4 ms·

It's disappointing that the response is "we've already licensed that" rather than "you cannot possibly believe that you really own that." Everyone I know who i

It's disappointing that the response is "we've already licensed that" rather than "you cannot possibly believe that you really own that." Everyone I know who is doing real work in tech agrees that patents like this are BS. But everyone keeps playing the broken game. No one yet has had the incentive to make a real push (like lobbying) for real patent reform. It's still cheaper to swat the flies than it is to, I dunno, hire an exterminator? (I've never been good at analogies)

Vivtek 15y ago
My thoughts exactly. It's clear why Apple is doing it - it raises the bar for other App Stores. But it sucks that we're in this position at all.
CamperBob 15y ago
No one yet has had the incentive to make a real push (like lobbying) for real patent reform. There's a catch-22 in this situation. Only large companies have the lobbying muscle to effect change. Apple, Microsoft, Google, and other players clearly risk more than they gain from the current patent system, but if they speak out against it, the trolls will organize a PR campaign smearing "huge, faceless corporations" for "picking on the little guy that drives American innovation." Meanwhile, the little guys have essentially no voice at all in government, so their actual opinion doesn't matter. Worse, the entire US government is basically composed of lawyers, members of a tribe that benefits from the status quo.
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  While this is true, I think it's more about the money they all are able to derive from each other wielding their respective patent portfolios than about the potential bad press from trolls. Really in this scenario the trolls are almost the good guys, as long as they are attacking the big players like Microsoft. If we get enough cases like i4i v. MS, the big companies will decide that the current patent system is too dangerous even considering their large patent portfolios that they use to reciprocally gouge their contemporaries and competitors out of money. Right now MS et al are not too worried about patents because any competitor who brings a suit on a patent claim can be counter-sued by one of MS's patents; if someone comes demanding that MS buy a license, MS can reciprocate and demand that that party license a patent it holds. These kinds of cross-licensing agreements and reciprocal lawsuits go on behind the scenes all the day long at the big tech players. If we get more patent trolls who only hold patents and don't put out a real product for the big guys to counter-target with their own portfolio of tech patents, then we'll be in a situation where even an extensive portfolio can't protect the big players any more and they'll have to advocate for reform. We just have to make it cost more than their profit from cross-licensing, etc. Just another handful of injunctions similar to the one from i4i case, which ordered MS to stop selling Office, and we'll be looking good.
  - ontoillogical 15y ago
    When Intellectual Ventures first started they claimed to be trying to fix the broken system by buying up tech patents in the interest of all the players that invested in it. This is how they initially got big investments from the major tech companies. Now that they are clearly a patent troll, and a scary one at that, it looks like the conditions you set out for reform are that much closer to coming to being. I wonder if Myhrvold will end up acting in the interest of the tech industry after all...
tzs 15y ago
> It's disappointing that the response is "we've already licensed that" rather than "you cannot possibly believe that you really own that." How exactly would the latter proposed response actually help?
- haberman 15y ago
  The actual response further legitimizes a broken system. It presupposes that the patent is valid. Nontechnical people (including lawmakers) reading the news about it will continue to have a mistaken impression in their heads that the patent system is a functioning, productive system that technical people are fully behind. The proposed response would be a small step towards delegitimizing it in people's minds. People love Apple products; if they heard from Apple that this patent part of a deeply broken system, that would be one step on the way towards actually getting it changed.
hyperbovine 15y ago
The licensing fees are typically on the order of 1/100th to 1/1000th of what you might have to pay if you lose an infringement case in court. I forget the exact margin, and it varies by circuit, but something Federal court decisions in these cases tend to break in favor of the plaintiff. It may disappoint you, but no company in their right mind is going to take that gamble. (IANAL but one of my good friends is a self-confessed patent troll -- in this market, you take what you can get. He explained the whole racket to me over beers one night.)
- haberman 15y ago
  > The licensing fees are typically on the order of 1/100th to 1/1000th of what you might have to pay if you lose an infringement case in court. That's exactly my point about how it's currently still cheaper to swat the flies. But they could at least publicly argue for patent reform, and heap scorn on patent trolls, which shouldn't be as expensive. > IANAL but one of my good friends is a self-confessed patent troll -- in this market, you take what you can get. If you're really struggling to make ends meet, I can understand resorting to behavior even if you don't agree with it 100%. I'm sure I would steal bread if it were my only alternative to going hungry. But in the bigger picture such people/companies are leeches on the economy and should have their legal weapons (patents) taken away from them.
tjogin 15y ago
It's disappointing to those of us standing on the sideline enjoying the show. But it must be very comforting for App developers, knowing that Apple is standing by them.

Vivtek 15y ago

My thoughts exactly. It's clear why Apple is doing it - it raises the bar for other App Stores. But it sucks that we're in this position at all.

CamperBob 15y ago

No one yet has had the incentive to make a real push (like lobbying) for real patent reform. There's a catch-22 in this situation. Only large companies have the lobbying muscle to effect change. Apple, Microsoft, Google, and other players clearly risk more than they gain from the current patent system, but if they speak out against it, the trolls will organize a PR campaign smearing "huge, faceless corporations" for "picking on the little guy that drives American innovation." Meanwhile, the little guys have essentially no voice at all in government, so their actual opinion doesn't matter. Worse, the entire US government is basically composed of lawyers, members of a tribe that benefits from the status quo.

cookiecaper 15y ago
While this is true, I think it's more about the money they all are able to derive from each other wielding their respective patent portfolios than about the potential bad press from trolls. Really in this scenario the trolls are almost the good guys, as long as they are attacking the big players like Microsoft. If we get enough cases like i4i v. MS, the big companies will decide that the current patent system is too dangerous even considering their large patent portfolios that they use to reciprocally gouge their contemporaries and competitors out of money. Right now MS et al are not too worried about patents because any competitor who brings a suit on a patent claim can be counter-sued by one of MS's patents; if someone comes demanding that MS buy a license, MS can reciprocate and demand that that party license a patent it holds. These kinds of cross-licensing agreements and reciprocal lawsuits go on behind the scenes all the day long at the big tech players. If we get more patent trolls who only hold patents and don't put out a real product for the big guys to counter-target with their own portfolio of tech patents, then we'll be in a situation where even an extensive portfolio can't protect the big players any more and they'll have to advocate for reform. We just have to make it cost more than their profit from cross-licensing, etc. Just another handful of injunctions similar to the one from i4i case, which ordered MS to stop selling Office, and we'll be looking good.
- ontoillogical 15y ago
  When Intellectual Ventures first started they claimed to be trying to fix the broken system by buying up tech patents in the interest of all the players that invested in it. This is how they initially got big investments from the major tech companies. Now that they are clearly a patent troll, and a scary one at that, it looks like the conditions you set out for reform are that much closer to coming to being. I wonder if Myhrvold will end up acting in the interest of the tech industry after all...

tzs 15y ago

> It's disappointing that the response is "we've already licensed that" rather than "you cannot possibly believe that you really own that." How exactly would the latter proposed response actually help?

haberman 15y ago
The actual response further legitimizes a broken system. It presupposes that the patent is valid. Nontechnical people (including lawmakers) reading the news about it will continue to have a mistaken impression in their heads that the patent system is a functioning, productive system that technical people are fully behind. The proposed response would be a small step towards delegitimizing it in people's minds. People love Apple products; if they heard from Apple that this patent part of a deeply broken system, that would be one step on the way towards actually getting it changed.

hyperbovine 15y ago

The licensing fees are typically on the order of 1/100th to 1/1000th of what you might have to pay if you lose an infringement case in court. I forget the exact margin, and it varies by circuit, but something Federal court decisions in these cases tend to break in favor of the plaintiff. It may disappoint you, but no company in their right mind is going to take that gamble. (IANAL but one of my good friends is a self-confessed patent troll -- in this market, you take what you can get. He explained the whole racket to me over beers one night.)

haberman 15y ago
> The licensing fees are typically on the order of 1/100th to 1/1000th of what you might have to pay if you lose an infringement case in court. That's exactly my point about how it's currently still cheaper to swat the flies. But they could at least publicly argue for patent reform, and heap scorn on patent trolls, which shouldn't be as expensive. > IANAL but one of my good friends is a self-confessed patent troll -- in this market, you take what you can get. If you're really struggling to make ends meet, I can understand resorting to behavior even if you don't agree with it 100%. I'm sure I would steal bread if it were my only alternative to going hungry. But in the bigger picture such people/companies are leeches on the economy and should have their legal weapons (patents) taken away from them.

tjogin 15y ago

It's disappointing to those of us standing on the sideline enjoying the show. But it must be very comforting for App developers, knowing that Apple is standing by them.