4 ms·

But isn't the point being made that this is better not looked at as a good versus bad, it's better looked at as one sort of bad against another sort of bad. Th

But isn't the point being made that this is better not looked at as a good versus bad, it's better looked at as one sort of bad against another sort of bad. The fact that one of them is slightly better than the other in one regard doesn't change the fact that neither of them are really that worthy of your support. You're right that Google haven't been patent aggressors up until now but if recent behaviour teaches us anything it's that Google have been very willing to change what they've stood for historically. If you believe that they'd never change that position if they felt it suited them then you have more faith in them than I do.

Perseids 13y ago
> But isn't the point being made that this is better not looked at as a good versus bad, it's better looked at as one sort of bad against another sort of bad. The direct consequence of this would be a call to get rid of the evil on both sides and abolish the (software) patent system altogether. I'd like to emphasize a quote from the end of the article: > Patents have become the arena in which tech companies have chosen to do battle. There is no longer competition about the best user experience or the best technical solution to an engineering problem but competition about who can file the best vague, yet court approved patent and secure the most destructive intellectual properties. I don't understand why we are still only talking about reforming the patent system.
- Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
  > There is no longer competition about the best user experience or the best technical solution to an engineering problem but competition about who can file the best vague, yet court approved patent and secure the most destructive intellectual properties. I don't understand why we are still only talking about reforming the patent system. Seriously? iOS7 and Android Kit Kat both move user experience forward both in terms of the UI and the functionality offered. The latest iPhones, Android phones and Lumias are clearly better than what went before. I suspect if you asked average engineers at Apple, Google or Microsoft how much of their time and energy is taken up addressing problems caused by patents the number would be pretty small and if you look at how much those companies spend on patents, lawyers and settlements it's dwarfed by what they spend on product development. To put the giant $4.5bn spent on the patents in question in context (and remember that's was shared between several companies), it's about what Samsung spend on marketing in a year or half of Apple's 5C/5S iPhone sales for the first weekend they were on sale. Yes patents are impacting the industry but that's not to say that competition about things users care about has stopped, it's just slowing things up a bit.
  - nathan_long 13y ago
    >> Yes patents are impacting the industry but that's not to say that competition about things users care about has stopped, it's just slowing things up a bit. I think "slowing things up a bit" is a great understatement. Hackers who could build the Next Big Thing have no chance at success if it takes a billion-dollar patent arsenal to avoid getting sued out of existence. Who wins this fight is a side issue. The real issue, I think, is that only such giants can compete. If so, we're missing out on a lot of innovation. A lot of products can be dreamt of that do not benefit the Apple or Microsoft or Google ecosystems. But can they be built without infringing "a navigation tool for graphical user interface?"
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      And yet most people are somehow managing to avoid getting sued out of existence while still building amazing products in small companies and start ups.
  - Perseids 13y ago
    You have a point and I was a bit polemic. Nonetheless those conflicts do reach the consumer in a significant manner, for example last year, when I updated my smartphone firmware for stability reasons, all the rubber band menus vanished and were replaced by glowing edges because of the ongoing dispute. And those patents weren't even applicable in my country. Also remember all the cases where one side was trying to prohibit the sale of some phone or tablet somewhere in the world.
    - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
      I don't dispute that there is an impact but your example shows the real scale of it. Is rubber banding really such a great loss? Yes it's nice but what's the actual impact on the quality of your experience been? Frankly most of the patents that have been enforced seem to me at least to have been pretty minor and relatively easy to workaround with little real impact on the user.
      - 13y ago
timrichard 13y ago
"The fact that one of them is slightly better than the other in one regard doesn't change the fact that neither of them are really that worthy of your support" Retaining them defensively isn't "slightly better". Using them offensively is significantly worse. "You're right that Google haven't been patent aggressors up until now but if recent behaviour teaches us anything it's that Google have been very willing to change what they've stood for historically. If you believe that they'd never change that position if they felt it suited them then you have more faith in them than I do." That just sounds like weak speculation to me. Patent fee extortion is the sort of thing you do if you have a gradually declining (Apple) or minimal (MS) market share.
- btilly 13y ago
  Retaining them defensively isn't "slightly better". Using them offensively is significantly worse. That is only until you study how you use defensive patents defensively. Suppose that you join a patent pool like http://www.rpxcorp.com/ http://www.rpxcorp.com/. Then you're sued by a patent troll with no assets other than a patent. How exactly is RPX going to help you? They used to state it in their FAQ. Then removed it, but I'm sure they still do it. They negotiate with the troll. And to make it cheap, they give the troll what they want. They give the troll another patent, in return for a binding contract to not sue anyone protected by RPX. (I became aware of this possibility after 3 patents taken out with my name on it when I was younger got sold to RPX.)

Perseids 13y ago

> But isn't the point being made that this is better not looked at as a good versus bad, it's better looked at as one sort of bad against another sort of bad. The direct consequence of this would be a call to get rid of the evil on both sides and abolish the (software) patent system altogether. I'd like to emphasize a quote from the end of the article: > Patents have become the arena in which tech companies have chosen to do battle. There is no longer competition about the best user experience or the best technical solution to an engineering problem but competition about who can file the best vague, yet court approved patent and secure the most destructive intellectual properties. I don't understand why we are still only talking about reforming the patent system.

Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
> There is no longer competition about the best user experience or the best technical solution to an engineering problem but competition about who can file the best vague, yet court approved patent and secure the most destructive intellectual properties. I don't understand why we are still only talking about reforming the patent system. Seriously? iOS7 and Android Kit Kat both move user experience forward both in terms of the UI and the functionality offered. The latest iPhones, Android phones and Lumias are clearly better than what went before. I suspect if you asked average engineers at Apple, Google or Microsoft how much of their time and energy is taken up addressing problems caused by patents the number would be pretty small and if you look at how much those companies spend on patents, lawyers and settlements it's dwarfed by what they spend on product development. To put the giant $4.5bn spent on the patents in question in context (and remember that's was shared between several companies), it's about what Samsung spend on marketing in a year or half of Apple's 5C/5S iPhone sales for the first weekend they were on sale. Yes patents are impacting the industry but that's not to say that competition about things users care about has stopped, it's just slowing things up a bit.
- nathan_long 13y ago
  >> Yes patents are impacting the industry but that's not to say that competition about things users care about has stopped, it's just slowing things up a bit. I think "slowing things up a bit" is a great understatement. Hackers who could build the Next Big Thing have no chance at success if it takes a billion-dollar patent arsenal to avoid getting sued out of existence. Who wins this fight is a side issue. The real issue, I think, is that only such giants can compete. If so, we're missing out on a lot of innovation. A lot of products can be dreamt of that do not benefit the Apple or Microsoft or Google ecosystems. But can they be built without infringing "a navigation tool for graphical user interface?"
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    And yet most people are somehow managing to avoid getting sued out of existence while still building amazing products in small companies and start ups.
- Perseids 13y ago
  You have a point and I was a bit polemic. Nonetheless those conflicts do reach the consumer in a significant manner, for example last year, when I updated my smartphone firmware for stability reasons, all the rubber band menus vanished and were replaced by glowing edges because of the ongoing dispute. And those patents weren't even applicable in my country. Also remember all the cases where one side was trying to prohibit the sale of some phone or tablet somewhere in the world.
  - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
    I don't dispute that there is an impact but your example shows the real scale of it. Is rubber banding really such a great loss? Yes it's nice but what's the actual impact on the quality of your experience been? Frankly most of the patents that have been enforced seem to me at least to have been pretty minor and relatively easy to workaround with little real impact on the user.
    - 13y ago

timrichard 13y ago

"The fact that one of them is slightly better than the other in one regard doesn't change the fact that neither of them are really that worthy of your support" Retaining them defensively isn't "slightly better". Using them offensively is significantly worse. "You're right that Google haven't been patent aggressors up until now but if recent behaviour teaches us anything it's that Google have been very willing to change what they've stood for historically. If you believe that they'd never change that position if they felt it suited them then you have more faith in them than I do." That just sounds like weak speculation to me. Patent fee extortion is the sort of thing you do if you have a gradually declining (Apple) or minimal (MS) market share.

btilly 13y ago
Retaining them defensively isn't "slightly better". Using them offensively is significantly worse. That is only until you study how you use defensive patents defensively. Suppose that you join a patent pool like http://www.rpxcorp.com/ http://www.rpxcorp.com/. Then you're sued by a patent troll with no assets other than a patent. How exactly is RPX going to help you? They used to state it in their FAQ. Then removed it, but I'm sure they still do it. They negotiate with the troll. And to make it cheap, they give the troll what they want. They give the troll another patent, in return for a binding contract to not sue anyone protected by RPX. (I became aware of this possibility after 3 patents taken out with my name on it when I was younger got sold to RPX.)