Patents block innovation? That's ridiculous specially coming from a lawyer.
Patents prevent thieves like Google/HTC/Samsung/Motorola from stealing innovation that Apple has spent years developing and/or spent billions buying/R&d/etc.
You can use Apples innovation/invention/patents - you just have to PAY for it.
Google was ready to spend 3-4 Billion on those patents for exactly the same reasons Apple/MS etc. Bought the patents.
Walker [...] said the current patent situation in the technology industry "looks like plates of spaghetti" and has become a mess in the past 15 years.
Poor baby! Perhaps another line of work is in order for Mr. Walker.
Quote:
"A patent isn’t innovation. It’s the right to block someone else from innovating,” he said, later adding that "patents are government-granted monopolies."
A patent recognizes innovation. It is intended to reward the patent holder by allowing only the patent holder to utilize and license the innovation for a limited time.
Quote:
Though the system was originally setup to reward innovation, "that’s not happening here,” he noted.
That's because Android licensees produce handsets that infringe the innovator's (Apple's) patents. Walker has the audacity to complain about a situation his company helps promote!
Quote:
Regarding the Nortel auction [...] "You have to have the discipline not to overbid,” Walker said.
Google definitely showed a lack of discipline in overbidding by $0.577215665 billion. (That's a joke, by the way, just as Google's pi bid was a joke).
With all due respect... and I mean all due respect... Walker should either go back to law school or submit his application to Burger King. And if all else fails, he should "pull and Schmidt" and change his name.
Sounds like Google really hurt not winning the Nortel bidding war.
Well, at least Google is hurting now.
And so the spin has begun in an effort to overcome the silliness of Google's bid amounts. If a court doesn't consider those bids as having been seriously measured offers, why would a court take seriously a Google complaint about the outcome of the auction?
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.
Every single iOS Patent deals either with how the hardware interacts in the overall design or how the software interfaces with the hardware to control the interaction of the overall design.
It seems to me that [patents] clearly protect the inventor of a device or process and only do so for a reasonable amount of time.
Patents only protect the patent holder (which is not necessarily the inventor) if the patent holder acts to protect themselves. The government doesn't going around monitoring the marketplace for infringement. It's up to the patent holder, to the best of their ability, to identify and stop infringement--utilizing the courts if necessary.
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.
Just because someone came up with the same idea does not mean it was "ripped off" (though it does happen).
People can come up with ideas and implementations and not know someone else is doing the same.
No, it's not a joke. Google's bids were a joke, though.
Quote:
Yeah android riped off of some people, but hell everyone has ripped off of someone even apple.
If Apple ripped someone off (infringed an active patent--didn't have in-house prior art even) and it's worth anything to them, then they should sue if necessary. That's how it works. No joke. Everybody in the business knows the rules... except Walker.
Kent Walker has a serious misconception about patents. Patents are not "government-granted monopolies" that block innovation, they are "government-granted monopolies" that block copying someone else's ideas. Innovation is where someone comes up with something that is better than what was patented. Then they get their own patent on that and the process is repeated.
If they feel this is unfair why did they bid at all? (they should made the complain prior, for bidding that means you are obeying with the patent rules) Now that you lost you are now crying about it. And also talking about purchasing the other patent portfolio?? Such insult to anyone with a brain.
So, the company that makes all it's money from people giving them, in most cases unwittingly, personal information for free expects patent holders to do the same?
Patents force companies to innovate by finding other ways to achieve a task. If they can't or the ways they come up with are not as good, they are free to negotiate a licence with the patent holder.
Sure the system isn't perfect, and inadvertent violations abound, but having a cry when they had the perfect opportunity to outbid others for the patents is simply childish.
If they feel this is unfair why did they bid at all? (they should made the complain prior, for bidding that means you are obeying with the patent rules) Now that you lost you are now crying about it. And also talking about purchasing the other patent portfolio?? Such insult to anyone with a brain.
you can disagree with the rules of the "game", you can disagree with how the system is made, but YOU HAVE TO PLAY WITH IT!
Apple, Microsoft and Google are all major companies who spoke AGAINST the patent system.
Microsoft was entirely hostile to computing/process patent in the 80 and 90 but still, all 3 have to amass a lot of IP to protect and conduct their business.
Apple learn that with pain in end of 80s , Microsoft realized the world will walk without them in the 90s, Google was born in already hostile computing patent world.
If Google simply told "computing patent is bad , we will stop to even think about them", they will be crushed by the market.
so, even if Steve Jobs explained how the patent system is a problem, even if Eric Schmidt explained how the system is broken and even if Bill Gates explained he didn't believe it was sane, they had to do what is good for their company : to live and work in a market with computing patent, fierce competition and patent troll companies.
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.
Whether they are broken for other domains is open to discussion, they are broken in software.
Quote:
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.
That's definitely the case for copyright in the music industry, academic publishing etc. but it's clearly not the case for copyright in software, especially not in the App Store model.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Any IP that is generally infringed accidentally isn't empowering innovation, it's just a landmine in the problem domain. Software innovation was rampant in the pre-patent era, and plenty of it was by 'little guys'. Those 'little guys' built firms like Microsoft, Apple, Lotus and Oracle off the back of copyright in software.
So, the company that makes all it's money from people giving them, in most cases unwittingly, personal information for free expects patent holders to do the same?
Patents force companies to innovate by finding other ways to achieve a task. If they can't or the ways they come up with are not as good, they are free to negotiate a licence with the patent holder.
Sure the system isn't perfect, and inadvertent violations abound, but having a cry when they had the perfect opportunity to outbid others for the patents is simply childish.
naive.
it's not about Great Ideas protected by a patent to allow the sell of a complex product to make.
It's about thousand of thousand of thousands of tiny ideas and algorithms about how to use electronics and computers, how to program them.
it's inextricable and now, with too many patent troll creating nothing, living only of prosecution, the whole notion of patent is weakened.
I wonder how Google would feel about "sharing" their patented search and indexing algorithms?
Amen John. The ignorance shown here by those wishing to do away with the only effective process for protecting the innovation and creativity of the little guy is breath taking.
Bunch of open source hippy whine-bags. "Everything should be free!"
it's not about Great Ideas protected by a patent to allow the sell of a complex product to make.
It's about thousand of thousand of thousands of tiny ideas and algorithms about how to use electronics and computers, how to program them.
it's inextricable and now, with too many patent troll creating nothing, living only of prosecution, the whole notion of patent is weakened.
it's not good at all.
Those who live off patent prosecution are capitalists. Every time they exercise their rights, the concept of a patent is further solidified.
Your opinion that they are "thousands of tiny ideas and algorithms" is just arrogant to the point of absurdity. What right do you have to dismiss others' work with such an absurd statement as that?
Perhaps you should file for a patent, if you can create something original enough to deserve one, and then preach about it.
Comments
Patents prevent thieves like Google/HTC/Samsung/Motorola from stealing innovation that Apple has spent years developing and/or spent billions buying/R&d/etc.
You can use Apples innovation/invention/patents - you just have to PAY for it.
Google was ready to spend 3-4 Billion on those patents for exactly the same reasons Apple/MS etc. Bought the patents.
This is Absolute non sense Google.
Walker [...] said the current patent situation in the technology industry "looks like plates of spaghetti" and has become a mess in the past 15 years.
Poor baby! Perhaps another line of work is in order for Mr. Walker.
"A patent isn’t innovation. It’s the right to block someone else from innovating,” he said, later adding that "patents are government-granted monopolies."
A patent recognizes innovation. It is intended to reward the patent holder by allowing only the patent holder to utilize and license the innovation for a limited time.
Though the system was originally setup to reward innovation, "that’s not happening here,” he noted.
That's because Android licensees produce handsets that infringe the innovator's (Apple's) patents. Walker has the audacity to complain about a situation his company helps promote!
Regarding the Nortel auction [...] "You have to have the discipline not to overbid,” Walker said.
Google definitely showed a lack of discipline in overbidding by $0.577215665 billion. (That's a joke, by the way, just as Google's pi bid was a joke).
With all due respect... and I mean all due respect... Walker should either go back to law school or submit his application to Burger King. And if all else fails, he should "pull and Schmidt" and change his name.
Sounds like Google really hurt not winning the Nortel bidding war.
Well, at least Google is hurting now.
And so the spin has begun in an effort to overcome the silliness of Google's bid amounts. If a court doesn't consider those bids as having been seriously measured offers, why would a court take seriously a Google complaint about the outcome of the auction?
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.
Every single iOS Patent deals either with how the hardware interacts in the overall design or how the software interfaces with the hardware to control the interaction of the overall design.
It seems to me that [patents] clearly protect the inventor of a device or process and only do so for a reasonable amount of time.
Patents only protect the patent holder (which is not necessarily the inventor) if the patent holder acts to protect themselves. The government doesn't going around monitoring the marketplace for infringement. It's up to the patent holder, to the best of their ability, to identify and stop infringement--utilizing the courts if necessary.
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.
Just because someone came up with the same idea does not mean it was "ripped off" (though it does happen).
People can come up with ideas and implementations and not know someone else is doing the same.
Like it or not this system is a joke.
No, it's not a joke. Google's bids were a joke, though.
Yeah android riped off of some people, but hell everyone has ripped off of someone even apple.
If Apple ripped someone off (infringed an active patent--didn't have in-house prior art even) and it's worth anything to them, then they should sue if necessary. That's how it works. No joke. Everybody in the business knows the rules... except Walker.
So if I can't get patent protection to keep others from copying my ideas, what exactly would be my incentive to invent anything?
Uhmm, "Being First to Market"?
See how it works, Kent?
If they feel this is unfair why did they bid at all? (they should made the complain prior, for bidding that means you are obeying with the patent rules) Now that you lost you are now crying about it. And also talking about purchasing the other patent portfolio?? Such insult to anyone with a brain.
Patents force companies to innovate by finding other ways to achieve a task. If they can't or the ways they come up with are not as good, they are free to negotiate a licence with the patent holder.
Sure the system isn't perfect, and inadvertent violations abound, but having a cry when they had the perfect opportunity to outbid others for the patents is simply childish.
Google has become the biggest joke in this case.
If they feel this is unfair why did they bid at all? (they should made the complain prior, for bidding that means you are obeying with the patent rules) Now that you lost you are now crying about it. And also talking about purchasing the other patent portfolio?? Such insult to anyone with a brain.
you can disagree with the rules of the "game", you can disagree with how the system is made, but YOU HAVE TO PLAY WITH IT!
Apple, Microsoft and Google are all major companies who spoke AGAINST the patent system.
Microsoft was entirely hostile to computing/process patent in the 80 and 90 but still, all 3 have to amass a lot of IP to protect and conduct their business.
Apple learn that with pain in end of 80s , Microsoft realized the world will walk without them in the 90s, Google was born in already hostile computing patent world.
If Google simply told "computing patent is bad , we will stop to even think about them", they will be crushed by the market.
so, even if Steve Jobs explained how the patent system is a problem, even if Eric Schmidt explained how the system is broken and even if Bill Gates explained he didn't believe it was sane, they had to do what is good for their company : to live and work in a market with computing patent, fierce competition and patent troll companies.
They don't make the rules.
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.
Whether they are broken for other domains is open to discussion, they are broken in software.
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.
That's definitely the case for copyright in the music industry, academic publishing etc. but it's clearly not the case for copyright in software, especially not in the App Store model.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Any IP that is generally infringed accidentally isn't empowering innovation, it's just a landmine in the problem domain. Software innovation was rampant in the pre-patent era, and plenty of it was by 'little guys'. Those 'little guys' built firms like Microsoft, Apple, Lotus and Oracle off the back of copyright in software.
So, the company that makes all it's money from people giving them, in most cases unwittingly, personal information for free expects patent holders to do the same?
Patents force companies to innovate by finding other ways to achieve a task. If they can't or the ways they come up with are not as good, they are free to negotiate a licence with the patent holder.
Sure the system isn't perfect, and inadvertent violations abound, but having a cry when they had the perfect opportunity to outbid others for the patents is simply childish.
naive.
it's not about Great Ideas protected by a patent to allow the sell of a complex product to make.
It's about thousand of thousand of thousands of tiny ideas and algorithms about how to use electronics and computers, how to program them.
it's inextricable and now, with too many patent troll creating nothing, living only of prosecution, the whole notion of patent is weakened.
it's not good at all.
I wonder how Google would feel about "sharing" their patented search and indexing algorithms?
Amen John. The ignorance shown here by those wishing to do away with the only effective process for protecting the innovation and creativity of the little guy is breath taking.
Bunch of open source hippy whine-bags. "Everything should be free!"
naive.
it's not about Great Ideas protected by a patent to allow the sell of a complex product to make.
It's about thousand of thousand of thousands of tiny ideas and algorithms about how to use electronics and computers, how to program them.
it's inextricable and now, with too many patent troll creating nothing, living only of prosecution, the whole notion of patent is weakened.
it's not good at all.
Those who live off patent prosecution are capitalists. Every time they exercise their rights, the concept of a patent is further solidified.
Your opinion that they are "thousands of tiny ideas and algorithms" is just arrogant to the point of absurdity. What right do you have to dismiss others' work with such an absurd statement as that?
Perhaps you should file for a patent, if you can create something original enough to deserve one, and then preach about it.