More on Google and Patents

http://daringfireball.net/2010/03/this_apple_htc_patent_thin...

From the post: "But for software the system, in practice, is undeniably broken. There’s an argument to be made that software is inherently different than other fields of invention, different in such a way that patents should not apply — or, should apply for a significantly shorter period of time before expiring. You can’t (or at least shouldn’t) be able to patent mathematics, and there are good arguments that programming is a branch of mathematics. But because software patents are granted, concede at least for the moment that certain kinds of software innovations ought to be patentable. Even with that in mind, clearly the U.S. Patent Office is and has granted patents for things which ought not be patentable. Not just silly frivolous things, but patents that have been granted for concepts alone, rather than specific innovative implementations of said concepts. Ideas in the abstract, rather than implementations of ideas."

To me this sounds like a well-reasoned post that acknowledges the patent system is broken. I'm not sure if I would validate software patents at all but it's a far better system than what's in place now.

Also: "To me, “user interface” patents are hand-in-hand with “business method patents” as examples of things which, no matter how innovative or original, ought not be patentable. They’re idea patents."

This is just something to point out that this where Gruber and Apple do seem to stray paths. Gruber may be an Apple fan but it doesn't go beyond all reason.

Regarding the situation with Google, I do think he is mostly right. I would have liked to have seen Google publicly lobby against software patents in general, with the consumer and Congress. That is not the path they chose. Instead they chose to become an investor in Intellectual Ventures and play the game of mutually assured destruction with MS, Apple & Oracle. Doing so makes them equally complicit in the process. Winning the battle against these three companies does not protect the indie dev. It only serves Google's end which means their motives are ultimately selfish. If they can play selfish why can't others who currently have the law on their side?

If you only read Gruber's posts that make it to HN, you're missing context because he may have made other posts that provide background (and, while Gruber's fairly good about linking back to what he's said in the past, he's not perfect).

If you only read Gruber's posts, you miss context that may have been building in comments he makes in his linked list entries. In fact, Gruber has mostly avoided saying anything about Lodsys because he has been linking to others that he feels have said what he believes more eloquently, adding a small paragraph of commentary.

I'm not claiming that Gruber's "perfect" by any means. I'm simply saying that Gruber has a narrative to what he writes that shouldn't be subjected to soundbite treatment.

With respect to Google, we must simply agree to disagree that they have a moral high ground on this and other matters. Gruber contends (and I mostly agree) that they do not for various reasons.

[1] I'd originally said remarkably consistent, but the only thing remarkable about that is that so many other journalists/bloggers aren't. This consistency, by the by, is also ignored by anyone who suggests that Gruber is an "uncritical fanboy". Over the last year, I can think of a number of posts where Gruber has criticized Apple fairly harshly over decisions that have been made, including the removal of "store" buttons from the Kindle and Kobo apps, etc.