Google: Patently Absurd • Hacker News Board

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#131

Post by falien » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 4:13 AM UTC

GHFigs wrote: post #112

falien wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

um, that is not what that decision says. It says the interface may be covered by copyright to the extent that it contains expression. That would seem to me to have a large overlap with look and feel patents.

You are mistaken. It is saying that copyright applies to a user interface insofar as elements of it are subject to copyright on their own, but that "a user interface" is not itself expression, not itself subject to copyright. If you copied every last detail of my interface except the icons or other elements subject to copyright, I would have no valid claim that you infringed on my copyright. (NB:I am not saying this…

I disagree with your interpretation. The collection of expressive elements such as icons seems copyrightable in aggregate as much as any of the individual elements. What that decision says is not copyrightable is an organization of data (including choice of words that would struggle to qualify as expressive). If they had allowed the copyright on that then things like logical taxonomies would also be copyrightable. User interfaces not built with a platform's standard interface elements are more akin to works of art and can be expressive and assuming it was copyrightable then determining if a clone was infringing would depend on if it was a true clone or if there was some transformative change.

I'm not sure what is accepted case law, but the cited case seems much narrower to me than you are implying.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#132

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 4:22 AM UTC

triaboat wrote: post #91

smokeyj wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-competition isn't an empirically observable phenomena. In theory it was supposed to serve the consumer, but there is a disconnect between the alleged intention and reality. Kind of a big problem. Preventing a company from offering a free product in no way serves the consumer. I don't want to imply google is more ethical than the competition, but in this instance calling for an abolition of patents is in line wit…

Preventing a company from offering a free product in no way serves the consumer. In a general context, a company practicing 'predatory pricing' may do so to drive the other competitors out of business. Once that happens, it's free to raise prices to monopolistic levels which would end up hurting consumers eventually.

[deleted]

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#133

Post by Elepsis » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 4:22 AM UTC

tolmasky wrote: post #128

Elepsis wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't inconsistent to be opposed to patent trolls without being opposed to patents in general .

His comment was specifically criticizing Google's position of wanting to have defensive patents: Google supporters claim that Google only wants to use patents defensively. But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates? He is basically scoffing at the very idea of defensive patents. Someone who understands and accepts the concept of patent trolls should also under…

Isn't the whole problem with patent trolls that defensive patents don't protect you against them? For better or worse, the current system is largely based around mutually assured destruction. The patent trolls don't make any products, so they don't actually have anything to lose from the assertion of these defensive patents against them.

It seems like what Gruber is actually saying is that the patents Google is violating are legitimate, invented and/or owned by companies that are actively making products based on those patents. The fact that some of those companies (Apple, for instance) may choose to then enforce their intellectual rights doesn't make them patent trolls; having your company's sole business be suing people over violations of patents you purchase makes a company a patent troll.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#134

Post by dstein » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 4:31 AM UTC

triaboat wrote: post #91

smokeyj wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-competition isn't an empirically observable phenomena. In theory it was supposed to serve the consumer, but there is a disconnect between the alleged intention and reality. Kind of a big problem. Preventing a company from offering a free product in no way serves the consumer. I don't want to imply google is more ethical than the competition, but in this instance calling for an abolition of patents is in line wit…

Preventing a company from offering a free product in no way serves the consumer. In a general context, a company practicing 'predatory pricing' may do so to drive the other competitors out of business. Once that happens, it's free to raise prices to monopolistic levels which would end up hurting consumers eventually.

Google almost certainly does not intend to suddenly start charging for Android once iOS and Windows7 are out of the picture.

More likely their intention is to keep it free, but with additional "conditions" such as Google search being the only way to find information. Mandated use of Gmail, Google Docs, Calendar, Contacts. Heavily integrated Google Plus social features like chat, blog, and photo sharing.

Google won't need to charge for Android because there will not be a way to avoid a Google tentacles if you use their OS. Google is trying to burn down the ecosystems of it's competitors with free products and make money by being the gatekeeper of your every activity with a smartphone.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#135

Post by tolmasky » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 4:32 AM UTC

Elepsis wrote: post #133

tolmasky wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His comment was specifically criticizing Google's position of wanting to have defensive patents: Google supporters claim that Google only wants to use patents defensively. But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates? He is basically scoffing at the very idea of defensive patents. Someone who understands and accepts the concept of patent trolls should also under…

Isn't the whole problem with patent trolls that defensive patents don't protect you against them ? For better or worse, the current system is largely based around mutually assured destruction. The patent trolls don't make any products, so they don't actually have anything to lose from the assertion of these defensive patents against them. It seems like what Gruber is actually saying is that the patents Google is viol…

You have the answer in your own comment:

    For better or worse, the current system is largely based around mutually assured destruction.

That is what defensive patents are. Google is saying that they want patents so that no one will attack them (because then they'd sue back, hence bringing on said mutually assured destruction).

    It seems like what Gruber is actually saying is that the patents Google is violating are legitimate

Do you think Gruber has read these patents? Also, it doesn't even matter since they were NORTEL'S patents to begin with, so Apple was violating them too up until the point where they bought them. If these are really valid patents, why wasn't he complaining about poor Nortel's IP being infringed on by Apple when the iPhone came out?

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#136

Post by drivebyacct2 » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 4:34 AM UTC

Steko wrote: post #67

"anti-Google", "disingenuous", "deep dishonesty", "willfully dishonest". "very twisted", "oblivious", "shill", "clown" The Engadgetization of HN comments is nearly complete. Get off your high horses, Gruber is exactly right that this screed by Google's counsel is incredibly hypocritical. Regardless of what you think about patents, Google, Apple, etc. the following argument is total bullshit: Group A has a right to bi…

Isn't your comment and Gruber's entire premise ignoring empirical evidence of how Google and (basically everyone else) uses their patents? I don't see Google rushing to make a cut from iPhone sales, and I don't see Google making more off of WP7 sales than Android sales. (Much the way Apple is wanting to make some ridiculous amount for each of Samsung's sales and the fact that Microsoft gets more revenue from Android licensing than WP7).

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#137

Post by metafour » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 4:41 AM UTC

Also, apparently Microsoft offered Google the chance to join them in bidding for the patents and they declined.

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/08/03/interestinger

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#138

Post by spartango » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 4:47 AM UTC

Gruber: "Sour Grapes"

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#139

Post by bonch » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 4:51 AM UTC

joebadmo wrote: post #17

It's weird to me that Gruber claims, like he did in a recent episode of his podcast with Dan Benjamin, that he's not anti-Google. I mean, why deny something that's so self-evident? His arguments here are just so disingenuous. "So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK." Yes, because Google isn't forming a cartel to stifle competition. "It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s f…

I agree with Gruber's position here, actually, but it's true that Daring Fireball is like Gruber's little utopia where the following things are true:

1.) Apple products are always awesome.

2.) Democrats are always right, and here's yet another Paul Krugman article.

3.) The Yankees rule.

Re: Google: Patently Absurd

#140

Post by kenjackson » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 4:54 AM UTC

hn_decay wrote: post #70

technoslut wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that Gruber was making a case for software patents. He has said in the past that he doesn't believe in them. His argument seemed to be that instead of Google lobbying to rid the world of software patents, they seemed to be playing the same game as MS, Apple & Oracle by bidding on the Nortel patents. It doesn't help Google's case that they're an investor in Intellectual Ventures as well. He makes an inte…

I don't think that Gruber was making a case for software patents. But he was. He is arguing that only a small handful of patents -- those used to attack Apple and/or app store developers -- are the problem with the patent system. That is directly in the section quoted. His argument seemed to be that instead of Google lobbying to rid the world of software patents, they seemed to be playing the same game as MS, Apple &…

Google is essentially the bitch of the patent world right now, simply because they're a younger company and a land claim occurred.

I think the real problem with Google is they're using open source technology. This makes yout a lot more susceptible to patent lawsuits.

Back when I used to control patent budgets one of our rules was that things we patented had to be discoverable. That is, if someone infringed, but it was hard to prove, it wasn't worth spending the money on a patent. Just keep it a trade secret. With Android everything is available by just looking at the source code repository. With iOS, WebOS, WP, and RIM, you have to do a fair bit more sleuthing to see if they're actually infringing.