6 ms·

> The issue here is Software Patents exist. It's possible to not be asshole with software patents. See Facebook and Google.

by air 10y ago

gcp 10y ago
Does Facebook have any binding commitment to not be an asshole with patents? (The patent license on things like React.js surely isn't)
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
Note that Google hasn't committed to not be litigious with most of it's good patents. They've signed their patent pledge for a very limited scope of patents which looks good for PR purposes. Bear in mind, patent extortion tends to look good as a business model once your main revenue source is starting to wane. So while Google may be behaving with patents today, they've been amassing a pretty large library... and the advertising market is expected to start going downhill fast. Google has pledged not to abuse 245 patents: http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/patents/ http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/patents/ It's hard to get an accurate number on how many patents Google owns (Google's search results are unhelpful, I'm sure they know, but they aren't sharing), but considering they picked up 17,000 from the Motorola acquisition alone, we can assume safely that Google is reserving the right to be a patent troll.
- mcintyre1994 10y ago
  https://patents.google.com/?assignee=Google+Inc https://patents.google.com/?assignee=Google+Inc. puts them at 30,440 but I'm not sure that'll include Motorola ones or any acquired ones.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- DannyBee 10y ago
  "Note that Google hasn't committed to not be litigious with most of it's good patents.' Google has released 4000+ open source projects[1] under the apache license, which has a pretty broad patent grant, something you seem to be completely ignoring. This includes things like tensorflow, the maps geometry library, etc. I'm not sure what you consider "the good patents", but for most developers, it's the stuff we open source. [1] This is just the 30 day active number, the total number over the 11 years i've been at Google is closer to 12k, last i looked.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    Re: Apache license. But that only really covers the patent as far as the specific open source work in question. Implementing the content of said patent independently would leave you open to being sued by Google, right? The question is, if Google has this open patent pledge, right, why are only 245 patents in it of the tens of thousands they have? Dare I suggest you ask Larry Page if you ever get the chance, why is Google so afraid to put it's money where it's PR spin is? If Google TRULY believes what it says, it'd act on it.
    - DannyBee 10y ago
      "Re: Apache license. But that only really covers the patent as far as the specific open source work in question. Implementing the content of said patent independently would leave you open to being sued by Google, right?" Maybe? But i'm not sure what the point is? This is true of literally every patent granting open source license I mean, i'll be honest, this basically sounds like whining to me. Nothing is ever enough. As for the open patent pledge, it's pretty simple: Nobody has ever cared enough to desire more patents there. Seriously. 99% of people don't go around trying to reimplement the stuff we do, they use the implementations we give them. Where they haven't, and it's serious, Google has tried to pledge patents. This has happened pretty much never. In fact, i can't think of the last time someone asked. Optimizing heavily for the 1% case makes no sense. Past that, OPN says "The OPN Pledge is designed to supplement existing OSS licensing alternatives ..." (IE it's designed to supplement our permissive licensing). In any case, it sounds like you have an axe to grind here, so i'm pretty much out, since i'm sure no answer i give you will ever satisfy you.
      - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        The answer "Hey, we're working on getting all our patents into our patent pledge" would totally satisfy me. But let's be honest: It's never going to happen. Patent licensing that only benefits people using Google tech is exactly the sort of hypocrisy Google and others accuse Microsoft of. (Manufacturers who ship Windows Mobile generally don't get sued for violating Microsoft's patents, AFAIK.) Obviously, since Microsoft's OS would implement it's own mobile device tech, the sorts of protections afforded by Google via Apache licensing probably doesn't protect Microsoft from a suit by Google, for example. What is the harm in Google pledging all of their patents, if they have no intention to ever use them offensively?
- bitmapbrother 10y ago
  Why are you addressing a hypothetical theory that has absolutely no basis? Why not address a real issue like Microsoft extorting Billions from Android OEM's for their obsolete, junk filled prior art ridden patents?
djsumdog 10y ago
Software patents are unnecessary and they hurt innovation. New Zealand has banned all software patents.
- bungle 10y ago
  The most of the world doesn't have them in a first place, so no need to ban anything. It is just that USA is so horribly protective nation, that rest of us have to deal with this as well. E.g. want to sell your NZ stuff in states? Well, better to pay some protection money then.
- keithnz 10y ago
  sort of... http://www.ajpark.com/ip-central/news-articles/2016/05/new-zealand-patent-office-issues-first-software-patent-under-new-law/ http://www.ajpark.com/ip-central/news-articles/2016/05/new-z...

> The issue here is Software Patents exist. It's possible to not be asshole with software patents. See Facebook and Google.

by air 10y ago

> The issue here is Software Patents exist. It's possible to not be asshole with software patents. See Facebook and Google.

gcp 10y ago

Does Facebook have any binding commitment to not be an asshole with patents? (The patent license on things like React.js surely isn't)

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

Note that Google hasn't committed to not be litigious with most of it's good patents. They've signed their patent pledge for a very limited scope of patents which looks good for PR purposes. Bear in mind, patent extortion tends to look good as a business model once your main revenue source is starting to wane. So while Google may be behaving with patents today, they've been amassing a pretty large library... and the advertising market is expected to start going downhill fast. Google has pledged not to abuse 245 patents: http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/patents/ http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/patents/ It's hard to get an accurate number on how many patents Google owns (Google's search results are unhelpful, I'm sure they know, but they aren't sharing), but considering they picked up 17,000 from the Motorola acquisition alone, we can assume safely that Google is reserving the right to be a patent troll.

mcintyre1994 10y ago
https://patents.google.com/?assignee=Google+Inc https://patents.google.com/?assignee=Google+Inc. puts them at 30,440 but I'm not sure that'll include Motorola ones or any acquired ones.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
DannyBee 10y ago
"Note that Google hasn't committed to not be litigious with most of it's good patents.' Google has released 4000+ open source projects[1] under the apache license, which has a pretty broad patent grant, something you seem to be completely ignoring. This includes things like tensorflow, the maps geometry library, etc. I'm not sure what you consider "the good patents", but for most developers, it's the stuff we open source. [1] This is just the 30 day active number, the total number over the 11 years i've been at Google is closer to 12k, last i looked.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Re: Apache license. But that only really covers the patent as far as the specific open source work in question. Implementing the content of said patent independently would leave you open to being sued by Google, right? The question is, if Google has this open patent pledge, right, why are only 245 patents in it of the tens of thousands they have? Dare I suggest you ask Larry Page if you ever get the chance, why is Google so afraid to put it's money where it's PR spin is? If Google TRULY believes what it says, it'd act on it.
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    "Re: Apache license. But that only really covers the patent as far as the specific open source work in question. Implementing the content of said patent independently would leave you open to being sued by Google, right?" Maybe? But i'm not sure what the point is? This is true of literally every patent granting open source license I mean, i'll be honest, this basically sounds like whining to me. Nothing is ever enough. As for the open patent pledge, it's pretty simple: Nobody has ever cared enough to desire more patents there. Seriously. 99% of people don't go around trying to reimplement the stuff we do, they use the implementations we give them. Where they haven't, and it's serious, Google has tried to pledge patents. This has happened pretty much never. In fact, i can't think of the last time someone asked. Optimizing heavily for the 1% case makes no sense. Past that, OPN says "The OPN Pledge is designed to supplement existing OSS licensing alternatives ..." (IE it's designed to supplement our permissive licensing). In any case, it sounds like you have an axe to grind here, so i'm pretty much out, since i'm sure no answer i give you will ever satisfy you.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      The answer "Hey, we're working on getting all our patents into our patent pledge" would totally satisfy me. But let's be honest: It's never going to happen. Patent licensing that only benefits people using Google tech is exactly the sort of hypocrisy Google and others accuse Microsoft of. (Manufacturers who ship Windows Mobile generally don't get sued for violating Microsoft's patents, AFAIK.) Obviously, since Microsoft's OS would implement it's own mobile device tech, the sorts of protections afforded by Google via Apache licensing probably doesn't protect Microsoft from a suit by Google, for example. What is the harm in Google pledging all of their patents, if they have no intention to ever use them offensively?
bitmapbrother 10y ago
Why are you addressing a hypothetical theory that has absolutely no basis? Why not address a real issue like Microsoft extorting Billions from Android OEM's for their obsolete, junk filled prior art ridden patents?

djsumdog 10y ago

Software patents are unnecessary and they hurt innovation. New Zealand has banned all software patents.

bungle 10y ago
The most of the world doesn't have them in a first place, so no need to ban anything. It is just that USA is so horribly protective nation, that rest of us have to deal with this as well. E.g. want to sell your NZ stuff in states? Well, better to pay some protection money then.
keithnz 10y ago
sort of... http://www.ajpark.com/ip-central/news-articles/2016/05/new-zealand-patent-office-issues-first-software-patent-under-new-law/ http://www.ajpark.com/ip-central/news-articles/2016/05/new-z...