When patents attack Android • Hacker News Board

Re: When patents attack Android

#141

Post by kelnos » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:49 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…

I am pro-patent because I've seen it successfully used to protect a startup from an evil corporation-- in this case Microsoft.

Wait... what? No, seriously... what? Somehow you've bought into this patent-everything nonsense so deeply that you think patents are good because having patents protects you from other companies with patents? I'd be hard pressed to find a pro-patent argument that makes less sense.

For the record, I'm not anti-patent. I'm anti-stupid-dumbshit-patent. Patents were designed to provide an incentive to invent when the cost of invention is high, and others "freeloading" off your sunk cost could severely hurt you.

When your "cost" of invention is simply "I sat around for 5 hours and thought of this cool idea to patent", you've come up with a stupid-dumbshit patent. Unfortunately it just seems that most of the patents that fall into this category are software patents.

If, however, you spent millions of dollars developing something that, after being specified and documented, can be reproduced at a fraction of the cost, sure, by all means, get yourself a patent on that and enjoy it.

Obviously it's hard to draw the line: at what dollar amount or length of development time should we consider something patentable? It's a hard question, but surely we can answer it better than we are now. At the very least, limit damages or licensing fees to be gained off a patent to some multiple of the difficulty in developing the patent. That's a hard thing to measure too, but again, it'd be much better than what we have now.

Re: When patents attack Android

#142

Post by hn_decay » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:49 PM UTC

MrScruff wrote: post #132

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…

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.

The RIM thing was a giant lie. Remarkable that anyone ever thought it was true, much less would be referencing it now. The random message board commentator, seeking aggrandizement among their fellow fanboys, quickly disappeared and erased their history from the net, worried that their fiction would hold legal consequences.

As to Android, it is entirely possible that it went from being a Blackberry clone to instead being an iPaq clone. You know, the iPaq circa 2000 or even earlier. The one that was all screen. Sure it used a stylus, but that was courtesy of the limits of the resistive touchscreen technology.

Re: When patents attack Android

#143

Post by azakai » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:52 PM UTC

AllenKids wrote: post #138

azakai wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

I can't disagree more.

Should common sense be how we decide what medical option to pursue? Or whether a mathematical proof is valid? Or even whether a legal argument is allowed - in the US judges determine that in many case, not juries?

What possible reason is there for common sense to determine whether a software patent is trivial or not? The only question should be whether it actually is trivial or not. The people who know that are software engineers.

Re: When patents attack Android

#144

Post by econgeeker » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:52 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #95

JunkDNA wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Astute observation. Reminds me of this pg classic on PR: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html The timing is certainly convenient for Google.

Software developers, and Open Source developers in particular, have been adamantly against software patents for a very long time. It seems equally as likely that independent developers are taking advantage of Google's predicament to further their own goal of abolishing software patents. Edit: I will add that I personally have done exactly this in conversation. But, in the worst case, Google is exploiting a sentiment…

"Software developers, and Open Source developers in particular, have been adamantly against software patents for a very long time."

This is exactly as true as the claim that all scientists support AGW theory.

Reality-- most scientists don't support that theory.

But proponents of the theory say that they all do, all over the place. And since there is nobody who actually speaks for all scientists, there's nobody to prove them wrong.

So they repeat it over and over and over and over again, even though it isn't true.

Logically, your statement is easily disproven. I have been developing software for two decades, including open source, and I support software patents.

Now you can never make that statement again. Well, you can't if you're honest.

Re: When patents attack Android

#145

Post by kelnos » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:52 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-…

If you want my technology enough to steal it, then my technology has value, and it is property, just as anything else I might build with my own hands is property.

Perhaps, but the market for this technology is completely inelastic. Regardless of the money/effort/time required to develop this technology, you get the exact same monopoly guarantee in the form of the patent. And you can charge whatever you want for a license, even if that price is entirely unreasonable. You can even be discriminatory, and charge different people different amounts. Or, worse, you can refuse to license to some people, or to everyone.

For a technology that took significant money/effort/time to develop, I can agree with patent protection. But most software patents are comparatively trivial.

Re: When patents attack Android

#146

Post by MrScruff » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:52 PM UTC

hn_decay wrote: post #142

MrScruff wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The RIM thing was a giant lie. Remarkable that anyone ever thought it was true, much less would be referencing it now. The random message board commentator, seeking aggrandizement among their fellow fanboys, quickly disappeared and erased their history from the net, worried that their fiction would hold legal consequences. As to Android, it is entirely possible that it went from being a Blackberry clone to instead be…

But Android OS doesn't resemble an iPaq, it resembles iOS. You keep inferring that everything presented in the original iPhone was an obvious extension of what we'd seen before, but it simply wasn't.

Re: When patents attack Android

#147

Post by hn_decay » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:53 PM UTC

econgeeker wrote: post #139

hn_decay wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 wha…

>Literally, I am tired offending the trolls.

You spend a good 90% of each of your posts saying nothing of value but instead offending me and pandering to the crowd, desperately trying to drag yourself to some higher ground where your complete lack of facts is overlooked. I hope no one falls for it.

>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.

Again, what did Apple invent? The concept of multitouch? No, not at all. The screen itself? No, not at all. The interface rudiments? I will say it again that most of them were demonstrated in Minority Report. Specific algorithms to detect movement?

You are the one claiming that Android stole this grand invention, so I ask again - what did Android steal? We know it wasn't the idea, or the physical sensor...and I highly doubt they stole the algorithm...so what?

Re: When patents attack Android

#148

Post by Steko » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:54 PM UTC

ori_b wrote: post #127

Steko wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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."

"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 ..."

Well now you're putting words in your own mouth. What you originally said was:

"point to a single nontrivial piece of software that doesn't infringe on someone's patents."

And I pointed to every piece of software over 20 years old, /hangs mission accomplished banner. Again this is excessively derailing...

Re: When patents attack Android

#149

Post by drats » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:54 PM UTC

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…

Minority report was released in 2002. What about interfaces in Lawnmower Man (1992) or Johnny Mnemonic (1995)? Or endless other sci-fi?

Sit a UI designer and an engineer down for a couple of sessions to talk about a touch screen (x,y coordinates coming into software from human hands) anytime in the last fifty years and they will come up with the concept of gestures in at most a few hours. What about Douglas Engelbart's work or the work at Xerox in relation to Apple's later ridiculous attempts to claim the windowed GUI as their own?

You accuse others of making up facts but you are ignorant of quite a few.

Re: When patents attack Android

#150

Post by Bungholio » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:56 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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art

Prior ... constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality

OK, so you're saying the links above don't have any bearing on the originality or otherwise of iOs multi touch? That's absurd. If what you're getting at is that there's some legalese-technical argument as to why a seemingly obvious prior occurrence of the "invention" then this indicates to me that the system is broken.