“One of Microsoft’s hottest new profit centers is a smartphone platform you’ve definitely heard of: Android. Google’s Linux-based mobile operating system is a favorite target for Microsoft’s patent attorneys, who are suing numerous Android vendors and just today announced that another manufacturer has agreed to write checks to Microsoft every time it ships an Android device. Microsoft’s latest target is Wistron Corp., which has signed a patent agreement ‘that provides broad coverage under Microsoft’s patent portfolio for Wistron’s tablets, mobile phones, e-readers and other consumer devices running the Android or Chrome platform’, Microsoft announced.” That’s the reality we live in, folks. This is at least as criminal – if not more so – than Microsoft’s monopoly abuse late last century. After the Nortel crap, it’s completely left the black helicopter camp for me: Microsoft, Apple, and several others are working together to fight Android the only way they know how: with underhand mafia tactics. Absolutely sickening. Hey Anonymous, are you listening? YES I WENT THERE.
So you think legally licencing your patents is more criminal that violating patents?
Is it ok for Google to violate patents just because they’re late in the game or because they feel like it?
Does patent violation become more acceptable because Android is open source?
Patents are patents and must be adhered to. Whether you like it or not, Microsoft are playing by the rules and using their IP to their advantage.
My company own quite a few patents for software we’ve developed, and you can be sure that we’d go after anyone who violated those patents without paying. I bet you’d do exactly the same.
Edited 2011-07-05 22:34 UTC
I happen to be against software patents. They are pure evil. Software is properly protected by copyright. Patenting math is criminal.
I’m also against it, but I can’t fault Microsoft for exercising what they seem to believe are their rights. Not knowing anything about the patents involved I must assume they are valid and thus Microsoft is within their rights to go after people they think are violating them.
Of course it’s a scumbag move, but the problem is the patent system, not the people legally using it. Maybe this kind of situation will force patent overhaul sooner rather than later.
They may be within their rights according to the law – but just because something’s a law doesn’t make it right.
They aren’t killing Android, they are profiting from it, if it’s bringing in millions a year, for absolutely no effort, MS would be stupid to do anything other than rattle a few cages, and make money for nothing, chicks for free. They rattled them for years against Linux, and it came to nothing, it’ll come to nothing now.
Let them make their money, Android will survive anyway. Calling for an illegal response to something that is not identifiably illegal, now that’s wrong. Wrong or right, MS is operating in the bounds of the legal system, it may be sleazy, but it might just be legal.
Calling on Anonymous isn’t going to change the laws, but with MS money hunting the perpetrators, it will get some people arrested.
You do realise that was tongue-in-cheek right? I thought the ‘I went there’ made that oretty clear.
The the problem with the internet Thom, easy to misinterpret, there is no body language.
… “Yes I went there” … suggests to me … that you are actually pretty serious … as in you are preparing to “go to the extreme” …
Edited 2011-07-05 23:25 UTC
“I went there” means your serious. “I went there” mean you pointed out the elephant in the room that everyone has been avoiding talking about.
An I went there moment would be pointing out MS is working within the legal system, and they are doing what they can to maximize profits for their shareholders, which is the correct thing for them to do.
The joke also failed because some organization like Anonymous maybe the only way to get action on the issue of patent reform. No one is going to do us this favour, so we should probably get out there and do something.
profit at the expense of the mobile ecosystem and at the expense of smaller companies that have done nothing illegal is not correct in any sense. If this was a school, it would be called bullying and would be stopped. The same things we tell children to not do we reward in business.
God save America.
Google is not a smaller company, not in any meaningful way, so for the purposes of this discussion, your point is irrelevant. MS’s five bucks per Android phone is not going to hurt the ecosystem at all.
I think it’s sleazy as hell, but it isn’t the same as say Apple suing a small company that makes a product called “icloud”
God Save America? What is the purpose of that? Are you American?
yes, am american, though there are days I wish I wasn’t.
Google isn’t a small company, but Microsoft isn’t targeting Google to license their patents (like they should be doing instead of hitting the small players)
This does f*ck with the ecosystem because it cause companies that might be thinking of releasing an android device to think about it before releasing. Is development + MS’s license fees + legal fees less than development + wp7 fees? that has a chilling effect on the whole mobile market. Trying to kill competition through the horrid American patent system instead of actual innovation smells of a company with no product.
$5 per unit is actually quite a lot. To a consumer that can be up to a $100 additional charge. Microsoft is attacking the wrong companies, and, only because they know Google will fight to the bitter end, do they pick on the small companies. This is a classic bully tactic. Bullies are nothing but cowards and will only attack those who they know will not put up much of a fight.
Edited 2011-07-06 11:36 UTC
That’s the sad part: Microsoft HAS a product. A good, innovative, and truly original product, even: Windows Phone 7.
granted, though it doesn’t work for me, I will agree they have a product. They just aren’t acting like it.
BTW, what the hell is up with the three levels of threading? I had to click like two “see more” links to get to your post.
They forgot how to compete…
I agree. I didn’t say I agreed with what MS is doing. I said what they are doing is legal and good for their shareholders.
Patents and whatnot are choking out small business, and should be abolished.
Business is pretty messed up. There was an article that stated that most people successful in business exhibit traits of sociopaths, which explains quite a bit.
Is that a Sex Pistols reference?
Yes ^_^
An “organization” like Anonymous will get action going alright, into more pervasive IP laws to protect corporate interests. I’m very much afraid the only way to “fix” it is to let it deteriorate to the point the suits themselves start begging for reform. That or somehow convince people en masse to stop consuming the crap shoveled at us.
That was your tongue?
It doesn’t read “tongue-in-cheek” at all, it reads pissed off.
Gambling is legal too in many juisdictions, but people still get ripped off.
It is perfectly legitimate for people to complain against gambling, and try to get it banned, because it harms people. One could argue that this is the only humanitarian, moral thing to do.
Just because they system allows big business to rip people off is no reason why people should not complain about it and try to get it (example gambling) made illegal, or at least heavily constrained so that people are not harmed, as it should be.
Quite a good parallel exists with software patents.
Nobody forced them to gamble … they didn’t get ripped off … most Casinos even explain the odds of you winning at any particular game … if they still continue … knowing that the odds are stacked against you … that is their fault.
If you are talking about the problems of addiction they are too complex to talk here … but …
Many things in life one can get addicted to and it can be harmful … Food, Alcohol, Sex, Drugs etc etc … should we ban them all?
Every adult is responsible for theirselves … Children should be protected from these things … but adults make their own choices … and everyone has a choice how much they want to indulge in these things, if at all.
No-one is forcing anyone to go into a casino, bookmakers or sit at a fruitmachine … much like nobody forces an alcoholic to go to the off-license.
Nobody is ripping anyone off.
No it doesn’t.
Edited 2011-07-06 00:23 UTC
Most people have a regretably limited understanding of mathematics. Even some people who are reasonably good at arithmentic are still susceptible to the illusion that they might win at gambling. I am still amazed that people can walk in to a magnificent, opulent, extravagant casino and be impressed, somehow utterly missing the fact that it is gambler’s money that pays for the extravagence. “Voluntary taxation” is how I like to think about it.
But anyway … people can, and do, complain about gambling, even though as I pointed out, it is legal in many jurisdictions. This is the main point to take away … one should not moan and complain that some people campaign against legal gambling, because there is good reason for those complaints, and many people are demonstrably harmed from the gambling industry.
The parallels with software patents are pretty clear. There is an alternative software industry called FOSS that pays programmers, produces innovative world-class software and reduces costs for everyone. The potential economic benefit to the entire economony is absolutely enormous. Software patents could kill this golden goose … yet there are people still who somehow champion software patents. That is rather like barracking for the casino bosses and saying “ha ha” to the gamblers who suicide …
In order to counter the argument that software patents are an economic burden rather than an economic boon (as some people like to pretend), you must read, understand and make intelligent comment on these topics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss
Until you demonstrate a point against these concepts, you have NOT established any case for software patents.
Edited 2011-07-06 00:51 UTC
I am not arguing about software patents … I just can’t believe you somehow connected addiction to software patents …
It is called an “idiot tax” … those less able to see the scam for what it is end up spending more … 90%+ of all business is done on this basis.
And lots of people are harmed and stressed out everyday by things like their job, family, spouses etc … You point is what … at the end of the day it is still upto an individual to look after themselves once they are an adult and are mentally and physically able.
There are no parallels.
For big businesses it does, they have the resouces to develop and support open source. Those who are smaller especially small teams have nothing to gain from open source … if they open source their tech … their largest competitor can take the application and support it … the smaller company loses out almost immediately.
As for Software patents … say If I am a sole developer and I develop an application and it is closed source … how do I protect my the main selling point (assuming it is good) of say google or microsoft just taking the idea and creating their own … they have many times the magnitude of resource???
No it isn’t … you compairing suicide to a business asking for money that they are legally entitled to isn’t directly comparable … this is batshit insane to make that connection … I honestly wonder whether you live in the real world at all.
One is tragic … the other one is business … other than the handing over of some cash money there is no loss in human life … do you actually think before you write this drivel?
I have already addressed an example where software patents might actually be beneficial above.
HoweverI wasn’t arguing for or against software patents … I was actually arguing that you cannot compare various social problems like addiction to software patents …
Not this tired old argument again…. Name me one piece of “innovative world-class” software that has come out of FOSS. The vast majority of FOSS are clones of commercial products… And often rather poor clones with little documentation at that.
The UNIX companies that no longer exist, and the UNIX programmers that lost their jobs because commercial UNIX could no longer compete against a free alternative might beg to disagree with you about the benefits of FOSS to the economy… At least to their economy… Just sayin’…
I hope you realize that the vast majority of proprietary software are clones of previous software
Though, thankfully, a lot of “clones” bring some features that the original did not.
At least, as it is libre/free software, you can improve the documentation and so collaborate, and we all benefit.
Often, proprietary software has the same problems of documentation and so, see
http://www.tucows.com/downloads?hp=A2
(a lot of programs).
The key is using the better programs, not most of the ones you often find.
One key to improve the economy is to have jobs that are really useful, if one worker has done something, like inventing the wheel, other worker must not reinvent it, this is the about the idea of really useful jobs, and put resources into more useful places
“Name me one piece of “innovative world-class” software that has come out of FOSS.”
Apache seems like a pretty popular open source bit of software though perhaps not the first html server.
OpenSSH is pretty nice stuff but again, there may be a ClosedSSH that came before it?
PHP seems like a popular programming language. Not sure what we can claim for innovation but it seems pretty popular.
Truecrypt is the definitive full drive encryption at this time and also happens to be developed under an open source license.
Perhaps the TCP stack Microsoft took from BSD? That may be too esoteric.
Metasploit. It is indeed innovative (before it, no framework for developing and using exploit code existed).
Firfox, if not now, was an innovative browser in the beginning.. and also developed under open source licenses.
Given that sharing source code and developing colaboratively goes all the way back to the model train nerds at MIT open source actually provided the first real innovations in the computer industry. computer based generation and manipulation of music. the first graphic video game; use of atual star charts; simulation of environmental affects like gravity.
Sure, not everything developed under open or closed licenses are innovative but to discount any software written under a specific development model as uninovative just because of the development model? seems like you may be trying to counter-balance lemur’s opinion with an equally extreme opinion?
I think the analogy is backwards.
What we’re talking about a prohibition on the use of ideas. Once something is prohibited, only the criminals and the corrupt benefited, and that is what we are seeing with software patents. The big businesses form cartels to collect money for the right use ideas, and they use fear and implied litigation to keep competitors off of their turf. All of this is fueled by a prohibition on the use of ideas. Take away the prohibition, and you take away the tools the cartels use to hold on to their market share.
You can’t legislate human nature, but you can tax it and make a mint off of that golden goose. Legalizing gambling takes it out of shady backrooms where the proprietors know the law is on their side, and puts it into crappy casios which pay taxes.
Complaining about something, and advocating illegal action against something, are two different things.
Civil disobedience has been always identified as illegal. Specially in fictitious democracies, like US.
Anonymous isn’t civil disobedience. Anonymous is something else entirely
Anonymous operations are the tea parties of the 21st century….
Do you know what always amazed me?
That an “authority” that finds its basis in treason and rebellion (read: US GOVT) then includes in its own laws a proibition on treason. It always seemed to me to be the ultimate expression of hypocricy. Goose…. gander? Pot … kettle? Why was it OK in 1776 but wrong in 1976?
More in line with your comments… I never understood those who express the belief that the only way to fight scumbags is by following the rules. The rules, by the way, that created the conditions by which the scumbaggery was able to flourish. They make statements like “Well, then, you’e no better than them.”
For once and all, allow me to call BULLSH*T on this!!! The diffence is that, left to one’s own devices, would one take said actions merely to benefit oneself? Retalition and equalization is NOT the same as an original, unprovoked action. There is no moral parity.
My 2 cents…
Android, properly supported by apps will be advantageous to WP7 anyway. MS can continue to use bully practice, but it might turn against them in future.
If they’re operating within their rights according to the law, then they’re most definitely not criminal.
Maybe what they’re doing is technically ‘immoral’, and maybe it isn’t. But the fact is that these giant corporations have been suing each other on a regular basis for as long as I have been following tech news, and no amount of bitching on blogs like this has changed a goddamn thing.
Therefore, please stop writing about these patent lawsuits. The only thing you’re doing by proclaiming from the rooftops that ‘software patents are wrong/broken’ is preaching to the choir, and I can’t imagine that even the choir hasn’t gotten sick of this rhetoric.
Not saying I agree, and not saying I disagree either. Point is, I’m not the one getting sued, so I don’t give a shit. If company x being sued because of patent y means that I have to pay an additional $2 for product z, I’m not going to lose sleep over it.
Enough is enough already.
You are not familiar with supply chain finances, are you?
That $2 on a product will be inflated to $20 with no problems. A few % here and a few % there…
And no, if you lower your guard you’ll end up with the same software patent laws as US. One of my acquaintances an EU “lobbyist” and an IP lawyer said that the big companies that were pushing software patents on EU are just playing the waiting game at the moment. Waiting for exactly the “Enough is enough already.”
In my experience there is no such thing as “technically” immoral. A thing is either immoral or not.
Yes, this is my point. Microsoft are just doing what any other company would do. Anyone who disagrees would never cut it in business.
It’s a little unfair to criminalize MS as Thom’s post does. And invoking a criminal organization like anonymous to attack them is rather unfortunate.
Edited 2011-07-05 22:55 UTC
Since we’re being hung-up on technicalities… Nobodoy of or within Anonymous has been found guilty of anything. So, they are not criminal.
See? This goes both ways
.
Just because no one within an organization has been found guilty, doesn’t mean that the organization itself isn’t criminal.
We all know very well from recent history, that sometimes the whole state and its laws can be declared a criminal and those violating the could become heroes. Also it was clearly stated that obeying evil laws does not free a person from a liability.
Don’t be a douche.
Oh I consider it criminal. To make money off someone else’s success with threats. Meet the modern day “mob” where the neighborhood bullies are now the patent holding conglomerations.
Another nail in the coffin of US innovation and economic leadership.
Social disobedience is not a crime.
Here’s the deal.
Lodsys are using the patent system to the max.
Microsoft is abusing the patent system globally.
If you buy an Android device from HTC(Taiwan registered company, products manufactured in China) in any country that does not have software patents you will still be paying indirectly to Microsoft for the patent license. That would be OK with me if HTC were a US based company or the device was shipped via US, or you made the purchase in US.
But current situation, where I pay for a patent license that is not valid in my country is enforcing US patent laws outside of US borders.
The scumbags at Lodsys are not asking for that. The lower than scumbags at Microsoft are asking for that!!!
Are you against patents in general? Can’t basically any patentable idea be reduced to math? You say that it’s illegal to patent math, but what about the patents on RSA (for example)?
I agree with the people saying that it’s bogus to take an existing idea with lots of prior art, rephrase it to use computers, and apply for a patent. However I’m not completely convinced that denying someone a chance to recoup their investment in a new technology is a good way to encourage progress in a field.
I totally agree … this is the most sane comment I heard about software patents on this site.
Indeed, I’d mod his post up but the site doesn’t let you…
Patents of mathematical algorithms, and I’ll add “use cases” are very damaging. A big part of innovation is also bringing something to market, not just *think* of the idea.
Except I’m not going to spend the money to *think* of the idea if I know someone else can just come along and steal it from me. Instead, I’m gonna sit back, let you spend the money to think of the idea, and then steal it from you, copy it, and undercut your prices on a competing product because my costs to develop it were lower since I let you do half the work. Do you think that’s fair? Because that is what happens if there is no patent protection.
Edited 2011-07-06 00:32 UTC
Funny, that sounds an awful lot like what Microsoft is doing. They didnt have the smarts enough to create a phone environment that anyone wanted. So that go after their competitor using litigation of probably baseless patents to extract income for work someone else created. We’re not talking about a company that invented a new type of fusion reactor. We are talking about patents that probably cover ideas with prior art, or are so trivial they won’t stand up to scrutiny. Microsoft knows this. Otherwise they would be very vocal about what patents they own that are being infringed. Instead they try to hide behind a vale of NDA’s. They are basically threatening to nuke you when all they really have is a lead pipe. If this is all that software patents are good for, that is even more reason for them to be abolished.
Ok, don’t. It’s your choice how you decide to make money, take risks etc.
Ideas are dime a dozen, implementation is king. If you can’t compete with implementation, do something else.
I can compete with implementation. And I can do it for cheaper than you can because I didn’t have to spend the money on R&D to come up with the idea.
Actually, I’d disagree with that. Coming up with an innovative idea and figuring out whether it is viable or not is probably the hardest part of software development these days. Most ideas fail. And failed ideas end up costing companies a lot of money. That’s why if there are no patents, I wait until another company comes up with a good idea that seems to be getting some traction, and then I pounce on it, copy it, and undercut their prices because my R&D costs were much lower.
the reality TODAY is that companies now purely exist to generate patents and sell their patent portfolio to the big guys to enable them to crush those innovative players who want to change the market.
The problem is that it costs lots of money to file, requires a lawyer to draft and file…more than 100k in our experience. Being a small business we can’t afford this, and in addition we don’t believe what we do should be patentable.
I’m amazed at the stupid stuff I’ve been seeing patented. The problem is that it costs $$ to defend if someone threatens you and that’s a death kiss for a small business who typically does about break even.
The big guys find it easy to file simply because the patent lawyers are on their retainer 100% of the time. So it’s done at no additional cost to them.
Small inventor will need to fork over at least $10’000 or ^a‘not10’000(EU patent office) to file a patent.
Real life example – Apple’s iOS touch algorithms.
So far nobody has been able to copy them. That is the reason Android has this reaction delay to input.
Apple may not have been granted a patent on it yet, but I couldn’t find if they even patented.
You seem to really hate all those mathematicians and physicists that come up and came up with most mathematics and physics behind all the innovation. Why aren’t you giving them any credit? Because they spend years and years in research labs, yet their work and their ideas are not patentable.
However a schmuck surfaces that has spent as little as 6 months on selecting the most obvious* mathematical formula, gets a patent on a “new” algorithm and rips the rewards of the years that mathematician spent proving his formula…
* – to a mathematician, not the schmuck
I already said it once and I’ll say it again – R&D costs do not reflect the effort required for R&D. Specially in software. R&D costs reflect how much a company poured into the development of the software.
Ideas are worthless… Ask any of the startup companies. There are thousands of people coming up with ideas and most of them have very similar ideas. Simply because the constraints and needs are very similar.
We already had this discussion with you.
Really?!?
You think that NO ONE will come up with ideas if there is no mafiaesque system of protection in place for their ideas? NO ONE will write ANY software? The entire free software movement seems to give the lie to this idea.
There is no “right” to profit from an endeavor. The question of patents (and of copyright for that matter) was predicated on the idea that society would benefit. Software patents don’t seem to meet this bargain. It seems that, if anything, software developers are crippled by patents because obvious and enivitable code solutions are artificially blocked by some prick that stood on line at the patent office first.
I will use myself as an example… I have a lot of ideas for software that I would LOVE to bring to market. Software patents and the threat that they represent have prevented me from taking the initiative. I don’t want to deal with the hassle. And yes, I am am more than willing to deal with “rip-offs” and free competitors rather than litigious asshats.
So many defenders of patents raise the irrelevent and erroneous point of an innovators “right” to profit. This was not part of the original discussion, and should not be entertained now. It has nothing to do with it.
How can this happen if, according to you, there is no incentive for anyone to think up ideas? Who will you steal the ideas from? We’ll all be busy picking pansies in a field… that is unless someone patents that idea.
Except firms are forced to innovate when there is an absence of patents, like in the fashion industry. A design cannot be patented, so the fashion industry invests heavily in creativity.
Let’s not pretend some company could wave a magic wand and produce something like the iPhone without software patents. My Android phone tries, but it’s not on the same level. Software is an art form, and some people will never be masters.
,
The exact opposite is true. In the absence of patents, firms won’t innovate because they cannot protect their investment in innovation. Instead, they will sit back and wait for someone else to spend the money on innovation and then copy it. Only problem is that you end up with deadlock, because no one wants to spend the money to innovate. They want to take the “wait and see” approach instead, and then copy whatever good ideas come along.
A design cannot be patented? Tell that to Apple, who has successfully won multiple patent lawsuits based on design.
They do? Is that why there are so many cheap knockoffs of expensive fashion designs out there?
Android does a pretty good job at being an iPhone knockoff actually. Enough so that Apple is suing some Android phone manufacturers of course. If Apple’s track record on suing because of design copying is any indication, Apple will most likely win.
So you are implying what? That Google’s engineers and designers are not masters?
Bullshit.
Software patents were not granted before 1998. Are you seriously going to argue – with a straight face – that no innovation in softeare took place before 1998? You do realise the bulk of software technologies we use today are far older than 1998, right?
And your inability to have a conversation without resorting to foul language. You have serious temper problems Thom. Honestly you do. Encouraging illegal activity, foul mouthed, etc.
Now it’s my turn to call BS Thom. The first known example of a software patent was granted on August 17th, 1966 on a British patent application for “efficient memory management for the simplex algorithm, that could be implemented by purely software means”
The United States has granted software patents since at least 1972.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_p…
Have fun reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent
How about you have fun reading. Specifically, the section on the history of software patents. Even the article you linked to doesn’t support your claim. The year 1998 isn’t even mentioned in the article except as a publication date for one of the references. So what part of your ass did you pull that date out of? But that’s what I’ve come to expect from you. You twist, distort, rewrite, revise, and take history out of context to make it support your own views.
You never did answer the question either about whether you have ever written any commercial software. Or whether you have ever even written any software at all.
Edited 2011-07-06 14:25 UTC
Your retort to Wikipedia’s detailed recollection of the history of software patents is to post a summary of that article which basically states the same thing?
Whut?
Because it is a strawman. Just because I may or may not have developed software in no way invalidates my arguments – arguments, I might add, which are getting far more support in here than yours.
Again, the article you cited doesn’t even mention the year 1998 except as a publication date for one of the referenced articles. So what part of your ass did you pull the 1998 date out of?
Yeah it does. If you have never written software, it’s could reason to question whether you really have any idea what you are talking about on this subject, and whether your views are informed with anything that resembles the reality of software development.
Now that is definitely a logical fallacy. Just because a argument is popular and gets support does not mean it is correct. At one time, the argument that the Earth was the center of the solar system had a lot of support as well.
Right, so you read Wikipedia articles without actually reading the things they reference. Let me enlighten you:
“Finally, in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group,[12] the CAFC ruled that a numerical calculation that produces a “useful, concrete and tangible result”, such as a price, is patent-eligible.[13]”
Now, click on “State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group”. Bingo!
Piece of advice: you shouldn’t partake in a discussion if you’re unwilling to properly read the arguments people put forth. Just a tip!
I still don’t understand what you are arguing. There were thousands of software patents granted prior to that lawsuit. And there were lawsuits that upheld the validity of software parents prior to that lawsuit.
See Cottshalk vs. Benson in 1972. The U.S. Supreme Court, although ruling that the specific algorithm in question was not patentable, stated in its decision “it is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold.”
So in 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court specifically stated that its decision to invalidate that particular patent did NOT mean that all software parents were invalid.
Maybe you are the one that needs to take your own advice Thom. You still haven’t provided any evidence to suggest that software patents startd in 1998. You took some court case in 1998, and tried to state that it was the start of software patents. That’s a Non-sequitur argument.
There have clearly been software patents since long before 1998. And the Supreme Court of the United States clearly stated in 1972 that it was not ruling all software patents invalid just because it ruled the particular algorithm in Cottshalk vs. Benson was not patentable because it was based on prior art dating to the 19th century.
Edited 2011-07-06 14:51 UTC
Well, I have.
I still think software patents are garbage.
Now, how does the fact that I have written software make me more qualified to speak about this than Thom?
Edited 2011-07-06 14:38 UTC
Because it means you have hands-on experience with the process that goes into designing software. No one who has never actually designed and written software can claim they understand the issues involved with it. No amount of book knowledge or reading makes up for actual experience.
So what do you think of _txf_’s opinion then?
Btw, Thom, here’s a specific case example (there are earlier ones I am sure, but this is the one that comes to the top of my head because it was well known at the time) that proves your 1998 date is incorrect.
See Stac Electronics vs. Microsoft. In 1994, Stac Electronics successfully sued Microsoft claiming that the DoubleSpace compression technology that Microsoft added to DOS 6.0 violated software patents it held regarding disk compression. Stac also successfully recieved an injunction against Microsoft forcing them stop distributing DoubleSpace while Microsoft was appealing. Thus, DoubleSpace was removed from DOS.
Ultimately the case was settled out of court with Microsoft agreeing to make a $40 million investment in Stac, as well as pay $43 million in royalties for use of the patents.
That case proves beyond any doubt, that your 1998 date is incorrect. Just off the top of my head (and again, I’m sure there are earlier examples), legal precedence validating software patents goes back to at least 1994.
Just read this, will you? It will explain everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_p…
The gist: the USPTO was not conducive to software patents, and resisted them. The CAFC sometimes reversed USPTO decisions, leading to a sort of struggle between the two when it came to software patents. The Supreme Court tended to side with the USPTO, but this changed in the course of the ’90s. The USPTO then decided to throw in the towel – as it was said back then.
Coincidentally, the USPTO decided to throw in the towel right around Clinton appointed the former chief lobbyist for the Software Publishing Industry as the Commissioner of the USPTO. Funny, huh?
I did read it. You are reading something into it that isn’t there. You also conveniently ignored the giant flag at the top of that article that says “The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.”
The following facts are abundantly clear:
1. The U.S. Supreme Court specifically stated in 1972 in Gottschalk v. Benson that it was NOT ruling all software patents to be invalid just because it ruled that particular one to be invalid since it was based on prior art from the 19th century.
2. Stak Electronics vs. Microsoft proves your 1998 date is wrong.
Your 1998 date is wrong Thom. It simply is. And at this point, you are only digging yourself a deeper hole trying to defend your factually incorrect statement because you don’t want to simply admit that you were wrong.
Edited 2011-07-06 15:30 UTC
The 1998 is NOT wrong. The 1998 date is the date when it was established, beyond a doubt, that software was patentable. Before that, it was questionable, with the USPTO actively resisting software patents. It’s RIGHT THERE in the article for EVERYONE to read. Plain as day.
After the mid-’90s, software patents became generally accepted. Currently, courts are backpedaling on this.
http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html
“1960s-70s: No Protection if Invention Used a Calculation Made by a Computer;
1980s: The Supreme Court Says Some Computerized Inventions are Patentable;
1990s: The Federal Circuit Says Almost All Software is Patentable.
2000s: Courts Start Pulling Back.”
As you can see, software patents did not became undisputed until the ’90s.
Yes, Thom it is wrong. Plain and simple. Again, The Supreme Court specifically stated in 1972 that it was ruling on one specific patent. NOT on the validity of software patents in general And Stak Electronics won a patent lawsuit against Microsoft in 1994.
You are quoting from a Wikipedia article that is flagged as factually disputed specifically because it is trying to state software patents didn’t appear until much later than they actually did.
You are assigning far more importance to this lawsuit than it deserves, and it’s a FUD tactic. State Bank argued that it was not patentable because it was math. It was a desperate argument that had almost no chance of working because the courts had already upheld software algorithm patents in the past.
It was not the first time a software patent was upheld in court. End of story. Therefore, the 1998 date is WRONG. You are arguing this Ad nauseam now just because you don’t want to admit that your 1998 date is clearly wrong. The Wikipedia article you are so tightly clinging to in order to support that date is even flagged as factually disputed because there are earlier examples of software patents that were successfully upheld in court.
Edited 2011-07-06 15:53 UTC
You are ignoring the other article which clearly comes to the same conclusion as I do. Funny.
I’m not ignoring anything. I’m simply stating facts. Software patents have existed, and been upheld, since long before 1998. Here is your exact quote:
That claim is 100% false. And I have proven that beyond any doubt. Software patents have been granted since the 1960s, and have been upheld in court since long before 1998.
I am starting to think you are abusing your admin powers though to mod my comments down. After all, everyone who is interested in this topic has no doubt already commented on it, and therefore should not be able to mod anymore.
The USPTO indeed did not grant software patents until the mid-’90s, except when forced to do so by the courts, which doesn’t count.
Let me quote the relevant bit for you:
“The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office historically has been reluctant to grant patents on inventions relating to computer software. In the 1960s, the P.T.O. avoided granting any patent if the invention utilized a calculation made by a computer. In 1968, the Office created formal guidelines for computer related inventions to formalize this reluctance. These guidelines stated that a computer program, whether claimed as an apparatus or as a process, was unpatentable. Under these guidelines, an invention relating to a programmed computer could be patentable only if the computer were combined with other, nonobvious elements to produce a physical result. The P.T.O. viewed computer programs and inventions containing or relating to computer programs as unpatentable mental steps, and not patentable processes or machines. As such, software related inventions were considered by the P.T.O. at that time to be non-statutory.”
http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html
I have modpoints like everybody else, and yes, I am allowed to dispense points like everybody else. I do not abuse the mod system, however.
That’s called back peddling Thom. And it’s not even accurate back peddling. The court did not force the USPTO to grant Stac’s patent on disk compression technology. And that happened before 1998.
The first known U.S. court case that set legal precedence that software was patentable occurred in 1981 in Satya Pal Asija v. USPTO. That is the first known granted software patent in the United States (although again, Software patents had been granted in Britain as far back as the 1960s).
So again, your claim that “software parents were not granted until 1998” is simply wrong.
Now let me intervene.
Have you ever filed a patent application? EPO or USPTO? Have you been working with patents? Is your education in IP law or did your education include IP law as part of the studies? How many IP lawyers have you actually had the very same discussion with?
My education included 2 years of IP law (mandatory for Informatics education), with 1 year of international IP law included.
I work with patents periodically. Patents that are filed with USPTO and EPO. Starting 2006 I’ve been on one of the patent application review committees at my workplace. I know what gets into my hands and what ends up filed.
I’m a software developer and currently an IT Consultant.
So unless you are actually a patent lawyer, I will tell you that you know absolutely nothing and your arguments are uninformed.
Yes. I have filed a patent application with the USPTO. And I have also worked to get an IBM patent invalidated based on prior art. No, I don’t file patent applications on a regular basis.
Actually, that’s part of the reason the patent system as it currently exists is broken (and that applies to all patents. Not just software patents). Because we let lawyers who don’t understand technology or engineering make the decisions about what is patentable and what is not. The system would work better if we had a technocracy form of government and put technocrats in charge of running the patent office instead of lawyers.
In other words you’re not a lawyer but you play one on TV.
Give me a break.
When you sense bullshit, you say bullshit.
FYI: EPC has explicitly excluded software from being patented as of 1973.
EDIT: Something your side is battling to overturn to this very day. How’s life on the side of Lodsys these days?
Edited 2011-07-06 16:41 UTC
Except it was Thom’s claim that software patents were not granted until 1998 that was BS. And I pointed out multiple examples that prove his statement was wrong.
That’s not entirely true. Computer programs as a whole are not patentable. But software patents, although harder to get under the EPC, are in fact, sometimes allowed.
Also, it should be noted that the EPC has no legal enforcement authority. And the EPC interpretation and enforcement is basically left up to individual countries that are involved in it.
Cute. And again, an example of how those who are opposed to software patents see everything in black and white. Just because I don’t think software patents should be completely done away with does not mean I think there aren’t stupid software patents out there that should be invalid, or that there aren’t abuses of the patent system. But that’s not unique to software. Many things have been patented, both hardware and software, that fail to pass the “non-trivial and non-obvious” test.
Edited 2011-07-06 17:29 UTC
It’s still not software patents. EPO does sometimes grant overly wide patents, where
But it only shows what happens when you have a powerful organisation to get funds via the number of operations they make.
And in reality, courts of participating countries have applied the wording of the EPC software patentability rule based on local laws and freedoms judges get(common vs civil legal systems). I know quite a few cases where judges were strict and UK/IE judges were lax. But then again, EPC was designed to be a convention to share patents, not enforcement rules.
This is an easy argument to kill.
Typically big companies are big companies because they are successful in the current market. It is not in their interest for the market to change because they can continue to make money without investing R&D and marketing.
New ideas threaten the big companies because they change the market dynamic. Big companies have choices. Either try to freeze the market, or themselves innovate to meet the threat. The current US patent system has made it extremely easy to go for option 1 (freeze the market).
I don’t know about you, but a lot of very smart people I know hate working for big companies and prefer working for smaller innovative ones. In the case where a large company has decided to freeze the market mostly the employees that could enable the innovation have left for greener pastures. That opens up a pretty huge window where the big freeze company is vulnerable.
There are always be idealist dreamers, who will try to build a better rocket.
The software industry already does this. MS is notorious for waiting for a market to emerge and jumping in forcing out the originating companies. Apple repackages loads of software and spins it as new.
The companies who spend money on R&D are the ones that survive. What you’re forgetting is the expertise gained by R&D puts them miles ahead of the clones. There are nuances to everything that are only gained by disciplined study, and skipping those nuances results in sub-par products. Take Chinese cars for instance. They basically cloned some western cars, and the cars ended up with the safety of an aluminum can. They thought there wasn’t much to building a car, but they were wrong.
People will pay for the expertise, especially when there is millions of dollars at stake.
There are tons of cheap knock offs because people want to look like they have money, and a design can’t be patented.
Once again, the knockoffs miss the nuances. They use cheaper fabric, or they change the cut. For instance, Coach leather is really nice, but knockoff leather is not, if it’s leather at all.
The fashion industry releases new designs two or three times a year to keep ahead of the cloners.
Android does a good job in a traced, paint-by-numbers way.
I’m talking fit and finish. Basically Google took an iPhone, created a check list, and built Android from that check list. You can tell. The stability isn’t there, but the bling is, and there are somethings which don’t make sense.
I thought it was pretty clear what I was implying. Some people will try to be artists, but they will fail to expand beyond their influences creating anonymous artwork with fills empty space on walls. Some people will copy other artists stroke for stroke, and other people will create velvet Elvises.
Not everyone is a Picasso, Dali, Bosch, or Da Vinci. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try to be; it just means they may not get there.
I don’t see anyone at Google building a Fallingwater; I see them out building Quonset huts.
(Fallingwater is a home by Frank Lloyd Wright. http://www.fallingwater.org/)
Software has copyright.
Hardware has patents.
When a hardware patent is applied for a schematic. A very specific schematic is provided. Bonus of that is that it’s possible to create another non-infringing product that relies on the same physics principles. With software and business process patents it’s basically impossible.
The more a software patent is specific, the more it’s obvious that it’s plain mathematics. That is why software patents end up incomprehensible broad texts.
That’s not always true. Hardware patents can as big of a hornet’s nest as software patents when non-legit patents are granted. See IBM v. Sun Microsystems. IBM nearly put Sun out of business because of a bogus hardware patent on RISC processor technology that was so generic it basically said “If you make it simpler, it will go faster”.
What can I say… Another blow to USPTO and if you read the actual patent you’ll understand what kind of lawyers “my company” employs. Literally master wordsmiths….
(Yes, I do work for that company)
Thom can I ask a question? Have you ever written any commercial software? It’s just to me it seems you don’t quite understand why software requires patent protection even more so than copyright. However, in your defense, it really is a concept that will probably only be understood by someone who’s ever coded anything significant.
Nice underhanded insult.
Sofware doesn’t need patent protection just like the news industry doesn’t need it. Can you imagine if The New York times patented a news story, so that others wouldn’t be allowed to report on it from their own angles? Because THAT is what the software world currently looks like.
Software is protected by copyright, and that’s enough protection. Software patents are harming the industry, and holding back innovation. They are a huge burden on the US justice system, and cost consumers loads ofmp money every year.
Way to avoid the question Thom. Can we assume the fact that you didn’t answer it means that you have never written any commercial software? I’ll make the question even more broad. Have you ever written any software? Your analogy to software not needing patents for the same reason the news industry doesn’t need it is laughingly ridiculous, and could only come from the mind of someone who doesn’t understand software development.
Wow, talk about having a huge chip on your shoulder.
It wasn’t intended as an insult but the fact that you took it as one, and still didn’t answer the question while obviously voting the comment down, should tell many of the readers here a story.
The reason its not obvious to anyone who hasn’t written anything significant is that there are many ways to achieve the same or similar end result in software and hardware for that matter, so it’s quite reasonable to expect that someone can copy a concept (patent) without ever infringing on copyright.
News just happens, software doesn’t, so your example of news tells me that you have no concept of what is involved in developing then coding a software concept, and therefore the R&D that goes into large projects. Again, not designed as an insult, just the truth, but take it as you will.
How about books? Books don’t just happen? What about if I wrote a book with the concept of..I don’t know.. a love story and patented that concept? What about patent on a book about space wars? No one would be able to write a love story without the threat of facing my lawyers. Likewise a story about wars in space. get it. If I write software that moves .mp3 files from my downloads folder to my music folder I should’t be able to patent that and stop others from writing better implementations/methods of that concept. Patent novel inventions not software. Software is already protected by copyright.
so it’s quite reasonable to expect that someone can copy a concept (patent) without ever infringing on copyright.
Yes. And that is how it should be. Patents are there in the first place to get the inventor to divulge his secrets to society, so that society as a whole may benefit. It’s not that patents are around to give out state granted monopolies with a “right to profit”. Yes, society gives you a limited time in which they accept the trade off of not having healthy competition in exchange for something valuable, namely the secrets to your specific implementation of an idea.
Second, patents by definition should be about the specific implementation, not the underlying idea. If all conceivable derivatives/implementations of an idea are blocked for 20 years, this just does immense harm to society, which foots the bill for making another fat cat, who will most of the time sit on his/her hiney printing money with the state granted, overly broad monopoly. This concept of harm to society as a whole has unfortunately been lost in countries with software patents, which are more and more falling (failing?) into the idea patent category. (I’m not against wealth, but Deity Damnit, work hard for it, just like everybody else. No legal shenanigans and gaming of the system to get there.)
While the question wasn’t posed to me and some people will not be willing to accept my little, nifty programs for Office automation as something significant, I’ll answer it anyways. I don’t consider my brainfarts something that needs patent protection. Basically any monkey with half a brain and some logic abilities could do what I do. I also accept that there are a lot of people, equally as bright as me, who can’t do what I do. That doesn’t make my programs something special. The value of the program isn’t in the programming behind it, what counts is the output.
If an idea is SO SIMPLE that anyone with a programming language and a compiler/interpreter can take notice of it and through sheer gruntwork and time can independently crank out a competing implementation, there wasn’t much to protect to begin with. Brains are a dime a dozen and ideas are even cheaper. Don’t overvalue the product, just because it took a lot of time to put together. With software,once done, the marginal costs sinks to near zero anyways.
+1
A person that knows why patents have been created in the first place. To combat guilds from keeping trade secrets…
Just why are patents on math bad? (notice, I said math, not just software) Math can be implemented both in hardware or software. Here’s why (I am referring you to an earlier comment I made):
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?413284
Advances will still happen without patents on math just like they happened before. Only difference is that you won’t be making them, universities and research institutions, supported by gov funds, will.
Math is “discovered”, not “invented”. Patents are awarded for “new methods”, not “new discoveries”.
Discoveries belong to everyone … like the oxygen in the atmosphere.
I^aEURTMve written a lot of commercial software and still do not understand the idea of software patents. Do I have to search USPTO patent library any time I^aEURTMm going to implement an algorithm or UI element and then pay for it?
If so, then it^aEURTMs probably time to quit programming, because we are inventing bicycles every day.
If I’m designing a new gadget to do anything specific do I have to search USPTO patent library to make sure I’m not infringing on someone’s patent? Of course, so why should it be any different for software?
And by the same token should a company who is buying components from another company who already has a patent license to produce that hardware have to pay another license for the use of that same patent? Why is that not double-dipping?
You should, but then your company would be wilfully infringing on a patent. In this case, ignorance is a valid defense.
I take issue with the notion that software ideas/methods are nothing more than “math”. Maybe the precise implementation of an idea/method is “math” (which I also question), in that the implementation is a sequence of 0s and 1s. But, as you said, the precise implementation is a copyright issue, not a patent issue.
As far as inventions of software ideas go, they aren’t “math”. And if the argument is that any idea or algorithm that can be described (note the word “described” rather than “implemented”) as 0’s and 1’s is “math”, then all ideas are math. All ideas can be described with natural language words and diagrams (at least, in order to be patentable at all), and those words and diagrams can be represented as a sequence of 0s and 1s, so all ideas can be represented as “math”, whether those ideas describe digital things or tangible things made of atoms.
My stance on software patents (and any other kind of patent, for that matter) has always been that I have no problem with them as long as the patent holder offers licences to others to use the ideas covered by the patent for a reasonable fee. I don’t approve of patent holders using their patents to block competing products from the market altogether, and I don’t approve of patent holders asking for outrageous fees, and I don’t approve of patent holders sitting on their patents and allowing some product that infringes on the patent to become huge in the marketplace and only THEN demanding that the product maker license the patent at extortion prices. Additionally, I’d reform patent law to say that if a patent holder doesn’t make a good faith effort to produce and market a product that uses the patented tech in question, then the duration of the patent is cut in half.
Bottom line: if someone spends millions of dollars developing something then someone else simply copies it and sells it at a lower price or gives it away, then the original inventor deserves some compensation.
——————–
Now to delve more into philosophy or metaphysics:
You assert “patenting math is criminal”. As I said, I don’t buy the idea that software ideas are “math”, but even if I did, patenting such is clearly not “criminal”, according to law.
And besides that, you provide nothing to back up or explain your assertion as to why it would be criminal or even wrong.
Let’s move away from software ideas and methods, and let’s take your assertion literally. Let’s say some company did invent a new “math” (like Isaac Newton invented calculus, because the math at the time was insufficient for his purposes in dealing with physics). Let’s say it took billions of dollars of research to invent (or even “discover”, if that’s the word you want to use) this new math, but once it was invented, that new math allowed the company to create breakthroughs in energy, artificial intelligence, medicine, and whatnot, and they created products that took advantage of those advancements and made healthy profits in the process. Is it really wrong to patent the math for a number of years, during which they could license the math to others for a reasonable fee? Or should others that did nothing be allowed to simply copy the new math and create competing products that undercut the company that spent billions of dollars to invent (or “discover”) the new math in the first place? I don’t see how allowing the inventor to license the math for a fee is wrong in any way.
As I said before, I wouldn’t approve of the inventor blocking other company’s products by refusing to liecense the patent. And I’d want the patent to expire after a number of years. But as long as the inventor is offering the patent for licensing by others (and doing so in good faith (i.e. not asking an impossible price)), then it’s fine with me. More than fine, actually, it’s GOOD.
You are arguing against the wrong concept.
A CPU (which runs the software) comprises and ALU (arithmetic and logic unit) and control circuits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_logic_unit
“In computing, an arithmetic logic unit (ALU) is a digital circuit that performs arithmetic and logical operations. The ALU is a fundamental building block of the central processing unit (CPU) of a computer”
All an ALU can do is math (since Boolean logic is also math). The ALU, and hence the CPU, can do nothing else. Thats it … that is all a general purpose computer can do. Math. Therefore, software is math.
There is a branch of computer science (which itself is a sub-branch of mathematics) which is all about this precise matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability
“Computability is the ability to solve a problem in an effective manner. It is a key topic of the field of computability theory within mathematical logic and the theory of computation within computer science. The computability of a problem is closely linked to the existence of an algorithm to solve the problem.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory
“Computability theory, also called recursion theory, is a branch of mathematical logic that originated in the 1930s with the study of computable functions and Turing degrees. The field has grown to include the study of generalized computability and definability. In these areas, recursion theory overlaps with proof theory and effective descriptive set theory.
The basic questions addressed by recursion theory are “What does it mean for a function from the natural numbers to themselves to be computable?” and “How can noncomputable functions be classified into a hierarchy based on their level of noncomputability?”. The answers to these questions have led to a rich theory that is still being actively researched.”
Computability theory is the branch of mathematics that works out if a given function/problem/invention can, or cannot, be implemented in software.
Ergo, software is mathematics.
More here:
http://perlstalker.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-software-is-not-patenta…
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110426051819346
“This article provides a detailed factual explanation of why software is mathematics, complete with the references in mathematical and computer science literature.”
It seems the software experts and the mathematicians disagree with you, Molly.
Fox spent millions making (developing) the movie “Avatar”. If “someone else simply copies it and sells it at a lower price or gives it away” then indeed, Fox do deserve some compensation. Absolutely, no question. This is, however, covered by copyright law, not patent law.
There is no reason why someone else shouldn’t make another movie about an uprising of nine-foot blue aliens, however. They are perfectly entitled to do so, as long as they do their own work.
This is the reason why no-one takes any notice of things like this:
http://www.slashfilm.com/is-james-camerons-avatar-actually-an-uncre…
http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/01/05/pocahontas-avatar/
There is no doubt that the movie Avatar is an original work, even if parts of the story line are very reminiscent of older works. Copyright does not cover ideas, it covers literal copies.
Edited 2011-07-06 05:45 UTC
There are essentially two huge problems with this argument.
The first objection is that every other field allows a different implementation of an “invention” that achieves some desired end. Take for example “headache tablets”. The fact that one company invents, and then patents, the formula for paracetemol, shouldn’t disbar another company from inventing ibuprofen. This is especially the case when you consider that both of these headache tablet formulae were pre-dated by aspirin. New implementations of an idea are NOT prevented by patents, as patents do not cover ideas, they cover “methods”. Invetion of a new method is most definitely allowed under patent law, even if it does implement the same desired end function.
The second objection is more simple … software patents are not being used in the manner you describe. Microsoft did not invent Android, nor did they write any of the code. There is a vast quantity of prior art in mobile phones, smartphones and Java language subsets on mobile phones via which to implement “apps”. Where do Microsoft get off claiming that they “invented” any part of Android?
Do you have some knowledge the rest of us do not of what it is Microsft is claiming or are you just pulling a Holwerda and alleging some bullshit in order to justify your commentary? Do you have copies of demand letters made by Microsoft on Wistron Corp? Can you give us a link so we can read them and decide for ourselves?
Because as far as I can tell, a manufacturer looking at putting a product using software components it did not create into the marketplace using Android saw some legal risk and sought indemnification. NEWSFLASH: Google offers, none, zero, nada, and that should tell you exactly how much Google legal really believes Android is unencumbered.
What a company’s evangelists and PR hacks say is alot different than the actions taken by that corporation as a legal entity. If Google really believed as you do that Android sprang from the wells of creativity untapped and unencumbered by any legal entanglement then it would offer indemnification to the manufacturers. The don’t and they most likely never will.
Microsoft/Wistron have formed a business arrangement. It is neither extortion nor criminal no matter what kind FUD bullshit the author of thread would like to color it with (his personal adolescent view of US law and the world notwithstanding). It’s the same calculus that HTC used and boy, that sure has really screwd up their Android product lines hasn’t it? It’s really hard to believe how they even sell a single device given that consumers everywhere must cringe knowing they are paying extortion money isn’t it?
Whatever.
Is it just me or is OSAlert quickly sliding into the toilet bowl of tech erudition that is /.
And that’s the problem, isn’t it? Microsoft is unwilling to divulge which patents Linux is supposedly infringing, or which patents these Android vendors are infringing. This means that nobody can start developing workarounds – which, of course, is exactly what Microsoft wants. The secrecy ensures nobody knows how to avoid these patents, and it means the public at large can’t try and help in invalidating these patents.
So, we’d love to have this knowledge you speak of… But Microsoft is too afraid to let the world know which patents it is using in its extortion campaign. If their patent claims really were as strong as some here say they are… Why is Microsoft being so secretive? I mean, they shouldn’t have to be afraid of scrutiny, right?
Ah yes, the universal ‘zOMG a viewpoint differs from mine site Xyz is going down the drain!1!!”.
Again, more smoke and mirrors conspiracy being used to justify what is basically FUD. If it was as clear as you want to pretend it is in your world, then no corporate entity with proper legal advice would be doing business with / seeking indemnfication from Microsoft in this respect because they in turn would be guilty of stealing from shareholders.
So, this is the actual reality we live in. If Microsoft in this day and age were extorting cash payments from small companies, documents would have already leaked demonstrating that fact, no?
And let’s check out your viewpoint and the language you chose to utilize to describe this news:
Extortion, target, crap, criminal, underhand(sic)ed mafia tactics, sickening. Oh and a reference to an internet bully as if bullying online is somehow acceptable.
It’s adolescent, fanboi language. You can’t justify a single thing you wrote. And my criticism absolutely has nothing to do with your “viewpoint” differing from mine because in all honesty you have nothing that anyone would recognize as a rational viewpoint in this matter with which I would care to discuss. It’s just gruber-esque drivel.
Everyone in the smartphone industry is suing everyone else because there has been no real innovations in years and there are billions to fight over. Attempting to cast it in terms of heroes and villians is pandering.
Edited 2011-07-06 09:12 UTC
It also means that Microsoft can’t sue. If they want to sue for patent infringement, obviously they will have to divulge which patents they think are being infringed.
Well again, if Microsoft refuses to divulge which patents it thinks are being violated, it means they can’t take legal action.
Does it matter? Again, if Microsoft wants to maintain the secrecy, they can’t take legal action. Doing so would require divulging which patents it thinks are being infringed. So as long as Microsoft wants to play the game this way, no action needs to be taken for either avoiding the patents, or trying to invalidate them.
I think it’s more your utterly black and white view on issues Thom. And the fact that you write like a reporter from Fox news. Your articles are heavily biased towards one side. And when someone (like me) submits an article with an alternative view point, you quash it and don’t publish it because it doesn’t agree with your views.
How hard is it to understand that Microsoft did not write even one line of Android software?
There is no Microsoft effort that has gone into the making of Android. None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Zip. Diddly squat.
No programming effort that Microsoft has paid for has been “stolen” by Android.
Microsoft are claiming, without any proof, ownership rights over some of the mathematics concepts that Android uses. Microsoft is reportedly charging more for this tenuous claim of ownership than the entire cost of WP7 to OEMs. Most jurisdictions of the world (which is the marketplace for Android) hold that mathematical ideas cannot be owned in this way.
Why should companies using Android have to pay Microsoft anything, just because it is too expensive to argue the point in court? It makes no sense economically, and it clearly isn’t right.
IMO it is extortion, pure and simple.
Edited 2011-07-06 10:00 UTC
Ok and the the documents where Microsoft make this claim without proof is? Oh, I see it’s only in your head so you can’t provide a link. Maybe you should patent it.
Also, you cannot patent mathematics in the US either. Pure algorithms are not patentable in the US where the machine-or-transformation test is still the rule.
Finally the cost of wp7 licenses to OEMs far exceeds the indemnification contracts that are rumored to have seen the light of day. Again, I’m sure you’re commenting about something you read from someone who knew who someone who heard that….
Some pundits argue that the total revenue to MS from indemnifcation grants to Android manufacturers combined exceeds total revenue from WP7 licensees but that is directly related to the number of units involved. It’s usually done so in a smear campaign to paint Microsoft as more interested in litigation than software development for WP7.
IMO is right. Your opinion. And I’m glad it’s worth about exactly what someone is willing to pay for it.
Please let me know when one of these threats from Microsoft (which is a fundamental element in any prosecution of extortion in most US states “pure and simple”) ever materializes.
FTA: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070511-microsoft-patent-andro…
“Microsoft patent division taking cash from at least 5 Android vendors”
Microsoft did not create any part of Android. Not one single line of the code.
Microsoft offer no proof whatsoever that they have any claim at all over said Android vendors. All Microsoft offer is threats of lawsuit.
Der.
Edited 2011-07-06 11:59 UTC
Indeed, the real issue here is that Microsoft does not even need to disclose anything to extort money : just the threat of going to litigation is enough.
The small company know that, even if they are in their own right, fighting will cost them so much, and risks are so high, that the only sensible to do is to settle. It has nothing to do with any patent being valid : the prosecution is so complex and the patent system so badly broken in US (anyone remembering RIM 600 millions USD settlement on a patent claim broad enough to attack the SMS ?) that no one can actually guarantee they will win. The only thing you can do is plan to fight, and how much resources you can afford in this fight. If you know you can’t draft enough forces, you’ll lose, or die before the end of the fight. End of story.
I agree this is mostly because the US patent system is broken, but just saying that abusing a broken system is “good” is not my opinion either ! Everybody on Earth has a responsibility, and choose by his/her actions to make the world a worse or better place. I could just go and kill the grand ma on the other side of the street and steal her wallet without any risk for me, but for some reason i wouldn’t do it. And no, this is not “only” because of the police.
Just abusing a situation because you can is not good reason enough. Not for normal and honest citizens. Now, for crooks and villains, yes, this is good reason enough. Now, choose your side.
Unfortunately you forgot to consider history:
These ideas were systematized into a true calculus of infinitesimals by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who was originally accused of plagiarism by Newton. He is now regarded as an independent inventor of and contributor to calculus.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus ]
Should Leibniz have been punished, imprisoned, or executed?
I like your Idea. If I spend Millions of dollars researching a book about wars in space. Lots of dollars researching and talking to experts about space and weapons etc and what is physically posible etc. Then I produce this book which is already protected by copyright I should be able to Patent it also and then charge a reasonable license fee to anyone who writes a book about space wars regardless of the exact content? right? Nice idea. One should be able to file patents on copyrighted material. Maybe the Music people should get into the game too. How about a song about life in the ghetto. Maybe that can be patented so that I can charge anyone that makes a song about life in the ghetto a “reasonable licence fee” to use the idea of a song about life in the ghetto. THis is exactly what is happening with software patents. Stand alone sofware that is not married to a specific device should not be patented. It is already covered by copyright.
After this I won’t be recommending Windows Phone to anymore of my customers. We recommended windows phone 7 to a few of our customers (10) of them bought Windows Phone. We won’t be doing that anymore. We cannot in good faith support this type of extortion.
Well I’n against the drug laws but I can’t walk down the street with a fatty hanging out my mouth and not get hauled to jail, can I?
Let us not forget that unlike certain OTHER companies…cough cough Apple cough…MSFT has been pretty good about offering the same RAND license whether you use Windows or some other OS. For example before TomTom gave them the finger MSFT offered them the exact same price they offered the flash OEMs, no discrimination because they weren’t using WinCE and TomTom gave them the finger. Did you rail against them then too, even though FAT was written by MSFT?
Like it or not MSFT owns 10s of 1000s of patents covering just about every stage of OS functionality, similar to how you’d be hard pressed to make a codec that doesn’t step on the MPEG-LA patents. Now if you want to give your product away that isn’t the job of MSFT or any other corp to support your failed business model, which at looking at the roster of failed FOSS companies, Novell, Sun, Mandriva, etc I would argue you’d be hard pressed to not call the free as in beer model and overall failure.
MSFT paid good money, both in purchasing and in R&D in getting the patents they have and they offer RAND licenses no matter if you use their OS or not. But just as I can’t advertise my business using Jimi Hendrix songs just because I don’t believe in copyright lengths so too can’t handset makers just ignore MSFT’s copyrights because some think everything should be free as in beer.
The smart ones will accept having to license as a normal part of doing business (after all they ain’t making Droid sets out of the goodness of their hearts) and the dumb? Well lets just say I hope they have a nice chunk of their operating capital set back for lawyers fees.
Software patents act in contravention of their Constitutional purpose: to promote the useful arts. Too many mundane ideas have been patented, because someone virtualized a physical process. Simply tacking “on a mobile” or “on the internet” shouldn’t meet anyone’s definition of “novel” or “non-obvious”.
It’s not that all patents are bad. It’s that there is an ocean of crap patents and a thimblefull of truly valuable ones.
Which is why there definitely needs to be patent reform, but the idea that software patents are totally invalid, or indeed evil :S, is ill-conceived by those who have clearly never invested significant time or money into the development of software concepts.
Software concepts? What exactly new and innovated concepts are you talking about? A computer can do nothing that its hardware was not designed to allow. That design is the substance of the hardware patent covering its technology. As such, it exists as prior art for anything you do with the device. The same is pretty much true for coding. Since it all boils down to 1’s and 0’s which are interrupted by the computer, how can you possibly claim any originality?
“I’m an expert so I don’t have to back up anything I say, you should just take my word for it.”
In other words you’re using the oldest, most transparent, and laziest debate trick in the book. Yawn, you really need some new material.
Edited 2011-07-06 15:59 UTC
Ideas are a dime a dozen. A successful, marketable, solution is rare.
Android is based on Linux and a managed language called Dalvik which uses Java syntax. Linux in turn is a written-from-scratch re-implementation of POSIX specifications (so it uses no UNIX code).
Microsoft technology is a VMS work-alike. If anything, .NET is a Java rip-off (and not the other way around).
They are chalk and cheese. Microsoft did not invent Android technology, and they did not write any of the code.
The only thing that Microsoft have is a large patent portfolio which they can pretend that Android violates here and there. It is too costly for smaller firms to contest Microsoft claims of infringement when Microsoft comes knocking on their door. It is cheaper to just pay Microsoft off.
This is extortion, pure and simple.
The very best indication of this lies in the fact that Microsoft refuses to name the patents it claims Android infringes.
Edited 2011-07-05 23:32 UTC
Minor Correction … .NET is an innovation over the JVM.
The originally the JVM interpreted bytecode … the CLR does JIT compilation on bytecode.
from here
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/dotnet/clr.aspx#_clr
the article is 2002 … when the .NET 1.0 runtime was introduced.
JVM != CLR
It seems they copied ideas off of one another. It doesn’t appear to be as black and white as you claim.
I find it strange that you are pro GPL aka sharing when it comes to code, but when someone implements the same idea for their own platform and improves it … it is suddenly a problem when it involves Microsoft.
You almost make it sound like Sun should have patented the JVM … a software patent with such a comment.
Edited 2011-07-06 00:03 UTC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HotSpot claims that the HotSpot Java VM was released in 1999. It’s derived from the StrongTalk language, which Sun released as Open Source in 1997.
In 1997, this VM already supported JIT compilation. This is hardly a innovation by the CLR team.
The point was … it wasn’t as black and white as people make out, though there is a good 5 years in that timeline …. so point taken.
The second point if … if you are complaining about Microsoft Copying a software idea from sun, then maybe they should have had some protections from Microsoft copying their idea … something like a patent …
I ain’t for or against software patents (I honestly don’t know) … I think it is an interesting point that there are those that are complaining about someone copying other’s ideas and then in the same post going on about how software patents are wrong … just saying ..
I never complained that Microsoft copied the idea (which is a bunch of copies itself, too).
And Sun didn’t complain about it either, but they complained and sued and won about violating contracts based on licensing the Java trademark – a purely defensive mechanism (in this case) to make sure that no-one else (and Microsoft and/or IBM in particular) can dilute Sun’s product name.
As for “copied ideas”:
– Distributing Bytecode for portability. See P-Code
– Java’s (and CLR’s) VMs are stack machines. See Forth, see Smalltalk (and lots of things before them)
– Java (and CLR) provide a standard class library. See Smalltalk (it’s just smaller, due to its age: it’s from 1980)
– Java (and CLR) do Object Orientation of a certain style (see Simula, Smalltalk, Objective-C)
– JIT compilation has roots in Lisp (1960), Unix (regex compiler, 1968), Smalltalk (~1980), Self (by Sun, ~early ’90s)
No big idea in Java was new. What should Sun have tried to patent?
Java was big for being a comprehensive package with commercial support, lots of marketing, and a low barrier to entry (cheap SDK, cheap licensing, “similarity” to popular languages)
If anything, they could have applied for a business method patent on that. Unfortunately, that “market” was just about to be opened up (ie. such a patent would have been refused in 1994, but not in 2001).
There were incremential improvements on what kind of optimizations the JIT compiler could do, given the new found CPU power, etc. Obvious stuff.
Unfortunately the patent offices of the world don’t seem to read papers of the 1960s and 1970s unless they were patents themselves. Otherwise much of the current software patent junk wouldn’t go through.
And that stuff wasn’t regularily patented back then because code was considered math. And math was considered off-limits for the patent office.
(sidenote:)
A government entity decided to enlarge its scope (at least twice: on code/math and on business methods). Why are Republicans defending this governmental interference?
No you didn’t … but the person I originally quoted did.
Edited 2011-07-06 09:20 UTC
That is nothing new. That was done by Excelsior Jet before.
Uh… No? The JVM had JIT compilation long before .NET implemented it.
The original one did, yes. But JIT was implemented in Java before .NET was even released.
Sun did patent a lot of things from the JVM. But Sun used their patent portfolio primarily defensively. Sun never liked patents, but they learned a hard lesson after IBM nearly put them out of business by suing them over a generic RISC patent that basically said “If you make it simpler, it will go faster”. This RISC patent, btw, is proof that hardware patents can be abused just like software patents. So those who support hardware patents but not software parents are hypocrites.
Oracle, of course, did not share Sun’s philosophy of defensive software patents. And once they inherited Sun’s patent portfolio, they are started using the patents offensively.
General Dynamics is the fifth largest defense contractor in the world.
It builds guns, tanks, nuclear submarines –
and the first NSA certified smartphone, among a great many other things.
But to hear the geek tell the story, it surrendered as meeky as a a lamb to the slaughter when it came to licensing Microsoft’s patents.
Your post could be summarised as: “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.” which, in my opinion, is a terrible attitude!
How heroic of you. Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law? Heavy penalties in some countries for messing up one’s game of monopoly. Not always just a wrist slap or a year or so of prison.
Slavery was legal at one time too, and you bet there were those who were “playing by the rules and using their (Human) property to their advantage.”
That doesn’t make it _right_ or okay.
It may seem extreme at first glance, but I do in fact lump ‘Imaginary Property’ and its enforcement right along with slavery. They both put significant limits on the people subjected to such institutions, place severe penalties on anyone who gets in the way of the status quo, and like slavery, patents are just plain bad for Humanity.
Ok. Let them adhere to patents. And let Microsoft adhere to borders where those patents are valid. Even Lodsys has a better standing in my opinion than Microsoft, because they ask only licensing in US.
Microsoft is using US market access as a tool to enforce the US patent laws on the rest of the world. And guess what? I’m pretty sure that they do that not only with Android related patents/products…
And I hate that to the bone marrow!
I personally adhere to US patent laws, because they are laws. So my apps on Android Market have a surcharge for US residents of 8%. (Lodsys got to eat, don’t they?)
I bought a galaxy S2 yesterday instead of the HTC Sensation simply so I didn’t send 5 dollars to Microsoft.
How can Google let this happen to their device makers?
Probably a good move. I also try to make best informed decisions when I buy stuff.
The only thing corporations understand is money. Buying Iphones, Ipads, Macbooks, Xboxen, Windows Phone phones and OS licenses and then whining about how fucked up Apple and Microsoft are and how they get away with their bullshit on the internet isn’t going to change anything.
Sure US patent and competion laws need to be changed, but it is not like you are totally helpless.
Whenever Unided States keep using those stupid software patents, the rest of the world, where I gladly belong to, will keep advancing more and more, until US will start to becoming technologicaly (but surely not economicaly) irrelevant. And also, seeing all this lawsuits, most contries are now simply agains software patents – I am very happy to tell you Brazil is one of those.
So thank you american congress and justice! You are doing a BIG favor for the rest of the world!
Yes because Brazil, or any country without strict IP laws is just making such huge advances in new technology.
It takes money to make money. Patents are there in order to help protect the years of R&D it takes to take the human race forward technologically.
One can make more profit in either of two ways: (1) increase sales and/or prices, or (2) reduce costs.
If a consortium of producers whose primary business is NOT writing software get together and collaborate to produce software they can all use, they can significantly reduce costs.
Provision of software is not a profit centre to the vast, vast majority of people and businesses, it is a cost. It is a cost that is a prime candidate for cost reduction.
Software patents potentially stand in the way of achieving this cost reduction. Software patents engender nothing but a significant and totally un-necessary cost burden for the vast, vast majority of people and businesses. They are therefore a huge burden, and an un-necessary impost on society.
You can read about the economics of this topic here if you are interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss
BTW, Brazil is making quite a lot of headway in the area of reducing its economic costs of software through the use of FOSS software.
Edited 2011-07-06 00:01 UTC
Much worse, they hamper innovation. A software patent blocks others from making totally different solutions – codewise – that could be vastly more efficient. These illegal solutions could lead to faster, safer, better, cheaper products.
I dont know about Brazil, but there is a lot of coding done in a lot of the world that doesn’t have software patents. Hell, most of the history of computers in this country happened without software patents. The mere fact that we use “languages” when we “write” code should be enough proof for anyone that software belongs under copyright and NOT patents. All software is is a set of mathematical instructions.
It’s indeed interesting to note that the computer industry flourished before software patents were allowed. Software patents are a relatively new concept.
Edited 2011-07-06 00:12 UTC
No, Thom. Get it straight. If no patents or copyrights existed everyone would sit in the fields and pick pansies all day. Geez… what’s WRONG with you? Why don’t you GET it?!!
Beware that mathematics, physics, etc have been working without patents, without “everyone would sit in the fields and pick pansies all day”. Companies, student groups, teacher groups and bright individuals have been developing them, but mainly universities and research institutions, supported by government funds. Without threats of patent trials.
Also, not everyone is lazy. For example, software translators working for helping other people show us that.
Yes, there are a lot of technology advances being made in the country, in several places. We have one of the biggest industries of small planes, the best technology for deep ocean oil extraction, a new centrifugue method for radioactive materials that cost around 30% of the other ones, bio-fuels, animal and plants genetics…
Just because we do not produce anything in microprocessors, semicondutors and software right now, does not mean we do not have IP nor technology, good sir.
Anyway, Brazil have good IP laws, much betters than US, IMHO. It is just that it is made in the same ideas the original copyright and patent were made in US: to protect the persons or industries that created them, not for produce a lot of money to people who do not made any hard work. You must produce something to patent it, basicaly.
On the copyright hand, we do yes have lots of problems and high piracy, but copyright and patents are different things, at least here, under the equator line.
+1 for Brasil… But -1 in the same time: what about the 60% to 100% import taxes… sure, it’s another subject, but I can’t always support Brasil on a few things. So yeah, being against patents on one hand, good for the health market for instance, but preventing tech products of being abopted by the masses by crazy taxes is just as insane on the long run, it’s short-term protectionisme.
Edit: I love Brasil btw, looking for a job in SP But I know it’s a tough task as locals are pretty well educated in the IT business, and I barely speak portuguese for now
Edited 2011-07-06 03:44 UTC
Here is the attitude of US companies to US patents held by non-US entities:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Breaking/CSIRO-hit-with-wifi-patent-suit…
CSIRO hit with wi-fi patent suit
CSIRO were the patent holders!
Here was the outcome:
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/all-csiro-wi-fi-patent-disputes-…
“the battle between CSIRO and 14 companies including Microsoft, Dell, Fujitsu, Belkin, D-Link, and Toshiba, to name a few, is over. All companies involved have agreed to pay CSIRO a fee. “
It seems the US thinks that there is one rule meant to benefit only US companies and everyone else can go hang.
The world does not owe the US a living.
Edited 2011-07-06 04:29 UTC
My lawyer is sure that programming was invented by Microsoft and all computers were originally designed by Apple.
So those who dare to write computer programs without a written permission from Apple-Microsoft consortium should be put into jail for IP infringement and the folly of running or spreading unauthorized software has to be cured by lobotomy.
Seriously Thom, take some Ritalin… Or some Prozac… Do something… You hope Anonymous hacks Microsoft? I hope they hack OSAlert.
Btw, I notice that you never did run my Google article you said you were going to get to… You never ran the second one I submitted either about Google’s problems with the FDA over the drug ads. Even though that one disappeared from the queue as well. I still think you are afraid of Google.
Also, remember what I said about why I don’t submit stories very often? Because they almost never get published? I rest my case.
Edited 2011-07-06 00:08 UTC
Your story on the FDA had no links in it.
The story on Google’s antitrust problems is in the works. The FDA will likely be integrated into ot.
Ah.. Well, the story I submitted about Apple did have links in it, and you removed them when you posted it… So….
In the works? Why bother anymore? It’s 12 day old news.
I hope they hack Microsoft. But, then, I’m told I’m a bad human being. Must explain it.
…after reading 41 posts… *apparently* PMS is much more common than what the general population believes…
An alternative to software patent trolls, expensive legal battles which produce nothing, and the economic deadweight loss associated with artifical scarcity (read: proprietary software) is discussed here:
http://beginlinux.com/blog/2011/07/tlwir-7-patent-trolls-superheroe…
“The free software model may soon become the ONLY acceptable model for software from a software security standpoint. Which is smarter: to have a programmer in house who has access to all of your company^aEURTMs source code and can access and fix any problem instantaneously, or to have to wait for some company like Microsoft or Apple to have to release the security update for you? Better yet, might it not be better to be part of a large community where you all help to protect each other?
Whether businesses like it or not, freedom seems to be the direction in which everything is moving because it is simply a much more efficient way to operate. Having everyone invent their own version of the wheel, and to then have each of those versions of the wheel compete against each other is not only wasteful; it actually stifles innovation. The reason for this is that the time spent by multiple entities building essentially the same thing could have been used in advancing other areas.”
Well, to tell the truth, not everything … rather say “everything except the desktop and (some) mobile platforms” seem to be moving in this direction.
This argument shows clearly the delineation between those who DO, and those who talk on the Internet.
“”The free software model may soon become the ONLY acceptable model for software from a software security standpoint. Which is smarter: to have a programmer in house who has access to all of your company^aEURTMs source code and can access and fix any problem instantaneously, or to have to wait for some company like Microsoft or Apple to have to release the security update for you? Better yet, might it not be better to be part of a large community where you all help to protect each other? ”
My wife works for a small freight broker. Their business is in the transactions of booking loads on tractor trailors that are currently unloaded to new locations and they take a per cent. What interest would they have in hiring a programmer when they can get their patches automatically from the vendor and keep on working?
The key point here is that business’s buy software so they can work. There is nothing wrong with proprietary software.
I’m not even going to mention that the “many eyes make bugs large” argument has been successfully debunked and the reality is that open source has a astronomically higher base of users vs people who review the source code.
Morglum
This may seem nitpicky, but this is a false dichotmy. A business does not require a programmer on payroll to use open source software. Vendor support would take the place of “closed code” in a third possibility. The difference under that scenario is that the business, while still paying a vendor, would not be dependent on that vendor. How does the business lose under this scenario?
Why can’t you ever use a independant 3rd party instead of a pro linux/FOSS website … because there are no other that support your beliefs.
Yes because everyone can afford trained specialist programmers for each software application they are using … oh wait they are fooking expensive.
The whole point of using a large corp to provide support is that you don’t have to hire someone in that can potentially be very expensive to hire long term.
Say you used Oracle Enterprise Linux support and was running say a scripting language, web server and a database.
You could either pay oracle $120 a year per CPU … which is pretty cheap for a server OS support.
Or get a specialist to provide support for all 4 pieces of core software you are using … which is far more expensive…
The whole point of an external company giving you lower level of support is that it is cheaper … the expense must be weighed against the business need … some things not working for say a month might be cheaper than hiring someone in to fix it immediately … it isn’t black and white so please don’t make it out to be.
And what if the community doesn’t want to help me, with my problems? I a SOL.
So why are there countless linux distributions?
Why is there no LibreOffice and OpenOffice?
Why is XMMS, audacity?
Why is there MPlayer, Totem, Kaffeine, Banshee?
Why is there KDE, Gnome, XFCE, LXDE?
Why is there Redhat, Suse, Ubuntu, Madriva commercial distros?
Why is there Alsa, PulseAudio, Jack, OSS?
Why is there MySQL, PostGresSQL, Sqlite?
There are just variations of the same functionality … Why is the wheel being reinvented so many times by the community itself? Surely by your arguement there should only be one example of each …
Your arguement is bullshit.
Edited 2011-07-06 18:53 UTC
Another view here:
http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/178091/how-america-los…
Or … “How America is losing its tech mojo (and how it can get it back)”
“Patents are supposed to protect the little people from the big bad megacorps. But this doesn’t work for software. Big companies like IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, and others routinely file for thousands upon thousands of software patents every year. So technically they are stepping on each other’s patents every minute of every day. Nobody wants to start a patent war, so they cross-license with each other and go about their business. The cost of a software patent application can easily hit $20,000, legal advice on how to deal with a patent threat is $40,000 or more, and defending a patent suit can cost at least $2 million. The little people are excluded from this fun game.
What if your own patents are violated by one of the big people? They will pummel you with their patent portfolios and blacken your sky with lawyers until you give up.”
“In a nutshell, we have unlimited funds for wars, ‘security’, criminalizing everyone, and protectionism for companies locked into hawking obsolescence. But no funds for progress.”
Oh my.
Edited 2011-07-06 01:52 UTC
There are some very large corporations, whose main business is NOT producing software, who apparently get the point that more money can be made by reducing software costs:
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/toyota-joins-linux-foundati…
“Toyota Joins Linux Foundation
Toyota Looks Towards Open Innovation and Collaboration to Help Transform Auto Industry”
See also:
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/news/7266/1/
“Linux Foundation Brings New Vendors into Linux Fold”
Edited 2011-07-06 02:14 UTC
I found the reason for Microsoft’s Extortion Campaign Against Android, ChromeOS.
Here it is:
http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2011/07/05/microsofts-mobile-market…
Microsoft^aEURTMs mobile market share continues to erode
The US government forced all US aircraft manufacturers to pool all their patents in 1917. They were then charged a small fee per aircraft to access any of these patents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war
Maybe not the place for it… but I notice a common theme amongst defenders of copyright and patent law as they stand today: Laziness.
I have been lurking on this and other sites for many years. Someone correct me if I’m wrong… it seems to be more than the protection of ideas, whatever that means. Yes, the basis of the claims lies in these “noble” ideas. But deeper into some of the conversations that I have read, the truth seems to come out. There are lazy peole that are seriously incommoded by the idea that they should not have the “right” to become one-hit-wonders and live of of the fat of one good, maybe even great, idea.
So just to be clear – someone has one good idea, writes one good story, composes one good song, and they should no longer have to work ever again? Society owes them BIG?!!
Please – get over yourself. Society will get on without your story, idea etc… Probablity suggests that someone else will come along and supply something identical/similiar/better. Go read all of the stories of ideas being developed simultaneously and independently by different “inventors.” Do you REALLY believe that you are that special?
Lazy. One good idea, and the millions are “deserved.” A “right.” Eliminate fate and chance – we DEMAND protection! Give me break. Selfish and lazy.
Both systems serve a purpose, but that purpose has NOTHING to do with the individual. Society is the benefactor. This has been largely forgotten/ignored. To be viable again, strict guidelines and short time limits need to be put back into place. Sorry guys… you can still profit under this system, but one-hit-wonders may be few and far between. Guess the “genuises” will have to work like the rest of us.
…it’s Linux.
This is the second time Microsoft has successfully pushed companies to pay protection money for distributing Linux.
This tells you that despite Linux being GPL, it can still cost you, and that is as clear a message as you can send to companies investing in it.
I am not surprised, but somewhat disappointed that the American government isn’t looking into an effective cartel case. Apple and Microsoft together buy a patent portfolio?! I thought Steve Jobs had nothing but scorn left for Redmond…
Now they are effectively trying to kill the only large volume open source mobile initiative, and doing so not by making a better mousetrap, but by waving their AK-47s.
One would think America had left the mob behind…