5 ms·

I have many problems with demands of license fees for patents that are trivial. All of the patents mentioned so far in this battle have been of that sort. This

by azakai 15y ago

I have many problems with demands of license fees for patents that are trivial. All of the patents mentioned so far in this battle have been of that sort. This isn't a valid use of the patent system - it's an abuse of that system. This is very clear to both people that suppose software patents and that oppose them. If someone can show a valid, nontrivial patent that Android is being attacked with, I might change my mind. Lawsuits over trivial patents scare me because I might be the next target. If I found another startup some day, and develop all my own technology, I can still be sued over trivial patents. If it can happen to Google, what's to stop it from happening to any of us, if we become successful enough to be targets for this sort of thing?

AllenKids 15y ago
Me think Sun's java patents are very non-trivial. But legally speaking, none of us have the authority to determine what qualifies as trivial. Google certainly has the fund to battle it out and demands re-examination of every patents involved. Just recently Apple got USPTO to declare several S3 patents invalid. Just do it.
- azakai 15y ago
  > But legally speaking, none of us have the authority to determine what qualifies as trivial. Technically we can be sued and the court will decide what is 'trivial'. But that is completely messed up. We, the software engineers, know what is trivial or not in our field - software engineering. If lawyers decide what is trivial and what isn't in software, then every software engineer founding a startup needs a lawyer to go over all the code he or she writes. That's a horrible burden on innovation!
  - AllenKids 15y ago
    What's obvious and trivial to professionals may not be trivial at all in common sense. What's obvious and trivial after the fact may not be trivial at all before someone come up with it in the first place. The question remains to what extend do we protect IP so the system yields net benefit to the society, not the opposite? I have no answer, but I'm Chinese, I've witnessed a complete disregard for IP in practice facilitates intellectual cesspool and general lack of innovation. I hesitate to join the chant for total software patents abolishment.
    - azakai 15y ago
      > What's obvious and trivial to professionals may not be trivial at all in common sense. And should not the professionals in this case - software engineers - be the right people to make that determination? > What's obvious and trivial after the fact may not be trivial at all before someone come up with it in the first place. Yes. But in practice, no one reads patent filings. So the act of filing patents doesn't spread information that makes an idea seem trivial later on. Of course the act of making a successful product might do that. > The question remains to what extend do we protect IP so the system yields net benefit to the society, not the opposite? That's a tough question. But it is clear that suing over trivial patents is detrimental to innovation. Software patents of actual substance, on the other hand, are a debatable issue. None of the patents being sued over in the mobile space so far appear to have any substance. Note that I don't count the Java patents here - Oracle isn't a mobile company, and the patents aren't mobile in particular. Oracle's lawsuit against Google isn't of the same category as the other anti-Android lawsuits. The other ones come from competitors in the mobile space. Regarding the Java patents themselves, I haven't read any, so I can't say I have an opinion.
      - AllenKids 15y ago
        I think software engineers should absolutely be involved, but more like "expert witnesses". The judgement is better left in the hands of law people with common sense. And really the merits of various patents these companies holds are not the focus of my argument, I understand you feel quite differently.
        azakai 15y ago
        > I think software engineers should absolutely be involved, but more like "expert witnesses". The judgement is better left in the hands of law people with common sense. I can't disagree more. Should common sense be how we decide what medical option to pursue? Or whether a mathematical proof is valid? Or even whether a legal argument is allowed - in the US judges determine that in many case, not juries? What possible reason is there for common sense to determine whether a software patent is trivial or not? The only question should be whether it actually is trivial or not. The people who know that are software engineers.

by azakai 15y ago

AllenKids 15y ago

Me think Sun's java patents are very non-trivial. But legally speaking, none of us have the authority to determine what qualifies as trivial. Google certainly has the fund to battle it out and demands re-examination of every patents involved. Just recently Apple got USPTO to declare several S3 patents invalid. Just do it.

azakai 15y ago
> But legally speaking, none of us have the authority to determine what qualifies as trivial. Technically we can be sued and the court will decide what is 'trivial'. But that is completely messed up. We, the software engineers, know what is trivial or not in our field - software engineering. If lawyers decide what is trivial and what isn't in software, then every software engineer founding a startup needs a lawyer to go over all the code he or she writes. That's a horrible burden on innovation!
- AllenKids 15y ago
  What's obvious and trivial to professionals may not be trivial at all in common sense. What's obvious and trivial after the fact may not be trivial at all before someone come up with it in the first place. The question remains to what extend do we protect IP so the system yields net benefit to the society, not the opposite? I have no answer, but I'm Chinese, I've witnessed a complete disregard for IP in practice facilitates intellectual cesspool and general lack of innovation. I hesitate to join the chant for total software patents abolishment.
  - azakai 15y ago
    > What's obvious and trivial to professionals may not be trivial at all in common sense. And should not the professionals in this case - software engineers - be the right people to make that determination? > What's obvious and trivial after the fact may not be trivial at all before someone come up with it in the first place. Yes. But in practice, no one reads patent filings. So the act of filing patents doesn't spread information that makes an idea seem trivial later on. Of course the act of making a successful product might do that. > The question remains to what extend do we protect IP so the system yields net benefit to the society, not the opposite? That's a tough question. But it is clear that suing over trivial patents is detrimental to innovation. Software patents of actual substance, on the other hand, are a debatable issue. None of the patents being sued over in the mobile space so far appear to have any substance. Note that I don't count the Java patents here - Oracle isn't a mobile company, and the patents aren't mobile in particular. Oracle's lawsuit against Google isn't of the same category as the other anti-Android lawsuits. The other ones come from competitors in the mobile space. Regarding the Java patents themselves, I haven't read any, so I can't say I have an opinion.
    - AllenKids 15y ago
      I think software engineers should absolutely be involved, but more like "expert witnesses". The judgement is better left in the hands of law people with common sense. And really the merits of various patents these companies holds are not the focus of my argument, I understand you feel quite differently.
      - azakai 15y ago
        > I think software engineers should absolutely be involved, but more like "expert witnesses". The judgement is better left in the hands of law people with common sense. I can't disagree more. Should common sense be how we decide what medical option to pursue? Or whether a mathematical proof is valid? Or even whether a legal argument is allowed - in the US judges determine that in many case, not juries? What possible reason is there for common sense to determine whether a software patent is trivial or not? The only question should be whether it actually is trivial or not. The people who know that are software engineers.