4 ms·

Compared to what? They're no more patent sick than other companies, they just get reported on by the news more often. Have a look at patents for car companies,

by mitchty 13y ago

Compared to what? They're no more patent sick than other companies, they just get reported on by the news more often. Have a look at patents for car companies, you'd probably be shocked at how common this stuff is. Patent attorneys don't exist for just the tech world, they make money for a reason.

shmerl 13y ago
Compared to how normal tech company should behave. Luckily there are companies which are opposed to software patents. I'm sure there are other patent sick companies, but Apple is just an infamous one. May be it's more reported than others, but such reputation is deserved. Patent attorneys don't participate in this on their own. It's from these companies' approval. In normal companies attorneys ensure that company uses patents only as defensive tools, in sick ones they use them for offense.
- mitchty 13y ago
  How should a "normal tech company" behave exactly? I'm not disagreeing but your point is not very convincing as it seems to be a pathos argument based on your wording so far with the "patent sick" verbage. I'll note, companies using patents are behaving rather rationally from the perspective of use it or lose it. Right now its advantageous to the patent filer to file patents, it doesn't absolve these companies of ethical issues arising from that but I don't label these companies as being "sick" due to it. Its up to us and likely the companies to ask for change if there is an issue. Let the patent suits continue to fly, once companies get hurt in the pocketbook enough things will change. That said i still don't know what you're arguing for companies to do. As well as why tech companies should behave differently regarding patents than other industries that are less well publicized. How should companies that create an innovation behave with what they've patented? Ignore it and lose the patent? Then why bother with patents in the first place? I don't follow the logic about "defensive" patents as it seems to not address how patents are intended to function.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    How should a "normal tech company" behave exactly? Rather simple. It should have a base principle to be opposed to software patents. It should not patent trivial things, it should be opposed to functional claiming and etc. If patents are used, they should be used for defensive pools against aggressors, not to engage in aggression themselves. That's what I call normal. Twitter recently adopted such methodology. Others before them are doing the same thing for a long time already (Red Hat for example). Patents were never intended to function the way they function now. Firstly software patents shouldn't even exist. Secondly patents are supposed to help innovation and not to ban competition. The former is rarely the case, while the later is extremely common.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      The mechanism by which patents work, though, is by (temporarily) banning competition.
      - mitchty 13y ago
        This is basically why I'm confused with the "defensive" patent phrase. It seems to completely ignore the whole purpose of patents in the first place. Either we get rid of software patents wholesale, or we accept the consequences of software patents are this. Lets say a company develops a 5% increase in efficiency for an engine. They patent it, a competitor reverse engineers it and releases a product. Fundamentally this is the same protected thing that happens with software right now. How a "defensive patent wielding tech company" should behave here makes zero sense. Not asserting patent in this case, even if the 5% increase here say was to just not burn as lean or whatever (lets assume this is obvious but not often in use for this thought experiment), they were the first to market and seemingly have a patent right to a temporary monopoly. I really think patents are overblown in the tech community, note I don't mean they aren't a problem for things like a small company. Their impact is very real and substantial. However my personal feelings for them aside on their ethical and societal impact, I don't see how companies should react any differently with our current patent structure.
- Steko 13y ago
  "Compared to how normal tech company should behave." Shrug, Apple negotiates above board and pays Amazon tens of millions for one click (possibly bullshit). Apple negotiates above board and pays billions for walking all over Nokia's patents. Samsung walks all over Apple's design (according to Google lawyers) and Apple's (possibly bullshit) patents and Googlerola negotiates for a farcial 5%+ of revenue for one (possibly bullshit) standards patent and yet it's Apple who is the huge villain for going after them. Got it, Apple is supposed to write checks to other companies, never cash any and Google and friends get a lifetime free pass for infringement because they talk about being "open". "We don't use patents offensively" tends to be propaganda from companies with bad patent portfolios.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    >Apple negotiates above board and pays Amazon tens of millions for one click (possibly bullshit) So? Amazon is also patent sick. As well as Nokia and other patent aggressors. Is that news? It's not an excuse for any of them. "Good portfolio" does not include ridiculously idiotic patents like one click, round corners or anything like that. It doesn't even include any software patents at all.

by mitchty 13y ago

shmerl 13y ago

Compared to how normal tech company should behave. Luckily there are companies which are opposed to software patents. I'm sure there are other patent sick companies, but Apple is just an infamous one. May be it's more reported than others, but such reputation is deserved. Patent attorneys don't participate in this on their own. It's from these companies' approval. In normal companies attorneys ensure that company uses patents only as defensive tools, in sick ones they use them for offense.

mitchty 13y ago
How should a "normal tech company" behave exactly? I'm not disagreeing but your point is not very convincing as it seems to be a pathos argument based on your wording so far with the "patent sick" verbage. I'll note, companies using patents are behaving rather rationally from the perspective of use it or lose it. Right now its advantageous to the patent filer to file patents, it doesn't absolve these companies of ethical issues arising from that but I don't label these companies as being "sick" due to it. Its up to us and likely the companies to ask for change if there is an issue. Let the patent suits continue to fly, once companies get hurt in the pocketbook enough things will change. That said i still don't know what you're arguing for companies to do. As well as why tech companies should behave differently regarding patents than other industries that are less well publicized. How should companies that create an innovation behave with what they've patented? Ignore it and lose the patent? Then why bother with patents in the first place? I don't follow the logic about "defensive" patents as it seems to not address how patents are intended to function.
- shmerl 13y ago
  How should a "normal tech company" behave exactly? Rather simple. It should have a base principle to be opposed to software patents. It should not patent trivial things, it should be opposed to functional claiming and etc. If patents are used, they should be used for defensive pools against aggressors, not to engage in aggression themselves. That's what I call normal. Twitter recently adopted such methodology. Others before them are doing the same thing for a long time already (Red Hat for example). Patents were never intended to function the way they function now. Firstly software patents shouldn't even exist. Secondly patents are supposed to help innovation and not to ban competition. The former is rarely the case, while the later is extremely common.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The mechanism by which patents work, though, is by (temporarily) banning competition.
    - mitchty 13y ago
      This is basically why I'm confused with the "defensive" patent phrase. It seems to completely ignore the whole purpose of patents in the first place. Either we get rid of software patents wholesale, or we accept the consequences of software patents are this. Lets say a company develops a 5% increase in efficiency for an engine. They patent it, a competitor reverse engineers it and releases a product. Fundamentally this is the same protected thing that happens with software right now. How a "defensive patent wielding tech company" should behave here makes zero sense. Not asserting patent in this case, even if the 5% increase here say was to just not burn as lean or whatever (lets assume this is obvious but not often in use for this thought experiment), they were the first to market and seemingly have a patent right to a temporary monopoly. I really think patents are overblown in the tech community, note I don't mean they aren't a problem for things like a small company. Their impact is very real and substantial. However my personal feelings for them aside on their ethical and societal impact, I don't see how companies should react any differently with our current patent structure.
Steko 13y ago
"Compared to how normal tech company should behave." Shrug, Apple negotiates above board and pays Amazon tens of millions for one click (possibly bullshit). Apple negotiates above board and pays billions for walking all over Nokia's patents. Samsung walks all over Apple's design (according to Google lawyers) and Apple's (possibly bullshit) patents and Googlerola negotiates for a farcial 5%+ of revenue for one (possibly bullshit) standards patent and yet it's Apple who is the huge villain for going after them. Got it, Apple is supposed to write checks to other companies, never cash any and Google and friends get a lifetime free pass for infringement because they talk about being "open". "We don't use patents offensively" tends to be propaganda from companies with bad patent portfolios.
- shmerl 13y ago
  >Apple negotiates above board and pays Amazon tens of millions for one click (possibly bullshit) So? Amazon is also patent sick. As well as Nokia and other patent aggressors. Is that news? It's not an excuse for any of them. "Good portfolio" does not include ridiculously idiotic patents like one click, round corners or anything like that. It doesn't even include any software patents at all.