or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google exec talks Nortel patent auction loss, calls for patent reform
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google exec talks Nortel patent auction loss, calls for patent reform - Page 3

post #81 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

To be honest I really do agree with Google. The software patent system is really sad. And not even just for the reasons Google has stated for the reasons that Google has stated. For example apple was recently sued for its playlist technowledgy and they lost. It gets worst the company is sueing apple once more this time for the use of the playlist technowledgy in ios. Like it or not this system is a joke. Yeah android riped off of some people, but hell everyone has ripped off of someone even apple.

Yeah, my client killed a few people. But hell, the murder laws today are really sad. Who hasn't done killed an enemy or two, or thought of it? Lighten up.

Funny, Google got to this point that you honestly agree with only after bidding $3,141,592,653.58. I guess if they had won, they'd still be stupid like the rest of us and believe that the rules count.
post #82 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiA View Post

You, cloud gazer, may be talking about software patents,

but the Nortel patents are for technologies and techniques implemented by hardware.

They're a mixture of the two. and sadly due to the nature of the patent system the most valuable patents are those which are the most broadly written and thus are impossible to avoid infringing. Those tend disproportionately to be software patents. I think that haptic feedback patent is a great example of a patent that Apple could try to assert against android makers, and it is certainly a software patent in practice.
post #83 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

I think the real question has to be, "Would we be having this conversation if Google had won the Nortel patent auction?".

My opinion... I doubt it.

Except we had exactly this conversation in the personal audio thread, and in the Kodak thread, and in the S3 thread.
post #84 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"A patent isnt innovation. Its the right to block someone else from innovating, he said, later adding that "patents are government-granted monopolies." Though the system was originally setup to reward innovation, "thats not happening here, he noted.

Patent is not innovation, its not the right to block someone from innovating. Its the protection of innovation from theft. If he has ideas on how to improve the system thats awesome, getting rid of patents will not improve the system.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #85 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by timothyjay2004 View Post

I'm sorry but Google would be singing a different tune if the shoe was on the other foot. They wouldn't be whining, they'd he hiring more lawyers to go after everyone - not asking for reform. . .

You're absolutely correct. Google hasn't been shy about using the 700-800 patents they already have to attack any other company or mobile player that tries to get into search and/or mobile advertising. Good thing they don't have any more patents than they do. They're dangerously aggressive in protecting their turf. Just today Mozilla announced they'll be developing their own Google Chrome challenger, and even had the audacity to say they won't just be copying Google, but actually "stealing" the Android kernel to do so. Thieves. Watch how fast Google sues them just like they've sued . . umm . . . well there's ahhh, hmmm. . .

Well that doesn't matter really. You know they've sued a lot other OS developers, on-line search providers, mobile tech companies and online advertising competitors. Right?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #86 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

maybe you should not call people 'morons'. why don't you read this to see how a patent can stifle innovation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wri...ers_patent_war

Well regardless of the Wright Brothers, I shouldn't have used "moron" anyway. I try not to use pejoratives like that, but I fail sometimes (not frequently but sometimes).

I would still argue that patents can only "stifle innovation" if the patent is improperly granted (overly broad etc.), which is probably what happened here.

The Wright brothers are a special case and something I know a bit about. They really didn't "invent" the airplane at all, but the political powers that be at the time had a gigantic interest in keeping up the illusion that they did. The only real innovation they made at all is that patent you reference which is probably why they held on to it for all it was worth and pushed their ownership of it as hard as they did.

The reason their airplane succeeded when all others before them failed is more down to the manufacturing design of the flyer and the aforementioned political will. It had nothing to do with this particular patent because the control system was widely copied anyway. You are 100% right that it was used as a giant cudgel to keep the competition at bay while they could monopolise the market for airplanes though.

My original intention with my remarks was only to separate copyright (wildly and widely misused and completely the opposite from it's original intention), and patents (not really that far off the original intention). I don't mean to argue that there is "nothing wrong" with patents or the patent system or that it isn't misused. Just that it's not the same thing as copyright which is orders of magnitude more f*cked up.

Hundreds of obvious and easy arguments can be made as to why copyright is a joke and that it overtly *stifles* innovation on a very large scale. It's easy to see that the current copyright system should just be scrapped completely. The argument for getting rid of patents on the other hand, actually has pros and cons in my view.
post #87 of 137
in response to "patents (sometimes) help the little guy" ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

... In fact this is simply incorrect. A 'little guy' cannot afford to bring an infringement case against Apple or the like unless the 'little guy' in question is a patent lawyer. The lack of litigation in copyright may simply be a factor of the lower chance of infringement, and not anything else. Valuable software patents are designed to be infringed.

This was mentioned by someone above also, but I left that out of my equation because it's a failing of the legal system in general not patent law.

It's always been true that the average person (at least in most modern "western" countries for the last 100 years or more), gets less justice than the rich people. There is a huge tilt in the legal system towards those with money and most people know this (as we simultaneously ignore it as a society). For instance even serious human rights issues come down to getting the money to fight the thing all the way to the supreme court. Western governments can and do pass laws all the time that violate their own constitutions, knowing that they cannot be overturned until someone has the time, the energy, and most importantly the money to fight it all the way through the legal system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

... Only if by little guy you mean patent troll. The 'little guy' in software is the indy developer getting sued by the patent troll for 'copying their IP' even though they invariably had no idea that such IP existed. ...

Here I think I agree with you but only sometimes. Your only seeing what you want to here if you think that the little guy fighting for his patent is always a "patent troll." Sometimes it's just a little guy with his patent. Although I agree that most of the time the "little guy" will lose out and a lot of time they are trolls.

I would also argue that most of the patent trolls we hear about (certainly the majority of the ones reported in this forum), actually *lose* their argument.
post #88 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

this type remark is so ridiculous.
well i guess you just sit on your a$$ and do nothing.
lots of progress was made in the computer field before software patents. so i guess those guys (like steve jobs and bill gates) figured what the hell, lets do it for grins?

Yeah, and what happened to the MacOS? It got stolen by Bill Gates (Windows) when Steve showed it to Bill, to allow Bill to make software apps for it. Of course, Apple had to settle (compromise), with Microsoft, eventually.

You'll notice that with iOS, Apple has tried not to get burned a second time! You'll see Apple protect iOS and iOS devices alot more aggressively. They've learned the hard way.
post #89 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

During an interview on Monday, Google Senior Vice President and General Counsel Kent Walker opened up about the company's loss to Apple in the Nortel patent auction, calling for patent reform in the U.S. as he characterized patents as "government-granted monopolies" that block innovation.
url=http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/07/25/google_exec_talks_nortel_patent_auction_loss_calls _for_patent_reform.html][ View this article at AppleInsider.com ][/url][/c]

NOW he wants patent reform? I bet he would singing a totally different tune if Google had won the auction. Google is behaving like a child - oh wait - it is run by kids with just one product. The rest are all experiments.
post #90 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard View Post

Yeah, and what happened to the MacOS? It got stolen by Bill Gates (Windows) when Steve showed it to Bill, to allow Bill to make software apps for it. Of course, Apple had to settle (compromise), with Microsoft, eventually.

You'll notice that with iOS, Apple has tried not to get burned a second time! You'll see Apple protect iOS and iOS devices alot more aggressively. They've learned the hard way.

And Google still stole a whole bunch of ideas from Apple for Android.
post #91 of 137
I don't understand why people keep saying the Patent system is broke. There would no point in inovating if you couldn't defend your technology. And shouldn't not being able to copy some ones work encourage new ideas
post #92 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Out of interest why do you think that copyright wouldn't be sufficient for software? It certainly proved sufficient in the early years, it's far far cheaper to litigate a copyright case, especially in a case of blatent infringement and copyright never presents the same kind of barriers to innovation.

Because it's too easy to circumvent copyright.

Take the slide to unlock patent. Ignoring questions of novelty, it's clear what the patent does. You have an image on the screen that says 'slide to unlock' and you slide your finger across it to unlock the phone. If someone does the same thing, it's clear that they've violated the patent (again, assuming the patent is valid in the first place).

If it was copyrighted and written in Objective C, someone else could do the same thing by writing nearly the same thing in machine language - or Java - or even C++ and it would be very difficult to prove a copyright violation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

A 'little guy' cannot afford to bring an infringement case against Apple or the like unless the 'little guy' in question is a patent lawyer.

That is patently (ahem) false.

The little guy often finds a law firm to represent him on contingency. The overwhelming majority of patent law suits involving little guys work that way.

Or, the little guy can sell his patent to a patent group who will then sue the big company. The little guy benefits from the selling price of the patent.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #93 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sector7G View Post

I don't understand why people keep saying the Patent system is broke. There would no point in inovating if you couldn't defend your technology. And shouldn't not being able to copy some ones work encourage new ideas

Because most of the people arguing for elimination of the patent system never created anything in their lives and only want to leech off of others.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #94 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

in response to "patents (sometimes) help the little guy" ...
This was mentioned by someone above also, but I left that out of my equation because it's a failing of the legal system in general not patent law.

Yes but it's particularly serious in patent law compared to other areas. Consider copyright by comparison. I accuse you of copyright and submit my original work to the court for consideration. If my work is shown to be substantially copied by you (which is a fairly objective test) and if I can demonstrate my work has priority (again fairly objective) then I win. Otherwise I lose. Aside from a few bizarre cases such as the SCO case or the Apple case copyright suits tend to be relatively speedy.

Patent suits are open to far far more interpretation, so the legal fight will invariably be nasty, brutish and expensive. Similarly defending against a patent suit is far more expensive. So the 'little guy' is hosed on both sides of the patent legal fight. Can you find a case of a small developer being smushed by copyright law?
Quote:
Here I think I agree with you but only sometimes. Your only seeing what you want to here if you think that the little guy fighting for his patent is always a "patent troll." Sometimes it's just a little guy with his patent. Although I agree that most of the time the "little guy" will lose out and a lot of time they are trolls.

Can you find a counter example in the field of software patents? The closest I can think would be the Stacker case and Stac wasn't exactly a 'little guy'. At any rate is it worth the cost on the other side? The number of 'little guys' who aren't adequately protected by copyright is tiny.
Quote:
I would also argue that most of the patent trolls we hear about (certainly the majority of the ones reported in this forum), actually *lose* their argument.

In fact trolls have been empirically shown to be equally successful in their win/loss ratios and more successful in terms of damages awarded.

http://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-se...tion-study.pdf
post #95 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Because it's too easy to circumvent copyright.

Take the slide to unlock patent. Ignoring questions of novelty, it's clear what the patent does. You have an image on the screen that says 'slide to unlock' and you slide your finger across it to unlock the phone. If someone does the same thing, it's clear that they've violated the patent (again, assuming the patent is valid in the first place).

If it was copyrighted and written in Objective C, someone else could do the same thing by writing nearly the same thing in machine language - or Java - or even C++ and it would be very difficult to prove a copyright violation.

Ok but you're presupposing that 'slide to unlock' is something that ought to be patentable. Slide to unlock isn't a feature that took man years of development, or required millions invested. Slide to unlock didn't require expensive safety testing. Your argument that the patent is necessary to promote hugely expensive R&D innovation is hard to apply in the case of something that can be implemented on a lazy afternoon.

Another way to ask this question, why is 'slide to unlock' patentable when 'plants versus zombies' isn't.

Quote:
That is patently (ahem) false.

The little guy often finds a law firm to represent him on contingency. The overwhelming majority of patent law suits involving little guys work that way.

Or, the little guy can sell his patent to a patent group who will then sue the big company. The little guy benefits from the selling price of the patent.

The software 'little guy' won't have applied for a patent in the first place, because the cost for him to patent his idea will often be greater than the cost of implementing it.
post #96 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Because most of the people arguing for elimination of the patent system never created anything in their lives and only want to leech off of others.

Now now, most of the people arguing against software patents are people who work creating software. Frequently people who made very important software in the past.
post #97 of 137
hrmm, let me see, would they want patent reform had they won the bid?
post #98 of 137
if you're going to copy Apple, at least do a good job.

Android’s Dirty Secret: Shipping Numbers Are Strong But Returns Are 30-40%

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=129123
http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/26/and...rns-are-30-40/

CNN: Obamacare largest tax increase in American history

 

FORBES: ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Middle class

Reply

CNN: Obamacare largest tax increase in American history

 

FORBES: ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Middle class

Reply
post #99 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

Patents are government-granted monopolies . . . for a limited time. And only kind of.

Patents don't give you the right to produce and sell your invention, they merely allow you to exclude others from producing yours.

If the US Patent system has become a hindrance to innovation, don't blame the players that play by the rules -- blame the rule-makers. In my opinion, far too many patents are issued because the inventions are obvious combinations of previous works or are trivial variations. When the system is so corrupt that lawyers are paid to get unpatentable ideas patented, it's inevitable that this situation would arise.

Congress and the courts have allowed this system to become dysfunctional.

Patents are expensive. I understand people should be paid to innovate but the government should not be in the habbit of granting patents to people who have no product on the market. Secondly, they don't even allow you to exclude others from producing your patent.
post #100 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post

Uhmm, "Being First to Market"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiA View Post

Being first to market doesn't protect you from being ripped off:
read about the Dyson versus Hoover case, Mr. Dyson came up with and was first to market with the cyclonic vacuum cleaner only for the larger, older Hoover company to blatantly rip him off.
It was patent law that stopped Hoover from getting away with it. [/URL]

Exactly. And what if you don't have enough money to bring a product to market? Without patents, why would anyone in their right mind license your idea and give you money when they can just take the idea and run with it for free?

Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

this type remark is so ridiculous.
well i guess you just sit on your a$$ and do nothing.
lots of progress was made in the computer field before software patents. so i guess those guys (like steve jobs and bill gates) figured what the hell, lets do it for grins?
software patents are used to keep other companies down.
the motto for apple and the others should be "there's a patent for that"

Lots of little guys can argue otherwise. Ask the author of Watson how flattered he was when Apple came out with Sherlock and it looked and acted a lot like his unpatented program.
post #101 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by shao View Post

hrmm, let me see, would they want patent reform had they won the bid?

Patent reform, even if we ever get it, won't affect already issued patents, the supreme court would almost certainly take issue with any attempt to retroactively legislate them out of existence.
post #102 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

Lots of little guys can argue otherwise. Ask the author of Watson how flattered he was when Apple came out with Sherlock and it looked and acted a lot like his unpatented program.

Except given Apple had already started down the road to Sherlock 3 with Sherlock 2 it's equally likely that any patent would have been theirs, and he would have been the one litigated into submission.
post #103 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Ok but you're presupposing that 'slide to unlock' is something that ought to be patentable. Slide to unlock isn't a feature that took man years of development, or required millions invested. Slide to unlock didn't require expensive safety testing. Your argument that the patent is necessary to promote hugely expensive R&D innovation is hard to apply in the case of something that can be implemented on a lazy afternoon.

Another way to ask this question, why is 'slide to unlock' patentable when 'plants versus zombies' isn't.

That's entirely unrelated to the question I was answering. Someone asked if copyrights provide the same protection as patents and I was pointing out some reasons why they don't. The validity of Apple's patent is irrelevant. Choose a patent that you you think is absolutely valid and the point is the same.

It is easy to determine if someone has infringed a patent. You read the claims and see if the alleged infringer does the same thing. If so, the patent is violated.

It is much more difficult to tell if someone has violated a copyright. If you use the narrow definition and require it to be a near-exact copy, then it's easy to tell, but useless. It's far to easy to simply code the same thing in a different language to get around that one. If you use a looser definition of copyright, it's hard to tell when someone infringes.

None of that has anything to do with whether any particular patent is valid or not. It simply points out that BY THEIR VERY NATURE, patents are easier to identify violations.

BTW, who's playing "Oh, look. There's a badger" now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

The software 'little guy' won't have applied for a patent in the first place, because the cost for him to patent his idea will often be greater than the cost of implementing it.

Nonsense. You can apply for a patent for under a thousand dollars. Even using an attorney do to all the work, we've done it for well under $10 K.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #104 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Patents are expensive.

Why do people who have never applied for a patent insist on posting nonsense about a subject they don't understand?

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/...eptember15.htm
Filing fee for a small entity can be as little as $165.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

I understand people should be paid to innovate but the government should not be in the habbit of granting patents to people who have no product on the market.

That simply ignores the entire premise of patents. A patent is my property. I can do what I want with it. If I can't afford to commercialize something, I can sell the patent to someone who can.

If you required commercialization, a small business would be unable to use patents in many fields where the investment required to commercialize a product is huge. Currently, inventors can get a patent and sell their invention to a business who wants to buy it. Your idea would make that impossible - and it would not be worthwhile for many individual inventors or small businesses to do anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Secondly, they don't even allow you to exclude others from producing your patent.

Of course they do. Please do yourself a favor and learn something about the topic before posting any further.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #105 of 137
As usual, FossPatents has a well-reasoned article on Google complaints about the patent system. Think glass houses and kettles. Perhaps the right idea but the wrong messenger.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #106 of 137
Go on, Kent, run to mummy - she will give you a lolly and put a plaster on your sore spot.
Or stop behaving like a like a little child who missed out on some sweeties.
post #107 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's entirely unrelated to the question I was answering. Someone asked if copyrights provide the same protection as patents and I was pointing out some reasons why they don't. The validity of Apple's patent is irrelevant. Choose a patent that you you think is absolutely valid and the point is the same.

No the issue isn't whether copyright provides the same protection as patents, the issue is does copyright in software provide adequate protection to safeguard innovation. As I've already said I think that in the very specific cases of encryption and compression perhaps it does not, but in the vast majority of the software domain it does - and I've yet to see a convincing counter-argument.

Quote:
It is easy to determine if someone has infringed a patent. You read the claims and see if the alleged infringer does the same thing. If so, the patent is violated.

Oh come now that's simply not true. First you have the question of validity, which entails considerable questions of non-obviousness as well as a potentially extremely expensive prior art search. In software the prior art search is particularly difficult, especially with patents from the 90s. If the patent is a continuation then there may be other ways in which validity can be attacked, etc.
Even once you have established validity there is claim construction because the exact meaning of the words in the claim invariably requires additional legal discussion before the question of infringement can even be arrived at.

None of these have any analogue in the copyright system.

Quote:
It is much more difficult to tell if someone has violated a copyright. If you use the narrow definition and require it to be a near-exact copy, then it's easy to tell, but useless. It's far to easy to simply code the same thing in a different language to get around that one. If you use a looser definition of copyright, it's hard to tell when someone infringes.

Except it demonstrably isn't useless, because there are a lot of software firms that protect or used to protect their works solely or mainly with copyright. Both historically and even today.

Quote:
None of that has anything to do with whether any particular patent is valid or not. It simply points out that BY THEIR VERY NATURE, patents are easier to identify violations.

You can't separate the two issues, because validity is a fundamental part of any infringement suit. There's really no comparable question of copyright validity, because establishing it is so trivially easy by comparison.

Quote:
BTW, who's playing "Oh, look. There's a badger" now?

It's not a badger it's a zombie and it's on your lawn, ok maybe it's a zombie badger. It's also relevant. The games industry is an entire sub-domain of software where patents are not used, yet there is still innovation in that domain - both in technology and in content.

Quote:
Nonsense. You can apply for a patent for under a thousand dollars. Even using an attorney do to all the work, we've done it for well under $10 K.

You could produce a 'slide to do something' software control for a lot less than $10k. Also I imagine that this $10k patent is in an area where you've already recently patented something, probably using the same lawyer, so you already have all the relevant patent searches and prior art searches done. Trying to do a patent 'cold' I find it hard to believe that you could do it for 10k on average. If I'm wrong though that's interesting, naturally enough I've never been involved in a patent application because I'm a software developer, and to this day most software isn't patented.
post #108 of 137
Search terms: Google, suit

... and what do you find... Google is involved in at least as many lawsuits as Apple... but against it. Google seems to be infringing upon a lot of territory. Kent must be a very busy man these days.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #109 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

What a lot of ridiculous nonsense.

A patent cannot "block innovation" by definition. It's embarrassing that he even said that. What a complete moron.

Besides which, they are the company that singlehandedly forced the price up to ridiculous levels. If not for them the patents would have went for less than half what they eventually did and if they don't belief in patents why did they even bid on them?

Besides which ... "sore losers" and "sour grapes" comes to mind.

Sore loser they may be, it is you who is the moron. Patents very much DO block innovation, and if you can't see that, you are the far greater moron here. Let's say you invent something fairly novel, whether it be software or hardware. It's pretty unique and you think you'll go far with it. Think again. If you are successful, someone WILL sue you because they hold some sort of broad, overreaching patent that you in some way inadvertently used. Either you wind up paying a bunch of trolls for licensing or you have to stop selling your product. Welcome to the US patent system. Please explain to me how patent trolls who do nothing but buy up patents to sue people are not blocking innovation. Please explain to me how patents that are so stupidly broad and obvious that you can't invent anything without stepping on one do not block innovation. Patents have become an extortion tool and little else. The little guy can't use them to protect himself. Need an example? Look up graphene and what happened when they guys who discovered it were about to patent it. They had just about everything in order and talked to a company about whether or not they'd want to license the patent. The guy flat out said (paraphrased), "No. We'd hire an army of lawyers to write a hundred patents a day to box yours in. You'd spend the rest of your life and all your money trying to sue us." Patents are just another way that the big guys have found to erect barriers to potential competition. It's getting harder and harder to get off the ground because of them. That is very much blocking innovation.

And Google bid on the patents as a defensive move. When you're that big, you NEED a warchest of patents as a deterrent, as in "You sue me over patents? Fine, I'll pull some out and sue you!", thus settling the case with patent licensing swaps and less money spent in the long run. Tell me, how many times has Google used patents as an offensive compared to a company like, say, Apple?

You obviously know absolutely NOTHING about how the patent system in the US works. Don't call people morons when you are this damned clueless.
post #110 of 137
Win: "Patents protect our innovations and IP"
Loss: "Patents need to be overhauled and are anti-competitive"

Um, sorry google but everyone pretty much sees through your hypocrisy. Next.
post #111 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thefinaleofseem View Post

Tell me, how many times has Google used patents as an offensive compared to a company like, say, Apple?

Hmmmm... remember, you're talking about a 34 year old comapny vs. a 13 year old company.

Give Google time, let its patent chest grow and then we'll talk.

As I mentioned before... Google has a lot of companies biting at its heels. This is what you get for ignoring the IP rights of other companies just because you consider your company above all of that corporate gobbledigook.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #112 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Except given Apple had already started down the road to Sherlock 3 with Sherlock 2 it's equally likely that any patent would have been theirs, and he would have been the one litigated into submission.

that is not true. go search through the history of it. apple is no better than microsoft, except, that they are good at fooling sheep into thinking they are with something somehow 'morally' better. people need to wise up.
post #113 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post

Sadly, these days the "little guy" is usually called "John Lodsys"


Added: I really hope we could find a middle ground for protecting the innovators without feeding the patent trolls. Idealistic, I know, but one can dream...

It isn't that hard. A requirement for retaining a patent should either be manufacturing something out of it, or licencing it to someone who makes a device out of it, within a set number of years (2, maybe 3).
post #114 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

that is not true. go search through the history of it. apple is no better than microsoft, except, that they are good at fooling sheep into thinking they are with something somehow 'morally' better. people need to wise up.

... and the same could be said about Google. What's your point?

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #115 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuncyWeb View Post

I agree with many others here. The patent system is screwed up, just like the unlawful de facto government that maintains it.

Excuse me while I come up with an ingenious idea, patent it, and then sit on it for 30 years hoping that someone ELSE will actually do the work to bring it to market.

Unlawful? Are you even aware that the intellectual property clause is enshrined in the main body of the US Constitution?

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #116 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Unlawful? Are you even aware that the intellectual property clause is enshrined in the main body of the US Constitution?

Probably not, most people are pretty ignorant about the Constitution. For example, many people, including some current Supreme Court justices, seem to think that, if a right isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, we don't have it, despite the 9th Amendment.
post #117 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Hmmmm... remember, you're talking about a 34 year old comapny vs. a 13 year old company.

Give Google time, let its patent chest grow and then we'll talk.

As I mentioned before... Google has a lot of companies biting at its heels. This is what you get for ignoring the IP rights of other companies just because you consider your company above all of that corporate gobbledigook.

Okay then, within the past decade. It still doesn't look too good. Google has been advocating patent reform for years now and I completely agree with them. Apple is just as bad as the rest of the tech giants when it comes to patent crapola. They sue with overly broad patents and they get sued with overly broad patents. And Google has who biting at their heels? There's Oracle with the Java case that's falling apart. It's already been whittled way down and now we've come to see that Sun was happy about Google's use of the tech. Oracle is trying to grab license fees from Google and it doesn't look like it's going to work nearly as well as they'd hoped. It seems that everyone in the tech sector gets sued whether their products are legit or not, which is precisely why the patent system needs a massive overhaul.

And Google isn't "my company", and you know what? Historically, they ARE above a lot of this patent garbage. I'll give credit where credit is due, and right now, Google's track record is a lot cleaner than Apple's.
post #118 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thefinaleofseem View Post

There's Oracle with the Java case that's falling apart. It's already been whittled way down and now we've come to see that Sun was happy about Google's use of the tech.

If Sun was 'happy with google using the tech' why didn't they grant them a license? Easy enough to do.

Sorry but when your trial judge talks of your 'brazen attitude' your trial is not going well.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...f-oracles.html
post #119 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thefinaleofseem View Post

I'll give credit where credit is due, and right now, Google's track record is a lot cleaner than Apple's.

Oh, bullshit! I can't do your homework for you but let me give you a few hints... Oracle, Apple, Paypal, 1plusV, Skyhook, FTC, EU, NHN Corp. and Daum Communications (S. Korea), copyright violations - re: book scanning...

Google's short history is filled with alleged antitrust, spying, stealing... can all of these people be wrong about Google?!

Give Google another 20 years and they'll make Apple look like kids in the church choir.

[on edit: regarding the "your company" comment... it had nothing to do with "you"... I was talking about the beliefs of Page and Brin... now reread what I wrote.]
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #120 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I hear this a lot but I have yet to hear anyone have a good argument for *why* patents don't fulfil the "original intention." It seems to me that they clearly protect the inventor of a device or process and only do so for a reasonable amount of time.

Now it's easy to see that *Copyright* on the other hand is way out of control, that the original creators have practically zero sway or say over what happens to their creations and that the entire industry is wildly tilted towards those companies that buy and sell IP as opposed to those individuals that create it. The original artists and writers gets basically nothing or next to nothing and the corporations own all the IP (that they didn't even create!) for something like a hundred years or more. This situation is quite clearly *not* the original intention of the law and quite clearly works almost in complete *reverse* of the way it's supposed to.

Patent laws on the other hand seem very straightforward to me and do in fact tend to protect the little guy that actually invents the process or whatever. There are cases all the time of inventors making millions off of an invention, sometimes years later. There are almost *no* cases of the same thing happening with copyright law or with books, paintings, drawings, comics, etc.

When it comes to art and literature, the corporations rule all and the original artists are usually screwed over. When it comes to invention, often the little guy wins.

More often then not that little guy invented the shape of a square or an alphabetical list of items or some other vague thing. The delay windshield wiper didn't take an act of genius. That is one of the most famous little guy cases. In reality he was just a good at selling an idea to GM. Unfortunately his version of the wiper was inferior so they didn't want to use it. The problem is that the patent system seems to just patent ideas and not all of the hard work and engineering to actually make something happen. All of us little guys get screwed when someone takes advantage of the system for a huge paycheck. Guess who is ultimately paying for it? You deserve to be paid fairly for your work. If that isn't happening then a system can be put in place that covers just that niche, but the current patent system is a huge joke. For copyright, times are changing. The content producer will have more power to self publish and stick to short term contracts as everything moves digital.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google exec talks Nortel patent auction loss, calls for patent reform