9 ms·

There seem to be three parts: 1) Are PRC and Apple morally wrong for enforcing and not fighting patent claims? 2) Should patents work in a way that incentivizes

There seem to be three parts: 1) Are PRC and Apple morally wrong for enforcing and not fighting patent claims? 2) Should patents work in a way that incentivizes PRC and Apple to behave this way? 3) Irrespective of (1) or (2) what can be done? (1) The answer to this is somewhat ambiguous for any company with investors. Sure, I want my companies to behave in morally responsible ways. On the other hand, there are hundreds of other ways to save and improve lives. If we wanted the companies we invest in to maximize quality of life improvement we would get much further providing vaccinations or microloans to the third world where owning an iPad is as much a pipe dream as winning the lottery (per unit money, energy, whatever). If we want larger public access to scientific advances, perhaps we should fund more public science? Or, we should change the way patents work (2). (2) This to me seems like a very reasonable question. Aside from patent wars that might hurt your favorite smartphone os vendor, there are real concerns. Drug companies are incentivized to create substances and methodologies that drastically improve the quality and duration of lives in both first and third world countries. On the other hand, intellectual property protection for drugs (until they become generics) does cost lives. But we shouldn't forget just how powerful those incentives are. All the awesome research done in university laboratories (one of which I work in) is nothing without the ability to take a drug from "lab-rat plausible" to "market-ready". Certainly patents don't exist to facilitate personal wealth. But just because they do generate wealth doesn't mean that their intended goal has been forgotten, short-term losses notwithstanding. Even if we answered (1) and found PRC or Apple to be morally culpable, it misses the larger issue: if society feels that this girl, or others who benefit from patented technology should be allowed to use it, someone's got to pay. Either it's the companies and their investors (the obvious point: not just rich folks), or it's taxpayers through some form of state-sponsored licensing (edit: or some other state-funded mechanism). It's tremendously easy to blame only Apple and PRC (even if they did deserve it). It's a lot harder to put your money on the line, so that families like this one can solve a heartbreaking problem.

cynicalkane 14y ago
This would all be pertinent if the software patents in question were actually novel inventions worthy of protection. One of the patents is for a "method for dynamically redefining the keys on a keyboard". I mean, come on.
- swalsh 14y ago
  The key is, was that novel when the patent was first filed?
  - blahedo 14y ago
    Given that xmodmap has been around since the 80s, probably not.
- sp332 14y ago
  Are you seriously judging a patent by its title? This patent requires a touchscreen and a context-sensitive memory with strings of text. It's not just a keyboard mapper. http://www.google.com/patents/US5920303?hl=en http://www.google.com/patents/US5920303?hl=en
asmithmd1 14y ago
"or it's taxpayers through some form of state-sponsored licensing" Why do you say taxpayers must pay the license fee? A company might be happy to pay a royalty on a patent but as it is now patent law allows a patent holder to prevent anyone from making or using a patented invention - in other words they could sue Maya directly for infringement. Music copyright law, which issues from the exact same clause in the constitution as patent law, provides for a compulsory license of any song. A band knows before hand exactly how much it will cost to "cover" someone's song. If you are found to be infringing a patent your financial exposure is almost un-bounded. If there were a compulsory license provision in patent law like their is in music copyright, companies would know exactly how much they were risking if found to be infringing a patent
- PGenes 14y ago
  Exactly, this is the way to go.
kika 14y ago
I don't know exactly how patents work for drugs, but I don't believe that you can patent an already existing (generic) drug, but in pills colored red and blue, for example. And another patent for yellow pills. And another and another. Alas, in the software industry this is very much possible (and being done every day).
- ekianjo 14y ago
  It's been a long time the patent game is not about innovation anymore. The review process for granting patent fails to be transparent. And patents should never be made to last so long in the first place.
- sirclueless 14y ago
  That's definitely false. You might be able to patent a new delivery mechanism or something, turn a generic into a gel capsule and patent that maybe, but the important thing is that once the generic drug passes out from under its patents anyone can create it. To use an analogy with razors: I might not be able to make a razor with 4 blades and a cushioning lotion pad above and below because Gillette will sue me, but I can make a razor with three blades set in plastic because it's been so long since that innovation came along. It might not be as snazzy and hence less profitable, but it gets the job done.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - jeffool 14y ago
    And if you own a drug patent, you can continually extend the patent via a process called "evergreening". Pharmaceutical companies make minimal changes and get patent extensions. These changes can include the color or flavor of medicine. It's illegal in many other nations, but here in the US... And we wonder why we pay so much for medicine. Patents as they work today seem to curtail progress at every turn.
    - anamax 14y ago
wissler 14y ago
There is no moral justification for patents. Period. There can be no actually moral argument that says "you are not allowed to think of the same thing this other fellow did and then trade it with someone." Patents are a form of feudalism. The very word "patent" is rooted in feudalism, where it used to be "land patents" that were granted to the landholders in the middle ages.
- Confusion 14y ago
  You misunderstand patents. Despite what is reported every so often, you cannot patent abstract concepts: only specific ways to execute upon those concepts. The title of a patent is irrelevant, but it is the title that gets the press. Patents do not disallow you to think of certain things and they do not disallow you to share those thoughts. They only disallow you to implement a specific solution to a specific problem, for a specific period of time. Patents get struck down for being too broad. If having to be struck down is the problem, then look at the justice system, not the patent system.
  - wissler 14y ago
    No, you misunderstand ethics. There is and can be no ethical principle that bans you from creating a physical object that happens to be similar to an object someone else created, unless you had explicitly consented to being bound to an agreement where you would refrain from doing so. And you misunderstand patents as well, but that's not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is that you cannot make an ethical case for patents, on the contrary, they are a gross usurpation of a human being's right to create and trade. This is obvious to anyone who ignores the propaganda they were taught in high school.
    - flyinRyan 14y ago
      Do you realize that, regardless of how it's abused now, in a world with zero patents no little guy would ever be paid for his idea? Big companies could just see the idea, realize the value and task 100 people with copying it exactly. Further no company would bother with R&D because as soon as they make a breakthrough everyone else will simply steal the idea and sell for pennies more than cost of production. R&D costs could never be recouped so no one would ever do it again.
regularfry 14y ago
The fourth part is where Apple are acting in place of the judiciary. Taking the article at its word, Apple have taken and enforced a "guilty until proven innocent" stance with respect to their own suppliers and customers. Ignoring for a moment how bizarrely arrogant that is, there's a very good reason we rely on independent judges and juries to get these questions right.
- jan_g 14y ago
  Yes, the same approach is taken for example by Facebook. If there's a complaint, Facebook will first freeze an account and only unfreeze it after the dispute is resolved (by the parties themselves or legally through court). Shoot-first-ask-later approach. I don't know why this is prevalent approach, since 90% of the time it's the big companies initiating disputes. So small companies are taking the hit.
  - regularfry 14y ago
    My guess is that it's laywers being paranoid. If Apple didn't stop the app from being distributed when they were notified of a problem and a court later upheld the complaint, they might be sued for contributory infringement, or whatever the relevant patent term is.
    - elehack 14y ago
      We have a solution for this: preliminary injection. IANAL, so perhaps this is still opening up for lots of liability, but I'd much prefer Apple say "You want it taken down? Ask the judge for a preliminary injunction. Until then, go away." Preliminary injunctions are the due process mechanism for causing the action to cease while it's litigated rather than continue. They, not Apple's whim/decision/liability-aversion, should be how this kind of thing happens IMO.
      - regularfry 14y ago
        Precisely.
mkl 14y ago
3) Irrespective of (1) or (2) what can be done? I don't know about the broader problem, but for the present situation my first thought was that someone should make a clone of the app that can be sideloaded onto an Android tablet. That's an (almost) immediate fix, but unfortunately it's hardly a solution. It seems like it could only be distributed to one or a few people before it risked similar lawsuits, and there's the long term to think about, too. Besides just OS updates, what will happen as kids using this software grow? For some, but not everyone, reading will open new avenues for communication. For others, ongoing development to increase sophistication seems necessary. Does anyone know if Speak for Yourself is still available outside the US, where patents are saner? I tried looking, but couldn't figure out how to search iTunes from the website.
antihero 14y ago
> someone's got to pay I don't believe that. The app has been made, the app has been purchased, and it's not taking away from PRC's sales because PRC's devices are not an option. I also dislike this culture in that everything has to have monetary value. If my house and food was provided for me, I'd love to develop apps like this for free, because in life, helping others is far more important than material gain.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  > I'd love to develop apps like this for free Many of us would, but we don't have time exactly because our houses and food aren't provided for us.
shmerl 14y ago
You miss the main point, that software shouldn't be patentable in the first place. Software patents can't possibly serve any positive purpose.

cynicalkane 14y ago

This would all be pertinent if the software patents in question were actually novel inventions worthy of protection. One of the patents is for a "method for dynamically redefining the keys on a keyboard". I mean, come on.

swalsh 14y ago
The key is, was that novel when the patent was first filed?
- blahedo 14y ago
  Given that xmodmap has been around since the 80s, probably not.
sp332 14y ago
Are you seriously judging a patent by its title? This patent requires a touchscreen and a context-sensitive memory with strings of text. It's not just a keyboard mapper. http://www.google.com/patents/US5920303?hl=en http://www.google.com/patents/US5920303?hl=en

asmithmd1 14y ago

"or it's taxpayers through some form of state-sponsored licensing" Why do you say taxpayers must pay the license fee? A company might be happy to pay a royalty on a patent but as it is now patent law allows a patent holder to prevent anyone from making or using a patented invention - in other words they could sue Maya directly for infringement. Music copyright law, which issues from the exact same clause in the constitution as patent law, provides for a compulsory license of any song. A band knows before hand exactly how much it will cost to "cover" someone's song. If you are found to be infringing a patent your financial exposure is almost un-bounded. If there were a compulsory license provision in patent law like their is in music copyright, companies would know exactly how much they were risking if found to be infringing a patent

PGenes 14y ago
Exactly, this is the way to go.

kika 14y ago

I don't know exactly how patents work for drugs, but I don't believe that you can patent an already existing (generic) drug, but in pills colored red and blue, for example. And another patent for yellow pills. And another and another. Alas, in the software industry this is very much possible (and being done every day).

ekianjo 14y ago
It's been a long time the patent game is not about innovation anymore. The review process for granting patent fails to be transparent. And patents should never be made to last so long in the first place.
sirclueless 14y ago
That's definitely false. You might be able to patent a new delivery mechanism or something, turn a generic into a gel capsule and patent that maybe, but the important thing is that once the generic drug passes out from under its patents anyone can create it. To use an analogy with razors: I might not be able to make a razor with 4 blades and a cushioning lotion pad above and below because Gillette will sue me, but I can make a razor with three blades set in plastic because it's been so long since that innovation came along. It might not be as snazzy and hence less profitable, but it gets the job done.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jeffool 14y ago
  And if you own a drug patent, you can continually extend the patent via a process called "evergreening". Pharmaceutical companies make minimal changes and get patent extensions. These changes can include the color or flavor of medicine. It's illegal in many other nations, but here in the US... And we wonder why we pay so much for medicine. Patents as they work today seem to curtail progress at every turn.
  - anamax 14y ago

wissler 14y ago

There is no moral justification for patents. Period. There can be no actually moral argument that says "you are not allowed to think of the same thing this other fellow did and then trade it with someone." Patents are a form of feudalism. The very word "patent" is rooted in feudalism, where it used to be "land patents" that were granted to the landholders in the middle ages.

Confusion 14y ago
You misunderstand patents. Despite what is reported every so often, you cannot patent abstract concepts: only specific ways to execute upon those concepts. The title of a patent is irrelevant, but it is the title that gets the press. Patents do not disallow you to think of certain things and they do not disallow you to share those thoughts. They only disallow you to implement a specific solution to a specific problem, for a specific period of time. Patents get struck down for being too broad. If having to be struck down is the problem, then look at the justice system, not the patent system.
- wissler 14y ago
  No, you misunderstand ethics. There is and can be no ethical principle that bans you from creating a physical object that happens to be similar to an object someone else created, unless you had explicitly consented to being bound to an agreement where you would refrain from doing so. And you misunderstand patents as well, but that's not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is that you cannot make an ethical case for patents, on the contrary, they are a gross usurpation of a human being's right to create and trade. This is obvious to anyone who ignores the propaganda they were taught in high school.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    Do you realize that, regardless of how it's abused now, in a world with zero patents no little guy would ever be paid for his idea? Big companies could just see the idea, realize the value and task 100 people with copying it exactly. Further no company would bother with R&D because as soon as they make a breakthrough everyone else will simply steal the idea and sell for pennies more than cost of production. R&D costs could never be recouped so no one would ever do it again.

regularfry 14y ago

The fourth part is where Apple are acting in place of the judiciary. Taking the article at its word, Apple have taken and enforced a "guilty until proven innocent" stance with respect to their own suppliers and customers. Ignoring for a moment how bizarrely arrogant that is, there's a very good reason we rely on independent judges and juries to get these questions right.

jan_g 14y ago
Yes, the same approach is taken for example by Facebook. If there's a complaint, Facebook will first freeze an account and only unfreeze it after the dispute is resolved (by the parties themselves or legally through court). Shoot-first-ask-later approach. I don't know why this is prevalent approach, since 90% of the time it's the big companies initiating disputes. So small companies are taking the hit.
- regularfry 14y ago
  My guess is that it's laywers being paranoid. If Apple didn't stop the app from being distributed when they were notified of a problem and a court later upheld the complaint, they might be sued for contributory infringement, or whatever the relevant patent term is.
  - elehack 14y ago
    We have a solution for this: preliminary injection. IANAL, so perhaps this is still opening up for lots of liability, but I'd much prefer Apple say "You want it taken down? Ask the judge for a preliminary injunction. Until then, go away." Preliminary injunctions are the due process mechanism for causing the action to cease while it's litigated rather than continue. They, not Apple's whim/decision/liability-aversion, should be how this kind of thing happens IMO.
    - regularfry 14y ago
      Precisely.

mkl 14y ago

3) Irrespective of (1) or (2) what can be done? I don't know about the broader problem, but for the present situation my first thought was that someone should make a clone of the app that can be sideloaded onto an Android tablet. That's an (almost) immediate fix, but unfortunately it's hardly a solution. It seems like it could only be distributed to one or a few people before it risked similar lawsuits, and there's the long term to think about, too. Besides just OS updates, what will happen as kids using this software grow? For some, but not everyone, reading will open new avenues for communication. For others, ongoing development to increase sophistication seems necessary. Does anyone know if Speak for Yourself is still available outside the US, where patents are saner? I tried looking, but couldn't figure out how to search iTunes from the website.

antihero 14y ago

> someone's got to pay I don't believe that. The app has been made, the app has been purchased, and it's not taking away from PRC's sales because PRC's devices are not an option. I also dislike this culture in that everything has to have monetary value. If my house and food was provided for me, I'd love to develop apps like this for free, because in life, helping others is far more important than material gain.

flyinRyan 14y ago
> I'd love to develop apps like this for free Many of us would, but we don't have time exactly because our houses and food aren't provided for us.

shmerl 14y ago

You miss the main point, that software shouldn't be patentable in the first place. Software patents can't possibly serve any positive purpose.