When patents attack Android • Hacker News Board

Re: When patents attack Android

#271

Post by fpgeek » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 5:51 AM UTC

chaz wrote: post #124

chocopuff wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

I'm pretty sure their interest in IV these days would be more accurately characterized as "protection".

Re: When patents attack Android

#272

Post by kleptco » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 5:55 AM UTC

It makes sense for the legal system to guard against copying. If people buying Android phones actually thought they were buying iPhones - that's a problem. But if Apple can convince the government that they had a truly original idea and that no one can use that idea regardless of how they came up with it - that's absurd.

Re: When patents attack Android

#273

Post by fpgeek » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 5:56 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #181

Steko wrote: post #148

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." 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 t…

The answer is no. More interestingly, even 20+ year old software was not necessarily disclosed in a way that meets the legal requirements for "prior art", so you can be sued for using it.

I believe exceptions for prior usage are one of the things being messed with in the current "patent reform" legislation, though, IIRC, they're being influenced in a negative direction disappointingly and unsurprisingly.

Re: When patents attack Android

#274

Post by intended » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 6:01 AM UTC

macrael wrote: post #262

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…

What do you think about the fact that Microsoft council claims the following: Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no. https://twitter.com/#!/BradSmi/status/98902130412355585 Why would Google decline to be a part of this consortium? It would have disarmed its competitors.

Well if the consortium had plans to keep the patents closed, while Google wanted them to open them up, I can see why Google couldn't be a part of that panel.

Re: When patents attack Android

#275

Post by fpgeek » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 6:04 AM UTC

worshipGoogle wrote: post #215

Forget Multitouch. Let's talk about how google one day decided to take Java, a project Sun had spent decades developing and selling as a product, and copy it (not necessarily the source code) and give it away for free, in all of it's Google "Don't be Evil" righteousness. Thus causing handset makers who were paying Sun for their product to stop paying them and instead get the free version from Google instead. Is andro…

Yes, because Google was using ideas that were implemented long before Java, Sun was just the first one to bother patenting them.

Re: When patents attack Android

#276

Post by fpgeek » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 6:06 AM UTC

gord wrote: post #209

Note to Google - fix smartphones and insure against future patent abuse by advancing an even better alternative - a fully formed HTML5+Javascript mobile OS offering. Mobile and Web are the same thing, its just we have a legacy crud that needs to be factored away. Ideally my phone runs linux with a GPU accelerated HTML5 UI, and has a javascript programming model with open API to get to hardware features. We are nearly…

Huh? HTML5 + Javascript would not avoid future patent abuse. There are lots of dubious web-related patents from the dot-com bubble that haven't expired yet.

Re: When patents attack Android

#277

Post by MrScruff » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 7:48 AM UTC

fpgeek wrote: post #268

MrScruff wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps, you've heard of the obscure little Taiwanese company that built the O2 XDA (the first device to merge a Pocket PC PDA (e.g. iPaq) and a mobile phone with Internet access)? I believe they're called HTC. They've built tons of phones that resemble an iPaq, plenty of them before the iPhone was launched.

I'm not sure what point you're making. There were plenty of smartphones that existed before the iPhone. Many of them had icons and some had touch screens. None of them resembled the iPhone in 2007 any more than they resembled the Newton or Palm OS though.

Re: When patents attack Android

#278

Post by regularfry » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 8:45 AM UTC

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…

It's a good thing patents are only available for consumer products, or who knows what a mess we'd be in!

Re: When patents attack Android

#279

Post by rimantas » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 9:33 AM 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.

iPhone was introduced in 2007. According to Jobs it took 2.5 years to develop.

Re: When patents attack Android

#280

Post by ig1 » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 11:34 AM UTC

worshipGoogle wrote: post #215

Forget Multitouch. Let's talk about how google one day decided to take Java, a project Sun had spent decades developing and selling as a product, and copy it (not necessarily the source code) and give it away for free, in all of it's Google "Don't be Evil" righteousness. Thus causing handset makers who were paying Sun for their product to stop paying them and instead get the free version from Google instead. Is andro…

I don't think you're familiar with the licence history of Java, Sun has long allowed free third party implementations of Java as part of it's attempt to get Java adopted as the standard development language.