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

181–190 of 291 posts

Re: When patents attack Android

#181

Post by kelnos »

Steko wrote: post #148
ori_b wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to a clear, major innovation software innovation that they are currently being sued for? I can't think of any. I'm also not seeing the difference between "It's nearly impossible to write a nontrivial program that doesn't infringe patents" and "I do not believe I could write any significant program that was entirely patent free."

"Can you point to a clear, major innovation software innovation that they are currently being sued for? I can't think of any." Java ("everything else sucks" - Google), miscellaneous mobile innovations belonging to all sorts of companies via proxy (because they don't actually ship phones). They haven't been sued over VP8 yet but it's likely coming barring licensing. ... "I'm also not seeing the difference between ..."…

Java: it's far from certain Google is in the wrong here, and they could potentially win a court case. (Likely they'll settle out-of-court, sadly.)

VP8: the fact that Google has been using VP8 in WebM for 14 months now, with no clear allegations of wrongdoing, kinda kills your "willful" argument. If Google was fully aware they were infringing on patents, don't you think someone would have brought this up and/or sued them by now? (I could also start ranting about submarine patents, but I'll leave that alone.)

The parent poster also didn't really ask the right question. "Point to a single nontrivial piece of software that doesn't infringe on someone's patents" may indeed be solved by pointing to anything written over 20 years ago, but how is that a useful measure? We're not going to just say that we only need software written by 1991 and everything written in the past 20 years is useless. So sure, maybe "mission accomplished", but that's like saying "mission accomplished" for successfully going to the bathroom. Sure, well done!

The more useful question is -- "can you write a nontrivial piece of software today that infringes no patents?" I don't know the answer to that, but I suspect it's hard to do.

Re: When patents attack Android

#182

Post by FxChiP »

FxChiP wrote: post #180
MrScruff wrote: post #114

I find Google's stance here ingenuous. They're attempting to portray themselves as the persecuted innovator, but their behaviour in the market in question doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. While the patents Apple are using to attack Android with seem dubious, the motivation for this tactic is obvious. Google extremely blatantly cloned the look and feel of the iPhone and have pursued a strategy of dumping Android i…

"Google extremely blatantly cloned the look and feel of the iPhone and have pursued a strategy of dumping Android in an attempt to reduce smartphones to a commodity." There are actually quite a few differences between Android and iOS in terms of interface, and there always have been -- in fact, many features found in later versions of iOS were found first in earlier versions of Android, such as copy & paste, wallpape…

(I forgot to mention also that manufacturers and carriers also seem to have a lot to do with the overall interface -- Samsung's stock Android for the Captivate, for example, does mirror iOS quite a bit, while HTC Sense probably couldn't be much more different if they tried!)

Re: When patents attack Android

#183

Post by rufo »

tobias3 wrote: post #66
rufo wrote: post #43

I'm kind of disappointed that the word "reform" doesn't show up anywhere in this article. Indeed, one of the main courses of action they're taking is to "strengthen our own patent portfolio"…

Given the current state of american politics would you want to rely on "reform" as crucial element of your business strategy?

I certainly don't blame them for continuing to play the game as it's currently played. I was just hoping that they would also look into other, broader, more beneficial options.

Re: When patents attack Android

#184

Post by alex_c »

grellas wrote: post #133
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…

>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.

Not to downplay the importance of losing the bid, but is it possible Google simply decided there are more effective ways to get what they want than to spend an extra $2 billion on top of their highest bid? $2 billion can buy you a lot of lobbying. Patent reform or action by the DOJ could greatly decrease the value of the $4.5b of patents Google's competitors just bought.

Re: When patents attack Android

#185

Post by mattmanser »

dmethvin wrote: post #170
grellas wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> This piece really is all about the Nortel patents. You bet! Nortel is a household name for all they have done to advance technology and for the smartphone industry in particular, I am shocked that anyone could dispute the validity of these patents. We owe them a debt of gratitude for the Nortel PalmPilot, the nDroid, nPhone, the nPad, and all the other consumer products Nortel has poured their innovation into. They…

Validity? No, I'm sure they did.

Timescale? Today's innovation is at an incredible pace. To grant patents that don't reflect that is absurd, what was innovative 20 years ago is utterly mundane today. Because what was a difficult problem 20 years ago is trivially solved today even without that innovation.

That so many patents are used offensively without ever seeing their inventor use them practically is evidence of this.

To pretend otherwise is to grant monopolies to people who have already reaped the benefits of their inventions at a massive cost to society, the very people these laws were meant to benefit.

Re: When patents attack Android

#186

Post by kelnos »

Steko wrote: post #99
hn_decay wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an incredible claim. Do you realize that Apple and Microsoft are being sued constantly as well?

I don't know what's incredible about it. That a company that copies things might infringe patents? Do I realize that Apple infringes patents? Yes. Are you aware that Apple doesn't cry about how it's the end of the world and we're all going to have to pay more for the next iphone because they had to write Nokia a check for Nokia's previous and substantial innovations to mobile?

That a company that copies things might infringe patents?

Wow, seems like you have a pretty big bias here. That hurts your argument quite a bit.

Are you aware that Apple doesn't cry about how it's the end of the world and we're all going to have to pay more for the next iphone because they had to write Nokia a check for Nokia's previous and substantial innovations to mobile?

It's one thing to license a patent filed and wielded in good faith. Google already does that as well for lots of patents.

It's quite another to collude with other companies to buy up huge patent portfolios for the sole purpose of extorting your competitors and stifling competition. That's what Apple/MS/etc. appear to be doing here. Obviously I can't speak to their motivations with authority, but that's how it looks from the outside.

Re: When patents attack Android

#187

Post by Xuzz »

FxChiP wrote: post #168
econgeeker wrote: post #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 t…

"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…

I can't agree with more than the first few lines of the grandparent comment (as it is, as you say, "pure fanboyism"), but there is a point there. Nothing — nothing — before the iPhone had anything similar to it's UI. Not Palm OS, not Windows Mobile, not (in-development) Android, not even any research prototypes. The iPhone was new.

But "wallpaper", "copy and paste", and even "live wallpaper" are not new. Physics-based scrolling responding to touch input as if it was actual physical objects you're manipulating? That was new. Android's innovating (and not at all bad) notifications interface? That's new, although it's not quite at the same scale.

But it's hard to argue that Apple did not make serious progress in computing as a whole with the iPhone. Even if you believe that Android (and webOS, Windows Phone, etc) should be able to use some of those same elements, or if you believe that Apple shouldn't be able to patent them.

Re: When patents attack Android

#188

Post by Steko »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #167
Steko wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd rather ask society if they're better off, because that is the argument that you're trying to make isn't it? That patents are a good idea, not that they're a system that it's easy for individuals to game for financial reward.

That's not an easy question. The alternative to patents is either less innovation (see countries with weak IP protection) or massive secrecy.

I don't see either of those as particularly compelling alternatives. Patents need some major reforms but not abolishing.

Re: When patents attack Android

#189

Post by Steko »

hn_decay wrote: post #164
Steko wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Apple didn't patent anything first, they bought the inventor and paid him." http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Se...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other then to distract from the fact that your prior art argument has been torn to shreds repeatedly.

Re: When patents attack Android

#190

Post by kelnos »

davidu wrote: post #172
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this like nation-states trying to prevents wars so that they can compete on building effective societies? It would be perversely cynical to suggest that the nations more confident in their ability to deliver effective societies were somehow cheating by trying to prevent the needless destruction and waste of wars.

It's not like that at all. Your analogy is completely lost on me.

He's merely pointing out that there are two ways (among others, of course) you can try to win in the marketplaces:

1. Build innovative products that your customers want, and keep iterating and innovating to keep your customers coming back for more.

2. Use the legal system to force your competitors out of your market, or make it so expensive to stay that it's harder to gain market share.

Apple has a long and brilliant history of #1, which makes it even more disheartening that it seems like they're resorting to #2 here.

While both may be legally valid, which is more beneficial to consumers and society as a whole?

Post reply on HN