by no means the central point in the proposition.

That's the fundamental change the american mind must undergo: it's not about how much you have, but how much *value* you provide (or, rather, how big your "(potential?) contribution to society" is). In essence, that's the true measure of how "great" (or not) a person or company is.

BTW: I heard not too long ago that in underdeveloped nations, the single largest slice of college graduates were from law school (a significantly larger slice than the 2nd place profession) - and that that fact could be taken as an indicator to determine a nation's development status. Would be interesting to see where that is in the US...

Cheers.

Re:US nowadays

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

We're already there, AC. I hear a lot of jingoistic chanting from my countrymen and it is the saddest form of denial. We have a laughable health system, a failing pension system, and an education system that seems to be a joke without a punchline. We consistently reduce taxes on the rich to the point where they're paying less as a percentage than they were in the 1950's with the feeble hope that this will help the job situation. The empire of the United States came and went in the blink of an eye, but hey...it was good while it lasted.

Re:US nowadays

[Teun]

The problem in the US is cultural. Everyone equates "prosperity", "progress" and "value" with "making more money". Therefore, it's not surprising that finance has become the central concern in business and indeed everyday life - enter the billions of MBA's to try to squeze every last penny out of every effort, the hordes of lawyers to defend those pennies, and the corrupt politicians to facilitate it all at the highest level.

It used to be that the central concern in business was how much value your proposition brought, and that the expectation was that more value would equate to higher financial benefit. Although money was certainly part of the thinking, it was by no means the central point in the proposition.

That's the fundamental change the american mind must undergo: it's not about how much you have, but how much *value* you provide (or, rather, how big your "(potential?) contribution to society" is). In essence, that's the true measure of how "great" (or not) a person or company is.

BTW: I heard not too long ago that in underdeveloped nations, the single largest slice of college graduates were from law school (a significantly larger slice than the 2nd place profession) - and that that fact could be taken as an indicator to determine a nation's development status. Would be interesting to see where that is in the US...

Cheers.

+5 Insightful.
Just a shame this Anonymous rant was invisible to those browsing the lazy way.

Re:US nowadays

[HiThere]

The thing is, we're already a 3rd rank nation. We just haven't felt the sharp edge yet. The only way the US is a major power these days is via the military. Certainly not financially. Certainly not in manufacturing. And we're currently killing off research and development.

I hope we fix things before we become a 4th rank nation. Or 5th. But I suspect that Russia may recover before we do.

Re:US nowadays

[cjcela]

I agree with you - all the issues I've referred to in my original post are there because of the complacency of the average US Citizen; people do not react because they are afraid of losing the meager middle class possessions they have. But the lot for the average person and small business is shrinking by the day, as larger companies and political interests take over. So eventually there will be not much for the average Joe to care about. It will be an interesting process to watch. As an example, one can look at the current power struggle about reducing spending and increasing debt between Democrats and Republicans - if such display of idiocy, blatant lack of care for the interests of the people that appointed them, and lack of vision (from both sides) were to be exercised by the management of a company, the board would fire all of them on the spot. So what are American voters going to do in the next election?

Re:US nowadays

[snadrus]

As an American who realizes that progress and prosperity are about more than money, I also realize that corporations are forced only to make money above all else in America. Anything else will get you fired and imprisoned (it's the law). The corporatists are acting how they must. If the company creeds were different (or could be different), then the culture changes you mention may be worth something. Until then, few see this as a problem, and average Joe is in debt to those corporations too far to make independent businesses to fight it.

Happy with this !

[Raffix]

US courts are just dumb and are killing advancement in many sectors such as information technologies. I'm happy with the decision those developers took. Keep content for users outside USA, and block it for all visitors from the USA. Let them learn the lesson about how flawed their patent laws are.

So they find one developer...

[hsmith]

That doesn't really know what he is talking about and run with the story. Just because he withdrew his App from the US market on the Apple App Store doesn't mean he still can't be sued. US & UK have multiple agreements in place to protect IP between them. The mere fact he had already sold software with infringing IP on the store opens him up to suits. (And no, I do not agree with the Lodsys suits, it is BS)

If he was making decent money, the percentage of what Lodsys wanted was nothing compared to what he would be losing by pulling out. So, he obviously is making squat.

Great non-story.

Re:So they find one developer...

[wmspider]

IANAL, so I might be wrong, but I think software patents are not even allowed in Europe, which means that such agreements probably wouldn't apply in this case. I would actually like to know if this is the case. Does anyone have specific information on it?

Re:So they find one developer...

[Mindcontrolled]

Pure software does not fulfill the technicity criterion according to the European Patent Agreement. How much of a physical, tangible component your patent needs, however, is a bit in flux lately. But generally, yeah, software patents "as such" are not allowed here. If you want a detailed account on the latest decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, my usual hourly rate would apply, though ;)

(Yes, I am a patent engineer in training to become European patent attorney. Obviously this is not legal advice, yadda, yadda)

Re:So they find one developer...

[Xugumad]

> US & UK have multiple agreements in place to protect IP between them.

However, software patents are not allowed in the UK (or Europe). Doesn't actually stop a few being issued, but I would presume a patent that's invalid in the UK would not be applied on behalf of the US.

Well, I hope, anyway.

Re:So they find one developer...

[Theaetetus]

IANAL, so I might be wrong, but I think software patents are not even allowed in Europe, which means that such agreements probably wouldn't apply in this case. I would actually like to know if this is the case. Does anyone have specific information on it?

No... Contrary to popular misconception 'round here, the EPO follows the same essential holding of the Bilski case in the US: "pure" software is not patentable, but including a machine actor in the claims makes them patentable. So "a method, comprising [new and nonobvious software idea]" would not be patentable, either in Europe or the US, while "a method, comprising [new and nonobvious software idea], executed by a processor of a computing device" would be patentable.

"But wait," you say, "processors are known!"
Doesn't matter... The entire claim has to be known to be invalid, and if [new and nonobvious software idea] is new and nonobvious, then the fact that it's performed by a known and obvious processor is irrelevant.

So, yeah, software is absolutely patentable in both the US and Europe, provided there's some machine involved. This way, performing the steps by yourself on paper with a pen is not infringement, and we haven't created a thoughtcrime.

(this is not legal advice, I am not your attorney, etc.)

Re:So they find one developer...

[Hognoxious]

Didn't they try to sneak them through on page 765 of the bill that legally defined how bent cucumbers could be?

Re:So they find one developer...

[Teun]

Cucumbers can be totally circular as far as EU law is concerned, just don't try to sell them as class A.

Re:So they find one developer...

[Teun]

There is indeed strong lobbying from the usual unsavoury suspects.

You can already 'register' your software claims, all in the hope this'll one day stop the competition and you get rich quick.

Scary but luckily our legislature is too fragmented to outright bought by Big Industry.

Re:So they find one developer...

[shutdown -p now]

A pen is a machine designed for writing. The correct patent defense is, "we aren't distributing a machine, we distribute only software which as such is unpatentable".

This all is well and good, but eventually, someone somewhere is going to ship that code on a device - for some of them there isn't any other practical way (e.g. mobile OSes - hence why HTC is sued over Android).

Re:So they find one developer...

[PPH]

App stores don't distribute machines. As long as the user obtained their machine somewhere else, bought my software through the app store and loaded/executed it on their machine, that's beyond my control.

Re:So they find one developer...

[shutdown -p now]

For app stores, yes, you're right. I was speaking more broadly about software patents in general.

Re:Why are app stores their only option?

[Sique]

Thats as silly as it gets. If you were right, it would be immoral to build a house for shelter, just because someone else already had the idea to build a house. It would be illegal to make a cheese&bacon-sandwich just because someone else already made one. It's completely ok to build the umpteenth clone of Crush the Castle or Galaga, even if someone else already made one. You just shouldn't claim to be a creative game designer. And so I will my enjoy cheese&bacon-sandwich and continue to live in my house, well aware to be not the first one to ever do so.

Free? as in speech?

[petes_PoV]

And there's supposed to be free speech too. However, say things that people don't like and you will rapidly discover that is not true. Free markets only operate among the big players - and even then the freedom is really only a freedom to make their lawyers richer as they all sue each other over minor variations of insignificant products.

Re:Free? as in speech?

[h4rr4r]

Free speech exists. You can say whatever you like without the government coming after you. Unless you are admitting to a crime or someone causing one with words. An example of the latter would be "Give me all your money" during a mugging.

Re:Free? as in speech?

[t2t10]

Free markets only operate among the big players

Markets dominated by a few big players are by definition not free.

Maybe you mean "unregulated markets"; that's something very different.

Re:Free? as in speech?

[HiThere]

I think that you are quite naive, and probably live in suburbia. In a largely rural state.

Although, when the actual problem is racism, I don't suppose that you could actually say that the person was injured because of "free speech violations". But not being properly subservient to an authority is frequently the only crime that one need commit to be either injured or prosecuted. And sometimes not even that. (One of the more common moving violations in the area where I live is called "Driving while black or brown." FWIW, I'm caucasian, but I've seen many instances of this.)

There are very good reasons why the police object to people taking pictures of their actions. Although perhaps "good" isn't the correct adjective.

Re:Free? as in speech?

[h4rr4r]

You are wrong on all counts. The police will charge you with something else if they don't like what you are saying. A fun one is resisting arrest after you fall when they push you as they arrest you for no reason at all.

Still this is abuse by one person, not official government action. Travel outside the USA and see real lack of freedom of speech. When you can be charged and arrested and shown to be guilty of only saying something.

Re:Why are app stores their only option?

[Luckyo]

4. Get sued for patent violation and lose everything?

Another misleading headline

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

TFA's headline only says "withdraw from US", while the text says "app stores" - as in more than one, also note the non-capitalized spelling.

Re:Doesn't the US have patent treaties with the UK

[Mindcontrolled]

Patents do have some international power unfortunately.

Patents are strictly territorial. As long as you don't do business in the US, no US patent needs to concern you.

US is gonna die

[Anonymous Coward]

can't wait to see it default on its trillions.

fat ass american dipshits will get a rude shock.

software patents are just one small symptom of your sick and twisted society

Re:US is gonna die

[sakdoctor]

Oh pipe down, and take your anti-psychotic medication.

Re:US is gonna die

[PPH]

Would those be brand name meds? Or will generics do?

Re:Why are app stores their only option?

[jhoegl]

I know.. what was Blizzard thinking! They totally made a Warhammer clone and just called it WarCraft... I mean JESUS, how obvious can you get?

We are talking about that right?

Re:Why are app stores their only option?

[Mindcontrolled]

You are aware that the average lifetime of a patent is seven years? You can feel safe in your house, no one is gonna sue you. Even if it ever had been patented, house-building would have run out of protection a couple of millennia ago.

the problem with extortion

[Lead Butthead]

is that it never ends. it's 1/2% now, it will soon become 1%, then 2%, then 5%... and so on.

riiiiiighhhhtttt

[Lead Butthead]

The patent trolls are holding all the cards right now. Hint - people holding all the cards isn't going to ask for a new hand. You think they're going to stop because you demanded so? I like to get some of that whatever the hell you've been smoking.

Us developers: Move to Europe?

[Delgul]

We escaped the Software Patent madness by a hair in the EU, but we escaped. Do it before August 2nd tho, or at least change your dollars to euros before that, or you will have to live under a bridge ;-)

Re:Us developers: Move to Europe?

[HiThere]

Check the immigration requirements. Having a skill isn't enough, you've got to be young enough. And, generally, have some legal connection to the country to which you want to emigrate. (Relatives are good, but there are often other possibilities.) Speaking the language is usually another requirement.

I think that you must usually make the commitment before you are 30. (It's been over a decade since I checked, but I doubt that it's gotten easier.)

Re:Us developers: Move to Europe?

[PPH]

Can I rent a drawer in a filing cabinet for my corporation there?

Re:Us developers: Move to Europe?

[zzyzyx]

Sure, Europe has plenty of financial/legal paradises for you to shop for : British Channel Islands, Liechtenstein, Andorre, etc. Take your pick.

Re:Us developers: Move to Europe?

[rmstar]

We escaped the Software Patent madness by a hair in the EU, but we escaped.

That is unfortunately not true. We might have yet to see the levels that are typical in the US, but the EPP grants software patents regularily.

Re:Who the hell is Simon Maddox?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell are you? What made you fit to judge somebody who is more involved with this case than you are? Why should anyone take anything you say seriously?

Re:Doesn't the US have patent treaties with the UK

[Jane_Dozey]

Don't forget to add in the European laws to that. Even if the UK decided to recognise US patents, developers could still get rulings overturned in European courts.

Re:Why are app stores their only option?

[spire3661]

Blizzard asked Warhammer for a license, they said no.

Why not make that mechanism free?

[tomxor]

I find this part interesting though Quite obviously the patent in question is not anything to do with the game itself (the content that actually sells), but the trivial concept of buying the full version of the game. Keeping that in mind, is it possible to retroactively re-licence portions of the product that are in violation of the patent and publish those as some kind of open source i.e publish a text-file containing the wording of that dialogue box and give it an MIT licence. I'm just thinking of how something like BSD which is itself a kind of free open source clone of proprietary code, is today used as part of other proprietary systems that are not free (think Apple, Sun etc). or is the unix that it derived from so old that the patents no longer apply? Also software like Open Office which quite clearly aims to mimic the functions of an entire software suite is not in violation of patents simply because it is free. Is it possible to segment software in this way to make it clear that what you are selling is not the functionality that is patented regardless of whether it is something significant as an entire software suite or something as patent troll-esque as this "buy the full version" thing?

Re:Doesn't the US have patent treaties with the UK

[Mindcontrolled]

Don't even need the EU - the principle of territoriality is laid down in the Paris Convention of 1883, which the UK is a signatory to, and which is still binding.

government creates monopolies

[roman_mir]

I am always amazed at people who believe that government is there to help them, well, maybe some feel that because they are getting government checks, or are hoping to get them one day.

But just look at the way government destroys free market and creates monopolies. You'd think that government wouldn't want monopolies for some reason (well, they say so) but in reality monopolies is governments' bread and butter. Government may be non-profit, but it's highly profitable to politicians, and others, who are near the trough. Monopolies have money to give to politicians and what would the competitive market participants give them and why?

This is in everything, not just software. Look at the pharmaceutical industry: FDA costs are probably higher than any other costs of releasing a new drug into the market. I hear it takes 600 million dollars for one single drug to pass all of the steps, FDA requires from manufacturers, which means that there cannot be an independent small firm, bringing an independent drug into the market. This maybe the biggest cost out of all other costs - to pass through government regulations. So anybody creating a drug needs to get a sponsor - a large pharma company to do what the FDA requires.

Now, if FDA only required to prove that the drug was safe for consumption, that's one thing. But they require the proof of efficacy - which means years of expensive studies, something that the market could have found much quicker and without this added cost, and something that actually causes real deaths, as people are not getting the drugs on time and the drugs are really expensive. Here is an interesting discussion on this matter, which explains how government is working on making your food ever more expensive and reducing your choices in the market, helping out the large monopolies and destroying the competition.

The patents are a huge problem, they are not there to help you. As with everything that governments do, the effect of their actions and regulations is the opposite one. So if they are talking about fighting monopolies, in reality they create them, and if they are talking about increasing the innovation in the market, in reality they are actively preventing and destroying it.

Re:government creates monopolies

[roman_mir]

You are wrong on all counts.

FDA is a monopoly, which destroys competition in the market, drives prices up, destroys choice, destroys businesses, helps monopolies and is generally bad for the public specifically because it holds drugs off the market even once they are proven to be safe, while putting some drugs on the market that are known to be deadly, all because of the money involved.

But hey, maybe you like somebody telling you what you can and cannot eat or use as drugs even if it's known to be safe, just because you like being under control of others.

Re:government creates monopolies

[roman_mir]

Given the existence of the placebo effect, in what way do you suppose that the market -- consisting of individuals who operate on limited information -- will be able to tell the difference in efficacy between a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and acupuncture?

- ha ha, the way it was always done, by doctors sharing information among each other, learning what works and what doesn't - the only real way things are found to be useful or not.

Especially given that so-called "alternative medicines" such as Zicam can effectively compete against science-based medicine even with FDA regulations in place? Do you propose we go back to the patent medicine era?

- I am against all patents altogether. There should be no gov't creating artificial barriers to entry against individuals and for monopolies and there should be no special treatment provided to monopolies, like in case with this, falsifying the results to help out some friends in giant pharma. However FDA routinely denies people in US access to drugs, that are used all over the world, for example the drug RU 386, which was used in Europe and was banned in US by FDA.

Why the fuck should some piece of shit government organization deny you access to drugs, any drugs if you wish so and especially drugs that are known to be effective and are in use in the rest of the world?

The reason we have the regulations we have by the FDA is because we tried working without them and, unsurprisingly, people died and a lot of unscrupulous hucksters made a lot of money.

- no, the reason you have FDA being what it is, is because it has enormous power, which translates into dollars for monopolies, who kill off the small competitors and make sure prices never fall.

We have the same thing going on now with homeopathic medicine.

- there is no reason for FDA to get involved into this homeopathic stuff, especially since it is just placebo.

What we need are good, functional, and smarter regulations, not merely fewer or more regulations.

- seriously? You truly believe that? You truly want government to regulate your life? To tell you, probably a grown ass man, what you can and cannot use in your life as drugs? To ensure that only monopolies can sell you drugs? To make sure you have to pay a small fortune for any real treatment?

Please check your facts before posting; this took me all of a minute with a search engine to find in PLoS.

- I'll give you some facts.

Here is one. A drug that before FDA approval only cost $10/shot (ten dollars), once approved by FDA was immediately repriced at $1500 dollars a shot (one thousand five hundred dollars), as FDA granted a monopoly to the producer company, so nobody could compete with them. This is for a drug that people need to take 20 times, so that's $30,000 for the 20 times instead of $200 as it was prior to FDA 'approval' - in reality granting a monopoly. The orders of magnitude, by which FDA raises costs to the end users are similar with this drug.

And yes, it only takes an Internet search.

Re:government creates monopolies

[roman_mir]

Yes, the patents were created in another age, when large companies did not have such a stronghold upon the government, because the government did not involve itself in company's business.

Today everything is upside down, government regulates and taxes and subsidizes whoever it wants, and those, who are disproportionately hit with taxes, regulations infiltrate the government and make sure they are also the ones with disproportionate amounts of subsidies and protections and become monopolies, which politicians feed off of.

The system will not be changed, but it needs to be abolished.

Re:government creates monopolies

[roman_mir]

they exist because of significantly bad things that happened in the past.

- yes, the "bad thing" being that monopolies couldn't form due to all the competition and government couldn't get a cut that was big enough from the monopolies.

Re:government creates monopolies

[roman_mir]

How do you propose to stop them from patenting outside of a legislative fix

- wow, what a dumbass.

Government shouldn't be providing a patenting service. Without government intervention into the market there are no patents, only trade secrets.

In Germany and the EU and Canada where there is MUCH MORE government and MUCH MORE regulation,

- I used to live in North America, stayed for near 16 years in Canada and at this very moment I am in Germany. You found the wrong guy to push your nonsense to, as the most regulated one is USA out of these countries.

If you dont' like the extent to which BUSINESS dictates laws and electoral outcomes,

- no, I don't like the way government meddles with business.

Come to Russia, comrade!

[Chemisor]

Afraid of patent lawsuits comrade? Come to Russia! In our new not-so-soviet country there are no stinking software patents. There also are a lot fewer lawyers. Income tax is only 13%. Being a self-employed app developer you will not have to worry about the unemployment, and as a hopeless nerd you will not have to worry about the weather (or, you could move to a southern region like Krasnodar). Come soon, there's plenty of vodka to go around!

Re:Come to Russia, comrade!

[Chemisor]

Another unfortunate thing about Russia is that the men die young, leaving a lot of single women around. There are 875 men to 1000 women. Due to the economy there isn't much to be excited about. The future looks bad. Really bad. And the present is not so great either. So a lot of men take to drinking, and I don't mean socially. These are guys who get really wasted, every friggin day. That's one reason they die young. The ones that are still alive often treat women like dirt. Consequently, if you're a decent guy who doesn't drink and behaves like a gentleman, you should have a much easier time getting married here than in the US.

Re:Come to Russia, comrade!

[F.Ultra]

Unfortunately the protection money rate is way higher than the US taxes.

Re:Come to Russia, comrade!

[32771]

According to some drinking buddy the protection money is a trickle compared to the Russian taxes. According to my mom because of the protection money everything is 30% more expensive. We are not Russians though.

The Co-Op

[westlake]

The small independent developer is disadvantaged.

Well, duh.

Small businesses in the same fix have for several generations now formed cooperatives.

The benefits include branding and promotion.

Licensing and legal support. Technical support. Financing, and so on.

The co-op sets standards.

The co-op is market-oriented and the product it offers must be competitive. You won't get a buy if you try to sell them a rotten cabbage no matter how "green" your garden grows.

 

Re:Doesn't the US have patent treaties with the UK

[Hognoxious]

I wonder if Gary McKinnon has heard of it?

Re:Why are app stores their only option?

[Sique]

Patents are valid for twenty or twenty-five years, depending on where you live. And I don't see a problem with copying someone else's idea per se. That's called learning from others, and it's one of the most important aspects of culture. Every child starts learning by copying their parents. Every apes and even dogs and birds do. Copying others is a natural thing to do.
The waters get muddy when people start to get in each others way by copying ideas, when the profits (real or ideational ones) from using an idea start to get distributed in a way that feels unfair compared with the amount of creativity and effort each person had put into the idea. But that's a completely different kettle of fish.

Re:Why are app stores their only option?

[Mindcontrolled]

Patents are valid for 20 years if, and only if, you pay the yearly extension fees. In most cases, they are not paid for the whole 20 years, hence the 7 year average. Besides, the patent system does not at all impede your learning from others. If you want to profit, though, you have to improve on what you learned.

Contact your Senator or Representative

[Jim Hall]

I hope everyone responded to the USPTO's call for comments or contacted your Senator and US Representative about patent reform. Because that's the only way the US patent system is going to get fixed.

Your congresscritter really does want to hear from you. It's your job to contact them, and ask them to reform software patents. Seriously, call their office, write them a letter (handwritten carries the most impact, but typed will do), or visit them in their office. Have some examples handy, like this one. I've been discussing software patents with Sen. Franken's office for a while now, so if you don't have a particular suggestion to offer, ask your Senator to see what Sen. Franken is up to. I'm not kidding, they do listen to comments like that.

When I spoke with my Senator's office and my Representative's office, they both talked how business doesn't want software patent reform. They get this impression by talking to lobbyists, who are presenting one side of the story. But when even a company like Google looks to buy a patent portfolio just to use it in defense ... they start to pay attention.

Now we're seeing the small developer - possibly the "next generation" innovator - leaving the market because of software patents. The article talks mostly about non-US developers, but there's a mention of small US-based devs too. And it won't be too long before we hear about how bigger US developers are dropping out over patents. Or even a major name in Free/Open Source Software.

On Slashdot, we've been bitching about software patent reform for years (and I have a low UID). Let's do something! Call or write today! It only takes 5 minutes to get someone on the phone, and get your opinion out there.

why not just ignore it and see what happens?

[edxwelch]

Supposing you're a small non-US developer and get a letter from some patent troll about your app. Just ignore it. What are they going to do? Issue an extradition order?

Re:why not just ignore it and see what happens?

[PPH]

Unless 'your' legal system doesn't recognize software patents.

Some countries are beginning to realize the benefits of less punitive IP laws and regulations. Like they did with tax and banking regulations, they are looking forward to businesses seeking them out as havens for unfettered innovation. So UK developers quit the US app store. And go where? Someplace where the government will tell the US legal system to go f*ck itself. They'll take a small slice of the profits and end up rich like Hong Kong or Switzerland.

But this time they won't buy into the US bullsh*t about standardizing worldwide IP law like they got suckered on following the US lead on taxes and finances. That served only to protect US interests at everyone else expense.

'The Cloud' is going a long way toward IP freedom. You ship your data off to a data center where some US patent on a trivial processing algorithm doesn't mean squat. They ship you back the results. When the US lawyers come crying with a subpoena to examine the code for evidence of someone's precious sort algorithm, they get escorted back to the airport by the local police.

Re:Protection through Incorporation

[PPH]

That makes no difference to the big corporations. They want the small developers out of their territory. They could care less about getting your 401K. As long as they can drive your little corporation into the ground with legal fees, they are fine with that.

Re:Doesn't the US have patent treaties with the UK

[PPH]

Patents do have some international power unfortunately. Welcome to the future where you can't violate any country's laws.

I'll respect your patents when you adopt Sharia.

Re:The US: A 4th World Economy HowTo

[PPH]

Well, at least now we know what "4) ?????" means.

Whose app store?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that be Amazon's App Store, Apple's App Store, Google's Marketplace, or some other App Store I haven't heard of?

And if I'm supposed to automatically know that it's the second one from the summary, then why the heck shouldn't Apple be able to trademark the name, because it clearly is one?

Re:Who the hell is Simon Maddox?

[hawkinspeter]

He's a mobile app developer (according to a quick google).

I don't know what he has made, but it's not particularly relevant to the discussion.

You shouldn't take someone's words seriously just because of who they are (or aren't), you should judge what he has to say according to how much sense it makes.

(Also, who are you and why should I take what you say seriously?)

My firs thought? "Good"

[DigitalSorceress]

My first thought on this is, "Good".

My reasoning is that the patent system is obviously no longer helping to ENCOURAGE invention... it's actually STIFLING it.

Someone else already said it here: the big problem with software patents is that they cover ~concept~ instead of ~implementation~ which means that patent trolls can just stake out large, vague chunks of possible invention space and then see how they can apply that to things folks actually implement/build.

Maybe if we get more and more obvious cases of software patents stifling innovation, we'll get enough momentum to actually do something about them... (invalidate them all maybe?)

Licenses

[polarsd]

Patents used to be used to publish ones work on how to do a particular thing, get the credit for it, and be offered some license by organizations that wanted to use your idea. There needs to be some reforms to the patent system in the US, but I doubt that will happened because of the money given to the politicians. However, I would like three see two main changes. 1. Patents cannot be sold. They belong to the authors in perpetuity. They do not belong the companies who paid the lawyers and the talent. It is the property of the authors, i.e. the inventors. That way, companies will not put huge amounts of resources into patents. 2. Only non-exclusive licenses can be issued on the inventions, as they use the patent system to make their work public. 3. License fees cannot be prohibitive. How one regulates this, I don't know. Of course, there are probably legal loopholes to get around this and game the system. But alas, nothing will change.

Re:The US: A 4th World Economy HowTo

[Kalriath]

I don't think even China wants #5. Frankly, everyone will follow the lead of the oil companies, and they're looking at the Euro right now.

One solution

[sl4shd0rk]

Stop buying from the monopolies. Week after bloody week I see articles here protesting that the monopolies are treating them badly. STOP FUNDING THE BLOODY MONOPOLIES. As long as you are giving them money, they are going to continue to suck up patents, litigate the #*(@ out of the competition, and run roughshod over everyone. Yes you may have to do without the latest gadgetry/software for a while but in the long run things will improve. Besides, if you put your money somewhere else for a little while that will eventually increase the number of alternatives available to everyone.