8 ms·

Chinese government reveals Microsoft’s secret list of Android-killer patents

168 points by conductor 12y ago

whoopdedo 12y ago
Should patents change to a use-it-or-lose-it system much like trademarks? If you're aware of someone using one of your patents but don't do anything to control it, you're implicitly ceding future rights to that invention.
- fokov 12y ago
  If you did it like that, then it would be trivial to take away all Patents. Just create a shell company that infringes, sell the product to another shell company, and then the patent would be gone since the holder company didn't take action. It is almost impossible for a patent holder to know the implementation details of every other company in order to detect infringement. Typically it is patent is granted, someone comes along and infringes, the holder gets notified somehow, and then legal action is taken. There is always going to be a period of time where the holder doesn't know their patent is being infringed. Also, the holder does have the right to take no legal action against an infringement.
  - chaostheory 12y ago
    That's fine. It still makes it more expensive for trolls to do business.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  OK so entity makes a super expensive "thing" containing the patent. Now what? They have a valid product, sold 1 or 2 copies. You'd require a judge to start deciding if a company is _really_ using the patent. Which seems hard to tell. Especially if the patent is for something requiring a ton of work/capital. Like a patent for a new spaceship or rocket or jet engine. NPEs would quickly find a way to stay NPEs but get passed the legal definition of "non practising".
- wfjackson 12y ago
  There's already a doctrine of laches that limits past damages. From http://www.wilmerhale.com/pages/publicationsandnewsdetail.aspx?NewsPubId=89731 http://www.wilmerhale.com/pages/publicationsandnewsdetail.as... > Laches defenses have been successful in cases in which a patent owner knows about an infringement and then delays many years before bringing suit. Laches typically bars the recovery of any past damages but allows for the recovery of damages arising after the filing of the lawsuit
- danudey 12y ago
  Make patents non-transferrable.
  - moron4hire 12y ago
    That would harm small inventors more than large corporations. A small inventor working out of her garage would be nearly incapable of capitalizing fully on a patent any sort of for a big-market consumer product. Being able to transfer patents allows the inventor to sell their rights and obtain some degree of compensation despite lacking production capacity. The idea is just the idea. It's execution that matters.
    - rbanffy 12y ago
      Not necessarily. It would create a market for patent litigation as a service, where the patent still belongs to the inventor, but the litigations are managed by one or more third parties.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- cwyers 12y ago
  Microsoft is shipping products (Windows Phone, most notably) that use most if not all of the patents listed, and they're currently raking in money from multiple Android OEMs (Samsung is confirmed to pay Microsoft for patents related to Android). That doesn't really apply here, they've been very active in both using and seeking royalties for these patents.
rayiner 12y ago
It's interesting the Rockstar thing doesn't get more coverage on HN. My old company had Nortel as a customer. It was a tremendously inventive, if management-challenged, organization. I remember thinking when it was liquidated what was going to happen to what I was sure was a very deep patent portfolio.
- tptacek 12y ago
  The offices at Nortel (and Qualcomm, too) are lined with patent plaques; they covered every wall I saw. It was definitely a patent culture.
kitsune_ 12y ago
Seriously, does any programmer have the time to decipher byzantine shit like this before writing a new feature? "Custom local search", US 8255379 B2 > CLAIMS(20) A method comprising: receiving a query that is configured by an issuer of the query to perform a local search, wherein the local search is performed over a first dataset and a second data set, wherein the first dataset comprises a first entity and the second dataset comprises a second entity, and wherein the query comprises a first token and a second token; parsing the query such that the first token of the query is mapped to the first entity in the first dataset and the second token of the query is mapped to the second entity in the second dataset; and returning search results based at least in part upon the parsing of the query, wherein the method is executed by a processor of a computing device. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first dataset is a custom dataset, wherein the custom dataset comprises a plurality of entities generated by an end user, and wherein the plurality of entities comprise attributes that describe the plurality of entities and shapes pertaining to the plurality of entities. 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the second dataset comprises street-level vector data. 4. The method of claim 3, wherein parsing the query comprises determining an approximate geographic region pertaining to the query. 5. The method of claim 4, further comprising determining the approximate geographic region pertaining to the query based at least in part upon mapping the second token of the query to the second entity in the dataset. 6. The method of claim 1, wherein parsing the query comprises identifying which words and phrases in the query correspond to attributes in the first dataset and the second dataset. 7. The method of claim 1, wherein parsing the query comprises generating a plurality of different partial interpretations of the query. 8. The method of claim 7, wherein each partial interpretation in the plurality of partial interpretations comprises a set of mappings between tokens in the query to attributes in the first dataset and the second dataset and an approximate region of interest pertaining to the query. 9. The method of claim 8, further comprising refining at least one partial interpretation, wherein the at least one partial interpretation is refined by way of spatial processing. 10. The method of claim 9, wherein the at least one partial interpretation is refined by determining that an entity in the first dataset spatially corresponds with a region of interest pertaining to the query. 11. The method of claim 10, wherein the region of interest is altered based at least in part upon a geographic overlap of a previous region of interest and an entity. 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the query is received in a first language, and further comprising translating at least a portion of the query to a second language. 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the query is a free-form text query that comprises misspelled terms, erroneous terms, out of order terms, or valid but wrong terms. 14. A system that facilitates custom local search, the system comprising: a processor; and a memory that comprises a plurality of components that are executed by the processor, the plurality of components comprising: a receiver component that receives a query from a user, wherein the query comprises a plurality of tokens, wherein the query is configured to retrieve custom content with respect to a particular geographic region, and wherein the query comprises a first token and a second token; and an interpreter component that parses the query such that the first token is mapped to a first entity in a first dataset and the second token is mapped to a second entity in a second dataset, wherein the first dataset is a custom dataset that comprises custom data provided by an end user and the second dataset is a contextual dataset that comprises street-level geographic data. 15. The system of claim 14, wherein the first entity comprises a shape that describes a geographic region pertaining to the first entity, an attribute that describes the first entity, and a unique identifier that identifies the entity. 16. The system of claim 14, wherein the query comprises at least one token that is indicative of a custom dataset amongst a plurality of custom datasets to which the query pertains, free-form text, and at least one token that is indicative of geographic scope pertaining to the query. 17. The system of claim 14, wherein the interpreter component comprises a query interpreter component that outputs multiple partial interpretations of the query, wherein each partial interpretation comprises a list of mappings between subsequences of tokens of the query and sets of entities in the custom dataset and the contextual dataset and an approximate region of interest pertaining to the partial query interpretation. 18. The system of claim 17, wherein the interpreter component further comprises a refinement component that refines at least one of the partial interpretations, wherein the refinement component modifies the approximate region of interest pertaining to the partial query interpretation when refining the at least one of the partial interpretations. 19. The system of claim 18, wherein the interpreter component further comprises a ranker component that ranks refined partial interpretations. 20. A computer-readable data storage device comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising: receiving a query, wherein the query comprises a plurality of tokens, wherein the query is configured to execute over one or more custom datasets and one or more contextual datasets; generating a partial interpretation of the query, wherein generating the partial interpretation of the query comprises mapping a first subsequence of the tokens to a first attribute in the custom dataset and mapping a second subsequence of the tokens to a second attribute in the contextual dataset; refining the partial interpretation of the query to generate a refined interpretation, wherein refining the partial interpretation comprises mapping a first entity in the custom dataset that has the first attribute to the first subsequence of the tokens and mapping a second entity in the contextual dataset that has the second attribute to the second subsequence of tokens; and causing graphical items representative of the first entity and the second entity to be displayed on a display screen of a computing device. There should be a non-profit organization that files arbitrary new patents preemptively on behalf of the public and then release them into the public domain.
chillingeffect 12y ago
Serious question here, but what is meant by "secret"? The patent database is public and after clicking through three listed patents, I see it quite clearly indicated that the Original Assignee is Microsoft. Also, in the linked article by Brad Smith, uSoft wrote: We pledge that by April 1 of this year, we will publish on the web information that enables anyone to determine which patents we own. How was it impossible to determine prior to April 1st? Did they update the patent database or something? Thank you.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  The secret was which ~300 of Microsoft and Rockstar's thousands of patents were part of the Android licensing scheme, not that they were actually owned by Microsoft.
  - kevingadd 12y ago
    I don't really understand why Microsoft is expected or obligated to produce that list for the public. Calling it 'secret' seems a bit ridiculous in this scenario. The patents aren't 'secret'; the information was already out in the open. The 'secret' is a 'trade secret', that is, which patents they personally believe to be most important. It's quite possible that they have other patents in their arsenal that ALSO apply to Android, and any vendor that intentionally works around these ~300 patents will still get a patent suit. If you really wanted to be safe from Microsoft and not pay them licensing fees, you could have paid some professionals to review their patent holdings for you, and identify any patents that could potentially be asserted against your smartphones. This list is essentially the result of Microsoft doing that.
    - davorak 12y ago
      > you could have paid some professionals to review their patent holdings for you, My understanding is that it is not practical to do this. Have you done this before or known people who have? How much did it cost?
      - 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- briantakita 12y ago
  > What will end these patent wars? Make patents irrelevant by rejecting the current culture of consumerism that props up this system. Some examples: Becoming active & thoughtful citizens, Free Software & Hardware, DIY culture, Decentralization, Buying Local, Black Markets, etc. Edit: I expect to be downvoted by the sheep & those interested in keeping the status quo. Bring it on ;-)
  - mullingitover 12y ago
    Ah yes, the old 'clap your hands if you believe' trope[1]. [1] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ClapYourHandsIfYouBelieve http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ClapYourHandsIfYo...
    - briantakita 12y ago
      Hmm, I'm not seeing that analogy & how it relates to this discussion. Maybe you can connect the dots for me? --- My interpretation of your statement is that I'm pleading for people to upvote my post. Here's my take: HN karma is a silly metric. What does it measure? How in sync you are with other HN commenters' opinions? I see downvotes as people's reaction to something that I view as truth. Most people don't like their viewpoints challenged and will often take measures to punish such viewpoints. HN is kindof a pulse of the community and receptivity to certain viewpoints. I'm also curious over the characteristics of people who habitually downvote. Do they tend to be more judgmental, closed minded, & cruel? What is the incentive? Are lack of upvotes not enough? It's not a really effective way to encourage "correct" behavior. I guess it's a way of weeding out certain people. That's fine, I'm here to let people get their moral buzz by downvoting something they don't agree with. Go ahead and downvote this post too :-)
      - mullingitover 12y ago
        Key point: > An old trope, wherein enough belief in something will actually cause things to happen, also known as "magical thinking". If we all just believe, maaan, we can make these patents powerless over us! It's more about poking fun at the unrealistic idealsim. But hey, shoot for the moon, if you miss you'll land among the stars! (or come crashing down to earth, showering your hapless spectators in burning kerosene and liquid oxygen).
rmrfrmrf 12y ago
There has to be some kind of middle ground here. On one hand, I'm very surprised that Google doesn't pay a license fee to Microsoft for Exchange ActiveSync. I assumed all phone makers with Exchange support had licensing deals with Microsoft. On the other hand, patents for things like a loading bar in the corner of a web browser are absolutely ridiculous.
natch 12y ago
It's gone. HN needs a caching system.
throwawaykf05 12y ago
> Patents today are written in legalese that can only be interpreted by a select tribe of professionals, and Microsoft benefits by keeping lists like this secret. This is like a blub programmer complaining about lisp being unreadable. I am no attorney or patent agent, let alone part of a "select tribe of professionals", just a typical software geek. Yet I can read patents pretty easily. Took me some practice to get the hang of it, but I needed absolutely no training for it, and neither do you! Of course, if it's a legal matter (you're being sued), you need a lawyer. But if you just want to evaluate the technical merits of a patent, you can interpret the claims yourselves. All you have to realize is that patentese is just a particular form of English -- English that has to be overly specific (e.g. avoid pronouns) while at the same time trying to be as broad as possible, but English nonetheless. And you usually only need to read the independent claims (those that don't reference other claims) get a sense of the scope, as those are the broadest ones. For instance, look at the claims conveniently posted at the top of the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7901544 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7901544 I really cannot see what's so complicated about those. They seem a bit vague (e.g. what's an "entity"?) but applying the common meaning of the terms involved (e.g. maybe "entity" as in "person, place or thing") reveals a pretty straightforward description. It's nowhere near groundbreaking, but popular narrative of lightbulbs and flying machines notwithstanding, patents rarely are.
yuhong 12y ago
I have these two links, the second link has my wishlist for Satya and Android patents is on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7281319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7281319 http://hal2020.com/2014/03/03/satya-shuffles-his-leadership/#comment-14856 http://hal2020.com/2014/03/03/satya-shuffles-his-leadership/...
krfsm 12y ago
Given that it's been a mystery which patents Android might be infringing, what is the likelihood that those patents fill their original purpose of promoting progress? (Beyond the effects obtained by simply implementing them and selling the product.)

168 points by conductor 12y ago

Should patents change to a use-it-or-lose-it system much like trademarks? If you're aware of someone using one of your patents but don't do anything to control it, you're implicitly ceding future rights to that invention.

fokov 12y ago
If you did it like that, then it would be trivial to take away all Patents. Just create a shell company that infringes, sell the product to another shell company, and then the patent would be gone since the holder company didn't take action. It is almost impossible for a patent holder to know the implementation details of every other company in order to detect infringement. Typically it is patent is granted, someone comes along and infringes, the holder gets notified somehow, and then legal action is taken. There is always going to be a period of time where the holder doesn't know their patent is being infringed. Also, the holder does have the right to take no legal action against an infringement.
- chaostheory 12y ago
  That's fine. It still makes it more expensive for trolls to do business.
MichaelGG 12y ago
OK so entity makes a super expensive "thing" containing the patent. Now what? They have a valid product, sold 1 or 2 copies. You'd require a judge to start deciding if a company is _really_ using the patent. Which seems hard to tell. Especially if the patent is for something requiring a ton of work/capital. Like a patent for a new spaceship or rocket or jet engine. NPEs would quickly find a way to stay NPEs but get passed the legal definition of "non practising".
wfjackson 12y ago
There's already a doctrine of laches that limits past damages. From http://www.wilmerhale.com/pages/publicationsandnewsdetail.aspx?NewsPubId=89731 http://www.wilmerhale.com/pages/publicationsandnewsdetail.as... > Laches defenses have been successful in cases in which a patent owner knows about an infringement and then delays many years before bringing suit. Laches typically bars the recovery of any past damages but allows for the recovery of damages arising after the filing of the lawsuit
danudey 12y ago
Make patents non-transferrable.
- moron4hire 12y ago
  That would harm small inventors more than large corporations. A small inventor working out of her garage would be nearly incapable of capitalizing fully on a patent any sort of for a big-market consumer product. Being able to transfer patents allows the inventor to sell their rights and obtain some degree of compensation despite lacking production capacity. The idea is just the idea. It's execution that matters.
  - rbanffy 12y ago
    Not necessarily. It would create a market for patent litigation as a service, where the patent still belongs to the inventor, but the litigations are managed by one or more third parties.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
cwyers 12y ago
Microsoft is shipping products (Windows Phone, most notably) that use most if not all of the patents listed, and they're currently raking in money from multiple Android OEMs (Samsung is confirmed to pay Microsoft for patents related to Android). That doesn't really apply here, they've been very active in both using and seeking royalties for these patents.

rayiner 12y ago

It's interesting the Rockstar thing doesn't get more coverage on HN. My old company had Nortel as a customer. It was a tremendously inventive, if management-challenged, organization. I remember thinking when it was liquidated what was going to happen to what I was sure was a very deep patent portfolio.

tptacek 12y ago
The offices at Nortel (and Qualcomm, too) are lined with patent plaques; they covered every wall I saw. It was definitely a patent culture.

kitsune_ 12y ago

Seriously, does any programmer have the time to decipher byzantine shit like this before writing a new feature? "Custom local search", US 8255379 B2 > CLAIMS(20) A method comprising: receiving a query that is configured by an issuer of the query to perform a local search, wherein the local search is performed over a first dataset and a second data set, wherein the first dataset comprises a first entity and the second dataset comprises a second entity, and wherein the query comprises a first token and a second token; parsing the query such that the first token of the query is mapped to the first entity in the first dataset and the second token of the query is mapped to the second entity in the second dataset; and returning search results based at least in part upon the parsing of the query, wherein the method is executed by a processor of a computing device. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first dataset is a custom dataset, wherein the custom dataset comprises a plurality of entities generated by an end user, and wherein the plurality of entities comprise attributes that describe the plurality of entities and shapes pertaining to the plurality of entities. 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the second dataset comprises street-level vector data. 4. The method of claim 3, wherein parsing the query comprises determining an approximate geographic region pertaining to the query. 5. The method of claim 4, further comprising determining the approximate geographic region pertaining to the query based at least in part upon mapping the second token of the query to the second entity in the dataset. 6. The method of claim 1, wherein parsing the query comprises identifying which words and phrases in the query correspond to attributes in the first dataset and the second dataset. 7. The method of claim 1, wherein parsing the query comprises generating a plurality of different partial interpretations of the query. 8. The method of claim 7, wherein each partial interpretation in the plurality of partial interpretations comprises a set of mappings between tokens in the query to attributes in the first dataset and the second dataset and an approximate region of interest pertaining to the query. 9. The method of claim 8, further comprising refining at least one partial interpretation, wherein the at least one partial interpretation is refined by way of spatial processing. 10. The method of claim 9, wherein the at least one partial interpretation is refined by determining that an entity in the first dataset spatially corresponds with a region of interest pertaining to the query. 11. The method of claim 10, wherein the region of interest is altered based at least in part upon a geographic overlap of a previous region of interest and an entity. 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the query is received in a first language, and further comprising translating at least a portion of the query to a second language. 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the query is a free-form text query that comprises misspelled terms, erroneous terms, out of order terms, or valid but wrong terms. 14. A system that facilitates custom local search, the system comprising: a processor; and a memory that comprises a plurality of components that are executed by the processor, the plurality of components comprising: a receiver component that receives a query from a user, wherein the query comprises a plurality of tokens, wherein the query is configured to retrieve custom content with respect to a particular geographic region, and wherein the query comprises a first token and a second token; and an interpreter component that parses the query such that the first token is mapped to a first entity in a first dataset and the second token is mapped to a second entity in a second dataset, wherein the first dataset is a custom dataset that comprises custom data provided by an end user and the second dataset is a contextual dataset that comprises street-level geographic data. 15. The system of claim 14, wherein the first entity comprises a shape that describes a geographic region pertaining to the first entity, an attribute that describes the first entity, and a unique identifier that identifies the entity. 16. The system of claim 14, wherein the query comprises at least one token that is indicative of a custom dataset amongst a plurality of custom datasets to which the query pertains, free-form text, and at least one token that is indicative of geographic scope pertaining to the query. 17. The system of claim 14, wherein the interpreter component comprises a query interpreter component that outputs multiple partial interpretations of the query, wherein each partial interpretation comprises a list of mappings between subsequences of tokens of the query and sets of entities in the custom dataset and the contextual dataset and an approximate region of interest pertaining to the partial query interpretation. 18. The system of claim 17, wherein the interpreter component further comprises a refinement component that refines at least one of the partial interpretations, wherein the refinement component modifies the approximate region of interest pertaining to the partial query interpretation when refining the at least one of the partial interpretations. 19. The system of claim 18, wherein the interpreter component further comprises a ranker component that ranks refined partial interpretations. 20. A computer-readable data storage device comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising: receiving a query, wherein the query comprises a plurality of tokens, wherein the query is configured to execute over one or more custom datasets and one or more contextual datasets; generating a partial interpretation of the query, wherein generating the partial interpretation of the query comprises mapping a first subsequence of the tokens to a first attribute in the custom dataset and mapping a second subsequence of the tokens to a second attribute in the contextual dataset; refining the partial interpretation of the query to generate a refined interpretation, wherein refining the partial interpretation comprises mapping a first entity in the custom dataset that has the first attribute to the first subsequence of the tokens and mapping a second entity in the contextual dataset that has the second attribute to the second subsequence of tokens; and causing graphical items representative of the first entity and the second entity to be displayed on a display screen of a computing device. There should be a non-profit organization that files arbitrary new patents preemptively on behalf of the public and then release them into the public domain.

chillingeffect 12y ago

Serious question here, but what is meant by "secret"? The patent database is public and after clicking through three listed patents, I see it quite clearly indicated that the Original Assignee is Microsoft. Also, in the linked article by Brad Smith, uSoft wrote: We pledge that by April 1 of this year, we will publish on the web information that enables anyone to determine which patents we own. How was it impossible to determine prior to April 1st? Did they update the patent database or something? Thank you.

nitrogen 12y ago
The secret was which ~300 of Microsoft and Rockstar's thousands of patents were part of the Android licensing scheme, not that they were actually owned by Microsoft.
- kevingadd 12y ago
  I don't really understand why Microsoft is expected or obligated to produce that list for the public. Calling it 'secret' seems a bit ridiculous in this scenario. The patents aren't 'secret'; the information was already out in the open. The 'secret' is a 'trade secret', that is, which patents they personally believe to be most important. It's quite possible that they have other patents in their arsenal that ALSO apply to Android, and any vendor that intentionally works around these ~300 patents will still get a patent suit. If you really wanted to be safe from Microsoft and not pay them licensing fees, you could have paid some professionals to review their patent holdings for you, and identify any patents that could potentially be asserted against your smartphones. This list is essentially the result of Microsoft doing that.
  - davorak 12y ago
    > you could have paid some professionals to review their patent holdings for you, My understanding is that it is not practical to do this. Have you done this before or known people who have? How much did it cost?
    - 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

briantakita 12y ago
> What will end these patent wars? Make patents irrelevant by rejecting the current culture of consumerism that props up this system. Some examples: Becoming active & thoughtful citizens, Free Software & Hardware, DIY culture, Decentralization, Buying Local, Black Markets, etc. Edit: I expect to be downvoted by the sheep & those interested in keeping the status quo. Bring it on ;-)
- mullingitover 12y ago
  Ah yes, the old 'clap your hands if you believe' trope[1]. [1] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ClapYourHandsIfYouBelieve http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ClapYourHandsIfYo...
  - briantakita 12y ago
    Hmm, I'm not seeing that analogy & how it relates to this discussion. Maybe you can connect the dots for me? --- My interpretation of your statement is that I'm pleading for people to upvote my post. Here's my take: HN karma is a silly metric. What does it measure? How in sync you are with other HN commenters' opinions? I see downvotes as people's reaction to something that I view as truth. Most people don't like their viewpoints challenged and will often take measures to punish such viewpoints. HN is kindof a pulse of the community and receptivity to certain viewpoints. I'm also curious over the characteristics of people who habitually downvote. Do they tend to be more judgmental, closed minded, & cruel? What is the incentive? Are lack of upvotes not enough? It's not a really effective way to encourage "correct" behavior. I guess it's a way of weeding out certain people. That's fine, I'm here to let people get their moral buzz by downvoting something they don't agree with. Go ahead and downvote this post too :-)
    - mullingitover 12y ago
      Key point: > An old trope, wherein enough belief in something will actually cause things to happen, also known as "magical thinking". If we all just believe, maaan, we can make these patents powerless over us! It's more about poking fun at the unrealistic idealsim. But hey, shoot for the moon, if you miss you'll land among the stars! (or come crashing down to earth, showering your hapless spectators in burning kerosene and liquid oxygen).

rmrfrmrf 12y ago

There has to be some kind of middle ground here. On one hand, I'm very surprised that Google doesn't pay a license fee to Microsoft for Exchange ActiveSync. I assumed all phone makers with Exchange support had licensing deals with Microsoft. On the other hand, patents for things like a loading bar in the corner of a web browser are absolutely ridiculous.

natch 12y ago

It's gone. HN needs a caching system.

throwawaykf05 12y ago

> Patents today are written in legalese that can only be interpreted by a select tribe of professionals, and Microsoft benefits by keeping lists like this secret. This is like a blub programmer complaining about lisp being unreadable. I am no attorney or patent agent, let alone part of a "select tribe of professionals", just a typical software geek. Yet I can read patents pretty easily. Took me some practice to get the hang of it, but I needed absolutely no training for it, and neither do you! Of course, if it's a legal matter (you're being sued), you need a lawyer. But if you just want to evaluate the technical merits of a patent, you can interpret the claims yourselves. All you have to realize is that patentese is just a particular form of English -- English that has to be overly specific (e.g. avoid pronouns) while at the same time trying to be as broad as possible, but English nonetheless. And you usually only need to read the independent claims (those that don't reference other claims) get a sense of the scope, as those are the broadest ones. For instance, look at the claims conveniently posted at the top of the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7901544 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7901544 I really cannot see what's so complicated about those. They seem a bit vague (e.g. what's an "entity"?) but applying the common meaning of the terms involved (e.g. maybe "entity" as in "person, place or thing") reveals a pretty straightforward description. It's nowhere near groundbreaking, but popular narrative of lightbulbs and flying machines notwithstanding, patents rarely are.

yuhong 12y ago

I have these two links, the second link has my wishlist for Satya and Android patents is on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7281319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7281319 http://hal2020.com/2014/03/03/satya-shuffles-his-leadership/#comment-14856 http://hal2020.com/2014/03/03/satya-shuffles-his-leadership/...

krfsm 12y ago

Given that it's been a mystery which patents Android might be infringing, what is the likelihood that those patents fill their original purpose of promoting progress? (Beyond the effects obtained by simply implementing them and selling the product.)