When patents attack Android • Hacker News Board

Re: When patents attack Android

#121

Post by Bungholio » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:30 PM UTC

econgeeker wrote: post #110

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...…

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…

Prior art for multi touch:

http://wearables.unisa.edu.au/projects/mpx/

http://gizmodo.com/278613/linux-mpx-multi+touch-table-may-be...

fwiw

Re: When patents attack Android

#122

Post by econgeeker » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:30 PM UTC

MikeCapone wrote: post #115

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…

Can we settle for "anti bogus patents" and say that the vast majority of the software patents out there, and especially of the cases going to the courts, are about "bogus patents"?

I was part of a team that developed a distributed realtime database. That is to say, a record could exist on a dozen servers, and these servers could be handling transactions from hundreds of thousands or millions of simultaneous users. This was back in the day of high latency due to modems, so we worked out how to deal with the fact that by the time a client might get some information it might be out of date. We did this to allow for massively multiplayer online games... this was not a bogus patent because we really did advance the state of the art, and for a couple years there only about a dozen people in the world were capable of producing this kind of software.

However, on slashdot, people claimed that this patent was a patent on "the idea of online games!!!!!!". Later there was a big discussion claiming we'd patented IRC and oh, how bogus that was, because IRC was around for YEARS before we filed our patent!

Nothing in the IRC protocol, or any of the online games at the time (or most of them sense) solved the problems we were solving in our patent.

The thing is, the anti-patent people never read the patent. The Amazon "one click patent "is not a patent on putting a "Buy now" button on a website. Our patent didn't cover IRC, etc.

I haven't done a survey of patents, and so I can't say what percentage of them are bogus, and what aren't. I can believe a bogus patent could exist, and there is a remedy for that-- present prior art and the patent gets thrown out. This is a pretty functional solution, and anyone pressing their case better be prepared because the possibility of prior art always exists.

So, I doubt there are many bogus patents, at least, not many that ever make it to court. I do think there are a lot of patents that are presented as "bogus" that aren't. My other patent has a headline that makes it sound totally bogus... but it isn't. I just can imagine what people will say about it-- because they never bother to read the patent.

They already believe patents are bogus and whenever they see yet another claim that a patent is bogus they are ready to believe it.

Re: When patents attack Android

#123

Post by Steko » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:31 PM UTC

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...…

It's sad that namecalling posts like this get upvoted because they echo the "general sentiment" of HN. Herd mentality != right.

Re: When patents attack Android

#124

Post by chaz » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:31 PM UTC

chocopuff wrote: post #73

mithaler wrote: post #27

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.…

According to PaidContent, about IV investors:

Also, some of these companies, including Google and Cisco, have been investors for many years, and in the early years IV had a very different tone. Back then, the giant patent-holding company, which was founded by ex-Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold, billed itself as a “patent defense fund.” (Clearly, it hasn’t turned out that way. ) http://paidcontent.org/article/419-giant-patent-holder-intel...

IV was founded in 2000 and they didn't file their first suit until 2010. Companies certainly change their business model ("pivot," if you will).

Regardless, I'd like to see Google (and many others) divest themselves of their interest in IV.

Re: When patents attack Android

#125

Post by hn_decay » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:32 PM UTC

econgeeker wrote: post #116

hn_decay wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this is an unfair caricature, but it has been my observation that the vast majority of "pro-software patent" supporters are misguided fans of either Microsoft or Apple. They seldom have anything to do with software development, and their perspective is seldom enlightened or nuanced. Strawman, unfair, bigotry, whatever -- I would love to be proven wrong. I have yet to hear a pro-software patent argument that i…

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 had the foresight to patent it first (even Microsoft Surface has years on Apple)...invention. Hardly.

There are novel software implementations. That applies to vanishingly few software patents.

Re: When patents attack Android

#126

Post by ericd » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:34 PM UTC

Steko wrote: post #103

napierzaza wrote: post #93

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.

Openness + death by a thousand papercut licensing fees whenever you try to write any piece of software. I'll take secrecy and copyright, thanks.

Re: When patents attack Android

#127

Post by ori_b » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:34 PM UTC

Steko wrote: post #119

ori_b wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

"I do not believe I could write any significant program that was entirely patent free." Well that's a different claim then you made earlier. At any rate as I said above I don't think Google is just infringing on silly, obvious and clearly invalid patents. I think they willfully infringe on clear, major innovations.

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."

Re: When patents attack Android

#128

Post by econgeeker » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:34 PM UTC

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…

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 facts with ideologues-- you will just make up your own facts, as you have done.

You can have the last word. I'm not going to debate this. I really, actually, don't care that you're anti-patent. I believe the anti-patent position is an ideological one that doesn't care about the facts... it is purely political. It is also anti-startup and anti-capitalist.

Re: When patents attack Android

#129

Post by Steko » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:36 PM UTC

Bungholio wrote: post #121

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…

Prior art for multi touch: http://wearables.unisa.edu.au/projects/mpx/ http://gizmodo.com/278613/linux-mpx-multi+touch-table-may-be... fwiw

Fingerworks patents cover work done from 1999-2005. Everyone thinks they have smoking guns on this but you dig two inches in and nothing is clear.

Re: When patents attack Android

#130

Post by econgeeker » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:36 PM UTC

Bungholio wrote: post #121

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…

Prior art for multi touch: http://wearables.unisa.edu.au/projects/mpx/ http://gizmodo.com/278613/linux-mpx-multi+touch-table-may-be... fwiw

Neither of those are prior art. I suggest you read the foundational patents, and if you're not familiar with the terms of art, get up to speed on it, and then look into whatever you think might be "prior art" very carefully.

If you do, you'll find that there is no prior art, otherwise Apple wouldn't have had to invent something new.

I've learned that I cannot stop people from constantly making these kinds of claims. You don't actually make a claim-- you just give me links and then assert there is prior art. This is not an argument, because you have failed to address the issue of what the patent actually says.

You can produce links to other websites all day long and then make it beholden on me to prove that they are not prior art. I'm not going to play that game.