The Google-Microsoft patent war of words is continuing. Yesterday, Google (rightfully so, in my book) accused Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle partaking in an organised patent attack against Android, instead of competing on merit, claiming that they bought up Novell’s and Nortel’s patents solely to attack Android and its device makers. Microsoft struck back, claiming Google was offered to join in on the bids for the Novell patents, but rejected the offer. Google has now responded to this accusation – and to make matters even more confusing, Microsoft responded back. A public shouting match between two powerful parties? Count me in!
So, Microsoft’s response to Google’s blog post yesterday was quite fascinating. Google stated that Microsoft’s consortium bought the Novell patents to assert them against Android. Brad Smith, Microsoft’s general counsel, countered this in a tweet. “Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no,” he wrote. Frank Shaw, another Microsoft employee, followed up with the email in which Google declined the offer.
I appended this response to the article yesterday, but I didn’t have the time to dive into it. My first thought, though, was simple: of course Google declined that offer! Such a patent deal would only cover Google, and not downstream. In other words, such a patent purchase would cost a lot of money, but it wouldn’t do anything to help HTC, Motorola, Samsung, and so on. Since most lawsuits (except Oracle) focus on the device makers, it would be an entirely empty deal, doing very little to protect Android.
As it turns out, I, and many other smart cookies with me, were right. “It’s not surprising that Microsoft would want to divert attention by pushing a false ‘gotcha!’ while failing to address the substance of the issues we raised,” writes David Drummond, senior vice president and chief legal officer at Google, “If you think about it, it’s obvious why we turned down Microsoft’s offer.”
“Microsoft’s objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks,” he continues, “A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a license would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners. Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android – and having us pay for the privilege – must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn’t fall for it.”
Interestingly, Google has the US Department of Justice on its side in this one, as the DoJ raised antitrust concerns over CPTN’s (Apple, Microsoft, Oracle) purchase of the Novell patents, and forced them to change the patent deal to indemnify the open source community (by handing over the patents to the Open Invention Network). Of course, the Apple-Microsoft-Oracle cartel couldn’t drop the deal because of the DoJ’s demands, since that would’ve instantly proven they only bought them for offensive purposes. This means that thanks to the DoJ, this cartel has just spent million and millions on a fairly useless patent war chest.
Shaw, meanwhile, has already responded to the above, but Shaw is clearly running out of steam after yesterday’s 15 minutes of fame. “Let’s look at what Google does not dispute in their reply,” Shaw writes on Twitter, “We offered Google the opportunity to bid with us to buy the Novell patents; they said no. Why? BECAUSE they wanted to buy something that they could use to assert against someone else. SO partnering with others & reducing patent liability across industry is not something they wanted to help do.”
A rather weak response, since if history is anything to go by, the safe assumption is that Google is not going to use any patents aggressively. The company has never filed a patent lawsuit – not even a defensive one – unlike Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle. Especially Apple and Microsoft are clear aggressors against Android, and Oracle is nothing but a proxy for Redmond and Cupertino. Larry Ellison, is, after all, one of Jobs’ best friends.
Heck, contrary to popular belief, the infamous PageRank patent the anti-Android crowd keeps drumming up isn’t even owned by Google. It’s owned by Stanford University, and licensed by Google. The PageRank patent keeps being used as some sort of golden proof that Google loves software patents too, and that therefore, they’re hypocrites. The truth is though, not only has Google never threatened to sue anyone with the PageRank patent – even if they wanted to, they couldn’t, because they don’t own it.
Like I said yesterday, I do not like Google (I don’t own and never have owned an Android device – heck, I don’t even use Google Search). As a consumer, you should always distrust companies because their interests are diametrically opposed to yours. However, when it comes to software patents, and the importance of competition, I happen to be in Google’s camp. My cheering for Google is based on the company’s dislike for software patents – whereas many people simply hate Google because they are a major threat to Apple.
Luckily for us, the DoJ is investigating both the Novell and Nortel deals for antitrust issues, and the Canadian authorities are looking into the Nortel deal as well. With a bit of luck, the Nortel patents, too, will be given to the OIN. If that happens, Google will have scored a major win – for the better of competition and innovation in the market place.
I’ll gladly take a few angry comments from Apple fanatics for that one. You know something’s afoot when Gruber and Thurrot join hands to skip through the fields.
.. cheering for Stalin over Hitler – neither option is very appealing.
Microsoft / Apple / et. al are using the (broken) patent system to their advantage and presumably avoiding supporting any changes that would take patent power away from big companies.
On the other hand, Google is ‘anti-patent’ mostly because they want to feel free to copy whatever they feel like and use it to create a larger ad channel for their real profit engine – so copying something and then giving it out for free is much more appealing than if they have to license parts of it. And to help that engine along, they collect all data possible about those users while pushing a never-ending supply of ads. Oh yea! Go Google! (???)
Patents are supposed to protect innovation and give a window where competitors either can’t use a new idea or have to license it, so there’s certainly validity to Apple going after Google given that they’ve been granted patents on various touch / portable device technologies. On the other hand, allowing 17-20 year patents on what are often trivial inventions as part of a extremely expensive and litigious system isn’t a good thing at all.
Considering these are just software and procedure patents I might actually challenge your assertion that google is *just stealing*. There are copyright laws to protect art assets if that is what you are talking about.
Edited 2011-08-04 22:15 UTC
Aim of my post is to gain more understanding into patents & copyright….
Isn’t a patent provided to cover the idea, process of execution & its applicability? As I understand, copyright can protect my code but not the idea & its implementation process.
So, without a patent somebody can take my idea & execution procedure (unique in combination) but use their own logic (code) to the achieve the same. How will a copyright protect my idea & execution procedure?
I’m OK if somebody takes my idea but uses a different execution approach to solve the problem. But, I don’t want somebody copying my idea & execution procedure without me getting any benefit out of it. This is specifically true for cases where a company invests millions of $$ in R&D, just to find that somebody copied their idea & execution approach into their product to get the feature for free.
In any case, patents should have a stringent expiry clauses (not exceeding 5yrs) without possible extensions. Modification of original patent by adding a new approach must not be considered as a new patent. I personally feel 5yrs is more than enough for companies to benefit from their patent. Further, government must stop trading of patents between companies as assets. Ideally, a company’s patents must be released to public domain if the company is taken over by another.
As far as I know, patents do not protect ideas, they protect implementations of ideas, aka “inventions”.
I liken this to a simple concept that people can picture easily:
– A person can invent a new type of water pump, and perhaps get a patent on it, but they cannot get a patent on the idea of pumping water. Another person later on can invent yet another new type of water pump, and they too can perhaps get a patent for it.
– Both inventors have invented water pumps, the two pumps in question just work differently. Neither inventor has a patent on the idea itself of pumping water.
AFAIK, this is how patents work.
Examples with pictures … there are a number of different steam engines on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine#Motor_units
Double acting stationary steam engine, double piston stroke, oscillating cylinder, triple expansion, uniflow and turbine are shown. AFAIK there are still other types, pistonless rotary engine, Wankel engine, Rankine cycle and Schoelle cycle?
All of these confrom to the idea of a steam engine, but they are all different “inventions”, they are all different implementations of that idea of a steam engine.
Edited 2011-08-05 07:13 UTC
Exactly my point… Patent covers idea & a specific execution approach not just an idea.
Then, what is exactly wrong with software patents? Why shouldn’t execution approach for implementing an idea be protected?
Because code is protected by copyright. Software patents would be akin to plot patents – patents on the detective novel, the romance novel, the scifi novel, etc.
Code in itself is not the implementation approach. I can write the code for an algorithm (approach) in such a way that my code is different from the original source. I’m not improving the approach in anyways whatsoever. In such cases, I’ll not be in violation of copyright. But, shouldn’t I be in violation of the approach (even if it is not patented)?
Can you please explain how copyright protection works when I use a different programming language?
For Ex: Say a developer at X wrote a program for a unique feature for their phone. The code is copyrighted but the feature is not protected. The code for the same is available for others. I’m from company Y, I take this source code and then rewrite the same in a different programming language.
Is company Y in violation of copyright from a legal standpoint? Y does not care for technical or moral or ethical standpoint.
As an additional example, I want to use the case of Android notification system which Apple blatantly copied in iOS. In such a case, how will you prove the copyright violation? OTOH, had Google patented its notification system, Apple would be liable for infringement.
You can’t, and you shouldn’t be able to. That’s the whole point.
Which would be idiotic. I’m happy Apple copied Android’s notifications, because it is a good design. It makes iOS a better operating system, and thus, benefits consumers the world over. That’s the point!
Then the question would be, why should any company or person invest millions of $$$ on R&D to innovate something so that others can just copy them?
Everybody will wait for other to innovate so that they can copy. Thereby resulting in a condition where nobody innovates due to the fear of copy.
People are not altruists. It hurts when somebody steals something of yours. It is common human behavior and there is nothing wrong in it.
Patent provides an incentive for innovation and creates another channel for sharing without fear of stealing. Hence, it is needed.
However, there should be restrictions on patents such as max. 5yrs-life, no patent selling/buying, etc which I’ve already stated in my other post. Such restrictions would surely help in eliminating patent trolls.
History disagrees with you. The software industry has done without software patents for most of its existence – and during this period without software patents, technological development was just as fast-paced – if not more so – than today.
Another example is the steam locomotive. Before Watt received a patent on certain parts of the steam engine, steam engines increased their power and efficiency very rapidly. Then, when Watt got his patent, development came to a screeching halt for the entire duration of his patent. When the patent expired, development went back to its regular, crazy-fast pace.
For most of the history of mankind, we have done without patents – which are not an inalienable human right, but a legal construct – and we did just fine.
“On 21 May 1962, a British patent application entitled “A Computer Arranged for the Automatic Solution of Linear Programming Problems” was filed. The invention was concerned with efficient memory management for the simplex algorithm, and could be implemented by purely software means. The patent was granted on August 17, 1966 and seems to be one of the first software patents.” -Wikipedia
How about you read the rest of those Wikipedia articles as well, and then get back to me?
Gist: a VERY small number of software patents were granted until around the mid-’90s. Up until then, the USPTO was firmly against software patents, the US courts were in favour, but the Supreme Court against. Then, somewhere in the mid-’90s, Bill Clinton appointed a new head of the USPTO who came straight from the large software companies. Since then, software patents became accepted.
Thousands and thousands of software patents are granted each year now. Before that, between, say, 1960 and 1995, we have only a handful. Yet, software flourished just fine in that time period.
Edited 2011-08-05 17:57 UTC
Wrong. Why would they innovate? To be the first to develop the technology. If they are the first, then they have a head start in the market. Everybody else that copied would be one step behind. Especially in the software industry what is liable is not the final product but minuscule aspects of the product that couldn’t be worked around because nobody knows what implementations the patents apply to.
Stop using the term steal. To steal implies that you dispossess the thing the other person had.
It also allows the creation of a patent sausage factory, like (reportedly) MS. They patent every and anything they come up with and have the massive legal and bureaucratic infrastructure to churn out this stuff even when not using it. How does this help the little guy?
But not large enterprises from trolling each other, or blocking out smaller competitors.
Edited 2011-08-05 11:47 UTC
If you can prove that this new code (in different language) is “just” copy of your code, than you won it in court. Its similar to copyright protecting your work even if someone will translate it to different language!
On the other hand, I do not understand, your “execution” portion.
There is idea, there is code. No “execution procedure”.
My general approach to people who are ignorant to the vast literature about why ideas/software patents are a bad idea is to inform them. The specific “code” are the numerous comments I have posted on OsNews and elsewhere. So here’s an idea – why don’t I patent my “approach” to how to deal with ignorant people. Why shouldn’t my “approach” be protected by law? Why won’t the government grant monopolies over my ideas?
Almost forgot – here’s one of the most recent, and perhaps the best article that would answer almost all your questions? Are you going to read it?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/patent-reform-congress_n_9…
Another reminder why we need to fire everybody in Congress and start from scratch.
Specially in the field of software, I would think it rare that anybody didn’t think of the same execution at the same time. Part of the problem is that good execution is good execution and you’re far from the only person to think of the same idea at the same time (only in very,very rare instances will the execution be truly novel).
It is highly also highly unlikely that your execution is all that original. It will build on previous art. What many are doing is looking at previous art and adding a widget which then makes the patent acceptable but not novel (anybody can go for previous art and add widgetX). Unless widgetX is truly innovative, that is BS patent (if widgetX were innovative why not patent that instead?)
With patents, the invention itself can be just a method (meaning that you could get a patent on a process for building a brick if that process was new and non-obvious, even if the brick itself isn’t). With bricks, it is safe to assume that all kinds of process having to do with them have been around for a long time, hence is practically impossible to come up with a new one.
The trick with software patents (which are just method patents) is that the field of technology is relatively recent, so that there is not enough prior art to invalidate new patents. Thus, it is much easier to come up with a broad claim.
And this is the other problem. Patents have been designed for other fields of technology, where the rate of innovation was much slower. For hydraulic valves, a patent term of 20 years is reasonable. For software, it isn’t.
The problem is software patents. Not patents in general. Patenting commodity software such as operating systems is a folly and must stop. Microsoft and Apple are pushing for a day when no one can write open source software without treading on their trivial software patents which are not novel or non-obvious. Your attempt to astroturf for Apple by shifting the conversation has failed. Its about software patents.
BTW a court has found that Apple has copied Nokia’s technology. The ITC has found that Apple has copied technology that now belongs to HTC. FYI
Finally somebody who is willing to call a spade a spade.
The only way this patent bullshit is going to end is if/when these big companies get tired of being sued by each other. Of course, I’m sure that won’t stop people like Thom from incessantly whining about it on tech blogs
Eh, that would be the desired outcome.
The desired outcome is for the government to step in and rationalize the patent system (and I don’t just mean business process or software patents, but all patents including hardware, bio, etc.).
That’s not going to happen anytime soon though.
And to help that engine along, they collect all data possible about those users while pushing a never-ending supply of ads. Oh yea! Go Google! (???)
Where is all these ads from Google these folk keep going on about?
I never see any and never have. Or am I just an exception and missing out on summat?
Am I the only one who thinks this is a very poorly written sentence?! Patent an idea?? C’mon if that is allowed Star track should be in position to license everything from mobile phones to CT Scans etc. Come to think of it… I have an idea give me few minutes to patent it and then I’ll tell you all about it…
Google and apple/Microsoft are trying to screw someone over… Except Apple/Microsoft are using the broken software patent system and google are just tryin to outright steal… Neither is right, they are just big business doing what big business does best…
In all honestly it doesn’t really matter to the consumer… Juat buy the Apple/Microsoft/Android device of your choice and let your wallet decide.
I’ve made my choice, I’m happy… I’m pretty sure others are happy with their choice too
Edited 2011-08-04 22:14 UTC
Unless, Apple/MS decide it is time to charge more for Android device than they have from their own devices or banning them from selling is even better.
Than you as customer have no choice.
$4.5 BILLION is at stake. If you think that’s going to be forsaken in the name of patent egalitarianism you’ve been spending way too much time with the unicorns.
In the absolute best case scenario the DOJ will force the licensees to agree to some type of ‘fair’ patent licensing policy (which Microsoft and Apple will still be happy with because it will raise the ‘price’ of Android).
]{
Why don’t you just read the link? They did it for the Novel patents – why wouldn’t they do it for the Nortel patents?
Edited 2011-08-04 22:36 UTC
Well, oh so many reasons, here is a few …
1) Microsoft was at the the time and is at the moment the dominant OS platform so it’s ability to assert patents over Linux was a big deal because it would improve Microsoft’s already dominant position.
Google is currently the largest player in search and Android is now the most popular operating system in mobile (it’s bigger then Microsoft + Apple combined) so it’s not like anyones dominant position will be improved.
You might argue that Apple’s dominant position as a smartphone vendor would be improved but it’s slice of the pie is still pretty small compared to what Microsoft had (and has) on the desktop.
2) Most of the Novell patents were for software that was implicitly or explicitly related to the DOJ / Microsoft anti-trust case while these patents are mostly for hardware unrelated to any pending actions by the DOJ.
Obviously, OIN would not play a role since there is little if any impact on Linux.
3) The Novell deal was pocket change for most of the companies involved (including Novell) so when the DOJ wanted changes everyone smiled and moved on. This deal is $4.5 BILLION that will make a huge number of bondholders (in an otherwise bankrupt company) whole. If the deal was watered down those patents would not be worth the same amount making a large number of people deeply unhappy which means the bar for government action is much higher.
Possibly, Google could come to the table at this point so everyone had a license to the patents at the same market value but, really, all that would mean is that RockStar could not use them offensively which would make it as unattractive to Google as a Microsoft-Google deal for the Novell patents (because they could also not be used counter offensively).
This is just generally a crappy position for Google. Patent reform is not coming soon so the best they can hope for is to reduce the damage these patents will do to Android vendors (ultimately there is no doubt that every Android device sold will fill the coffers of multiple companies; the key for Google is making sure the fee is small enough to keep Android attractive).
]{
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1575.html
… and, as TechCrunch observed, Microsoft just kicked them in the nuts.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/03/microsoft-just-kicked-google-in-th…
So, their original assertion about being cut out of licensing patents was a complete fabrication. Bullshit. Nonsense. Tripe. Propaganda. You choose your favorite disparagement.
Software patents aren’t going anywhere, people. If you want real change, you’re going to need to do more than whine about it as an anonymous prole on OsNews. YOu’re going to need to form a political action committee, get the attention of a bunch of congressmen, and get the laws changed.
Short of that, stop your whining. You’re growing tiresome.
Edited 2011-08-04 23:33 UTC
They were half right in the original post – they were offered a place in the Novell deal, but were not offered a spot in the Nortel deal.
US DoJ already said that Novell deal was detrimental to innovations in the FOSS world. It’s yet to be seen what happens with the Nortel deal.
It’s a full out PR war by now, so get used to it. In addition, whiners get a lot what they whine about. So it might not be a good PR stunt to whine, but it gets things done…
What the media outlets are liking, is that they get all of this activity… Whatever riles up the troops.
Oh, and BTW, Google is getting a profit boost from all of this… Since they control most of the ads on the net.
It’s not going to amount to squat in the court room, where it matters.
Yeap. You can lawfully assert cash from patents thats are about anything (including 3 000y old round shape of wheel), just because there are no cheap lawfull ways to defend from troll. All lawful (in USA at least).
True, but Google’s got money and that’s what matters in U.S courts.
So what. Its competitors have a huge pile of cash, too, and they’re obviously not afraid to spend it. Google is going to come out on the losing end of this. They simply have to understand that they need to license the patents and get it over with. The problem, though, for Android is that its entire value proposition is based on being “free” compared to its competitors. Take that away by forcing Google to pay patent royalties, and you have a very level playing field. Of course, Google could just absorb the cost of the patent royalties and keep Android free, but we’re talking about billions of dollars here. I doubt that Google would do that because it would hurt its bottom line, and it would be ongoing…
This bickering is not about the courtroom, it’s about the laws. The lawsuits are just examples to be exaggerated.
Don’t forget that laws are mostly created by a small number of people. Even the US constitution was created by a few activists…
Not sure what point you’re trying to make. The laws guide the courtroom. Nobody is going to change the laws. Ergo, it’s an argument signifying nothing.
It’s probably not obvious to you, but Google is on the verge of giving up. This is their switch of tactics – to start forcing legal reform. If you whine loud enough and long enough, the laws will be passed.
Edited 2011-08-08 23:44 UTC
No shortage of Google ads on OSNews, an obvious sign of distrust?
So the dissertation here is that the only people who are against Google on this are people who are Apple lovers?
No possibility at all that there might actually be people who have very good reasons for either disliking Google, their nefarious data collection, and their very obvious – to some – future goals? Or people who maybe support non-trivial software patents because they are as important to innovation has non-trivial hardware patents?
There are just as many people beating this insane drum about Google being a major threat to Apple. How exactly? Ever thought that like thousands of other companies out there Apple’re doing everything they can within the limits of the law to grow their business and protect their investments?
Why would they be scared of Google / Android? When it comes to accessible functionality for the masses iOS is streets ahead of Android. The article geeks frap about for a comparison doesn’t in any way compare the actual OS user experience from a noobs perspective, it is purely a comparison of apps. In another more valid comparison of the actual OS this was the conclusion:
Many people have bought Android phones on the recommendations of one or more of those tech connoisseurs, and from personal experience I know many that will never buy another, simply finding Android too confusing / complicated / inconsistent / unstable. Despite the rhetoric bandied around here, my personal approach is to tell people to go try out both, without the assistance of any salesperson, talk to non-techy people that they know who own one or the other, and make up their own mind. By a large margin those people have gone the iOS path.
The proliferation of Android phones has been driven purely by the carriers and marketing. The same thing happened when the carriers pushed Blackberry. iPhone came along, they pushed that, it became successful because it was simple yet powerful and feature rich compared to other offerings. But geeks wanted more and Apple wouldn’t give it to them, so they stayed away in droves and lapped up Android when it came along. Many of those geeks work at phone retailers, and they sell Android phones on the back of their enthusiasm for it’s power user features – things that the majority of the population would never use, and on Android couldn’t work out how to use even if they wanted to. Just walk into a phone retailer and listen to them prattling on about multitasking this, tethering that, setting up a hotspot and customising your home screen, but ask them how to set up the device for visually impaired users or sync’ing it with your current iPod based music collection and they have a meltdown.
And the real giveaway is the tablet market. No carriers pushing it, after all there’s bugger all dollars in it for them, and iOS is smashing Android despite there being about 10:1 advertising in the other direction. So again I ask, what has Apple got to be scared of? Anyone looking at this logically just sees a company doing what all companies who actually create anything do to protect their investment. If Google was in the business of creating, or should I say making money from their creations and not just from selling advertising, they’d be doing exactly the same thing.
You know, MrHasBean, you already provided a ready-made rebuttal to that claim… earlier in the same comment, no less.
“So the dissertation(sic) here is that the people who purchase Android devices only do so because they’re brainwashed by geeks at mobile carriers?
No possibility at all that there might actually be people who have very good reasons for either disliking Apple, their ‘gated community’ approach to the iOS ecosystem, and their very obvious – to some – attempts to erect barriers to competition in the handheld OS market?”
P.S.
Are you ever going to admit that you’re MrHasBean posting under a sock account?
And many more people don’t have the techy friends. Or actually went into the store and decided that they were missing something in iOS. I have as much anecdotal evidence as you, yet it’s very much irrelevant.
The only problem, is that you give non-techie people too little credit. A lot of them can easily select the right phone they need and evaluate all the upsides and downsides, especially women.
And others got where they are due to magic dust?
Either you are wrong or Apple has no case. The way you describe Android, there is NO WAY anyone who isn’t retarded would ever confuse Android and iOS. Android is just so bad that its not even comparable. So why is it that Apple is suing anyone for copying iOS. If its a copy, then that’s saying its the same. So which is it? Are Android and iOS the same proving that there was copying? Or is Android such a pale comparison as to be an original creation?
To be honest, I think they are the same and that both Apple and Google copied from the people that came before them. That is why the two are so similar. But I don’t expect Apple to ever admit that. Nokia had touch screen internet tablets long before iOS came out. Running a form of gnome or kde I can’t remember atm.
Edited 2011-08-05 03:55 UTC
Apple is not suing anyone for coping iOS!
Google did not infringed copyright hold by Apple!
Apple sue Google for infringing ideas, Apple have patents for.
Problem with patents for software is that every piece of code is ONLY idea. So you can patent anything, anytime. Also giving monopole is very bad idea in software! You then get companies not carring to innovate more (just because they can stop others).
And also because copyright is there in place to stop outright copping source code (and thats case Google vs Oracle). Software is unique field “protected” by copyright and patents. Oh and 20y protection is just crazy. After 5-10y you just get things as granted and build on them new innovation. If patents last so long, you just cant do (cause you can not make innovation without crossing tooo many of them).
But, patent documents not just detail an idea.. it also details a particular execution approach as an implementation of the idea. I’m not sure of somebody will get sued if they have a different approach to achieve the same idea.
Simple case we can consider is of pinch-to-zoom. Apple did not get patent for pinch-to-zoom or multitouch. They have a patent for a specific implementation involved two fingers on a viewport to zoom in a specific content displayed in the viewport. How is that not specific? If somebody wants to implement multitouch to zoom, then they should come up with their own idea not just copy what Apple innovated. BTW, I’m not arguing that Apple invented multitouch or pinch-to-zoom. Its just that they patented a specific procedure.
Why not? There is no legal barrier for that, and court is expensive. So why somebody want start company (legal), buy some patents (legal), go to X different companies and signal that they should pay licenses (legal), or will go to court with them (legal).
If company make license costs below legal costs, than some companies will go for it! Just to save time and money.
All legal, even though patent was rubbish.
Think again:
pinch-to-zoom – it is the most natural move a person could make with 2 fingers (or more) to zoom on a small screen. If you invented multitouch and you wanted to show how to zoom, you would do the same. Because it is what you do in reality when you want to make something bigger.
Of course, if Apple had a patent on how to recognize this gesture, than we are talking…
So I could argue that apple patented a very natural gesture (I might loose this argument since it’s hard to prove, but than again, with an easy experiment I could win).
If you actually look at the patents Apple is asserting against HTC, you’ll see that a lot of them are ridiculously broad. Though Apple’s patents seem to be the most specific ones of all that are in this patent sh***storm.
A patent should be a document that is a guide to implementing. None. I really mean, none of the patents(in these cases) could be read as a guide for implementation after it expires. There is just not enough info in them to use it like a schematic, like most hardware patents have. Their last one that I read, was Apple’s document scrolling patent. And I would have to spend as much time in understanding and implementing it as I would have done it without reading the patent – it’s lacks detail that much.
I don’t believe that pinch-to-zoom is patented, though.
Actually Apple is suing Samsung over the “look and feel” of the Galaxy Tab. This I *believe* falls under copyright, not patents. Lets face it, Apple is suing the world just about.
Nokia’s Maemo Linux is GTK based. I’m not sure if it’s a modified Gnome or just a GTK DE similar to Gnome.
QT comes to Maemo later. Keepass is QT based and works on maemo but is clearly not using the native GUI widget set.
Don’t reply to mrhasbean, don’t reply to mrhasbean… Ah, man, I can’t, this one is just too big.
[citation needed]. Here, iPad ads are *extremely* commonplace, while I’ve yet to see an ad for an Android tablet outside of techie websites.
(On a related note, I’ve recently sent a mail to Gruber about a flaw which I was seeing in one of his articles. The mail was detailed and polite, explaining clearly where I thought the issue was and heavily giving him the benefit of doubt. He didn’t reply. I should really stop believing that trolls can be saved.)
Pointless. Why do you think he has no comments on his site?
I’ve seen some other blogging systems that don’t support comments around the web (and always find them just as annoying), so I was giving him the benefit of doubt on this one : he could prefer a comment-free CMS because he finds it awesome for some unrelated reason (pleasing typography nazis, reducing server load, less cluttered admin interface…).
He regularly mentions the e-mails he receives, e.g. on the update of this article : http://daringfireball.net/2011/06/n9_and_meego . Therefore, I concluded that this is the main contact medium. While still suspecting that he only picks e-mails that prove his points — hey, this is Daring Fireball we’re talking about after all. Now, I’m pretty much convinced
Edited 2011-08-05 08:50 UTC
Someone should create a site where Gruber’s posts are aggregated (easy enough to do using the RSS feed) & commenting is allowed… then see how long it takes for him to throw a hissy-fit over it.
On a completely unrelated topic, I see that “daringfanboy.net” is available.
Already been done. He threw a hissy fit, and had it taken down.
http://www.cultofmac.com/john-gruber-is-surprisingly-cool-with-dari…
Edited 2011-08-05 13:24 UTC
Already been done. He threw a hissy fit, and had it taken down.
http://www.cultofmac.com/john-gruber-is-surprisingly-cool-with-dari… [/q]
Ah fanboys, they’re nothing if not predictable.
The cultofmac post doesn’t give details, but I’d wager Gruber complained that the other site was a copyright infringement since it used his site’s design and imagery.
If that weren’t the case (and as long as there was no attempt to claim authorship of his posts), then there would’t be anything “the Grube” could do about it.
Question is, what makes somebody this much of a fanatic towards a corporation that only views them a customer, doesn’t “love” them, wants their money, and then wants out of their faces until it’s time to buy something new? It’s one thing to be a gamer and appreciate a company like Bioware or somebody for the games they make, but to be a frothing at the mouth OCPD candidate, kissing their arses every step of the way, and blogging with rabid determination in their favor is quite another. Unless, of course, you’re getting paid for it.
Edited 2011-08-05 19:30 UTC
Thom has argued that software patents are merely “patenting numbers” and that it is wrong based on this assertion.
I think C. S. Lewis, JRR Tolken, JK Rowling among many others would disagree with that understanding. Thom’s philosophy is akin to saying that patenting a book is just patenting letters.
I remember reading, a couple of years ago, that some guy was trying to patent a specific type of story plot.
Unlike copyrights, patents lock out everyone, even in the case of independent innovation. That’s why they’re so dangerous to apply to something like software where the patent investigators don’t understand things well enough to weed out the garbage applications.
Either learn what you’re talking about or learn to troll better. Whichever is applicable to your intentions.
Independent innovation is exactly why I don’t like the patent system.
The patent system is supposed to be designed to promote innovation by giving inventors a monopoly on their inventions in exchange for disclosing them. Patents do not promote innovation when the claimed inventions are easily created in the absence of knowledge of the patent. Too many patents today fall into this category, particularly the ones that take a manual process and automate it, or format-shift an application or UI element to the web or to mobile technology.
patent != copyright
The works of Lewis, Tolkien and Rowling are protected by copyright, they are not patented.
Patenting a book would in fact involve patenting the process of putting letters on paper and binding the pages together.
No.
Patents for software are not about physical quantities or their use. Their are about “pure ideas”.
So JRRT could eg. patent parts of story, plot, heroes, world, etc. Even writing tircks and trips.
Also way you write novel could be patented (eg. first you describe your entities, than make plot).
ALL of those things have been patented in software patents!
Um… The authors of books are protected by copyright, NOT patent.
I think you’re a little confused about the two. Thom says software patents which cover the algorithm behind the text, is not patentable.
These are two entirely different things.
Math is not patentable.
Math is not patentable but software algorithms are!!!
There are many sorting patents for example!
I’m sure someone already said this but, uh, you can’t patent books. Does your ignorance know no boundaries?
If you are going to attack someone at least bother to get the argument right. Thom argued that software is “math” not numbers. Although technically both is actually correct. Software is converted to binary, ones and zeroes. Software works at the core level by your processor doing simple math. If you had EVER programmed in assembly, you would clearly understand how the math works.
I wish I didn’t have to be so hostile but:
You’re useless.
After commenting on several articles on patents, you still don’t know what they truly entail. You used the worst possible example (I’m sure others have told you that books are protected by copyright).
In that vein it should be pointed out that there are many books that resemble quite closely these books in terms of structure, story and content…and yet these are still the most famous.
…are such a grey area.
I am for them, and against them.
If I come up with a super idea that has never been thought of before, I spend a year or two perfecting it, and then release the software, then surely I should have some protection over someone else looking at all my hard work, copying it, and selling it as their own.
But can/should you patent an idea?
On the other hand, competition is a great ways to help move the industry forward and for the consumer to get products at reasonable prices.
I don’t know enough about patent laws (and I’m sure a few other people here don’t either), but from what I keep reading, the system is flawed. It appears you can patent to such an extent that it’s near impossible to write any software anymore without being liable for something from someone.
I check MacSurfer most days. I notice that Apple gets sued as much as they sue, if not more. I am sure this is the same for most of the bigger companies.
I have no problem with a patent on an implementation of an idea however. But I would like to see a time limit placed on it, maybe 2 – 5 years. That way, the “inventor” can have a head start in building a market around the implementation, but can’t hold onto that indefinitely. Maybe this is already the case.
I should read more, but to be honest, I just don’t have the time. If someone can point me to a “simple” summary of how software patents work, that would be helpful. Others might find that helpful too. (Yes, I could Google “Summary of Software Patents”) 😉
Yeah software patents are really a grey area, I think mostly they point out several problems with the patent system (at least in the US):
1) The fixed length of time granted per patent — the rapid pace of innovation in the field makes this very questionable
2) The quality of the patents aren’t really evaluated or judged when they’re filed. This is pretty difficult to do actually, so that one is somewhat understandable.
3) The ability to sell patents to companies which don’t produce any actual products (in the relevant field)– should be abolished
I think there probably are cases where people are innovating and could deserve some protection long enough to get a product out — which would benefit society. Those who invent something but don’t actually produce anything (because they cannot enter a certain field) should be able to sell their idea to a company which would then produce something based on it.
You have copyright that prevents others from “COPYING” your source code!
You do not need patent. And them if someone without looking at your code copied “behavior” of your code, can you really call him “coping your work”? Or is it just idea thats easy to come up with, when faced with exact problem.
What is a super idea? do you see super ideas often? Pretty much all “innovation” in software is mostly combining existing implementations or ideas into something else, or in a certain way.
Please point me to a “super idea” you have seen recently..
This.
If software patents existed at the time the first “Hello, world” app was written, that person could have effectively blocked any advancements in application development for the next 20 some odd years.
Software development, much as with any creative work, does not occur in a vacuum. It is influenced by ideas and works that occurred before it, and often builds or improves upon those ideas further. Steve Jobs himself has admitted in the past that stealing great ideas is a smart thing to do.
Talk to any successful author, musician, screenwriter whatever, and they can all cite other creators that inspire and influence their work.
If a software developer tried that, they’d be hauled into court on some patent violation or another.
Good article Tom, as usual.
Though tangential to the main point, I do think you are mistaken here:
“As a consumer, you should always distrust companies because their interests are diametrically opposed to yours.”
While this may indeed be true of companies that rely on Patent, Trademark, Copyright, and other government regulations, to prop up their business instead of competing on merit, this isn’t the general rule.
(Actually, even in these cases, no one is forcing you to spend your money with a particular company.)
Take a visit to a local restaurant, dry-cleaners, hardware store, … and you can experience the power that only the buyer has.
(If you live in a culture where bartering is common, or if you can go somewhere -say flea or farmer’s market- where it is, the experience is even more amazing!)
I find best companies, even those who use government to restrict competition (again, through IP laws and regulations), to be those who are most responsive to their customers … the ones who are most successful in aligning their interests with those of their customers.
OK, that could be the beginning of a long conversation … lets just leave it as something to think about.
C++t fight!
I keep seeing many people regarding Google as thieves. So is anyone going to acknowledge that Apple has done the exact same thing? Either they are both guilty of “stealing” or they are both not. They have both taken ideas from others in the market and its really not fair to single out Google for the behavior and not Apple.
Well, they want.
It so handy to call some one stealer after all.
Also there is no point in arguing that it is not stealing. Both Google, Apple need to pot their resources even when they copy feature that already exist.
…because they do not have ammunition
as far I am concern – end of story! good luck Google
They need “defensive” patents, because they know they are (willingly) infringing a number.
You say that as if it was an evil thing, when reality is you just can’t write any piece of software without stepping on someone else’s toes. Everything that can be patented has quite likely been patented (and then some just in case), there’s a whole business based on trading in patents parasitizing software development.
If you are a small developer you can try flying under the radar of most patent owners, but big companies need the patents to get better deals through cross licensing (ie. deals that don’t kill their own products) or just give a “if you mess with me I’ll ass-rape you with my patent portfolio” stance.
It’s the exact same reason why you’d want a nuclear arsenal.
I didn’t mean to make it sound evil.
While I agree this software patent system is way out of control, I think we should also accept that it’s the current set of rules which Google is breaking.
Google has made a habit of moving fast and deal with the consequences later.
but I’m rather enjoying OSNews coverage of this issue. It’s unusually refrained, while a lot of the other sites/shows are being unusually presumptuous, or are just failing to report on anything past the initial volleys.
..this goes against Microsoft Sun Tzu art of war strategy..
<a HREF=”http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096.pdf“&g…
(pdf page 35 and 37)
Patent law originally developed to protect physical inventions which typically sold in very small numbers and were very expensive to develop.
It took John Harrison more than 20 years and around a million dollars in today’s currency to develop his H5 marine chronometer in the 18th century. [Luckily the British government funded his work through bounties.]
A few were sold each year at a price equivalent to about $100,000.
Now a programmer can develop some code in a relatively short time and sell a 100 million copies in a year.
Why should the programmer get the same period of patent protection for trivial idea as someone who spends a decade or and millions of dollars?
Software patents are acceptable if non-trivial and granted for a very short period eg 2-3 years to recover costs.
Dare I say…this actually sounds reasonable. Now, would you tie the length of the patent to R&D costs of the inventor for any submission, or just a special class of submissions? Do you think it should also be based on whether a working product can be developed during that time period?
I would assign patent life purely on the basis of the effort and cost of creation and the time needed to recover costs.
I would also allow inventors to register “open patents” with an online database at no cost to encourage innovation. The inventor would get personal credit but no royalties. The primary goal would simply be to prevent anyone else from patenting the idea.
In the past I’ve anticipated several relatively simple applied chemistry/biochemistry processes that have subsequently been patented by others. I never bothered because the cost of further developing the ideas and patenting was totally prohibitive.
Most of the time, I’m fairly contrarian and like to argue. However, your idea seems very solid and workable.
I’d say 5 years, but otherwise yes. Also, I think the patent office should limit the number of patents a coorporation can submit in a year, while also being much more pessimistic when evaluating patents. For example notifications on computers are not new, and certainly obvious.
Setting aside the fact that software patents are abused, the real issue is with the USPTO.
They are self-funded based upon patent application and renewal fees, and the examiners are compensated based on the volume of patents they push through from the extensive backlog. There are no consequences for incorrectly issued or invalidated patents, other than the prospect of additional fees as the patent owners refile with adjusted claims.
Worse still, the government takes whatever they generate as general revenue, limiting the ability of the USPTO to at least re-invest surplus revenue for additional resources etc.
In other words, there is no incentive for quality control, only volume.
And yet the courts defer to the authority of the patent office and make defendants jump through hoops to try to invalidate the claims of a patent.
Quite frankly, Congress could ban software patents and the USPTO would probably still issue them in one form or another as patent holders learned to become savvier with wording the claims.
If the USPTO could be reformed one way or another so that they had the resources and incentive to properly vet and audit the claims of software/process patents, and could streamline the process of challenging or invalidating patents outside of a court, it could go a long way to fixing the current level of abuse. Without requiring legislative overhauls or legal precedents that are not likely to occur anytime in the short term.
Crowdsourcing could also be useful as part of the patent validation or invalidation process, if managed correctly.
Anyways, just my 2 pennies.
in 2005. Apple bought Fingerworks, not Google.
Apple had vision. Google did not.
(otherwise Google would buy Fingerworks first)
I remember moment when I first time saw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89sz8ExZndc
I was absolutely stunned !!! it was so obviously that this was future of human-computer interaction!
Bill Gates realized same thing just 2 years latter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PimbkQNKzb4
anyway, somebody spread word, all over internet, that demonstration of multitouch monitor (1st YT link) was from Apple – in reality it was done by Jefferson Han.
but anyway, Apple did buy, one year before J. Han presentation on TED, Fingerworks and start work on multitouch device that come to market as iPhone
and than we have:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2348832&cid=36882124
—
Relevant dates and links:
November 5, 2007 – Google announces Android [blogspot.com], doesn’t mention Java
November 5, 2007 – Later that day, Schwartz posts blog praising Android as “Java/Linux platform”
November 12, 2007 – First release of Android source, Dalvik revealed. This blog [http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/], written that day, has a pretty good explanation of the fast one Google pulled on Sun. “How did Google manage to get Sun to license off a platform that could very well kill their own? Turns out, they didn’t: their move was even smarter than Sun’s.”
Edited 2011-08-07 08:35 UTC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU&feature=player_embedded
Some people just age THAT badly (or are that hypocritical)