13 ms·

Google: Patently Absurd

135 points by joshus 15y ago

metafour 15y ago
Also, apparently Microsoft offered Google the chance to join them in bidding for the patents and they declined. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/08/03/interestinger http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/08/03/interestinger
spartango 15y ago
Gruber: "Sour Grapes"
bdhe 15y ago
Does anyone else feel the word undermine is not appropriate in this quote (due to which, I'm unable to understand the point behind the comparison): It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s for-pay OS licensing business by giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft? [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/undermine http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/undermine
- Terretta 15y ago
  I found the word very clear. Here, rewritten to use both of the most common definitions of the word: "It's OK for Google to weaken or impair Microsoft's for-pay licensing business by giving away Android for free, by eroding the foundational concept of an OS being something you pay for; but it's not OK for Microsoft to weaken or impair Google's attempts to give away for free, by eroding the foundational concept of its free-ness[1], an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?" [1] undermining free as in speech by showing it is encumbered, and undermining free as in beer by licensing the relevant patents for relevant dollars
- lawfulfalafel 15y ago
  First of all, Linux violates 0 patents in my book til Microsoft at least specifies them. Then maybe we can talk about whether or not the present tense "violates" and not "potentially violating" is accurate. Secondly, even if that is true, does Gruber think Microsoft deserves to win that fight? I mean seriously? If you can develop something on your own time that violates a software patent, that means we need massive patent reform. Not that somebody did something wrong, or that it should be stopped. Making that assumption is unjustifiable and something that should be apologized for. Google doesn't have a lab with reverse engineers working on "hurting M$". No, they are simply distributing a flavor of Linux. And unlike the other scared/ignorant companies that are signing costly patent deals with Microsoft based on claims and threats of potential litigation, Google actually wants to fight. I think that's pretty respectful. Software patents are a joke. They leverage the playing field towards the rich and ensconced individuals/corporations and against the hackers who are actually inventing the technologies. It's a sad, depressing joke no one wants to laugh at.
aristidb 15y ago
"But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?" Of course Android violates patents. Just like any sufficiently non-trivial piece of software...
- amartya916 15y ago
  Absolutely spot on. That being said, in this rare occasion, I think John Gruber is raising points that needed to be raised. If you read Google's version of the story, it'd seem like Google is the champion of innovation and it is being targeted due to the success of Android, and crucially, it's in the customer's interest that these patents shouldn't be used against them. Well not really; it's basically in Google's interest. To say nothing about their own 3.14 billion dollar bid for Nortel's patent portfolio and then claiming that their true worth was 1 billion, being completely disingenuous.
  - orangecat 15y ago
    it is being targeted due to the success of Android, and crucially, it's in the customer's interest that these patents shouldn't be used against them The first is obviously true, and I'd argue the second is as well. An effective duopoly of iOS and WP7 would be bad for consumers in the short term due to decreased competition, and even worse in the long term due to the effects of all mainstream mobile platforms being locked down. Well not really; it's basically in Google's interest. Not mutually exclusive. To say nothing about their own 3.14 billion dollar bid for Nortel's patent portfolio and then claiming that their true worth was 1 billion, being completely disingenuous. How? Google's claim is that if the patent system were fixed, Nortel's patents would be worth much less than they are in the current environment.
    - amartya916 15y ago
      "An effective duopoly of iOS and WP7 would be bad for consumers in the short term due to decreased competition, and even worse in the long term due to the effects of all mainstream mobile platforms being locked down." I broadly agree with you on this count. However, I think that for us, the techie community, the fact that a majority of mobile platforms are locked might be an issue; for the average customer it is not. "Not mutually exclusive." Again agreed broadly but it can be argued that at the end of the day Google is a company chasing revenues (just like every other company) and not having to get involved in patent litigation is going to save "them" money. While the patent system might be broken, but as long as it's not fixed, Google has to play along (just like MSFT and AAPL). I just do not see how they can ever take the higher ground here, other than being miffed at missing the deal. The true price of any commodity is not static, it is always dependent on competition/availability/demand etc. The patents might be worth 1 billion, but if Google offered in excess of 3 billion, they thought that it was worth the price "in the current environment". Also Google can claim that the patents were worth 1 billion, but they have a vested interest in portraying this as being the case. I am a little cynical of such claims.
barredo 15y ago
What I think: It's ok for Apple, Microsoft et al to defend themselves if Android violates their own patents. It's not ok for Apple, Microsoft et al to defend themselves if Android violates patents they didn't develop. Also, remember that although Microsoft & Oracle claims that Android violated some of their software patents, Apple claims against Samsung go far beyond that, this analysis by Nilay Patel is pretty good: http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/ http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analys...
- petervandijck 15y ago
  If the patent system worked correctly, that would be true. But it hands out heaps of trivial patents, so not even that.
- doe88 15y ago
  I concur. But it brings an additional question: Is it right for Google to defend itself with patents they didn't develop? (like for instance those bought from IBM) In this case I think not.
- pkamb 15y ago
  So you want to prevent some poor independent hacker from selling his patents to large companies?
- aphexairlines 15y ago
  All patents held by companies were bought from someone else. They're just usually paid for with salaries.
cheald 15y ago
I'm not sure how to say this without coming across as incendiary, but what the hell? Is Gruber utterly oblivious to the horrible state of software patents and their abuses? Is he actually condoning the abominable software patents that every other sane developer despises? Yes, Google is trying to ward off being picked to death by a myriad of utterly worthless (in the market, not legal sense) patents. Yes, Google is likely in violation of several thousand patents with Android, and all of its other software products. Guess what? So is damn near every other developer on the face of the planet, but Google has a big fat target painted on their back because of Android's success. They would be crazy to not try to acquire a defensive patent portfolio. I'll guarantee you that I violated a good half-dozen patents in the course of my absolutely routine work today. That doesn't mean that I'm a mean nasty violator out to undermine free enterprise, it means that software patents suck. Apple and Microsoft have both proven that they will use these garbage patents offensively to drive competitors out of the market, and Google is left in the position of "acquire means of mutually assured destruction to protect ourselves with or die by horribly broken patent law". Which do you think is the sane and responsible course of action?
- bonch 15y ago
  Brad Smith of Microsoft posted this on Twitter: "Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no." I think this is just more of Google's double-standards. I think they use issues like this to drum up support from the techie crowds, just like when they talk about openness in spite of bundling Adobe Flash in Chrome or withholding Android source. They know software patents are a big issue on sites like this, and so portraying themselves as the underdog victim is very convenient and beneficial for them. Literally the only thing Google supporters have in response is to say that they haven't seen Google sue anybody yet, and so therefore Google never will and their motives are benign. I guess if you're willing to put all your trust into gigantic advertising corporations, that feels like a valid viewpoint to take, but not for me.
- fpgeek 15y ago
  You're absolutely right. Here's (yet another) example of Hacker News violating one of Apple's patents (as asserted against HTC): http://www.google.com http://www.google.com
tonetheman 15y ago
Does anyone else feel like the apple shill is worried that his precious is losing to android? haha... software patents suck... it is bad for apple and google and any other tech company.
- Caballera 15y ago
  Yes, because with 5.6% of the market share and 56% of the profits Apple is hurting.. lol Get real, Google can only hope to make that amount of money on Android.
  - tonetheman 15y ago
    Depends on what you are after. If it is only money (aka Apple) they are really doing great. Their tribe has money and loves to pay (you cant even go in the apple store for less than 30 dollars). If you are trying to spread like a virus... Android wins. Not sure where google is getting money off of it, but android will end up with insane market (but you are right much less money there)
Vexenon 15y ago
The one thing I'll agree on with Google: the patent system is flawed ― too bad this is really the only good point (or excuse, I should say) they're using to defend themselves. Then again, Gruber shouldn't be condoning the validity of software patents in the first place, because they suck. Aside from that, I think Gruber hit the nail on the head (though his usage of undermine seemed a bit odd and out of place).
- fpgeek 15y ago
  "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" Once you take away Gruber's presumption that most software patents are valid, the rest of his piece collapses.
miratom 15y ago
When will Apple respond to bad press directly instead of hiding behind this clown?
- shaggyfrog 15y ago
  What bad press does Apple have to respond to? Google losing a bidding war? Bwuah? Attack the argument, not the man. Your comment just looks silly.
rumpelstiltskin 15y ago
How is Google’s argument here different than simply demanding that Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, et al should simply sit back and let Google do whatever it wants with Android, regardless of the patents they hold? And why should it be different? The fact of the matter is that the idea of Google going after Apple, Microsoft etc for violating Google's patents isn't even an issue. Wanna know why? Because Google's competing on the merit of the product. It's letting the customers make the choice b/w the Microsoft OS and Android. Whereas if Microsoft had it's way, the customer wouldn't even have a choice. Thats the real difference.
- doe88 15y ago
  But what about if the "merit" of the product is based on innovation developed by others?
  - rumpelstiltskin 15y ago
    Then it's more choices for the customer. Nothing's stopping the original 'innovator' from bring his product to market as well.
    - itg 15y ago
      Then what incentive does the original company have in spending time & money into R&D to develop new products when some other company can just rip them off?
      - v21 15y ago
        I'm not sure that's as pertinent a question as "do patents stop your ideas from being ripped off?" And as it currently stands, I think the answer to that is no. But I also see companies innovating like mad. Maybe the pace would be even faster with better protections, but I am sceptical.
      - icebraining 15y ago
        The profit to be made between the time the original product launches, and the copies appear. This keeps companies on their toes instead of launching once and milking it for twenty years.
darrenkopp 15y ago
Google can be opposed to patents, but also try to purchase them because at this point in time, if they don't then they will be crushed by others using patents against them. Also, Gruber seems to think that that it's hypocritical for Google to have bid for the patents and upset that others won them, though he seems to be missing the part where a consortium of competitors are the people that won them, not a single company.
joebadmo 15y ago
It's weird to me that Gruber claims, like he did in a recent episode of his podcast with Dan Benjamin, that he's not anti-Google. I mean, why deny something that's so self-evident? His arguments here are just so disingenuous. "So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK." Yes, because Google isn't forming a cartel to stifle competition. "It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s for-pay OS licensing business by giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?" Yes, because Google isn't using an artificial barrier (the patent system). And because those patents are bogus. Because most, if not all, software patents are bogus. That's pretty clearly Google's stated position. "First, the “estimate” of $1 billion was partially set by Google itself." But there's no denying that this is by several times the largest amount ever paid for a patent portfolio. "They’re effectively arguing against the idea of the patent system itself, simply because Android violates a bunch of patents held by Google’s competitors." Yes they are arguing against the patent system, at least for software, as do many in the industry. There's nothing hypocritical about that. "Google supporters claim that Google only wants to use patents defensively. But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?" This argument betrays either a very weak understanding of how defensive patents work or a deep dishonesty of argumentation. Maybe both. This argument can be applied to the very idea of defensive patents. It's conflicting that someone who's so obviously intelligent and often terribly insightful (not to mention witty) can be so willfully dishonest. I'm going to back to only reading Gruber's writing on Apple, and ignoring his writing on anything else.
- bonch 15y ago
  I agree with Gruber's position here, actually, but it's true that Daring Fireball is like Gruber's little utopia where the following things are true: 1.) Apple products are always awesome. 2.) Democrats are always right, and here's yet another Paul Krugman article. 3.) The Yankees rule.
- blutonium 15y ago
  That was Benjamin and Arment, not Gruber.
- 15y ago
yanw 15y ago
It's hard to take Gruber seriously when everything he writes distorts reality and commonsense in the sake of representing them in ways that favor Apple Inc and its endeavors. His thoughts on WebM vs. Apple backed MPEG-LA are equally ridiculous.
- itg 15y ago
  "It's hard to take yanw seriously when everything he writes distorts reality and commonsense in the sake of representing them in ways that favor Google Inc and its endeavors." It goes both ways. I don't agree with the way software patents currently work and think patent trolls such as Intellectual Ventures are the scum of the Earth, but Gruber has made some valid points here.
  - yanw 15y ago
    Perhaps, I've never instigated attacking posts on Google's competitors I merely react to what I think are unfair attacks. And yeah, he probably made valid points regarding pixel width in OSX, he's out of his depth discussing patents though.
  - Daishiman 15y ago
    No not really. There's nothing of value in this article.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Yeah, he is totally fine with the idea of using HTML5 vs Flash, because "Flash is proprietary and bad", even though Flash was and still is the standard for online video! But then he turns around and says "why bother with the open WebM when you can use this "standardized" codec that is h.264", even though it's proprietary and patent-encumbered. Completely opposite positions and double standard on his part. The only common ground between them is that the one's he's supporting are the ones Apple is supporting.
  - GHFigs 15y ago
    Meanwhile, in reality: Let me be clear, though: there is nothing wrong with playing a video in Flash. I mean that seriously, no sarcasm. What there’s something wrong with is requiring Flash Player to play video. That’s the whole point of the HTML5 <video> element: to enable web video without requiring the use of proprietary plugins. And: I have nothing against WebM. In fact, prior to this week’s announcement, I thought Chrome had the best HTML5 video policy of any browser: they supported all the relevant codecs. Supporting WebM and H.264 is better than supporting only one or the other, in my book. But if you’re only going to support one, I say support the one that is in wide use, with extensive wide-ranging support from camera makers, mobile playback devices, and online video services. -- http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/practical_vs_idealistic http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/practical_vs_idealistic This aren't "completely opposite positions". This is consistent pragmatism. I believe you frame it as a contradiction because you see the issue primarily as an ideological one of open vs. closed, with the "open" nature of WebM trumping any utility of h.264. Not everybody sees it that way.
b0sk 15y ago
Since Microsoft, Apple cartel bought the Nortel patents aren't they exactly behaving like patent trolls ( Intellectual Ventures ) in this context? You have to be wilfully ignorant not to see the similarity.
- pohl 15y ago
  I would think not having used an acquired patent in offensive litigation is the salient dissimilarity. One would have to be willfully ignorant not to see that.
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    Doesn't everyone expect that the acquired patents are going to be used against Android? Doesn't the makeup of the winning consortium argue for that interpretation?
dpcan 15y ago
This patent thing has to come to a head. Something has to happen. It's not just big companies that are involved here. Guys like me. A family man in the northwest just trying to make a living doing pretty obvious things with technology is going to get screwed by all of this eventually. I develop on Android and it's a massive chunk of my income. If they go down, so do I. All these games have to stop and something has to be decided. The courts need to look at this, the government needs to look at this, and things need to move swiftly. I'm about ready to start painting houses. I've never heard one of them complain about getting sued for the way they move their arm up and down when they paint.
zdw 15y ago
The distinction made by Gruber here is between two kinds of companies: - Apple, MS and similar companies who buy patents and actually use them to make products. - The Lodsys's of the world that use them as revenue sources and don't actually contribute any value to anyone. In the blog post, Google is lumping everyone together, whereas Gruber disagrees. Apple's patents that they've used against HTC and similar are for things that are remarkably unique - more unique than the Amazon 1-click patent and similar. Notably, they're not seeking out patents to use as weapons - it's likely, if not transparently obvious that they purchased the portfolios in question to remove the chance that those patents would be used against them. I'm no friend of patent law (I think it should be reformed to function in a manner similar to real-estate property law), but I'm thinking that there is more nuance to this debate than "Gruber is a Google Hater".
- fpgeek 15y ago
  Is this unique? http://www.google.comn http://www.google.comn That (turning the text of a link into a clickable URL) is precisely one of the patents Apple is asserting against HTC. If that patent is truly innovative (which it isn't, I'm sure there were web browsers and/or mail readers that did similar things well before the filing date), Google has to worry about the patent situation around Chrome, Mozilla has to worry about the patent situation around Firefox and ... If Apple wins with such nonsense patents against HTC, wemight as well just shut down the US software industry and send it offshore (like everything else), since there are plenty of jurisdictions that don't recognize these bogus patents.
timack 15y ago
There's no hypocrisy here. Google had made it clear from the outset they were only bidding for the patent portfolio as a defensive measure. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/patents-and-innovation.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/patents-and-innovatio...
dailo10 15y ago
All I know is that the lawyers are gonna be making a whole lotta cash from this showdown!
ender7 15y ago
Gruber's argument is dependent on the assumption that only people like Nathan Myrvold hold what I'm going to call "bullshit patents". "Google isn’t arguing against a handful of never-should-have-been-issued software patents. They’re not arguing against patent trolls like Myrvold and his shell companies like Lodsys — companies that have no products of their own, no actual inventions, just patents for ideas for products." Unfortunately, just because you actually make products doesn't mean that you are incapable of holding and/or abusing bullshit patents. Apple owns more bullshit UI patents than most other companies that I can think of, and they've made it clear over the years that they think it's morally right, not just defensively necessary, to patent user interface ideas.[1] Apple has not, historically, abused its patent portfolio to the same degree that Microsoft or Oracle have.[2] However, now that they've thrown their hat into the same ring, they're getting lumped in with these dastardly anticompetitive badguy companies when this comes up in the tech press. I'm sure that makes Apple - and Apple fans - uneasy. It seems like they're being blamed for their newfound parters' bad behavior. Well, I'm sorry. You sign a deal with the devil, and you better buckle in. [1] As as someone who designs and builds UIs for a living, I think this is complete bullshit. Copyright should protect UI; patents should not. [2] Although they have done so. Just not as much.
- GHFigs 15y ago
  Copyright should protect UI But it doesn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_v._Borland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_v._Borland
  - ender7 15y ago
    Very true! I was thinking of UI art assets. Aspects related to the layout or behavior of a UI (having a touchscreen interface, momentum scrolling, etc.) should be (IMO) neither patentable nor copyrightable. When you get into issues of truly ripoff UI, trade dress [1] seems like the most natural solution to me. However, the legal standing of UI w/rt trade dress is still being determined. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress
  - falien 15y ago
Kylekramer 15y ago
But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates? This logic confuses me, and kind of undermines his premise. Seems like the same logic would say "Why does this accused criminal need a lawyer, if he did not actually commit a crime?"
Steko 15y ago
"anti-Google", "disingenuous", "deep dishonesty", "willfully dishonest". "very twisted", "oblivious", "shill", "clown" The Engadgetization of HN comments is nearly complete. Get off your high horses, Gruber is exactly right that this screed by Google's counsel is incredibly hypocritical. Regardless of what you think about patents, Google, Apple, etc. the following argument is total bullshit: Group A has a right to bid on X. Group B is an evil cartel for bidding on X. Regardless of what you think about patents, Google, Apple, etc. the following argument is total bullshit: Group A bids 4 billion. Group B bids 4.5 billion. Group B is paying way beyond what they are really worth! Group B has inflated the value of patents! Group B has created a patent bubble! Gruber's conclusion is spot on: "No one other than Nathan Myhrvold and his cronies sees the U.S. patent system as functioning properly, but Google’s hypocrisy here is absurd."
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  Isn't your comment and Gruber's entire premise ignoring empirical evidence of how Google and (basically everyone else) uses their patents? I don't see Google rushing to make a cut from iPhone sales, and I don't see Google making more off of WP7 sales than Android sales. (Much the way Apple is wanting to make some ridiculous amount for each of Samsung's sales and the fact that Microsoft gets more revenue from Android licensing than WP7).
- tensor 15y ago
  That argument seems completely fine to me. If you have more funds then you can block a competitor from competing by buying up all the resources. Another example of this is cellular providers in Canada. New spectrum opened up, but somehow the established duopoly managed to by all the new spectrum in Quebec leaving none for the incumbent providers. They are not even using the spectrum, but effectively locked competitors out of the market. Regarding Gruber, your argument may have merit if it wasn't the case that Gruber never publishes anything seriously negative about Apple, and also never says much good about competitors. Sadly, I knew the article was going to be a negative piece about google the minute I saw it was by Gruber. People are simply calling it as they see it. There is no real favorite here between Apple and Google that I've ever seen.
Terretta 15y ago
To rewind a bit, Apple didn't open this can of worms. Several companies, all used to using patent suits as a cross licensing negotiation tool, got pissed at the lopsided profitability of truly innovative products in the mobile space, and started to sue. Kodak sued Apple. Nokia sued Apple. And no wonder -- shipping 5.3% of handsets, Apple's taking in 66% of mobile industry profits. How do you mollify your shareholders that some non-handset company is eating your lunch? You try to get a licensing fee. Apple was new to this game, didn't start by playing it, but thanks to embarrassingly unprecedented success, got turned on from all sides, and drawn in to the fray. Now those throwing stones are realizing Apple (with 25 years of mobile device R&D the phone guys forgot about) can throw back. I shared the timeline a year ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1166321 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1166321 ... to put this in context: - Apple accuses HTC of iPhone tech theft (2 March 2010) - Kodak prompts ITC to consider iPhone ban (18 February 2010) - Motorola seeks ban on US BlackBerries (26 January 2010) - Nokia sues Apple, says iPhone infringes ten patents (22 October 2009) One test for patents' validity is whether the company is enforcing them. With Kodak, Sony, Nokia, Motorola, RIM, and others suing one another as a business-as-usual step in licensing negotiations, the value of Apple's defensive patent portfolio at the licensing negotiation table depends in part on Apple's perceived willingness to stand behind the validity of their portfolio and enforce their patents. Kodak got their judgment. The other pigeons will eventually all come home to roost. In the mobile industry this is how it's always gone -- we're just noticing it because Apple made phones interesting to the general public so now the press is involved.
nextparadigms 15y ago
In his quest of defend everything related to Apple, Gruber is probably stepping on a lot of good principles or ideas - like admitting the patent system is broken. I think he made it obvious before, I don't remember in which case exactly, probably the one with Apple's new policy of taxing content distributors, that he would defend anything Apple does, no matter how absurd. This is no different. I know it's become cliche by now, but I think Gruber has become too engulfed in Steve Jobs reality distortion field, and as others have said here, even he might not realize it.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
statictype 15y ago
Sounds to me like what he's trying to say is that using patents isn't such a terrible idea as long as you've actually used it to make money on your own products. I think that's not an unreasonable statement to make, whether or not you agree with it.
billmcneale 15y ago
Hold the presses everyone, Gruber just bashed Google.
billmcneale 15y ago
"So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK." It's a war. You have to take arms to defend yourself, but it doesn't mean you're happy about it. Gruber is almost bipolar: his insight on the industry is usually pretty interesting, but he becomes borderline retarded when he starts posting about Apple competitors.
Dysiode 15y ago
"But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?" I may be naive but I simply don't understand the concept of transferring the ownership of a patent. If Google buys a patent related to Android then HOORAY! They can use that idea in Android. If Microsoft buys that patent related to Android then HOORAY! Microsoft gets to sue Google. It seems to me that "violations" are simply "didn't pay enough monies." Why is buying a patent your product violates a bad thing? and, on a semi-unrelated note, why are patents transferable at all? Shouldn't they only benefit the person who created it? what claim does some arbitrary company dozens of sales down the line have to that patent?
tambourine_man 15y ago
Google needs to drop the “but we are the good guys” argument because they simply can't sustain it. "Don't be evil" is sounding at best schizophrenic and at worst hypocritical. I'd much rather hear: “Look, we love open source software and we'll use it and contribute to it in every possible way, as long as it doesn't interfere with our business strategy”. That would be honest and not that bad in fact.
srik 15y ago
Could somebody shed some light as to what kind of patents that Android is allegedly violating. I am curious as to whether they are "real" innovations or something akin to Amoazon's 1-click.
smcj 15y ago
Patents on math and software? Some people really live in a retarded country ...

135 points by joshus 15y ago

Also, apparently Microsoft offered Google the chance to join them in bidding for the patents and they declined. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/08/03/interestinger http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/08/03/interestinger

spartango 15y ago

Gruber: "Sour Grapes"

bdhe 15y ago

Does anyone else feel the word undermine is not appropriate in this quote (due to which, I'm unable to understand the point behind the comparison): It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s for-pay OS licensing business by giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft? [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/undermine http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/undermine

Terretta 15y ago
I found the word very clear. Here, rewritten to use both of the most common definitions of the word: "It's OK for Google to weaken or impair Microsoft's for-pay licensing business by giving away Android for free, by eroding the foundational concept of an OS being something you pay for; but it's not OK for Microsoft to weaken or impair Google's attempts to give away for free, by eroding the foundational concept of its free-ness[1], an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?" [1] undermining free as in speech by showing it is encumbered, and undermining free as in beer by licensing the relevant patents for relevant dollars
lawfulfalafel 15y ago
First of all, Linux violates 0 patents in my book til Microsoft at least specifies them. Then maybe we can talk about whether or not the present tense "violates" and not "potentially violating" is accurate. Secondly, even if that is true, does Gruber think Microsoft deserves to win that fight? I mean seriously? If you can develop something on your own time that violates a software patent, that means we need massive patent reform. Not that somebody did something wrong, or that it should be stopped. Making that assumption is unjustifiable and something that should be apologized for. Google doesn't have a lab with reverse engineers working on "hurting M$". No, they are simply distributing a flavor of Linux. And unlike the other scared/ignorant companies that are signing costly patent deals with Microsoft based on claims and threats of potential litigation, Google actually wants to fight. I think that's pretty respectful. Software patents are a joke. They leverage the playing field towards the rich and ensconced individuals/corporations and against the hackers who are actually inventing the technologies. It's a sad, depressing joke no one wants to laugh at.

aristidb 15y ago

"But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?" Of course Android violates patents. Just like any sufficiently non-trivial piece of software...

amartya916 15y ago
Absolutely spot on. That being said, in this rare occasion, I think John Gruber is raising points that needed to be raised. If you read Google's version of the story, it'd seem like Google is the champion of innovation and it is being targeted due to the success of Android, and crucially, it's in the customer's interest that these patents shouldn't be used against them. Well not really; it's basically in Google's interest. To say nothing about their own 3.14 billion dollar bid for Nortel's patent portfolio and then claiming that their true worth was 1 billion, being completely disingenuous.
- orangecat 15y ago
  it is being targeted due to the success of Android, and crucially, it's in the customer's interest that these patents shouldn't be used against them The first is obviously true, and I'd argue the second is as well. An effective duopoly of iOS and WP7 would be bad for consumers in the short term due to decreased competition, and even worse in the long term due to the effects of all mainstream mobile platforms being locked down. Well not really; it's basically in Google's interest. Not mutually exclusive. To say nothing about their own 3.14 billion dollar bid for Nortel's patent portfolio and then claiming that their true worth was 1 billion, being completely disingenuous. How? Google's claim is that if the patent system were fixed, Nortel's patents would be worth much less than they are in the current environment.
  - amartya916 15y ago
    "An effective duopoly of iOS and WP7 would be bad for consumers in the short term due to decreased competition, and even worse in the long term due to the effects of all mainstream mobile platforms being locked down." I broadly agree with you on this count. However, I think that for us, the techie community, the fact that a majority of mobile platforms are locked might be an issue; for the average customer it is not. "Not mutually exclusive." Again agreed broadly but it can be argued that at the end of the day Google is a company chasing revenues (just like every other company) and not having to get involved in patent litigation is going to save "them" money. While the patent system might be broken, but as long as it's not fixed, Google has to play along (just like MSFT and AAPL). I just do not see how they can ever take the higher ground here, other than being miffed at missing the deal. The true price of any commodity is not static, it is always dependent on competition/availability/demand etc. The patents might be worth 1 billion, but if Google offered in excess of 3 billion, they thought that it was worth the price "in the current environment". Also Google can claim that the patents were worth 1 billion, but they have a vested interest in portraying this as being the case. I am a little cynical of such claims.

barredo 15y ago

What I think: It's ok for Apple, Microsoft et al to defend themselves if Android violates their own patents. It's not ok for Apple, Microsoft et al to defend themselves if Android violates patents they didn't develop. Also, remember that although Microsoft & Oracle claims that Android violated some of their software patents, Apple claims against Samsung go far beyond that, this analysis by Nilay Patel is pretty good: http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/ http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analys...

petervandijck 15y ago
If the patent system worked correctly, that would be true. But it hands out heaps of trivial patents, so not even that.
doe88 15y ago
I concur. But it brings an additional question: Is it right for Google to defend itself with patents they didn't develop? (like for instance those bought from IBM) In this case I think not.
pkamb 15y ago
So you want to prevent some poor independent hacker from selling his patents to large companies?
aphexairlines 15y ago
All patents held by companies were bought from someone else. They're just usually paid for with salaries.

cheald 15y ago

I'm not sure how to say this without coming across as incendiary, but what the hell? Is Gruber utterly oblivious to the horrible state of software patents and their abuses? Is he actually condoning the abominable software patents that every other sane developer despises? Yes, Google is trying to ward off being picked to death by a myriad of utterly worthless (in the market, not legal sense) patents. Yes, Google is likely in violation of several thousand patents with Android, and all of its other software products. Guess what? So is damn near every other developer on the face of the planet, but Google has a big fat target painted on their back because of Android's success. They would be crazy to not try to acquire a defensive patent portfolio. I'll guarantee you that I violated a good half-dozen patents in the course of my absolutely routine work today. That doesn't mean that I'm a mean nasty violator out to undermine free enterprise, it means that software patents suck. Apple and Microsoft have both proven that they will use these garbage patents offensively to drive competitors out of the market, and Google is left in the position of "acquire means of mutually assured destruction to protect ourselves with or die by horribly broken patent law". Which do you think is the sane and responsible course of action?

bonch 15y ago
Brad Smith of Microsoft posted this on Twitter: "Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no." I think this is just more of Google's double-standards. I think they use issues like this to drum up support from the techie crowds, just like when they talk about openness in spite of bundling Adobe Flash in Chrome or withholding Android source. They know software patents are a big issue on sites like this, and so portraying themselves as the underdog victim is very convenient and beneficial for them. Literally the only thing Google supporters have in response is to say that they haven't seen Google sue anybody yet, and so therefore Google never will and their motives are benign. I guess if you're willing to put all your trust into gigantic advertising corporations, that feels like a valid viewpoint to take, but not for me.
fpgeek 15y ago
You're absolutely right. Here's (yet another) example of Hacker News violating one of Apple's patents (as asserted against HTC): http://www.google.com http://www.google.com

tonetheman 15y ago

Does anyone else feel like the apple shill is worried that his precious is losing to android? haha... software patents suck... it is bad for apple and google and any other tech company.

Caballera 15y ago
Yes, because with 5.6% of the market share and 56% of the profits Apple is hurting.. lol Get real, Google can only hope to make that amount of money on Android.
- tonetheman 15y ago
  Depends on what you are after. If it is only money (aka Apple) they are really doing great. Their tribe has money and loves to pay (you cant even go in the apple store for less than 30 dollars). If you are trying to spread like a virus... Android wins. Not sure where google is getting money off of it, but android will end up with insane market (but you are right much less money there)

Vexenon 15y ago

The one thing I'll agree on with Google: the patent system is flawed ― too bad this is really the only good point (or excuse, I should say) they're using to defend themselves. Then again, Gruber shouldn't be condoning the validity of software patents in the first place, because they suck. Aside from that, I think Gruber hit the nail on the head (though his usage of undermine seemed a bit odd and out of place).

fpgeek 15y ago
"Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" Once you take away Gruber's presumption that most software patents are valid, the rest of his piece collapses.

miratom 15y ago

When will Apple respond to bad press directly instead of hiding behind this clown?

shaggyfrog 15y ago
What bad press does Apple have to respond to? Google losing a bidding war? Bwuah? Attack the argument, not the man. Your comment just looks silly.

rumpelstiltskin 15y ago

How is Google’s argument here different than simply demanding that Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, et al should simply sit back and let Google do whatever it wants with Android, regardless of the patents they hold? And why should it be different? The fact of the matter is that the idea of Google going after Apple, Microsoft etc for violating Google's patents isn't even an issue. Wanna know why? Because Google's competing on the merit of the product. It's letting the customers make the choice b/w the Microsoft OS and Android. Whereas if Microsoft had it's way, the customer wouldn't even have a choice. Thats the real difference.

doe88 15y ago
But what about if the "merit" of the product is based on innovation developed by others?
- rumpelstiltskin 15y ago
  Then it's more choices for the customer. Nothing's stopping the original 'innovator' from bring his product to market as well.
  - itg 15y ago
    Then what incentive does the original company have in spending time & money into R&D to develop new products when some other company can just rip them off?
    - v21 15y ago
      I'm not sure that's as pertinent a question as "do patents stop your ideas from being ripped off?" And as it currently stands, I think the answer to that is no. But I also see companies innovating like mad. Maybe the pace would be even faster with better protections, but I am sceptical.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      The profit to be made between the time the original product launches, and the copies appear. This keeps companies on their toes instead of launching once and milking it for twenty years.

darrenkopp 15y ago

Google can be opposed to patents, but also try to purchase them because at this point in time, if they don't then they will be crushed by others using patents against them. Also, Gruber seems to think that that it's hypocritical for Google to have bid for the patents and upset that others won them, though he seems to be missing the part where a consortium of competitors are the people that won them, not a single company.

joebadmo 15y ago

It's weird to me that Gruber claims, like he did in a recent episode of his podcast with Dan Benjamin, that he's not anti-Google. I mean, why deny something that's so self-evident? His arguments here are just so disingenuous. "So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK." Yes, because Google isn't forming a cartel to stifle competition. "It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s for-pay OS licensing business by giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?" Yes, because Google isn't using an artificial barrier (the patent system). And because those patents are bogus. Because most, if not all, software patents are bogus. That's pretty clearly Google's stated position. "First, the “estimate” of $1 billion was partially set by Google itself." But there's no denying that this is by several times the largest amount ever paid for a patent portfolio. "They’re effectively arguing against the idea of the patent system itself, simply because Android violates a bunch of patents held by Google’s competitors." Yes they are arguing against the patent system, at least for software, as do many in the industry. There's nothing hypocritical about that. "Google supporters claim that Google only wants to use patents defensively. But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?" This argument betrays either a very weak understanding of how defensive patents work or a deep dishonesty of argumentation. Maybe both. This argument can be applied to the very idea of defensive patents. It's conflicting that someone who's so obviously intelligent and often terribly insightful (not to mention witty) can be so willfully dishonest. I'm going to back to only reading Gruber's writing on Apple, and ignoring his writing on anything else.

bonch 15y ago
I agree with Gruber's position here, actually, but it's true that Daring Fireball is like Gruber's little utopia where the following things are true: 1.) Apple products are always awesome. 2.) Democrats are always right, and here's yet another Paul Krugman article. 3.) The Yankees rule.
blutonium 15y ago
That was Benjamin and Arment, not Gruber.
15y ago

yanw 15y ago

It's hard to take Gruber seriously when everything he writes distorts reality and commonsense in the sake of representing them in ways that favor Apple Inc and its endeavors. His thoughts on WebM vs. Apple backed MPEG-LA are equally ridiculous.

itg 15y ago
"It's hard to take yanw seriously when everything he writes distorts reality and commonsense in the sake of representing them in ways that favor Google Inc and its endeavors." It goes both ways. I don't agree with the way software patents currently work and think patent trolls such as Intellectual Ventures are the scum of the Earth, but Gruber has made some valid points here.
- yanw 15y ago
  Perhaps, I've never instigated attacking posts on Google's competitors I merely react to what I think are unfair attacks. And yeah, he probably made valid points regarding pixel width in OSX, he's out of his depth discussing patents though.
- Daishiman 15y ago
  No not really. There's nothing of value in this article.
nextparadigms 15y ago
Yeah, he is totally fine with the idea of using HTML5 vs Flash, because "Flash is proprietary and bad", even though Flash was and still is the standard for online video! But then he turns around and says "why bother with the open WebM when you can use this "standardized" codec that is h.264", even though it's proprietary and patent-encumbered. Completely opposite positions and double standard on his part. The only common ground between them is that the one's he's supporting are the ones Apple is supporting.
- GHFigs 15y ago
  Meanwhile, in reality: Let me be clear, though: there is nothing wrong with playing a video in Flash. I mean that seriously, no sarcasm. What there’s something wrong with is requiring Flash Player to play video. That’s the whole point of the HTML5 <video> element: to enable web video without requiring the use of proprietary plugins. And: I have nothing against WebM. In fact, prior to this week’s announcement, I thought Chrome had the best HTML5 video policy of any browser: they supported all the relevant codecs. Supporting WebM and H.264 is better than supporting only one or the other, in my book. But if you’re only going to support one, I say support the one that is in wide use, with extensive wide-ranging support from camera makers, mobile playback devices, and online video services. -- http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/practical_vs_idealistic http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/practical_vs_idealistic This aren't "completely opposite positions". This is consistent pragmatism. I believe you frame it as a contradiction because you see the issue primarily as an ideological one of open vs. closed, with the "open" nature of WebM trumping any utility of h.264. Not everybody sees it that way.

b0sk 15y ago

Since Microsoft, Apple cartel bought the Nortel patents aren't they exactly behaving like patent trolls ( Intellectual Ventures ) in this context? You have to be wilfully ignorant not to see the similarity.

pohl 15y ago
I would think not having used an acquired patent in offensive litigation is the salient dissimilarity. One would have to be willfully ignorant not to see that.
- fpgeek 15y ago
  Doesn't everyone expect that the acquired patents are going to be used against Android? Doesn't the makeup of the winning consortium argue for that interpretation?

dpcan 15y ago

This patent thing has to come to a head. Something has to happen. It's not just big companies that are involved here. Guys like me. A family man in the northwest just trying to make a living doing pretty obvious things with technology is going to get screwed by all of this eventually. I develop on Android and it's a massive chunk of my income. If they go down, so do I. All these games have to stop and something has to be decided. The courts need to look at this, the government needs to look at this, and things need to move swiftly. I'm about ready to start painting houses. I've never heard one of them complain about getting sued for the way they move their arm up and down when they paint.

zdw 15y ago

The distinction made by Gruber here is between two kinds of companies: - Apple, MS and similar companies who buy patents and actually use them to make products. - The Lodsys's of the world that use them as revenue sources and don't actually contribute any value to anyone. In the blog post, Google is lumping everyone together, whereas Gruber disagrees. Apple's patents that they've used against HTC and similar are for things that are remarkably unique - more unique than the Amazon 1-click patent and similar. Notably, they're not seeking out patents to use as weapons - it's likely, if not transparently obvious that they purchased the portfolios in question to remove the chance that those patents would be used against them. I'm no friend of patent law (I think it should be reformed to function in a manner similar to real-estate property law), but I'm thinking that there is more nuance to this debate than "Gruber is a Google Hater".

fpgeek 15y ago
Is this unique? http://www.google.comn http://www.google.comn That (turning the text of a link into a clickable URL) is precisely one of the patents Apple is asserting against HTC. If that patent is truly innovative (which it isn't, I'm sure there were web browsers and/or mail readers that did similar things well before the filing date), Google has to worry about the patent situation around Chrome, Mozilla has to worry about the patent situation around Firefox and ... If Apple wins with such nonsense patents against HTC, wemight as well just shut down the US software industry and send it offshore (like everything else), since there are plenty of jurisdictions that don't recognize these bogus patents.

timack 15y ago

There's no hypocrisy here. Google had made it clear from the outset they were only bidding for the patent portfolio as a defensive measure. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/patents-and-innovation.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/patents-and-innovatio...

dailo10 15y ago

All I know is that the lawyers are gonna be making a whole lotta cash from this showdown!

ender7 15y ago

Gruber's argument is dependent on the assumption that only people like Nathan Myrvold hold what I'm going to call "bullshit patents". "Google isn’t arguing against a handful of never-should-have-been-issued software patents. They’re not arguing against patent trolls like Myrvold and his shell companies like Lodsys — companies that have no products of their own, no actual inventions, just patents for ideas for products." Unfortunately, just because you actually make products doesn't mean that you are incapable of holding and/or abusing bullshit patents. Apple owns more bullshit UI patents than most other companies that I can think of, and they've made it clear over the years that they think it's morally right, not just defensively necessary, to patent user interface ideas.[1] Apple has not, historically, abused its patent portfolio to the same degree that Microsoft or Oracle have.[2] However, now that they've thrown their hat into the same ring, they're getting lumped in with these dastardly anticompetitive badguy companies when this comes up in the tech press. I'm sure that makes Apple - and Apple fans - uneasy. It seems like they're being blamed for their newfound parters' bad behavior. Well, I'm sorry. You sign a deal with the devil, and you better buckle in. [1] As as someone who designs and builds UIs for a living, I think this is complete bullshit. Copyright should protect UI; patents should not. [2] Although they have done so. Just not as much.

GHFigs 15y ago
Copyright should protect UI But it doesn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_v._Borland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_v._Borland
- ender7 15y ago
  Very true! I was thinking of UI art assets. Aspects related to the layout or behavior of a UI (having a touchscreen interface, momentum scrolling, etc.) should be (IMO) neither patentable nor copyrightable. When you get into issues of truly ripoff UI, trade dress [1] seems like the most natural solution to me. However, the legal standing of UI w/rt trade dress is still being determined. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress
- falien 15y ago

Kylekramer 15y ago

But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates? This logic confuses me, and kind of undermines his premise. Seems like the same logic would say "Why does this accused criminal need a lawyer, if he did not actually commit a crime?"

Steko 15y ago

"anti-Google", "disingenuous", "deep dishonesty", "willfully dishonest". "very twisted", "oblivious", "shill", "clown" The Engadgetization of HN comments is nearly complete. Get off your high horses, Gruber is exactly right that this screed by Google's counsel is incredibly hypocritical. Regardless of what you think about patents, Google, Apple, etc. the following argument is total bullshit: Group A has a right to bid on X. Group B is an evil cartel for bidding on X. Regardless of what you think about patents, Google, Apple, etc. the following argument is total bullshit: Group A bids 4 billion. Group B bids 4.5 billion. Group B is paying way beyond what they are really worth! Group B has inflated the value of patents! Group B has created a patent bubble! Gruber's conclusion is spot on: "No one other than Nathan Myhrvold and his cronies sees the U.S. patent system as functioning properly, but Google’s hypocrisy here is absurd."

drivebyacct2 15y ago
Isn't your comment and Gruber's entire premise ignoring empirical evidence of how Google and (basically everyone else) uses their patents? I don't see Google rushing to make a cut from iPhone sales, and I don't see Google making more off of WP7 sales than Android sales. (Much the way Apple is wanting to make some ridiculous amount for each of Samsung's sales and the fact that Microsoft gets more revenue from Android licensing than WP7).
tensor 15y ago
That argument seems completely fine to me. If you have more funds then you can block a competitor from competing by buying up all the resources. Another example of this is cellular providers in Canada. New spectrum opened up, but somehow the established duopoly managed to by all the new spectrum in Quebec leaving none for the incumbent providers. They are not even using the spectrum, but effectively locked competitors out of the market. Regarding Gruber, your argument may have merit if it wasn't the case that Gruber never publishes anything seriously negative about Apple, and also never says much good about competitors. Sadly, I knew the article was going to be a negative piece about google the minute I saw it was by Gruber. People are simply calling it as they see it. There is no real favorite here between Apple and Google that I've ever seen.

Terretta 15y ago

To rewind a bit, Apple didn't open this can of worms. Several companies, all used to using patent suits as a cross licensing negotiation tool, got pissed at the lopsided profitability of truly innovative products in the mobile space, and started to sue. Kodak sued Apple. Nokia sued Apple. And no wonder -- shipping 5.3% of handsets, Apple's taking in 66% of mobile industry profits. How do you mollify your shareholders that some non-handset company is eating your lunch? You try to get a licensing fee. Apple was new to this game, didn't start by playing it, but thanks to embarrassingly unprecedented success, got turned on from all sides, and drawn in to the fray. Now those throwing stones are realizing Apple (with 25 years of mobile device R&D the phone guys forgot about) can throw back. I shared the timeline a year ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1166321 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1166321 ... to put this in context: - Apple accuses HTC of iPhone tech theft (2 March 2010) - Kodak prompts ITC to consider iPhone ban (18 February 2010) - Motorola seeks ban on US BlackBerries (26 January 2010) - Nokia sues Apple, says iPhone infringes ten patents (22 October 2009) One test for patents' validity is whether the company is enforcing them. With Kodak, Sony, Nokia, Motorola, RIM, and others suing one another as a business-as-usual step in licensing negotiations, the value of Apple's defensive patent portfolio at the licensing negotiation table depends in part on Apple's perceived willingness to stand behind the validity of their portfolio and enforce their patents. Kodak got their judgment. The other pigeons will eventually all come home to roost. In the mobile industry this is how it's always gone -- we're just noticing it because Apple made phones interesting to the general public so now the press is involved.

nextparadigms 15y ago

In his quest of defend everything related to Apple, Gruber is probably stepping on a lot of good principles or ideas - like admitting the patent system is broken. I think he made it obvious before, I don't remember in which case exactly, probably the one with Apple's new policy of taxing content distributors, that he would defend anything Apple does, no matter how absurd. This is no different. I know it's become cliche by now, but I think Gruber has become too engulfed in Steve Jobs reality distortion field, and as others have said here, even he might not realize it.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

statictype 15y ago

Sounds to me like what he's trying to say is that using patents isn't such a terrible idea as long as you've actually used it to make money on your own products. I think that's not an unreasonable statement to make, whether or not you agree with it.

billmcneale 15y ago

Hold the presses everyone, Gruber just bashed Google.

billmcneale 15y ago

"So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK." It's a war. You have to take arms to defend yourself, but it doesn't mean you're happy about it. Gruber is almost bipolar: his insight on the industry is usually pretty interesting, but he becomes borderline retarded when he starts posting about Apple competitors.

Dysiode 15y ago

"But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?" I may be naive but I simply don't understand the concept of transferring the ownership of a patent. If Google buys a patent related to Android then HOORAY! They can use that idea in Android. If Microsoft buys that patent related to Android then HOORAY! Microsoft gets to sue Google. It seems to me that "violations" are simply "didn't pay enough monies." Why is buying a patent your product violates a bad thing? and, on a semi-unrelated note, why are patents transferable at all? Shouldn't they only benefit the person who created it? what claim does some arbitrary company dozens of sales down the line have to that patent?

tambourine_man 15y ago

Google needs to drop the “but we are the good guys” argument because they simply can't sustain it. "Don't be evil" is sounding at best schizophrenic and at worst hypocritical. I'd much rather hear: “Look, we love open source software and we'll use it and contribute to it in every possible way, as long as it doesn't interfere with our business strategy”. That would be honest and not that bad in fact.

srik 15y ago

Could somebody shed some light as to what kind of patents that Android is allegedly violating. I am curious as to whether they are "real" innovations or something akin to Amoazon's 1-click.

smcj 15y ago

Patents on math and software? Some people really live in a retarded country ...