This is great news. It's nice to see two rivals joining forces on something which is not only morally wrong, but actually generally damaging to the industry as a whole. Hopefully (if successful!) this sets a precedence and sends out a message to other patent trolls.
It doesn't matter at all. Don't be embarassed. Anyone who reads your original comment will know exactly what you meant.
Some of the smartest people I know frequently mis-grammar a sentence every now and then. Sometimes even frequently.
A language is a tool for conveying ideas. If a given paragraph conveys the same mental result for each reader, then it doesn't matter if any given word is wrong; the tool has done its task. I wish more people would realize this and stop condemning frivolous mistakes...
Yes, it is about time to allow some wiggle room. I am glad that grammar and spelling correction became a meme. At one point, it looked like the web was going to deteriorate into all lol speak. It was also leaking into offline writing, as well. Ebb and flow has a great end result, but the process is often painful and/or annoying.
Case in point: I'm pretty sure that using "mis-grammar" as a verb (or at all) is not the officially approved way of saying what you wanted to say, but it got the point across just fine.
Ideas especially in the field of software design should never be patented IMHO. Algorithms, hardware definitely but not the idea.
For example, what is the point behind Apple patenting multi touch gesture technology? I mean why? (FWIW I am an Apple fan).
I remember somebody suing twitter for they have the patent for an ecosystem that allows celebrity to come together and do some stuff in an "online" environment. I mean wow!
To all such people, step back and think what if the guy who made chair had patented it. What about wheel, fire? I know this sounds crazy but seriously why should ideas be patented. I could genuinely have the same idea without having seen yours (idea) first!
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." [1]
Whereby this again now is not about the idea but the implementation.
But in many cases, this is also right.
See Amazons 1-Click as an example. I haven't really looked up the implementation details they describe in their patent but I guess it mostly follows the straight-forward implementation of this.
It's worth noting that while the USPTO granted the patent (and even after multiple reexaminations still granted parts of the patent), the patent was never granted at all in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Patent
This applies to ideas too I think - if I have a general 'idea' of how to perform a task, that can be expressed as an algorithm which I then implement in [whatever language]; I could then be unwittingly violating a patent on the idea.
Part of it is IP self-defence. If a big tech company does not have a corresponding patent portfolio, it may trigger legal action from likewise big patent holders. Usually someone like IBM already has related stuff to whatever you're doing and building up a portfolio is just making sure you may have something to make counter-claims. It may not always work (see Oracle vs. Google), but it's expensive to sue and the stakes are very high.
I wonder, why don't large corporations join forces and lobby the government and congress for changes in patent rules and laws?
Of course they themselves may have benefited from the current rules quite a bit too, but they still can benefit more with some changes to the rules that remove the chance for these leeches from sucking blood from them and the whole economy. (For large enough players, growth in the economy as a whole will also affect their growths and profits.)
Large corporations generally have both positive and negative impacts on everyone's wellbeing, but these patent trolls, who don't produce anything of value, only consume resources, are clear negatives.
I wonder, why don't large corporations join forces and lobby the government and congress for changes in patent rules and laws?
Some do. In fact Microsoft is doing just this right now and many companies are supporting MS, including Google. Unfortunately, more companies came out AGAINST MS and in support of the current patent system. See: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/20137856...
It is interesting to note that the companies in support of MS are largely in the tech sector, while those against are largely in pharma/agriculture.
Note, this case is about changing the standard of proof in patent cases to a "preponderance of evidence" rather than the higher standard of proof, "clear and convincing evidence". While it doesn't get rid of the patent system, it should make it easier to beat weak patents in court.
Large companies benefit from the current patent regime as well: it is hard to acquire a patent portfolio, and once you have done so, you have an advantage over companies that don't. Increased barriers to entry is good for large, established businesses.
Part of the reason they don't join forces more often is that the IP lawyers often are kept busy by looking at other large company portfolios. Their business is both offensive and defensive.
That's actually not true, IP lawyers look at ALL patents when they're going after a patent troll or trying to invalidate, not just large companies. That would be pretty poor due diligence.
> I wonder, why don't large corporations join forces and lobby the government and congress for changes in patent rules and laws?
The story I usually hear is that there are two main groups of companies that are lobbying for changes to the patent law, but because of the different nature of their industries they have diverging goals for patent reform and have not been able to reach a compromise (thus the legislature is also unable to reach a compromise). On the one side are the consumer electronics and software companies, and on the other are the pharma and biotech companies.
To grind it right down to its essence, facts cannot be patented, but the application of facts to solve a problem can be patented.
Charcoal burns and produces heat. Water boils when heated. It produces steam. Steam has a larger volume. The increase in volume can move a piston. A piston attacked eccentrically to a wheel causes it to rotate about its axis.
All these things are natural facts that cannot be patented. But put them together to solve the problem of turning fossil fuels into mechanical energy, and you've got a steam engine.
The difficulty with complaining that patenting software is patenting math is the difficulty of complaining that patenting steam engines is patenting facts of nature. The patent is for the application of facts to solve problems, and that applies equally to facts of math as it does to facts of nature.
Now patents may be a bad idea, or perhaps a good idea badly executed, but that is a different argument. I assert that if you can patent the application of nature to create a steam engine, you ought to be able to patent the application of math to create a program.
You don't patent a combination of natural facts. You patent the apparatus that combines them. If the "apparatus" was itself a natural fact, it would not be statutory.
But this is all theory. What's patentable isn't what you read in statute or SCOTUS opinions. What's patentable is whatever can cause you legal troubles.
This is the best explanation of this that I've yet seen. Very well done.
It seems to me obvious that the software "machine" which encodes or decodes video should be a patentable device. The trouble has less to do with patentability of software in general, and more with a) the lifespan of the patents, b) the ease with which they are acquired, and c) the time and money required to oppose and strike down a patent which should never have been granted in the first place.
Not really. Software can be copyrighted. Words can be trademarked. Books can't be patented. Just because the analogy falls apart when you change the subjects doesn't mean the original was wrong.
Though I think you can make a much stronger case than the OPs simple analogy.
I wasn't making the case for software patents -- just pointing out that the logic doesn't work. Just because the constituent parts of a whole don't satisfy some legal criteria doesn't mean that the "whole" itself doesn't.
My issue is you restated his analogy changing the legal categories and the subjects and then disproved your interpretation. Patent law and copyright law are not the same and math's relation to software is not the same as the relation of individual words to a book.
His argument is weak, but you are attacking something else.
Except Microsoft _has_ used patent threats in the past (e.g. against the VirtualDub project, and there are a few more). When the threat comes from Microsoft, and it goes to what is essentially a one-man-show open source project, you don't actually need to get to court.
It's called "a chilling effect".
Furthermore, Ballmer was, and still is, FUDding all the time about Microsoft going to enforce patents that Linux infringes (though not name anything). Even though no action was taken, it also has a chilling effect.
Your defense is acceptable for google. Microsoft deserves to be patent trolled.
The VirtualDub case is an interesting one. I wish the author would have pushed it a bit more. I suspect that there was no threat of a lawsuit, but rather an engineer who saw VirtualDub and was POed. Legal at companies like Intel, IBM, and MS generally won't let someone from the actual product team call another company on a legal matter.
My suspicion is that it was just a rogue employee who frankly probably wouldn't have had support from legal, since legal at these organizations tend to be more strategic than tactical (they don't care about one-off infringers, but are usually pushing a bigger strategic story, where patents infringement is just part of it).
Microsoft has used patent threats to extract a "Linux tax" from vendors such as Amazon and a number of smaller companies.
Microsoft has also directly sued for software patent infringement. (TomTom got sued for using Fat32, presumably for refusing to pay Microsoft's "Linux tax".)
Why is someone abiding to the patent law a "troll"? What's wrong with suing 397 companies if (i) you have a valid patent (ii) the law says that those companies violate your patent?
If you don't like how the patent system works lobby your government to change the patent laws, but don't blame the companies who utilize those laws to make money.
It was legal at one time to kill Mormons in Missouri. It was once legal to expel a man from your restaurant because of his skin color. In some places, the law will fail to stop you from abusing gays. You are still a bad person if you take the law up on its offer. I'm not saying any of these are equivalent to the issue at hand or even to each other, but they demonstrate one thing very clearly: Mere legality does not convey morality or even social acceptability. Patent trolling perverts patents for an unintended purpose and usually depends on duping the Patent Office to do so.
Excellent use of preterition -- "I'm not saying these are equivalent," but you do use the imagery associated with horrific events to influence the reader's gut reaction to the original situation.
I happen to agree with your exact point, but I think it would be better served by just stating,
>"Mere legality does not convey morality or even social acceptability. Patent trolling perverts patents for an unintended purpose and usually depends on duping the Patent Office to do so."
I don't agree that it would be better served, and I don't like the poster's equivocation of "I don't think these are equivalent to this issue at hand." His examples are perfectly analogous to the issue at hand, which are instances of an outdated and poorly-considered law allowing people to do clearly unethical things while remaining within the bounds of the law.
I think it's bad to intentionally select hugely emotionally charged examples (e.g., Godwin's Law) in order to emphasize a point.
It's just trying to prime the emotional state of the reader to sway them to your point.
Very effective technique. But it means that someone is intentionally and strongly pushing an agenda, using subconscious techniques that subvert our rational mind.
That was not my intention. I consciously avoided anything similar to the Third Reich. I really didn't think the story of the Mormon pioneers was all that horrific for most people, and I figured segregation was both mild enough (it was terribly unfair, but not gut-wrenchingly brutal) and far enough removed in time that most people would not be unduly influenced by the mere mention of it. If you can think of better examples of things that were legal but still blatantly wrong, I'll make sure to file them away for later use.
But I don't think taking out the logical explanation and turning the comment into a baseless assertion would improve it. Clearly what I was saying is non-obvious to some people (or I wouldn't have had to say it), and without any justifying logic, the only people who would come out agreeing with me are those who went in that way. My intent was to persuade, not preach to the choir.
It's tough to come up with some better examples for me. I see your point. Every example seems to have seriously charged aspects (sexism, racism, violence, etc.) I just react negatively when people use emotionally charged examples in a discussion.
I'm not so sure it was a logical explanation of anything other than your thought process. Just because there were previous examples where things were legal but unethical does not mean it applies here.
Still, I'm glad we worked through this. I've learned from it. Didn't mean to sound as critical as I came off -- if it bothered you, my apologies, that wasn't my intention.
Thanks to both of you guys for the interesting exercise in thought.
A patent troll is a company who sues over at least one patent, but does not produce any products. As a result, the company cannot be threatened, because you cannot impact their "sales" in any way (e.g. by threatening with other patents) -- they have none. This is in contrast to the typical situation where two companies threaten each other with patents and then (usually) hammer out a cross-licensing deal.
I hate the patent system as much as the next guy, but given what the patent system is meant to do, is there a way to distinguish between patent trolls and legitimate R&D firms that invest in technology and license the resulting patents, but don't actually productize themselves?
1) Do they perform original research themselves, or do they purchase patent rights? If they're not actually generating knowledge, then they're rent-seeking.
2) Do they generate income from licenses, or from lawsuits? Licensing IP is a voluntary transaction for both parties, so the people using the IP believe they're paying a fair cost for it. Lawsuits seek to extract maximum payoff through coercive means, usually because the free-market value of their IP would be vanishingly small.
I'll give you 1, but I'm not sure about 2. I guess if there's a pattern of lawsuits over licensing, but isn't a lawsuit what you resort to if someone uses your patented process without licensing?
What if a company who does research wants to sell its patent rights? Assuming patents are legitimate, that should be possible. Just as composers who sell rights to their songs.
> Why is someone abiding to the patent law a "troll"? What's wrong with suing 397 companies if (i) you have a valid patent (ii) the law says that those companies violate your patent?
The lawyers prefer to call them "NPEs" (Non-Practicing Entities). Part (i) has been called into question by prior art. Part (ii) has yet to be determined and may never be in this case.
In any event, even were those true, with respect to Non-Practicing Entities, even if their actions are legal, there are serious questions over whether and how those actions "promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts" as per their Constitutional mandate. I'm sorry if that's a US-centric justification, but this is a case involving US-based companies in a US court, so it's applicable. Software simply isn't very patentable subject matter outside the US, to my knowledge, though there are a lot of laws out there and I'm sure I don't know the half of them.
> If you don't like how the patent system works lobby your government to change the patent laws, but don't blame the companies who utilize those laws to make money.
I have advocated against them to the best of my ability, but I don't see why I shouldn't call out people who inhibit progress in pursuit of money.
Would we really be better off if science had been retarded more? The average person in the US is better off than ancient kings. For all their gold, they couldn't buy the things we take for granted. And yet I fear there are people yet today who would trade away an even better future for thirty pieces of silver.
Because there is little benefit to the economy if we just dream up ideas with no intention of implementing them, and then sell (for millions of dollars it seems) a piece of paper preventing other people from implementing the idea.
I don't agree with your argument that any action that lies within the law is beyond reproach. A person who is incredibly rude is not breaking the law, but they're kind of a dick.
If you don't like people calling patent trolls "trolls", lobby the government to change the free speech laws, but don't blame the people who utilize those free speech laws to lament the broken system. These companies are rotten trolls and they're ruining innovation in the United States.
Suing one or two companies is understandable. But 397? Just look at the list of entities sued[1]. It's ludicrous. It's desperate; they're making baseless accusations in the hope that one of them sticks.
I'm against software patents so I'm biased here, but the patent[2] is very restrictive anyway: "a software interface [that] organizes information predicated upon the geographical area of the resources about which the information is desired" (how many website have you used that show you a map?). That kind of patent doesn't encourage innovation. Far from it: it encourages the defensive measure of overly-patenting.
"who's only commercialization of their technology is to sue other people"
There's a very good reason for this behavior:
If you are a small company that sells a product, enforcing a patent related to this product is nearly impossible. If you try to enforce your patent your opponent will present ten other patents related to your own product and destroy your company.
For big players this is typically not an issue, because they often exchange patents with each other - and thereby also prevent new players from entering the market.
But for small companies the only viable approach in regard to patents is to sell your granted patents to other companies (instead of enforcing them yourself). And it's very obvious why the companies buying the patents are so unpopular amongst the big players: As these companies don't have any products on their own, they can't be extorted when trying to enforce a patent.
Disclaimer: Personally I'm against any patent laws because I think that patents just hinder innovation. But I don't see any reason to blame companies that play by the market's rules (especially when your own company supports those rules).
The problem here is that the reason they are suing nearly 400 companies is as a tactic against Google and Microsoft. Essentially the patent covers looking up in a database items that have geographic information associated with them, and displaying the results on a map.
They think Google maps and Bing maps violate this. They also know that if they sued either of those two, neither would not be interested in settling and buying a license. Either of them would go ahead and mount a vigorous defense, and very likely destroy the patent.
So, instead of suing Google and Microsoft, who they know would destroy their bogus patent, they are going after companies that use Google maps or Bing maps, such as companies that have a "store locator" on their web site that will show you where nearby stores are located.
Their hope is that those nearly 400 companies will all put pressure on Google and Microsoft to make the suits quickly go away, and that Google and Microsoft will respond by just going ahead and licensing the patent since that is quicker than getting it invalidated.
I don't get you. So you're ok with the companies doing that, but not ok with the laws which allow them to? Normally, I'd say that some both things are a problem. How can you say X is bad, but doing X is ok, since the law allows it? That just sounds like hypocrisy to me...
I think the post is saying that patent trolls provide something like a way for small companies to outsource their patent enforcement, which arguably levels the playing field a bit, but not as much as patent reform would. (sounds reasonable to me)
The problem is that given the current state of the patent system we have no particular reason to think the patent is valid. Back before I got there a student at my dorm in college decided to wire up our dorm's laundry machines to a webserver, and we appeared on Slashdot for that. Shortly after a company applied for a patent on the idea of doing that, they sent a cease and desist letter to the dorm, because some lawyer at the company didn't realize where their product came from.
Thats just an illustrative case, but getting a patent that covers already existing products is far from impossible for a big company with lots of resources to throw at the problem. This means that, in practice, big companies all have stocks of patents that they can use to possibly shut down their competitors businesses depending on what the juries decide. But because their competitors are in the same position Mutually Assured Destruction holds and nobody actually wants to sue - especially since there's a chance that any patent might be invalidated if it came to a lawsuit and then you wouldn't have them for protection any more.
So here we have a system that isn't optimal, but its workable and stable. But then patent trolls get into the mix and things get more complicated. Since the patent troll doesn't have products of their own there isn't any threat of MAD, so they're free to extort money from companies. Now, if they actually ever had to bring a lawsuit to conclusion there is always the chance that the patent might be found invalid thus, preventing the troll from using it to sue more companies later. But if they can keep settling for just a bit less money than would cause the victim to fight the suit you can keep extorting money for a long time. But if the potential victims realize what's happening and legally target the patent - which is sort of like whats happening now.
EDIT: Sometimes, often actually, patents are actually for substantial origonal inventions where the patent aplicant actually _was_ the first to invent something. Those tend not to show up in this sort of legal action, however, and sure enough Google and Microsoft were able to find plenty of examples of prior art.
I think gst's comment makes a lot of sense, although it might or might not apply to this particular case.
The assumption is that the patent system is one that is fundamentally broken, resulting (among other things) in such patent trolls who exploit it to their own benefit.
Suing them for patent infringement can be seen as fighting "within the system", in effect legitimizing the system, instead of calling it out for being totally absurd in the first place.
With the danger of falling under Godwin's law, here is an analogy: imagine someone is persecuted by an oppressive regime for being part of an ethnic minority. Someone might oppose this persecution by pointing out that the person is in fact only 25% part of the ethnic group (one grandparent), whereas the law applies only above 50%. This could be seen as a worse response than taking to the streets to protest against the regime.
EDIT: I am explaining what I understood to be gst's point, I hope I am not totally misrepresenting it.
I can only assume the original commenter had a problem with the terminology. Obviously patent trolls aren't doing anything illegal (at least not intrinsically), considering their business model relies on working within the current legal system.
But that's the point, if they are doing nothing illegal and we are not challenging the legal framework either, what right do we have to give them a derogatory name.
Quoting my favorite trolling rule: "This has a working definition of 'attempting to be as annoying as possible while still technically obeying the rules[.]'"
Agreed, it is the system that is the problem. However, when entities take advantage of a system for their own gain at the expense of everyone else, I feel justified in calling them unethical/immoral/worthy of disdain.
I just happen to hate the player as well as the game (and think the system is hosed as well).
