Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When patents attack Android

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 291 posts

Re: When patents attack Android

#131

Post by Steko »

dman wrote: post #118
Steko wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say the dynamic is more complicated, many small businesses are highly reliant on IP protections. Innovators are pro-IP, followers are contra-IP.

I did not say anything about size of business. I think a better framing of your latter point would be - incumbents are pro-IP newcomers are contra-IP. Just being first in a field does not mean that you are innovating in it currently.

"I did not say anything about size of business."

Well 'empire' has some connotations you may not be aware of.

Re: When patents attack Android

#132

Post by MrScruff »

hn_decay wrote: post #120
econgeeker wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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." Are you seriously arguing that competition uses software patent applications to get up to speed? "If the patent system didn't exist, and Apple didn't reveal its inventions, android would be 7 years behind the iPhone." Incredible. "They'd still be at the drawing board tryi…

This is extremely revisionist.

http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/12/27/rim.thought.ap...

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/12/a-visual-tour-of-androids...

Nobody is arguing that Apple invented every piece of technology that went into the iPhone, but it certainly wasn't the case that all their competitors were moving to multitouch based phones at the time.

Re: When patents attack Android

#133

Post by grellas »

yanw wrote: 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...…

This piece really is all about the Nortel patents.

Google wanted the Nortel patents very badly but couldn't find enough fellow bidders whose interests matched its own to overcome the concerted efforts of Apple, Microsoft, and others who have a stake in pulling Android down. An interesting analysis of who the winners and losers were in this bidding process appears here: http://www.tangible-ip.com/2011/what-does-nortel-mean-for-th....

Having lost that bid, Google is in a far worse position to defend Android from patent attacks than it ever has been before. Essentially, all of its competitors now have formidable new weapons to use against the Android platform. This isn't so much an issue of "trolls" as it is conventional large players who use patent portfolios as arsenals for both offensive and defensive purposes. Google's enemies are now much more formidably armed as a result of the bidding.

Google therefore hopes to stir the DOJ into doing something about this on the antitrust front. The DOJ is scrutinizing this deal and may wind up imposing conditions that could be vital to Google. Its antitrust chief, Christine Varney, had represented Netscape while in private practice years ago in its antitrust fight with Microsoft and she has publicly expressed concerns about the misuse of patents by trolls and others for anti-competitive purposes (for those with a subscription, see this WSJ piece: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230365740457636...). Quite apart from her personal views, however, it is problematic that competitors can collude horizontally to do a major IP acquisition for what seems like an obvious anti-competitive purpose.

Google is not a "little guy" that might elicit sympathy in battling over the mobile space but it clearly has had its competitors gang up on it in pulling off the Nortel bid. Android will undoubtedly survive this attack but Google is seriously worried about being besieged in this way. In this piece, it is essentially looking to its last best hope in the DOJ for attempting to block this attack by competitors who hope to win by artificial legal means that which they can't win in the marketplace.

Let's hope this gets the scrutiny it deserves.

Re: When patents attack Android

#134

Post by hn_decay »

econgeeker wrote: post #128
hn_decay wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." Are you seriously arguing that competition uses software patent applications to get up to speed? "If the patent system didn't exist, and Apple didn't reveal its inventions, android would be 7 years behind the iPhone." Incredible. "They'd still be at the drawing board tryi…

You illustrate the root of the problem. You are not aware of what the multi-touch patents cover, what the inventions are, and you are not aware of what patents are and so you think the movie "minority report" and non-multi-touch touch screens are "prior art". (And FWIW, the stuff in minority report was conceptualized based on the research that was being done by what is now Apple.) I've learned that you cannot argue f…

>You are not aware of what the multi-touch patents cover, what the inventions are, and you are not aware of what patents are and so you think the movie "minority report" and non-multi-touch touch screens are "prior art".

I know exactly what the multitouch patent covers, and yes the basic principals are almost entirely demonstrated in the movie Minority Report. Apple did not invent or have anything to do with multitouch sensors, nor were they close to the first to implement such a sensor.

But you're sure that Android "stole it" (or apparently that they learned great insights from Apple's patent application), which is PERVERSELY wrong on so many levels.

When people say "I'm not going to debate this", it's because they have nothing to debate. You've said nothing of value beyond alluding to a laughable patent example while making absurd claims about the insights gained from patents.

Re: When patents attack Android

#135

Post by Steko »

hn_decay wrote: post #125
econgeeker wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to hear an anti-patent argument that wasn't just repetition of the "patents are wrong" ideology. I'm actually neutral on patents in the sense of "what would be best in an ideal world". But the bottom line is this- my work is not free unless I choose to donate it. Thus in exchange for giving you my work, I'm going to require a license. If you steal it, you've stolen it, just as if you stole a car. But wait-…

Your argument is ludicrous. My position on software patents mirrors the general complaint about software patents -- overwhelmingly they provide a monopoly on trivial, obvious, or inevitable "inventions". Your position on multitouch alone is a perfect example, really -- they didn't invent the hardware, didn't make the first implementation, and it had been predicted by mainstream media a decade in advance, but because…

Apple didn't patent anything first, they bought the inventor and paid him.

Go ask the guy who made fingerworks whether he is better off with Apple paying him or if Google had just ripped his shit off.

Re: When patents attack Android

#136

Post by kelnos »

Steko wrote: post #111
dman wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies that consider themselves in a growth phase take an anti intellectual property stance. Once they are sitting on an empire they shift positions. Its the rational thing to do. All this says about Google is that they are still looking to enter and disrupt new markets.

I'd say the dynamic is more complicated, many small businesses are highly reliant on IP protections. Innovators are pro-IP, followers are contra-IP.

Innovators are pro-IP, followers are contra-IP.

Strongly disagree. This kind of statement really needs some supporting evidence.

Re: When patents attack Android

#137

Post by econgeeker »

hn_decay wrote: post #125
econgeeker wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to hear an anti-patent argument that wasn't just repetition of the "patents are wrong" ideology. I'm actually neutral on patents in the sense of "what would be best in an ideal world". But the bottom line is this- my work is not free unless I choose to donate it. Thus in exchange for giving you my work, I'm going to require a license. If you steal it, you've stolen it, just as if you stole a car. But wait-…

Your argument is ludicrous. My position on software patents mirrors the general complaint about software patents -- overwhelmingly they provide a monopoly on trivial, obvious, or inevitable "inventions". Your position on multitouch alone is a perfect example, really -- they didn't invent the hardware, didn't make the first implementation, and it had been predicted by mainstream media a decade in advance, but because…

Right, you can't argue the facts so just be disparaging. The Microsoft Surface came out in 2008, not "years" before Apple showed the iPhone.

You're absolutely uninformed about even the basic facts or timeline, yet you're happy to make broad assertions and engage in attacks to the person. Well, where I come from, that means you lost buddy, and I have no further need to rebut you.

Have a nice day!

Re: When patents attack Android

#138

Post by AllenKids »

azakai wrote: post #109
AllenKids wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sprea…

I think software engineers should absolutely be involved, but more like "expert witnesses". The judgement is better left in the hands of law people with common sense.

And really the merits of various patents these companies holds are not the focus of my argument, I understand you feel quite differently.

Re: When patents attack Android

#139

Post by econgeeker »

hn_decay wrote: post #134
econgeeker wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You illustrate the root of the problem. You are not aware of what the multi-touch patents cover, what the inventions are, and you are not aware of what patents are and so you think the movie "minority report" and non-multi-touch touch screens are "prior art". (And FWIW, the stuff in minority report was conceptualized based on the research that was being done by what is now Apple.) I've learned that you cannot argue f…

>You are not aware of what the multi-touch patents cover, what the inventions are, and you are not aware of what patents are and so you think the movie "minority report" and non-multi-touch touch screens are "prior art". I know exactly what the multitouch patent covers, and yes the basic principals are almost entirely demonstrated in the movie Minority Report. Apple did not invent or have anything to do with multitou…

In order to patent something, you have to reduce it to practice. That is to say, you have to actually make it work, in the real world.

That Stephen Spielburg was able to do it with computer graphics has no bearing on the validity of someone making it exist in the real world.

The reason I am hesitant to debate this issue is because, as you have amply demonstrated, the anti-patent people often don't even understand what a patent IS, let alone what is relevant as "prior art", and are so exceedingly hostile, and often, quite frankly dishonest (e.g.: you'd have to understand what a patent is in order to understand the multi-touch patents.) that it is just a waste of time.

Literally, I am tired offending the trolls. There is nothing to debate, because I've made my case, and you're just going to object and object and object and find another movie to reference and be proud (rather than humiliated!) at doing so!

Re: When patents attack Android

#140

Post by hn_decay »

econgeeker wrote: post #137
hn_decay wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is ludicrous. My position on software patents mirrors the general complaint about software patents -- overwhelmingly they provide a monopoly on trivial, obvious, or inevitable "inventions". Your position on multitouch alone is a perfect example, really -- they didn't invent the hardware, didn't make the first implementation, and it had been predicted by mainstream media a decade in advance, but because…

Right, you can't argue the facts so just be disparaging. The Microsoft Surface came out in 2008, not "years" before Apple showed the iPhone. You're absolutely uninformed about even the basic facts or timeline, yet you're happy to make broad assertions and engage in attacks to the person. Well, where I come from, that means you lost buddy, and I have no further need to rebut you. Have a nice day!

"The Microsoft Surface came out in 2008"

Surface was unveiled in 2007, with the final hardware design being completed two years prior. The project itself started based upon, humorously, Minority Report.

"Well, where I come from, that means you lost buddy, and I have no further need to rebut you."

Yeah you've said that a couple of times now. Kind of funny, really.

Post reply on HN