Live data from Hacker News

When patents attack Android

googleblog.blogspot.com

101–110 of 291 posts

Re: When patents attack Android

#101
post #65

Is this why we're seeing a sudden burst of anti-patent news? Is Google in the early phases of drumming up grassroots support for a direct assault on software patents in general, without their name being on the effort? Is this post actually move 3 instead of move 1? Honest questions, BTW, if there's anybody with answers who are allowed to give answers...

I get the sense that Google plays chess while most companies play checkers. The cellular auction with Verizon comes to mind. I hope you're right!

Re: When patents attack Android

#102
The problem with this is that prior to the introduction of the iPhone, android was designed to look like and work on phones like the blackberry. It was a better feature phone OS. After the iPhone came out, Google changed courses and counterfeited the iPhone.

If google wanted to compete, they could have spent 7 years investing in fundamental innovations-- like Apple did with touch-- to create their own new UI. Maybe they could have done a voice driven phone. OR, if touch was inevitable, they could have done their own, innovative take on touch UIs.

They did not. They turned around and cloned the iPhone and then gave the OS away for free. They were able to do this because the patent system requires Apple to publicly disclose their inventions. In exchange for this disclosure, Apple gets a monopoly on the use of their inventions. If you don't like this, that's fine, amend the constitution, and take it up with your congressman.

Google is now claiming that the government should step in and use force-- that is, decrees backed by men with guns and the threat of violence-- to allow google to steal other companies innovations and get away with it.

Think about that. Google cannot compete fair and square, so they steal their competitors technology. When this is pointed out, they call for the use of violence to let them get away with it! Talk about Doing Evil!

Apple learned their lesson last time around. They relied on copyright and license agreements to protect the invention of the GUI. The government did not have their back when Microsoft stole their invention, so this time, Apple made sure to patent their inventions.

This is not "anti-competitive", this the very definition of competition. Apple made a better widget to break into the fiercely competitive mobile phone market.

People only say "anti-competitive" when someone is competing successfully and they don't like it.

If justice prevails, Google will become the wholly owned search and advertising subsidiary of Apple. If corruption prevails, Apple will be prevented in succeeding against google in court. We'll see how it turns out.

Either way, Once again, Apple-- the only company in Silicon Valley with a track record of genuine innovation-- is being attacked by counterfeiters who can't be bothered to spend any R&D on coming up with something new themselves, and once again, the thieves are claiming that they're just "competing."

If you hope to ever profit form doing something innovative... and not get squashed by a company like google ripping you off... you really should be on Apple's side on this. They have always been the underdog that stuck to their guns and innovated really hard. That they've been successful at this shows that the underdog can sometimes win.

If its taken away from them, it will not be justice, and it will not be moral.

Re: When patents attack Android

#103

Google is lying if they are pretending that Apple and MSFT have started the software patent issues. And they clearly could have tried harder for the Nortel patents if they wanted to. How about try to not just bid a magical number but actually try and win auctions instead? If Google really cared about the issue of PATENTS they'd be putting as much leverage behind changing the patent laws and not just calling sour grap…

The incredible irony is one of the major benefits of patents is "openness" and public disclosure of techniques.

The alternative to patents is massive secrecy, sorta like Google's search algorithm.

Re: When patents attack Android

#104
post #79
post #77

It's sad that pro-patent asstroturf hijacks serious anti-patent discussions on HN, it's obvious that the HN sentiment towards software patents is that of disgust, yet when a passionate and rare post like this makes headlines somehow a pro-patent sentiment creeps out. Software patents are a joke, just listen to this now famous 'This American Life' piece: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w...…

I'm not pro-patent, I just want Google's motives as I see them to be more transparent, and that is what I am aiming to achieve with my comment. If they thought patents were more strategic for them, they wouldn't be anti-patent. For them it's purely a strategic viewpoint that benefits them due to their current size. That patents are grossly abused is a serious issue that is quickly coming to a head, so it won't take a…

So if the ethical position is also strategic, it is no longer ethical? That's a pretty high standard for what constitutes ethical behavior.

>If they thought patents were more strategic for them, they wouldn't be anti-patent.

This needs a gigantic [citation needed] next to it.

Re: When patents attack Android

#105
post #92
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to challenge you to point to a single nontrivial piece of software that doesn't infringe on someone's patents. I'd submit that it's nearly impossible.

Untrue by inspection. Patents have a life of 20 years, software written over 20 years ago not all trivial. Totally irrelevant to the current conversation. No one thinks all patents are good or valid. Contrast with what Google does: (1) copy exactly what the leader does as close as possible, (2) not license any of the innovations we're copying and (3) push propoganda that any patents we might walk over are "bogus".

Sorry, what is untrue by inspection?

It is a fact that nearly all software infringes at least some patents. I do not believe I could write any significant program that was entirely patent free. As a result, I would say that I believe every software company is "willfully infringing patents". After all, they chose to ship software instead of spending years and thousands of dollars in a combination of patent discovery and crippling their software to avoid patents.

As far as walking over patents -- Google is being sued less than many other major players at this point:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4128/5061246255_45a015568b.jp...

Re: When patents attack Android

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your comment. The OP is about Android being attacked through patents instead of through innovation, and you don't seem to be denying that that's what's happening. The article doesn't claim that "Google is always good", nor even that Google never uses anti-competitive practices. So what exactly are you objecting to? I don't think anyone here needs to be reminded that Google is a business and wants t…

The hypocrisy is unbelievable: Google is a major investor in patent troll firm Intellectual Ventures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/05/intellectual-ventur... Amazon, Apple, Cisco, eBay, Microsoft, etc. are also investors but they are not acting like whiny babies and acting all high and mighty going around preaching about how patents are destroying innovation.…

The thing about Intellectual Ventures is there seems to be a fine or maybe non-existent line between companies-investing-in-IV and companies-strong-armed by IV.

I'd agree it would be even better if Google never gave a dime to patent trolls but there's a little more to the story than just Google investing in IV.

See: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_27/b3991401....

Re: When patents attack Android

#108
post #23

I keep seeing this idea that Apple is filing patent lawsuits because they are afraid of their competitors and their business is on the verge of collapse, and I just don't understand. Their business is better than ever, breaking records every quarter. I think maybe people are reading too much into market-share figures, or projecting their wishes onto reality. Also, did Google not just try to buy the Nortel patents? We…

Had Google won the auction, then we likely wouldn't be having this discussion. Google would have had a huge stockpile of patents with which to countersue Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle, the result being a cross-licensing deal where everyone goes back to actually making things. Google's loss created a mismatch in power, so the cartel can sue them without fear of reprisal. It's this mismatch that has led to the current s…

Because ultimately Android is still controlled by an arch enemy? And there is still Apple's iOS rake in all the dough?

Re: When patents attack Android

#109
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But legally speaking, none of us have the authority to determine what qualifies as trivial. Technically we can be sued and the court will decide what is 'trivial'. But that is completely messed up. We, the software engineers, know what is trivial or not in our field - software engineering. If lawyers decide what is trivial and what isn't in software, then every software engineer founding a startup needs a lawyer to…

What's obvious and trivial to professionals may not be trivial at all in common sense. What's obvious and trivial after the fact may not be trivial at all before someone come up with it in the first place. The question remains to what extend do we protect IP so the system yields net benefit to the society, not the opposite? I have no answer, but I'm Chinese, I've witnessed a complete disregard for IP in practice faci…

> What's obvious and trivial to professionals may not be trivial at all in common sense.

And should not the professionals in this case - software engineers - be the right people to make that determination?

> What's obvious and trivial after the fact may not be trivial at all before someone come up with it in the first place.

Yes. But in practice, no one reads patent filings. So the act of filing patents doesn't spread information that makes an idea seem trivial later on. Of course the act of making a successful product might do that.

> The question remains to what extend do we protect IP so the system yields net benefit to the society, not the opposite?

That's a tough question. But it is clear that suing over trivial patents is detrimental to innovation. Software patents of actual substance, on the other hand, are a debatable issue.

None of the patents being sued over in the mobile space so far appear to have any substance.

Note that I don't count the Java patents here - Oracle isn't a mobile company, and the patents aren't mobile in particular. Oracle's lawsuit against Google isn't of the same category as the other anti-Android lawsuits. The other ones come from competitors in the mobile space.

Regarding the Java patents themselves, I haven't read any, so I can't say I have an opinion.

Re: When patents attack Android

#110
post #77

It's sad that pro-patent asstroturf hijacks serious anti-patent discussions on HN, it's obvious that the HN sentiment towards software patents is that of disgust, yet when a passionate and rare post like this makes headlines somehow a pro-patent sentiment creeps out. Software patents are a joke, just listen to this now famous 'This American Life' piece: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w...…

I'm a software developer and have been working at startups for 20 years. I am pro-patent because I've seen it successfully used to protect a startup from an evil corporation-- in this case Microsoft.

I know the anti-patent people like to pretend that all programmers are anti-patent. I find it shameful to see how shoddy the thinking is when anti-patent people are confronted with pro-patent arguments.

I'm an HN member and have been participating in this website since 2006 or 2007 (though I got the boot for having a minority opinion.)

Patents are not anti-competitive. They actually force competition-- and they give a leg up to all of your competitors by quickly bringing them up to speed on the state of the art.

If the patent system didn't exist, and Apple didn't reveal its inventions, android would be 7 years behind the iPhone. In fact, android phones wouldn't exist. They'd still be at the drawing board trying to figure out how to make multi-touch work.

Its not like Apple just had this idea and then 7 months later introduced the iPhone!

I think people who are anti-patent don't actually understand what it takes to be innovative. It isn't easy, and it is silly to think that android would exist if Apple hadn't revealed its secrets as part of the patent process.

The thing is, in exchange for this revelation, google is required to come up with something new using this knowledge, not just copy it and sell it.

Post reply on HN