Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

What If Android Lost the Patent War?

Posted by Soulskill on from the technically-just-a-police-action dept.

adeelarshad82 writes "The patent system is certainly complex, especially when it comes to smartphones. The Financial Times estimates that as many as 250,000 patents are at stake in a smartphone. Industry titans like Microsoft, Nokia, and Apple have tens of thousands of patents each, but Google's portfolio is reportedly on the low end — 'under 1,000.' Taking advantage of the opportunity, Apple has its patent strategy aimed squarely at the number one rival to its iOS mobile operating system, Android, which is now embedded in 40 percent of all U.S. smartphones compared to Apple's 26.6 percent. Apple's lawyers have been aggressively suing Android manufacturers HTC and Samsung for various technologies, from the 'look and feel' to how it connects to broadband networks. A recently published article takes a deep dive into the lawsuits' possible outcomes and their effect on end users."

36 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. We're going to do what we do every day by rtfa-troll · · Score: 2
    Try to take over the world. Or at least all their money.

    Pinkey and the Brain (lawyers, newly qualified)

    --
    =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    1. Re:We're going to do what we do every day by rtfa-troll · · Score: 2

      C'mon. I suddenly realise that I have the first post and it's my duty to save us from another homeopathic Tamagotchi porn posting. I post something vaguely related to the topic and without anything much offensive.. You expect spelling?

      My posting even has a serious point though. We'll soon have a situation where everybody from the USA, even cartoon characters, have to be drafted in as lawyers to keep up with all the ongoing law suits. In most countries, the majority of politicians are now lawyers by training (and they didn't used to be..).

      In these patent cases, one of the biggest problems is that it's often so expensive to defend a case that everybody settles (after long negotiations, and vast sums of money to the lawyers) even if they think they have a good case. Look also at the SCO case, where a small amount of money from Microsoft and a few other investors was leveraged to cause vast amounts of costs to IBM and Novell.

      Getting rid of patents, at least in software, would free up vast amounts of resources. Streamlining court systems so that you could almost always get an initial decision in one to five days and the loser would mostly have to pay for any further action would free up even more resources and would actually improve justice both by delivering it quicker ("justice delayed is..." ) and by allowing the courts to spend time on the cases that actually needed it. Germany already implements such a system in some cases.

      The legal system needs to be brought seriously under control.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    2. Re:We're going to do what we do every day by Tr3vin · · Score: 2

      Harvey Birdman can easily handle all of the legal cases. I do have to agree, though. Software patents are bad. They aren't effective enough to protect the little guys since the big guys will almost always be able to out-pantent the smaller guys. They even serve to stifle innovation from the big guys. I am one of those that believes that software falls under the category of math, so it should not be patentable.

    3. Re:We're going to do what we do every day by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Getting rid of patents, at least in software, would free up vast amounts of resources."

      That's the problem, isn't it. What would all the lawyers do for an income? Especially when many people have already passed the point of diminishing returns for more stuff?

      Excessive bureaucracy is a from of "make work" to prop up a society that can not admit its socioeconomic model (based on an income-through-jobs link) is broken in an age of abundance from cheap technology (like from an Android-powered supercomputer in your pocket relative to a 1970s definition of supercomputer); see also this knol I put together on good and bad ways to deal with that:
          http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    4. Re:We're going to do what we do every day by russotto · · Score: 2

      That's the problem, isn't it. What would all the lawyers do for an income?

      I'd suggest some sort of televised tournament involving fights to the death.

    5. Re:We're going to do what we do every day by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      I'm of the opinion that software already has too many other protections and doesn't need patents. Firstly, the source code and binaries are protected by copyright. Meaning that someone can't just take your product, copy it outright, and sell it for a profit. Secondly, many employees who write software have non-compete agreements in their contracts, meaning you don't have to worry about people who are developing your software taking all your ideas and running away with them to another company. Thirdly, there's trademarks for the name of your software product. Believe it or not, the name goes a long way in selling software, probably because there's a lot of bad systems out there, and companies want someone to support the software. If your software is sufficiently complex, even if a bunch of your developers move over to some other company, it's going to be a long time before they can develop a sale-able product unless they are taking the source code with them, which is a non-problem I've already covered in this answer. Not only that, but in the time that they've taken just to copy the system you had before, you would be able to advance your system to a point where the system they copied would now be inferior. Short answer, we don't need patents as an extra layer of protection. Software is sufficiently complex that trying to replicate the functionality without actually reusing the source code is difficult enough that patent protection is unnecessary.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  2. Software Patents... by nschubach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd be more interested in reading what would happen if software was considered un-patentable tomorrow and all software patents rendered void.

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    1. Re:Software Patents... by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What companies other than Intellectual Ventures would collapse? Apple, HTC, Google, and Microsoft would still be in buisness. They make money by selling products protected by copyright. These are patents that have been largely uninforced for the last 20 years. Other than IV and a bunch of 2 lawyer operations in Texas there is not much buisness in software patents.

    2. Re:Software Patents... by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 2

      There would be a decrease in valuation of holding companies that larger companies own. This would have some effect on there ability to hide money from tax collectors using accounting tricks. I bet there is also a trade in patent derivatives on some market. This would collapse and a few stupid investors would lose money. Nothing on the scale of the housing market. Companies on the brink of collapse would be hit the worst. They would have one less asset to sell off in bankruptsy.

    3. Re:Software Patents... by rmstar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Patents also promote investing in research & development.

      No, they don't. There's plenty of evidence out there refuting your claim.

      I doubt Microsoft and other companies would be spending billions in research if everything they discovered or came up with was immediately available to everyone else.

      There are many barriers to entry aside from patents. Actually getting something done is one, for example.

  3. 250,000? by Baloroth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    May I be allowed to say: holy fucking shit. 250,000 patents in one phone? Insane. Absolutely insane. The patent system is supposed to be used so a new device has maybe a handful of patents in it. Quite often, only one. Because very few inventions are really novel and deserving of protection. But everyone on /. should know this already, and I'm just treading old ground.

    I'll end this by just saying: fuck lawyers. There is good reason why so many people despise and hate them, and our present patent system is an excellent example. Leeches, most of 'em (to be fair, a few are alright... but very, very few.)

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    1. Re:250,000? by Desler · · Score: 2

      The patent system is supposed to be used so a new device has maybe a handful of patents in it.

      Why? Because you said so?

    2. Re:250,000? by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.htm More patents were granted this year than in the first 100 years of usa history. Most of them useless. Many of them duplicates of other patents. Some of them on DNA found in nature.

    3. Re:250,000? by Old97 · · Score: 2

      According to this, throughout US history, most members of Congress are lawyers. http://www.legalreform-now.org/menu1_5.htm

      --
      Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
    4. Re:250,000? by Ouchie · · Score: 2

      What is the point in patenting DNA found in Nature, isn't the source evidence of prior Art? I'm not a patent attorney but It seems if you try to patent a gean found naturally in someone or something's DNA you could point to the original DNA source as prior existance and refute any liability for license fees.

      --
      "Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." ~Ozzy Osborne
    5. Re:250,000? by zzyzyx · · Score: 2

      If I recall correctly the recent ruling by an appeal court on the subject, it was determined that the process of going from a gene to an isolated DNA sequence is sufficiently transformative to be patentable, because isolated DNA sequences do not exist in nature.

      This criterion of patentability is very, very weak. Someone objected that in the same logic lithium should be patentable since isolated lithium does not exist in nature.

  4. One Patent, Please! by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Financial Times estimates that as many as 250,000 patents are at stake in a smartphone. Industry titans like Microsoft, Nokia, and Apple have tens of thousands of patents each, but Google's portfolio is reportedly on the low end — 'under 1,000.'

    Luckily patents are not created equally and I would imagine that companies decades older than Google and with far more product lines, areas of business, etc have more patents. Is this really grounds for assuming Android is teetering upon a rain slick precipice of darkness?

    I think patents are kind of like nuclear warheads and mutually assured destruction requires only that you have a couple thousand strategically positioned with MIRV ... er Lawyer guidance modules. Legions and legions of lawyers. Row upon row of mindless litigant bastards that will close ranks when one of their number is befallen by a fatal case of morals or common sense.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  5. Software Patents Should Be Abolished by deweyhewson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Software patents are a pox on this nation. They undermine the system, stifle, rather than motivation, innovation, and are used as clubs by the bullies in industry.

    The idea that I can "create" something intangible, easily replicated, and quite literally out of nothing simply by typing some characters on a keyboard is absolutely insane, and should never have been allowed in the first place. Had the system existed like this centuries ago, the book market would have been driven into the ground by publishers who owned the patent on "arranging characters on a page to create words and express ideas".

    And the fact hat Apple is choosing to beat Android into submission with them, rather than make a superior product, is very telling indeed.

    1. Re:Software Patents Should Be Abolished by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And the fact hat Apple is choosing to beat Android into submission with them, rather than make a superior product, is very telling indeed.

      That's not a fact. That's an opinion. An argument can be made that Apple is making the superior product and beating down Android/Google with patents (which are not all software patents, I should point out.)

      I'm no fan of software patents, I think they're entirely wrong-headed, but if you're going to hold Apple's feet to the fire, at least do it with a clear view of what is going on. They make plenty of real mistakes and do lots of obnoxious things, no need to invent fictitious ones.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Software Patents Should Be Abolished by mjwx · · Score: 2

      And the fact hat Apple is choosing to beat Android into submission with them, rather than make a superior product, is very telling indeed.

      That's not a fact. That's an opinion. An argument can be made that Apple is making the superior product and beating down Android/Google with patents

      Uh, the fact they need to beat down on their competitors is a very, very compelling argument against Apple having the superior product.

      If the Ipad was truly so superior to the tablet Samsung produces then it would not need to use the courts to artificially stifle competition because to do so is a very expensive operation which is not needed when the competitors are unable to compete. These suits targeting Samsung are nothing less then an attempt to force Samsung out of the market, Apple did not ask for license fees, they went straight to the ITC to as for a ban.

      What does a superior product need with a law suit?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Why should we care? by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 2

    I realise that Slashdot and PCMag are US-oriented but I'm getting a bit tired of articles written as if what happens in the US affects the whole world. Where is Apple suing HTC and Samsung? In the US. That kind of patent bullshit does not fly everywhere in the world, and HTC and Samsung are not even mainly US-based. Granted, the US is a big important market, but it's not everything.

    So ok, worse case scenario, they win and the US is taken over by Apple alone. Frankly, I doubt Microsoft will let that happen, 'cause it needs hardware to put their OS on, and we all know Apple will never let them put it on theirs in a million years. But ok, let's say for the sake of argument.

    So? Why should the rest of the world care? I'm seriously asking. How will the rest of the world be affected by a decision given in one country, that's the host of a fairly atypical, malformed and out-of-control patent system? Will they be able to replicate this feat elsewhere in the world?

    --
    i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    1. Re:Why should we care? by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You should care because if Android phones lose the entire US market, they will become much less profitable to make. As a result, companies will either spend less money making them or raise their prices, since engineering costs will now be amortized over a smaller number of sales. Likewise, app developers will shift their focus towards iOS, so that they can reach the US market.

      End result, Android phones become more expensive, lose their edge on hardware, and get fewer apps developed for them.

      Economies are interconnected. Don't think for one moment that bad things happening in one part of the world won't ripple over and affect you.

    2. Re:Why should we care? by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Informative

      So? Why should the rest of the world care? I'm seriously asking. How will the rest of the world be affected by a decision given in one country, that's the host of a fairly atypical, malformed and out-of-control patent system?

      Because the US government spends a considerable amount of time and effort trying to push their concept of 'Intellectual Property' on the rest of the world.

  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. Well. by drolli · · Score: 2

    Google patents are not so many. But the companies who would be immediately hurt - they hold a lot. I mean the idea of starting a all-out patent-war against Sony, HTC, Samsung, Dell, Archos, Asus and some chinese manufacturerers (many of them veterans in the PIM/mobile business), which could block a company easily from half of the markets, would be stupid. I mean sure Apple *could* bet that Sony does not find some Japan-only patents (yeah, they exist) (moreover in JP they would go against NTT...). Sure they can bet that the legal fight in intransparent judical systems are worth it.

    It would be much more reasonable to compate the patent stack and pay some money and settle the thing by agreeing not to step on anybodies feet.

  10. How can Google win with only 1000 patents? by paulsnx2 · · Score: 2

    Well, take a page from Intellectual Ventures.

    Sell a few selected patents to an independent shell company. That company, which neither creates or sells products and is out of the control of Google, will be free to sue Apple and Oracle (and any other threat to the Android market) freely for patent infringement, but not Google (due to a contract that went along with the sell). This independent company cannot be targeted for patent infringement no matter how many patents Apple and company might have. Any funds can flow to filing more patents and buying more patents in order to maintain their attacks.

    Or better yet, funds collected might be used to fund patent reform efforts (again by contract).

    1000 patents is plenty to launch a number of these companies, which could cause Apple huge amounts of damage, while Google itself (not really making phones directly) would be largely immune from this sort of attach.

    I have been thinking about this for a while, and can't really see a flaw in the approach, other than it is really Evil.

  11. The outcome is simple by Wokan · · Score: 2

    I tether a laptop to a feature phone and tell Apple, Microsoft, and Nokia to suck it.

  12. Florian Müller again by jeti · · Score: 2

    I immediately loaded the article and searched for "Florian Müller". Imagine my surprise when the name didn't come up. His first mention is on page 2.

  13. Re:Not a Troll, A Serious Question by brainzach · · Score: 2

    Ideas are cheap. It is the implementation of the idea that is so difficult.

    There were natural barriers to entry into the industry which gave Apple a big advantage for 2 to 3 years. Developing a mobile OS that can compete with iOS is not easy to do and not cheap. Apple was able to crush the competition because it executed their platform better than anyone else without the need for patents.

    It wasn't until Google and Microsoft finally came out with products that were in comparable quality to the iPhone that Apple started to get sue happy. Instead of out innovating the competition like in the past, they are just using the legal system to give themselves a competitive advantage while hurting innovation in the industry.

  14. Re:Pick your sources wisely, PCMag by jbernardo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Is Florian Mueller the king of Slashdot? It seems so since he gets mentioned more than any other single person.

    Florian Mueller is the current more vocal MS shill in the war against google. Is is doing the same role as Enderle does, only Enderle is by now completely discredited, and some still quote Mueller as if he knew what he is talking about. As usual, your best source is Groklaw, they've discredited many of Mueller's ravings already.

  15. What If Android Lost the Patent War? by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Funny

    Then Google would have to buy Microsoft, Nokia, and Apple.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  16. Re:No more Apple for me by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 2

    You think Apple doesn't pay license fees to other companies for all the stuff they cram into an iPhone ? Why should Google get a free ride ?

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  17. Re:Pick your sources wisely, PCMag by JAlexoi · · Score: 2

    He is becoming paranoid troll. Really. Lately his articles are much less an overview, but rather a bashfest of some party in the patent lawsuit. He started inserting reviews of cases that are not about FOSS(Lodsys vs iOS devs) and not even about software in general.
    His most objective articles are about Lodsys vs mobile app devs, BTW.

    His stance in Oracle vs Google is obviously against Google, in the form "I think" and "I agree with". Or maybe he has an issue of writing a diplomatically impartial text.
    On the technical side of software his knowledge is nowhere to be found by now. And unfortunately his only knowledge about IP law is in the US patent law and it's moderately good. His understanding of copyright law is lacking to say the least.

  18. Re:Pick your sources wisely, PCMag by exomondo · · Score: 2

    FM;DR

  19. Re:Pick your sources wisely, PCMag by exomondo · · Score: 2

    Can someone explain what the problem with Florian is?

    The fact that he's not a patent or FOSS expert but he plays one in real life. That whole issue with Bionic was moronic and knowledge of the history of linux and the GPL would have shown it as a clear non-story, so he was either ignorant (in his purported field of expertise) or ran with it anyway just to make some noise and drive hits to his blog.