6 ms·

Given how important standards are in the realm of computers, I think the degree of protection patents provide is ludicrous. Patents ostensibly exist to benefit

Given how important standards are in the realm of computers, I think the degree of protection patents provide is ludicrous. Patents ostensibly exist to benefit society while allowing the inventor to benefit from their invention. I feel like in the digital world the balance has tipped too far in favor of the inventor. If we look to the industrial revolution for example, we have the conversion of linear motion to reciprocating motion. This is an incredibly important development for getting useful work out of steam engines. The most common solution is the crank and flywheel, but when James Watt was designing his steam engines he found that the crank was patented by James Pickard. Rather than license the crank, he invented the Sun and Planet gear[1]. The Sun and Planet gear was less efficient than the crank, but it was a suitable workaround which allowed Watt's engines to be competitive. When it comes to computers, you either have the ability to interact or you don't. If you don't have the right radio, you cannot build a cell phone. If you don't have the right codec, you cannot build a web browser. Functionally, these patents are effectively more like patenting the concept of changing linear motion into rotational motion than patenting a particular mechanism for doing so. I'm glad Apple is forcing Qualcomm's hand on this one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_and_planet_gear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_and_planet_gear

esMazer 9y ago
this is an excellent analogy!
- newusertoday 9y ago
  so when apple uses its patents to sue samsung or get import ban it is alright but when the company that invented the tech before apple even sold phones asks for royalties it's theft?
logicallee 9y ago
>Functionally, these patents are effectively more like patenting the concept of changing linear motion into rotational motion than patenting a particular mechanism for doing so. And one thing is clear: if the industrial revolution had started 20 years later due to some over-broad patent on a whole class of devices, then today we would be lawless cavepeople without electricity. I mean just think it through! Surely whatever incentives the patent system created - including for Watt, or, for that matter, the wright brothers, pales in comparison to the fact that as a species we came this close >< to losing it all. There was a race against time and we won that race. If the hundred thousand year old history of science had been delayed by just twenty years, surely we would have lost it all. The fact that the industrial revolution happened under a broad patent system that produced Watt, the wright brothers, and others, is the purest coincidence. If the patent regime had been even slightly broader, the twentieth century would have been one very long, very boring appendix to Archemedes' screw. Thank God that it happened to be just right! And alas, that nothing has been invented in the digital domain since 1997, since, alas, this system simply does not work there. :( :( :( Can you imagine if things had been invented since 1997? Imagine if people could communicate or innovate without patents coming and beating them up like a school bully. one can dream. . . (Sorry for dripping with sarcasm, you're just so wrong I cannot express it in any other way. who cares if a few patents are granted which are too broad -- big deal. literally a twenty year wait solves that problem forever. the contract with society works.)
- Declanomous 9y ago
  Well it's entirely possible that if overly broad patents had killed the initial market for steam engines the industrial revolution could have been delayed far longer than 20 years, or perhaps not have even happened at all. For instance, the Romans had toys that used steam, but the technology never made the leap to a productive use in the form of steam engines. One theory is that the vast use of slave labor in Rome meant that there was no economic impetus for the discovery of labor saving technologies. By the time the market was right for labor saving technology the basic technology used in the toy had largely been forgotten. Another example is metallurgy in pre-Columbian America. To our knowledge, the Native Americans in North America never developed the technology to melt, smelt, cast or alloy metals. This was despite the fact that bronze alloys had been in use in the old world for over 6000 years by the time Columbus landed on the New World, and iron smelting had been in use for nearly 2500 years. Innovation and invention do not exist in a vacuum. They are closely tied to the time and place where they occurred. So, yes, it would be entirely possible that electricity never would have existed if patent law was different 200+ years ago.
  - logicallee 9y ago
    >Well it's entirely possible that if overly broad patents had killed the initial market for steam engines yep, it's entirely possible that overly broad patents would have completely killed all innovation in the 20th century and we would not have electricity, internal combustion, patent medicines, flight, and in fact we would probably be flinging feces at each other. We would have probably forgotten how to read and write, under too broad of a patent regime. (Sorry I'm dripping with sarcasm again, the statement I quoted you making is just so ridiculously wrong.) By the way as wrong as you are, don't you think you should expand on your wrongness by at least trying to apply a wrong analysis of patent law to Roman times? Can't you at least speculate that somehow your wrong ideas are what kept the Romans from having an industrial revolution of their own? I know they didn't have a patent law but for the sake of the narrative can't you lie and say they had very broad patents which completely stifled innovation? It would help your comment hang together better than your historical example from societies that did not have the benefit of patent law. Just make the argument, somehow, that patents are what led firstly to the Roman civilization never developing internal combustion, electricity, modern metallurgy, or a host of modern inventions, and, secondly, maybe you could somehow expand the lie to show that the patent regime is what caused their downfall as a civilization. I know you could work it in there. you're already so wrong, it really is within your reach. just try your best. Thank you for standing up for innovation. I think we can all agree that lying and being wrong about truth and history is a small price to pay in exchange for preventing our grandchildren from growing up in an illiterate world without electricity and where they have to eck out a living scrawling modern art out of feces. clearly this is where broad patents lead, and the fact that history has never shown this to be the case is just a coincidence. Is the fact that something has never happened a good reason to believe that it doesn't happen inevitably, and all the time? No, it just means that as a society we've been incredibly lucky. Like astronomically. It's all been one lottery win after another after another - the whole industrial revolution and all of the twentieth century. It can't go on forever. We need to take a stand against (broad) patents. They lead to the exact opposite of what they have been shown to lead to in every society that has ever had them. What happens is NOT descriptive of what happens. Only a fool would study history to see how things happen. Much better would be to write some lies about patent law in Roman times. I look forward to reading it. (sorry about my tone - you're just so wrong, I can't reply in any other way.)
rhino369 9y ago
I've come to the same conclusion you have re: software patents. And it is the courts' fault. The use of functional language in patent claims is allowed without applying means-plus-funtion case law. If you say "engine means for creating torque" in your patent claim, when you try to enforce your claim the court will look at the actual engine you disclosed in your patent's specification. You can't disclose a crank and flywheel and then assert it against sun and planet. But if you call it an "engine module configured to provide torque" courts will let you assert that claim against pretty much anything vaguely like an engine that provides torque.
josaka 9y ago
This phenomenon, where the need to license a patent is driven primarily by the need to comply with standard, rather than the advantages of the invention relative to alternatives, is accounted for in recent changes in the law of patent damages. See https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17512877668785640036 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=175128776687856.... Under this 2015 case, the patent owner gets less money if people just use their patent to comply with the standard, and not because it's a better way of doing something.
gcb0 9y ago
it will only help apple, not you. the article convenietly leaves out the pricing rules being disputed. remember that there is already regulations for std patents to be priced reasonably and non discrimatory. what apple is hunting here, is a discount. nothing else.
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  These are all FRAND patents that the dispute is over. In short, Apple is claiming that they aren't priced reasonably, which is a reasonable claim to make. Why should Apple pay Qualcomm more for a radio in a 128GB iPhone than a 32GB iPhone?
  - gcb0 9y ago
    because the royalties are proportional to the profit. since the patent claim is the profits wouldnt exist without the original work. it's just like tax works. a judge cannot declare that illegal without criticizing all of tax law.
- heisenbit 9y ago
  What is reasonable and non discriminatory is a question of interpretation. At the heart is the argument that only part of the iPhone value is wireless and putting a tax on the whole is not reasonable. Imagine the iPhone software and chip embedded into a car. Would it be reasonable for the car manufacturer to pay the same percentage to Qualcomm as Apple? Where do you draw the line? There is a huge amount of innovation in the iPhone: Mechanical engineering, materials, sensors, camera, screen and software. None have anything to do with Qualcomm. The value Qualcomm adds is equivalent to a very fast portable, wireless hotspot. A great thing to have and worth paying for.
aey 9y ago
These patents aren't cheap to develop or obvious. Of all the tech patents that are out there, high bandwidth and low latency communication is the hardest to develop. Apple is sitting on a mountain of cash, Qualcomm is absolutely in their right to charge them at the threshold it would take to develop an alternative. In terms of "good to society" it's hard to say what expiration date is the optimal one at maximizing innovation over all possible futures. I think it's probably greater then 0, but below 100 years.

esMazer 9y ago

this is an excellent analogy!

newusertoday 9y ago
so when apple uses its patents to sue samsung or get import ban it is alright but when the company that invented the tech before apple even sold phones asks for royalties it's theft?

logicallee 9y ago

>Functionally, these patents are effectively more like patenting the concept of changing linear motion into rotational motion than patenting a particular mechanism for doing so. And one thing is clear: if the industrial revolution had started 20 years later due to some over-broad patent on a whole class of devices, then today we would be lawless cavepeople without electricity. I mean just think it through! Surely whatever incentives the patent system created - including for Watt, or, for that matter, the wright brothers, pales in comparison to the fact that as a species we came this close >< to losing it all. There was a race against time and we won that race. If the hundred thousand year old history of science had been delayed by just twenty years, surely we would have lost it all. The fact that the industrial revolution happened under a broad patent system that produced Watt, the wright brothers, and others, is the purest coincidence. If the patent regime had been even slightly broader, the twentieth century would have been one very long, very boring appendix to Archemedes' screw. Thank God that it happened to be just right! And alas, that nothing has been invented in the digital domain since 1997, since, alas, this system simply does not work there. :( :( :( Can you imagine if things had been invented since 1997? Imagine if people could communicate or innovate without patents coming and beating them up like a school bully. one can dream. . . (Sorry for dripping with sarcasm, you're just so wrong I cannot express it in any other way. who cares if a few patents are granted which are too broad -- big deal. literally a twenty year wait solves that problem forever. the contract with society works.)

Declanomous 9y ago
Well it's entirely possible that if overly broad patents had killed the initial market for steam engines the industrial revolution could have been delayed far longer than 20 years, or perhaps not have even happened at all. For instance, the Romans had toys that used steam, but the technology never made the leap to a productive use in the form of steam engines. One theory is that the vast use of slave labor in Rome meant that there was no economic impetus for the discovery of labor saving technologies. By the time the market was right for labor saving technology the basic technology used in the toy had largely been forgotten. Another example is metallurgy in pre-Columbian America. To our knowledge, the Native Americans in North America never developed the technology to melt, smelt, cast or alloy metals. This was despite the fact that bronze alloys had been in use in the old world for over 6000 years by the time Columbus landed on the New World, and iron smelting had been in use for nearly 2500 years. Innovation and invention do not exist in a vacuum. They are closely tied to the time and place where they occurred. So, yes, it would be entirely possible that electricity never would have existed if patent law was different 200+ years ago.
- logicallee 9y ago
  >Well it's entirely possible that if overly broad patents had killed the initial market for steam engines yep, it's entirely possible that overly broad patents would have completely killed all innovation in the 20th century and we would not have electricity, internal combustion, patent medicines, flight, and in fact we would probably be flinging feces at each other. We would have probably forgotten how to read and write, under too broad of a patent regime. (Sorry I'm dripping with sarcasm again, the statement I quoted you making is just so ridiculously wrong.) By the way as wrong as you are, don't you think you should expand on your wrongness by at least trying to apply a wrong analysis of patent law to Roman times? Can't you at least speculate that somehow your wrong ideas are what kept the Romans from having an industrial revolution of their own? I know they didn't have a patent law but for the sake of the narrative can't you lie and say they had very broad patents which completely stifled innovation? It would help your comment hang together better than your historical example from societies that did not have the benefit of patent law. Just make the argument, somehow, that patents are what led firstly to the Roman civilization never developing internal combustion, electricity, modern metallurgy, or a host of modern inventions, and, secondly, maybe you could somehow expand the lie to show that the patent regime is what caused their downfall as a civilization. I know you could work it in there. you're already so wrong, it really is within your reach. just try your best. Thank you for standing up for innovation. I think we can all agree that lying and being wrong about truth and history is a small price to pay in exchange for preventing our grandchildren from growing up in an illiterate world without electricity and where they have to eck out a living scrawling modern art out of feces. clearly this is where broad patents lead, and the fact that history has never shown this to be the case is just a coincidence. Is the fact that something has never happened a good reason to believe that it doesn't happen inevitably, and all the time? No, it just means that as a society we've been incredibly lucky. Like astronomically. It's all been one lottery win after another after another - the whole industrial revolution and all of the twentieth century. It can't go on forever. We need to take a stand against (broad) patents. They lead to the exact opposite of what they have been shown to lead to in every society that has ever had them. What happens is NOT descriptive of what happens. Only a fool would study history to see how things happen. Much better would be to write some lies about patent law in Roman times. I look forward to reading it. (sorry about my tone - you're just so wrong, I can't reply in any other way.)

rhino369 9y ago

I've come to the same conclusion you have re: software patents. And it is the courts' fault. The use of functional language in patent claims is allowed without applying means-plus-funtion case law. If you say "engine means for creating torque" in your patent claim, when you try to enforce your claim the court will look at the actual engine you disclosed in your patent's specification. You can't disclose a crank and flywheel and then assert it against sun and planet. But if you call it an "engine module configured to provide torque" courts will let you assert that claim against pretty much anything vaguely like an engine that provides torque.

josaka 9y ago

This phenomenon, where the need to license a patent is driven primarily by the need to comply with standard, rather than the advantages of the invention relative to alternatives, is accounted for in recent changes in the law of patent damages. See https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17512877668785640036 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=175128776687856.... Under this 2015 case, the patent owner gets less money if people just use their patent to comply with the standard, and not because it's a better way of doing something.

gcb0 9y ago

it will only help apple, not you. the article convenietly leaves out the pricing rules being disputed. remember that there is already regulations for std patents to be priced reasonably and non discrimatory. what apple is hunting here, is a discount. nothing else.

madeofpalk 9y ago
These are all FRAND patents that the dispute is over. In short, Apple is claiming that they aren't priced reasonably, which is a reasonable claim to make. Why should Apple pay Qualcomm more for a radio in a 128GB iPhone than a 32GB iPhone?
- gcb0 9y ago
  because the royalties are proportional to the profit. since the patent claim is the profits wouldnt exist without the original work. it's just like tax works. a judge cannot declare that illegal without criticizing all of tax law.
heisenbit 9y ago
What is reasonable and non discriminatory is a question of interpretation. At the heart is the argument that only part of the iPhone value is wireless and putting a tax on the whole is not reasonable. Imagine the iPhone software and chip embedded into a car. Would it be reasonable for the car manufacturer to pay the same percentage to Qualcomm as Apple? Where do you draw the line? There is a huge amount of innovation in the iPhone: Mechanical engineering, materials, sensors, camera, screen and software. None have anything to do with Qualcomm. The value Qualcomm adds is equivalent to a very fast portable, wireless hotspot. A great thing to have and worth paying for.

aey 9y ago

These patents aren't cheap to develop or obvious. Of all the tech patents that are out there, high bandwidth and low latency communication is the hardest to develop. Apple is sitting on a mountain of cash, Qualcomm is absolutely in their right to charge them at the threshold it would take to develop an alternative. In terms of "good to society" it's hard to say what expiration date is the optimal one at maximizing innovation over all possible futures. I think it's probably greater then 0, but below 100 years.