Google's Patent Lawyer On Why the Patent System Is Broken

The San Francisco Chronicle features an interview with Google's patent counsel, Tim Porter, who argues that "... what many people can agree on is the current system is broken and there are a large number of software patents out there fueling litigation that resulted from a 10- or 15-year period when the issuance of software patents was too lax. Things that seemed obvious made it through the office until 2007, when the Supreme Court finally said that the patent examiners could use common sense. Patents were written in a way that was vague and overly broad. (Companies are) trying to claim something that's really an idea (which isn't patentable). There are only so many ways to describe a piston, but software patents are written by lawyers in a language that software engineers don't even understand. They're being used to hinder innovation or skim revenue off the top of a successful product." Porter is speaking in particular about the snarls that have faced (and still face) Android, based on Microsoft patents; he blames some of the mess on a patent regime where "you don't know what patents cover until courts declare that in litigation. What that means is people have to make decisions about whether to fight or whether to reach agreements."

Comments

yup

[arbiter1]

Most new products come out and they don't even know they violated patents for years in most cases cause companies that hold the so called patent even know they could claim anything til years later.

Re:yup

[Anonymous Coward]

The system you describe is utterly ridiculous. It requires that anyone creating a new product broadcast detailed information to their competitors, while also requiring patent holders to maintain a constant vigil where they have to read the perhaps 10's of thousands of posts day to see if anything from there portfolio is being infringed. Do you realize the manpower that would take? For a company with a large number of patents they would require dozens or even hundreds of reviewers, each of which would have to have sufficient education to have the entire portfolio memorized, while also understanding the detailed technical specifications of myriad products.

It would be far easier to simply modify the patent system so that obviousness and prior art is given much more weight patent examiners.

Re:yup

[bloodhawk]

The current patent system is ridiculous, however your suggestion takes that ridiculousness to a whole new level, by some chance do you work for the patent office? that is the type of even more broken system I would expect to come out of there. You want companies to broadcast their plans to their competitors? you want people with patents to read through what would be thousands of product ideas a day? hell you would need a team dedicated 24x7 to read all of the intended product developments.

Re:yup

[FyRE666]

Exactly - i wrote that to hilight just how bad the current situation is, by reversing it (I thought I'd added enough sarcasm to the comment, but still) :

"you want people with patents to read through what would be thousands of product ideas a day?"

This, in a nutshell is the problem currently, but in reverse, with the person WITHOUT the patents having to read through potentially 10's or 100's of thousands of vague patents, AND understanding all of those patents, before having any confidence they can go ahead without being accused of criminality.

"hell you would need a team dedicated 24x7 to read all of the intended product developments"
=
"hell you currently need a team dedicated 24x7 to read all of the vague product patents"

Still is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

The issuance of patents is *still* bad, it wasn't just some period in the past.

The problem stems from the core software patent problem, trade secrets work so well in software's case that no patent examiner can be aware of the body of prior art that exists. Likewise he can't know if it's an invention, or just an incremental change from what already exists.

And he may be fooled that the patent office has changed its spots, it hasn't. It still defaults to issuing patents when in doubt.

Re:Still is bad

[billcopc]

That is the fundamental problem. To the average human, a patent is total gibberish. To an expert, it is still gibberish. The only people who can "read" patents are lawyers, and they lack the subject matter expertise to make any real sense of it.

I say patent writers need to "sell" the patent examiner on the merit of their patent. You want an exclusive license to extort the world with an idea ? Ok, prove to me that you've actually created something new. If it's a tech patent, it needs to be reviewed by an examiner with at least 5-10 years of experience in the field. That way they will be better equipped to tell if the patent covers something trivial.

If the greedy hypercapitalist swine who support the patent system aren't willing to abolish it, then we should at least require that the patents be written in such a way that a novice can understand it. It's like usability testing. I don't expect my 80-year-old grandparents to understand (for example) FTP, but even a first-year CS student should be able to figure out from the first paragraph that it is a file transfer protocol that copies bits from one networked computer to another. By extension, an examiner with 5-10 years of applied experience should be able to identify which parts of a proposed file transfer protocol are painfully obvious, and which parts are innovative and potentially patent-worthy.

I personally can't think of any such innovations over existing protocols, but that's why I don't hold any patents. To a one-trick tech wizard like me, everything is obvious, as it should be. Just like my father thinks I'm a retard for not knowing that light flutter in my car's hum is caused by a bad fuel line pump, because he's a freakin' mechanic - it's obvious to him. We need to ditch obvious patents once and for all so the lawyers can find something better to do, and leave us experts in peace so we can start innovating again.

Re:Still is bad

[dkf]

If the greedy hypercapitalist swine who support the patent system aren't willing to abolish it, then we should at least require that the patents be written in such a way that a novice can understand it.

Not a novice. Someone with 5 years experience in the field, so that they count as someone "with ordinary skill in the art". That has always been the whole point of a patent, in any field, and it's desperately wrong that some patents are issued which do not make things clear enough; such patents should be struck from the record and the cost of any related proceedings pushed back on the (ex-)patent holder.

I'm not saying there should never be patents on software — sometimes you see something that is a genuine massive innovation, such as some of the compression or security codes where there have been times when the state of the art has advanced hugely when others thought it impossible — but they're issued too often for too little and are too unclear. I suppose it would help if software patents had to include all relevant source code as part of the patent (with all claim to copyright ceded) so that when the patent expires the exact protected method would be free to use for anyone; that would be much like patents in other fields.

Re:Still is bad

[Midnight Thunder]

Lawyers sometimes seem to be in ivory tower when it comes to the technology around them. IT moves so fast, that even as a professional in the field it is hard to keep up. I would be surprised that someone who has a legal background can do as much.

I remember one story about a computer science student doing her masters thought she had come up with something new. She passed her course, but the problem is that people working outside of acedemia saw her work as something that had already been done in industry. Just because something seems new, it doesn't mean it is. Unlike scientific fields, anyone has easy access to IT, so this means that there is so much room for new ideas, but also people thinking they have a new idea. For most professionals solving problems and coming solutions is often more important than understanding everything that went before, especially when there is so much innovation coming at you like a speeding locomotive.

I'm glad to see concern

[jbolden]

I think we are close to serious patent reform which is going to be good for everyone. Everyone agrees the system is broken and everyone agrees there are insane patents.

Re:I'm glad to see concern

[jbolden]

First off congress is on this issue. And it is bipartisan. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) are the two leading the charge. As for Obama, he was a big supporter of the 2009 Patent reform act Patent Reform Act of 2009 (S. 515), whose modified version went into law in September. While nowhere near enough this is progress.

Re:I'm glad to see concern

[jbolden]

Horacio Gutiérrez, the deputy general counsel in charge of Microsoft’s intellectual property group is a major proponent of patent reform including the bill passed in September. For example

I think we’ve come a long way, but there remain some areas where the practices in the context of litigation as well as in some administrative proceedings could be adapted to really try to curb the abuses of the system by nonpracticing entities [polite term for patent trolls]..There is currently debate emerging over whether nonpracticing entities should be entitled to obtain an injunction either in court or in the International Trade Commission.

Microsoft is on our side on this one.

As for Apple they are one of the founding companies in the Coalition for Patent Fairness.

So I'm not sure where you are getting this idea they support the current system from.

Re:I'm glad to see concern

[jonwil]

Microsoft and Apple may not support the system as it stands. But anyone who thinks either company wants the kind of patent reform that many others in the tech industry (including the Google guy posting in TFA) want is deluded. Both companies would think nothing of spending whatever it takes to lobby against any bill that actually made software un-patentable or that tightened up the criteria for what is and isn't patentable in the software field.

Re:I'm glad to see concern

[poetmatt]

No, it won't take some presidential action.

Did you read the petition to end software patents? The president's office said clearly: this is a matter of congress.

So whoever is president will have zero to do with the situation. So a president, no matter who it is, is not going to fix this.

Re:I'm glad to see concern

[jbolden]

What makes you say that? I can point to them having taken positive steps towards trying for meaningful reform and complaining about the patents. Microsoft and Apple have both been harassed by patents and mostly are pretty successful in innovating. Since their self interest may very well be better served with a less aggressive patent structure, I take them at their word.

Re:I'm glad to see concern

[jonwil]

Microsoft makes big money using its patent portfolio for lawsuits and FUD surrounding Linux and Android so it has no incentive to push for reform that makes those patents easier to challenge, harder to get or harder to sue with.

Apple right now is on a mission to crush Android in any court that it can get a hearing in, they dont want to see change that makes it harder for them to do that.

Re:I'm glad to see concern

[shutdown -p now]

Microsoft makes big money using its patent portfolio for lawsuits and FUD surrounding Linux and Android so it has no incentive to push for reform that makes those patents easier to challenge, harder to get or harder to sue with.

You forget that Microsoft also pays licensing fees to other companies for the use of their patents in its products (IIRC, one of them is Oracle's patent on JIT compilation that they've used against Google). You need to look at the balance of those fees to see whether it is profitable for the company. Then also account processing fees on company's own patents - building up a portfolio of your own is not free, and it is necessary to be able to retaliate. Indeed, the latter is the biggest reason why no-one's really happy about it - it's not just about being patent trolled, it's also about all the time and money wasted to keep on par with everyone else in the patent MAD game.

To the best of my knowledge, pretty much no tech companies that actually produce something are in favor of software patents as they stand. Most would prefer some reasonable middle ground (i.e. keep patents, but significantly raise the bar of what's patentable), but I think that many of them would ultimately prefer no patents to the current situation if those were the only two choices.

Re:I'm glad to see concern

[RazorSharp]

Fortunately, congress has been busy passing a lot of important legislation lately. I'm sure we can trust these wonderful representatives to continue to stand up for the issues that matter as they diligently work to bring this country back to the prominent state God intended it to be in. I'm sure that once congress has passed comprehensive patent reform, they'll soon get to on other digital issues such as legally enforcing net-neutrality and guaranteeing that using the internet does not void one's fourth amendment rights.

Re:I'm glad to see concern

[anubi]

< sarconal >

Somehow, when I read of all this patent fury, I think of the kids who got to the playground first and "put dibs" on all the playground toys. They could extort other kid's lunch money to play. The kids who got there first liked this arrangement and bribed the teacher to let them do this, and the teacher would enforce their "rights".

Problem is some of the other kids started building more stuff that wasn't under control of the kids who had the "rights" to the existing stuff. But how to you claim rights to keep other kids from doing it?

Simple! Laws already exist for Property. Call it Property!

Now, we have property tax, but we want to make sure that this new property can be claimed, yet we shouldn't be taxed on it because ... uh... why?

With today's sore need of government revenues, why isn't this taxed? I own a house. I pay over 2% of the market value of my house every year for tax.

Wouldn't this stop the patent trolls dead in their tracks if each patent was taxed on the value its owner assigns to it? In the event of an IP "violation", a property owner can sue up to the value he placed on his IP, at which case,upon paying the IP holder his valuation, the sue-ee ends up holding the so-called property and he is free to value it at whatever he thinks its worth.

We love to privatize the gains and socialize the losses.

Stuff like this will get the people benefiting from our method of protecting monopolies to help pay for the people deprived from building things. Think of it as one of the costs of living in a society where armed police will enforce highly profitable monopolies and keep competition at bay. The American Way. Just as pioneered by Al Capone.

The American Way will work as long as we control the world's reserve currency, and can depend on the fruit of our printing press to exchange for our needs.

< /sarconal >

Re:I'm glad to see concern

[anubi]

Why Do So Many College Science Majors Drop Out?

Why would you want to run stop signs? Why would you want to risk illegal music downloads? Why would you want to risk designing something around thoughts that may not be your own.

Remember, your college education? If you stole from ONE, its called "plagiarism". Steal from many? They call that "research". Don't steal? That's called "re-inventing the wheel". You cannot win.

Like walking through minefields? I have. Its a big risk.

You can do a lot of work, only to have it all rendered useless at a stroke of a pen.

Its safest not to risk doing anything these days. Its like trying to make moonshine without Al Capone's approval.

Our Government is only too happy to put you on welfare if you call one of those TV lawyers who knows how to speak their language. They will even pay for the lawyer.

Only in the USA.

I saw this tagline which seems so appropriate...
"By failing to give me your money, you are depriving me of income, and that makes you a THIEF!"

Re:I'm glad to see concern

[kanto]

Horacio Gutiérrez, the deputy general counsel in charge of Microsoft’s intellectual property group is a major proponent of patent reform including the bill passed in September. For example

I think we’ve come a long way, but there remain some areas where the practices in the context of litigation as well as in some administrative proceedings could be adapted to really try to curb the abuses of the system by nonpracticing entities [polite term for patent trolls]..There is currently debate emerging over whether nonpracticing entities should be entitled to obtain an injunction either in court or in the International Trade Commission.

Microsoft is on our side on this one.

As for Apple they are one of the founding companies in the Coalition for Patent Fairness.

So I'm not sure where you are getting this idea they support the current system from.

The way I read that quote is that Microsoft wants immunity from patent trolls, nothing there about them being on "our" side which I assume wants everyone to be safe from harassment by practicing entities also. This stance reminds me of the joke that the puritans did not so much escape persecution as wanting themselves to be free to persecute.

Re:I'm glad to see concern

[JustNilt]

This is not an issue for the Executive branch. The Constitution clearly states, in Article 1, Section 8 that "The Congress shall have power ..." then there are several clauses after. Clause 8 lays out the authority for patents: "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".

This issue must be decided by Congress. The President can urge, suggest, bitch and moan but PotUS has no more ability to enact law than we do. As others mentioned, there is some will to do so in Congress but it's going to take a massive push from we, the constituents, to get past the voice of the patent lobby.

Isn't it ironic?

[scottbomb]

Some of the companies that are most innovative are doing everything they can to stifle innovation.

Re:Isn't it ironic?

[JoeMerchant]

I think patents make a lot of sense, for some things and not for others.

On balance, there are a lot of really bad software patents, simply because you can sit down with any one of a hundred people "skilled in the art" of whatever area of software and ask them "is this obvious?" and they will almost always say yes, though when you ask "why hasn't it been done before?" the answer comes back a little more murky, usually something about it just not having made sense before because of the user base or available hardware or whatever, and during the period of 1995-2005, the patent office seemed to be in rubber stamp mode for software.

If you go back to something like barbed wire, there were probably a half-dozen wire manufacturers crying "oh, that was so obvious, we were about to do that" when the patents issued, but today with software, you literally have millions of individuals who are capable of implementing these things that are getting patented - it's a different scale, and the standard for obviousness and prior art should be equally higher.

When lawyers speak, they are advocates

[mveloso]

Tim Porter may be a nice guy and all, but if it was Google with all those so-called bogus/lax patents he'd be up there talking about how the patent system is fine and the problem really is more that the enforcement process depends on endless litigation and how the determination of infringement needs to be more streamlined.

He's a lawyer, his job is to be an advocate/mouthpiece for his employer's interests.

Re:When lawyers speak, they are advocates

[aiken_d]

This. There is some value in well-articulated arguments and having a company with Google's clout bringing attention to the patent mess, but the moment Google stands to make more money from the system, this same guy will cheerfully advocate the other side. Which is fine, it's his job.

Re:When lawyers speak, they are advocates

[williamhb]

Tim Porter may be a nice guy and all, but if it was Google with all those so-called bogus/lax patents he'd be up there talking about how the patent system is fine and the problem really is more that the enforcement process depends on endless litigation and how the determination of infringement needs to be more streamlined.

He's a lawyer, his job is to be an advocate/mouthpiece for his employer's interests.

They (and most companies) play both sides of the fence. At the same time as saying how bad patents are for impinging on their products, they are buying as many companies with far-reaching patents as they can get their hands on -- "Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio", Larry Page. It's a genuine tragedy of the commons -- many of the same people who think patents are bad news are also having to go out and register or acquire them at ever increasing rates so they are armed with them. And the first person to lay down their patents and walk away would be the big loser (as Android nearly found out with its previous strategy of not having many patents, and wound up on the wrong end of so many patent lawsuits).

Re:When lawyers speak, they are advocates

[kermidge]

True enough, but just because he's "got a dog in this race" doesn't preclude him from having a useful view, no?

Re:When lawyers speak, they are advocates

[Riceballsan]

Agreed, but you also have to look at one thing. Google is not the company with tons of bogus lax patents, and from my observations that seems to be more or less by choice. Does it seem imposible that a company google's size with google's legal budget, that they could not have say squeezed through enough pattents to keep microsoft in court for years trying to fight to get bing across. Or say patented their circles following feeds etc... in a way that facebook would have had to wait a few months for a court to invalidate patents before facebook could match every feature of G+. I agree a lawyer speaks in the interest of the client, but I do have to point out, the client specifically chose not to be a patent troll. If someone asks for harsher sentances for serial killers, is your first response "Yeah but if he were a serial killer he'd probably think differently"

Re:When lawyers speak, they are advocates

[AchilleTalon]

What's the problem being a lawyer paid by someone? Is the argument valuable? Yes or no? If yes, then value it. What does it change from who's mouth the argument came? Of course, everyone is paid by someone and everyone is having interests and nobody is objective in this life. It doesn't mean everybody should shut up.

Re:When lawyers speak, they are advocates

[swillden]

Tim Porter may be a nice guy and all, but if it was Google with all those so-called bogus/lax patents he'd be up there talking about how the patent system is fine and the problem really is more that the enforcement process depends on endless litigation and how the determination of infringement needs to be more streamlined.

He's a lawyer, his job is to be an advocate/mouthpiece for his employer's interests.

They (and most companies) play both sides of the fence. At the same time as saying how bad patents are for impinging on their products, they are buying as many companies with far-reaching patents as they can get their hands on -- "Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio", Larry Page.

You omitted the last half of that quote: "which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies." What he was saying was that Google's new patents will increase competition by helping to prevent MS and Apple from shutting Android down, and I think his point is indisputable: Allowing MS and Apple to kill Android would reduce competition, so preserving android increases competition.

I truly don't think Google plays both sides of this fence; everything I've ever seen from Google's leadership decries the patent mess as a problem, and explains Google's own focus on acquiring and growing patents as a necessary evil. AFAIK (and I have paid attention), Google has never asserted any patents against anyone, except defensively.

I think Google really would prefer to change patent law and get rid of all these crap software patents -- or even all software patents, period. I think this is as much reflection of Google's arrogance as Google's altruism -- Google believes that given a level field they can beat the competition in any area they focus on. But I think there is actually a large dose of "good for society" thinking as well. You have to remember that fully half of Google's employees and nearly all of Google's management are software engineers, and the vast majority of software engineers think that software patents are bad for innovation, and software engineers love cool new technology. Google's engineers are no different all the way up to and including Sergey and Larry.

(Disclaimer: I'm a Google engineer, but all of the above is based on public information plus my perception of general attitudes within the company.)

Re:When lawyers speak, they are advocates

[SuricouRaven]

You say rip-off like it's a bad thing. That's how technological advancement works: People take existing ideas and improve upon them. Or did, before every idea became patented.

It's not just software...

[JoeMerchant]

software patents are written by lawyers in a language that software engineers don't even understand.

That's been true across many industries, at least since the 1970s (which is as far back as I ever researched prior art...)

The real indicator of what's broken in the patent system can be read in the patent numbers themselves... in 1992 we were at 5 million and something, since the start of the United States Patent Office, now we're roughly double that number?!

Sorry, everything useful hasn't already been invented, but something is just out of synch. I think an ex-CEO of mine (ex high school football quarterback too) summed up the problem in his own words: "Our competitors were granted 62 patents last year, while we got three, can anybody tell me what that means?" I'm told there was stunned silence in the boardroom. "It means that WE'RE 59 BEHIND, now let's get going!" Patents have been turned into fuel for lawsuits, and they're reaching a scale where even a crappy little $100M/year company can hire a small army of patent attorneys to stock their powder magazine.

Re:It's not just software...

[backslashdot]

The best example of overbroad patenting is the fact that Apple got a patent for Mag-safe (the breakaway connector on their laptops). Magnetic breakaways had been invented in the 90s and were used on deep fryers. They took the existing work and added the words "computer or electronic device". And guess what now they have a 20year monopoly on magnetic connectors for laptops.

Re:It's not just software...

[pipedwho]

this won't matter too much longer now that we are going to implement "first to file" patents. previous art be damned. if i file, then its mine. so..... tell me your best ideas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent

No. First to file only differs from the previous system (ie. first to 'invent') in that two equivalent patents filed with in a year or two used to go to the inventor that could prove first invention date; whereas with 'first to file' it goes to the one with the earliest filing date.

They also dropped the ability to file within 1 year of prior publication of the invention. This makes prior art much more effective as a defence. It also makes it harder to file patents based on someone else's (or your own) publication.

So, as long as people don't "tell you their best ideas" in secret, your patent can be effectively invalidated with that prior art. In the old system, they'd probably have been screwed if they didn't maintain fully witnessed and officially notarised log books.

Human beings are..

[blahplusplus]

... too incompetent to judge the quality of patents anymore, especially regarding software and mathematics. There is an infinite amount of work to be discovered/yet undone. Over time the complexity of modern products/etc has out-stripped human capability and human judgement so we have just ridiculousness things getting patented. Companies will just patent the low hanging fruit which are the foundations of all future work and hang everyone else with it. It's time to put the system down and severely restrain it. We have copyrights that go on forever and the public domain has been completely stolen by corporations.

This is especially apparent with abandon/out-dated/breakware video games or companies that can't afford and whose teams have long since left/died/moved on. Games and IP just sits collecting dust when it should be able to be used by others. I often wonder if take say a hot property universe for the sake of argument say: Transformers, let companies compete on making good games instead of trying to lock down licenses. It's time to get these companies competing on product quality instead.

I think we've all seen companies just lock down stuff and then make mediocre crap with it, it's time for a more sane system.

Preaching to the choir?

[Xanny]

I'm pretty sure 99% of developers visiting Slashdot know the patent system is broken. You should not be able to patent mathematics. We know this. The problem is, to fix it, we have to not only teach people who have no clue what computer science even is how code works and how it is all mathematical formulas at the end of the day, but the people that need to know that patenting software is akin to patenting a paragraph of a book have been listening to lawyers and patent trolls for years, and those are the ones profiting from the broken system.

Why should patents be special?

[afabbro]

you don't know what patents cover until courts declare that in litigation

Same thing is true for civil liberties.

Same thing is true for torts and liabilities.

Same thing is true for criminal law.

Etc. It's the nature of our English law system. It provides extreme flexibility at the cost of being vague.

On the other hand, various continental systems are much more exact, but less flexible.

Of course, if every time there's a question of law, it takes hours and hours to research (at $500/hr), lawyers tend to get rich. Which means the chances of reform in the US are nil.

Re:Could have been worst!

[Amorymeltzer]

...What?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#Patent_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Edison_patents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlieb_Daimler (just search for "patent")

Not quite sure what your point was but I feel safe it was mistaken.

Re:Let me count the ways

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never heard that title applied to Elizabeth Barrett Browning before.

Re:So Basically...

[aenigmainc]

I think you were being redundant. you said monkeys AND lawyers.

Re:MS vs. Apple

[JackAxe]

I just need to comment on one area.

I develop on both iOS and Android. I've been using Macs for decades and still buy them as my primary workstations. Anyways, no, Google did not rip of the iPhone or the iPad; no more than Apple ripped off Google, which is pretty obvious for anyone that works with both.

First to file does not abolish novelty

[tepples]

First to file affects only conflicts between one patent application and another patent application. It does not affect the novelty requirement, which is patent application vs. prior art.

Re:First to file does not abolish novelty

[HuguesT]

Yes it does, because for the USPTO, prior art is what is in their patents database, not out there in the real world.

Re:First to file does not abolish novelty

[am 2k]

First to file affects only conflicts between one patent application and another patent application.

IMO, if two patents are filed for the same thing at the same time, both should be rejected due to the obviousness requirement by default.

Re:First to file does not abolish novelty

[tepples]

This tendency is part of why the America Invents Act expands the possibility for third parties to submit relevant prior art.

Re:Preaching to the choir?

[jhoegl]

That thought did run through my mind, but I really do not care. I hate software patents because they screw over the "small business" everyone seems to be so worried about.

Lets just say I write some code, this code turns out to be a part of a piece of software for a small company. The small company releases it and 5 years later are sued because the code infringes on a patent that no one knew about.

The funny thing is, the code was simple enough that I could have written it a different way avoiding this issue. But because the small business didnt have lawyers out the butt to find this out.

The question I wonder is, did the company reverse engineer the software to find out? Isnt that illegal as well? Why were they doing that?

Re:Preaching to the choir?

[RazorSharp]

Ah, the old Clockwork Orange argument: an action isn't good without good intent.

When it comes to the patent wars, I think those on the losing end of things are bound to be the ones to petition for reform. We might as well support them, regardless of what drives them to this position.

Re:Let me count the ways

[gmhowell]

I didn't know Google Lawyers were fans of the Bard

They don't.

Re:Preaching to the choir?

[rtfa-troll]

AC has been marked as a troll; but is he wrong? Google is in very specific contrast to Red Hat in that they have not asked for the complete elimination of software patents. Given this it's very difficult to take them completely seriously. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't support them, their attitude might change for the better, but we should be very wary. Remember Microsoft also used to oppose software patents; look what they do now. Remember Oracle also used to oppose software patents.

Google should come to a very clear and open anti patent opinion; something like:

• Google is opposed to software patents and will support all actions to stop them
• Google is a law abiding company and respects other companies copyrights, patents and design rights*
• Google will never use patents against companies which agree never to initiate patent lawsuits against other anti-patent companies**
• As long as Google is threatened by patents, Google will initiate patent lawsuits wherever Google identifies that it's patent rights are being infringed by companies which are not clearly opposed to software patents. ***
• All Google patents are available in a patent pool for companies opposed to patents which agree to bind themselves to the conditions of that pool, in particular long term opposition to all forms of software patents.
• All Google patents are available to FOSS software projects using licenses approved by both the FSF and the OSF without any need for further legal involvement provided that those FOSS #

Without an agressive commitment against patents, a patent holder as large and powerful as Google is extremely dangerous. Is there a lawyer out there who could write up something that we could ask Google to sign up to? I don't think the existing patent pools are nearly enough since they are often created by patent creators like IBM who want to keep open too many options.

* You need to make this clear because otherwise in a suit someone might accuse you of deliberately violating rights

** This needs to be written really carefully. FOSS companies become easy targets if they fail to be aggressive in their patent strategy

*** Again this needs to be really careful. Companies might try to use the lack of attack to grow their patent portfolio and then attack later. Google needs to prepare to attack all companies except those which are explicitly and contractually opposed to software patents.

# Here the users and developers of FOSS software should

Re:Preaching to the choir?

[Oswald McWeany]

Google lawyer isn't saying all patents are bad- only the system is broken.

Anyway- you can't pick and choose which companies you protect your patents against and which ones you don't.

If you knowingly don't protect your copyrights and patents when someone breaks them- you lose the right to protect them later against specific individuals.