When patents attack Android • Hacker News Board

Re: When patents attack Android

#151

Post by ConstantineXVI » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 9:58 PM UTC

charlieok wrote: post #113

I agree that patents are a problem. And, I saw Google's offer today for a free Android phone with a 2-year contract. I would love a deal on a phone, but I think it is unethical to bundle products in this way. I would rather have the opportunity to switch carriers anytime I want. I love mobile devices and mobile services, but the market conditions are too restrictive. I'd like to be able to (for example): o Have multi…

You're more than welcome to forego the contract subsidy to buy a Nexus S (or many other phones) at full price and use it on any GSM network. Nothing stops you from pulling your SIM card out and using it in another device, provided said device supports your carrier's frequencies. The rest of your complaints are the fault of the carriers, not Google or OEMs.

Re: When patents attack Android

#152

Post by davidu » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 10:00 PM UTC

moultano wrote: post #104

davidu wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not pro-patent, I just want Google's motives as I see them to be more transparent, and that is what I am aiming to achieve with my comment. If they thought patents were more strategic for them, they wouldn't be anti-patent. For them it's purely a strategic viewpoint that benefits them due to their current size. That patents are grossly abused is a serious issue that is quickly coming to a head, so it won't take a…

So if the ethical position is also strategic, it is no longer ethical? That's a pretty high standard for what constitutes ethical behavior. >If they thought patents were more strategic for them, they wouldn't be anti-patent. This needs a gigantic [citation needed] next to it.

You believe that being pro IPP or anti IPP is an ethical position?

I am pro IP protection (IPP) and but I strongly dislike the existing IPP system we have.

Re: When patents attack Android

#153

Post by dman » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 10:00 PM UTC

Steko wrote: post #131

dman wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry about that, I can now see how I miscommunicated. I was lazily using empire to allude to - 'an economic entity with a well defined identity and well defined borders'.

Let me take an example to clarify this situation - Lets assume a hypothetical situation where Nokia has reached its limits of what it thinks a Phone could be it has stopped doing fundamental innovation ie it has a well defined empire with a well defined cost structure and a well defined revenue model. In such a situation it is in Nokia's self interest to use their immense patent portfolio to create a moat around their business to keep upstarts like Apple / Google away.

On the other hand lets consider another hypothetical situation where Nokia were innovating and trying to reimagine what a phone could be. Perhaps they were doing interesting things in software to displace desktops and make the phone the central location of the users global state. In this case they would be encroaching onto areas where other entities (like Microsoft, Google) might hold significant patents. In this case it would be in Nokia's self interest to be the anti patent candidate.

I have often found that when I use more words to clarify a miscommunication I often end up causing more damage. I hope that is not the case here.

Re: When patents attack Android

#154

Post by pohl » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 10:02 PM UTC

I wonder if anyone in Google is wishing that they hadn't tried to adorably bid pi billion, and had instead played to win.

Re: When patents attack Android

#155

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 10:02 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.

[deleted]

Re: When patents attack Android

#156

Post by guelo » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 10:04 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...…

What I always wonder about with every Apple story on HN is if all the sycophants are just willing fanboys or if PR types are being paid to work HN comments.

Re: When patents attack Android

#157

Post by there » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 10:07 PM UTC

off-topic, but if your weblog is not a personal one and has multiple people authoring content, put the author name immediately under the post's title.

reading a post that starts with "I have worked" makes me immediately stop reading and scroll around to find out who "I" is.

Re: When patents attack Android

#158

Post by Steko » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 10:08 PM UTC

hn_decay wrote: post #140

econgeeker wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Figerworks patents: 1999 to 2005. Keep citing MS Surface like it's relevant.

Re: When patents attack Android

#159

Post by orangecat » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 10:09 PM UTC

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…

How about try to not just bid a magical number but actually try and win auctions instead?

After pi billion they went up to over $4B before giving up.

They want to throw their weight around with patents just like everyone else and use the system in the exact same way as this axis of evil who are conspiring against them.

This is utterly unsupported by anything.

Re: When patents attack Android

#160

Post by maggit » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 10:10 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-…

I suspect you are conflating the copyright/anti-copyright issue with the patent/anti-patent issue.

I don't know what "patents are wrong" ideology you refer to. The arguments I see against patents over and over are concrete examples of small companies coming into trouble because they did something obvious, and do not have the legal and financial muscle to handle it, to for example have the patent invalidated because it is on something obvious.

Patents are supposed to help small actors fight big ones, not the other way around. Software patents have come into a bad light because they frequently do the latter.