6 ms·
It's painful reading these things. Companies like Google file thousands of patents gobbling up all kinds of fairly obvious ideas and by doing so create a minefi
by jcoffland 12y ago
It's painful reading these things. Companies like Google file thousands of patents gobbling up all kinds of fairly obvious ideas and by doing so create a minefield of inovation stifiling lawyer fodder. Many people forget that the original intent of the patent system was to give inovators a leg up not to create a market for buying and selling IP.
- binaryanomaly 12y agoI thought the same. Google wasn't always like this but since the android patent wars which made them buy Motorola for their patent portfolio - they seem to be just like all the others now.
- dgregd 12y agoAnd most incumbent players seem to like the current state of affairs. The whole situation is beginning to resemble feudal Europe class system. You cannot sell a car unless you belong to a specific fraternity. You cannot sell Android phones unless you pay licence fees to some company. The free market is shrinking because of various regulations written by lobbyists. Unfortunately this seems to a trend for societies across the globe. The older society, the more walls higher class builds to protect their status.
- morb 12y ago"You cannot sell Android phones unless you pay licence fees to some company"? Of course you need to pay licence fees to "some company" if you are selling Android phones, they're the ones making it. Why shouldn't Google get paid for their work? You can always remove Play store and other Gstuff and "leech" Android like Amazon. Let's not compare selling(licensing) software to some kind of feudal extortion pls. I kinda can see what you're trying to say, it has been said many times before - patents make it harder for new players to enter the market. We have Jolla (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolla), and that spanish Ubuntu/Android-phone maker (http://www.bq.com/gb/ http://www.bq.com/gb/), and the other spanish company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeeksPhone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeeksPhone) which kinda prove otherwise.
- the_ancient 12y agoSo people that make use of Open Source software are Leeches now? Really....
- FreakyT 12y agoI think he's actually referring to the Microsoft Android patent licensing thing: http://gizmodo.com/the-secret-android-patents-that-microsoft-forces-oems-t-1591338496 http://gizmodo.com/the-secret-android-patents-that-microsoft...
- hemonthe 12y agoI would hesitate to describe Google as 'just like the others' until Google uses their patents offensively. Apple has a similar patent to this one and I presume Google got this one as a defence
- binaryanomaly 12y agoAgree, not yet. But then there's no guarantee. And seeing them trying to build up a patent inventory for stuff that seems to be close to obvious or public knowledge gives mixed feelings...
- the_ancient 12y agoTo my knowledge Google has stated, and not violated that statement, that their patents would be used for defensive purposes only... Do you have knowledge to the contrary?
- ehmmm 12y agoSuch statements are not legally binding and thus completely irrelevant in a lawsuit.
- dragonwriter 12y agoPromises on which another party reasonably relies can be legally significant even if not made in a binding contract. See, particularly, the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
- ehmmm 12y agoBut Google didn't make any promises to anyone specifically. They just made a statement they will not actively sue. How will you justify that you experienced negative consequences because Google decided to defend their own patents, by actively suing. I guess it is complicated...
- mangeletti 12y agoIf that was truly the case, they would have released all of their patents into the public domain, which would equally protect them.
- revelation 12y agoI thought the actual actual intent was to make sure innovations are accessible to the public (and competitors once protection expires), helping society as a whole. Yet, it's hard to find any instance where someone would have used a software patent for its supposed purpose: to replicate the innovation. They're utterly useless.
- muaddirac 12y agoI recently saw a charming example of this (for a physical patent): http://youtu.be/vCLyPMSrdko http://youtu.be/vCLyPMSrdko
- formulaT 12y agoI don't support the existence of software patents at all. That said, I also don't think the benefits of patents should be interpreted so narrowly, or that we should judge patents by the single criterion of their "actual" intent instead of these other benefits. The other benefit is that it enables companies to do innovation where they would not have been able to keep the idea secret in the first place. E.g. a pharmaceutical drug whose chemical composition would be trivial to reverse engineer. In that case, the patent does not serve the purpose of making the knowledge public in exchange for a monopoly. What it does do, though, is incentivize innovation be rewarding the inventor with the "rights" to that idea. The real problem with patents is when patents are of trivial things that anyone could have thought of without much effort. That is why I don't support any software patents, because it's so much easier to patent trivial things in the software world than the physical world.
- jcoffland 12y agoThe argument for actual intent is based on how it was sold to voters when the laws were first enacted. I think it's perfectly legit to judge patents on these terms.
- formulaT 12y agoIf our primary interest is stating what the law should be, then how the law was originally sold to voters is a minor point. Very charitably, it might be argued that my views are different to the average voter, and so in a democracy I should argue for laws that reflect the opinions of voters. But if we were to reform the laws, the voters would be asked to make another choice, and I so would rather spend my effort in convincing lawmakers and voters based on all the arguments and evidence available.
- marincounty 12y agoI would like to see a progressive fee structure on the filing of patents, and a point in the fee structure(say after 500 patient filings, the fee would jump up to a amount that would sting(maybe 5 million dollar filling fee?). Plus, I would like all fees for the first patent, copyright, trademark free for individuals under federal poverty level.(Just the first one. If gross mistakes are made in the paperwork--so be it, but give smart, poor people a way to protect their works, trademarks, and inventions?)
- zellyn 12y agoThis would just cause people to create one company per x patents.