LWN: Comments on "Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)"

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

Seegras — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 10:46:26 +0000

'the solution to which is not "Throw out the entire system!"'

Yes it is. The whole patent system cannot produce anything to prove it's usefulness in promotion of scientific development and innovation. It can't even prove its usefulness in providing inventors with compensation for their efforts.

It is, as a whole, a huge waste of money and resources, a weapon for corporate warfare whose only winner is lawyers, it's in effect a lawyers tax of 20% on every technology.

Patent systems are hurting the industry and economy big time. We, the world, the nations, the companies, cannot afford to maintain such a wealth-destroying, economy-crippling and innovation-stiffling machine.

Well, that is the economic reality. Of course, the media-generated virtual reality wildly differs from facts, and the politic reality follows thusly making it just about impossible to throw out the rent-seeking profiteers and actually ditch such a system. So, in that sense, any actual and feasible solutions are bound to be patchwork onto the existing patent system, but calling these a "solution" for the problem is like calling a duct-tape on the leak in the Titanic a "solution" -- it's still sinking, only marginally slower.

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

stevem — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:24:53 +0000

Unfortunately the "publishing" part of the deal has been comprehensively reneged on. Look at the wording of many current patents: the wording is so vague that even an expert in the field will struggle to understand what is claimed, let alone reproduce it.

The patent system is fatally flawed, and has been ever since lawyers took control of it. Now the only people to profit are the lawyers.

What is Florian's strategy?

CycoJ — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 02:51:53 +0000

Are you deliberately not reading my comment? The German constitution does nowhere state that IP is guaranteed. It only states that private property is guaranteed, btw the same article also states that private property implies a duty its use has to serve the common good (Eigentum verpflichtet).

So your argument is the German GG guarantees IP because IP is property and the GG guarantees private property. I've shown you a link that the notion if Copyright is indeed a property is at least controversial in Germany, this shows that your statement was at least misleading.

Also the section about Urheberrecht (Copyright) does not guarantee it, it merely states that it is governed by federal law. From that section federal law could actually say there is not Copyright.

On the contrary...

Wol — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:22:52 +0000

Actually, I'd say a ten-year old WordPerfect is probably the best word processor ever! :-)

Ever since version 9 its attempts to copy Word have been dragging it downhill...

Cheers,
Wol

intellectual property is guaranteed? Really?

Wol — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:13:11 +0000

Copyright has always been time-limited

You obviously don't know your history ...

There's a reason "limited time" was put into the American Constitution - it was the reaction to perpetual copyright (or its equivalent) in Britain. I assume British law applied in the colonies ... ?

Cheers,
Wol

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

Wol — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 17:21:45 +0000

"loser pays" is not a particularly good system.

And while it can be unjust, I think our (the UK) system is better. Sometimes the winner ends up paying :-)

If the defendant offers to settle, and the plaintiff both (a) rejects the settlement, and (b) gets less at trial, then costs are AUTOMATICALLY awarded against the plaintiff! I think there's a bit of judicial leeway, but not much.

That way, especially in a troll case, if the defendant offers to settle for less than the plaintiff has already spent, it becomes a huge gamble for the plaintiff - swallow a loss or gamble on winning big with a massive downside if you don't ...

Cheers,
Wol

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

pboddie — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:19:04 +0000

I'm pointing out that as part and parcel of the idealized world of "software freedom" that RMS discusses in the essay I cite, he states very clearly that developers are overpaid, and in fact have unrealistic expectations about what they should get paid.

I thought that most people were generally in agreement that you can still support the notion of Free Software without agreeing with 100% of the personal views of any particular individual in the Free Software movement.

In any case, regarding the economic influence of Free Software (and ignoring bizarre lawsuits accusing the GPL of being a price-fixing instrument), although Free Software might encourage a more efficient economy by reducing the amount of money spent on proprietary software that, for example, could have been improved or extended at significantly less cost had it been non-proprietary software, there are plenty of opportunities for earning a decent living in such an economy. Stallman points this out in his essay, in fact, so it isn't a fair summary at all to claim that he thinks everyone should be programming at "minimum wage" levels.

Now, one can question whether it is wise to divert a large stream of revenue from one sector of the economy to others, particularly if one is a politician in whose district there are companies operating in that particular sector who employ significant numbers of people. But ultimately, when such companies sit on top of large cash reserves, in some cases accumulated by unethically exploiting their market position, one has to wonder whether that money might not do more good elsewhere, and not just through occasional and often conditional charitable donations to a selection of worthy and not-so-worthy causes.

We have to keep working on abolition

FlorianMueller — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 04:00:33 +0000

I'm quite aware of differences between the systems. While I've worked directly with politicians only in the EU, I follow US politics a lot. Obviously the party lines over here are more critical because governments could be voted out of office, unlike the President of the United States, so any appearance of a government having lost majority support in a parliament can have far-reaching consequences.

But there are other circumstances for which the anti-software-patent stance has an even harder time in the US. For instance, if you look at how all patent reform initiatives in recent years have gone, you can see that the subcommittee members in charge are totally pro-patent, much more so than, say, the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee, where a majority is pro-patent but a much larger minority than in comparable Congress committees is receptive to some form of criticism.

We have to keep working on abolition

linuxrocks123 — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 03:26:14 +0000

What you say is only true in certain countries. In the United States, the parties are much weaker than in many (most?) European countries, and politicians are usually free in a practical sense to vote however they wish.

---linuxrocks123

What is Florian's strategy?

corbet — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:47:01 +0000

OK, guys, I'm starting to think that this conversation has gone far enough. Yes, I'm a little slow on the uptake. But maybe we could bring it to a close here?

Thanks.

What is Florian's strategy?

Lefty — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:38:39 +0000

Hey, you're the one adamantly refusing to "capitulate" in the name of freedom, pal. I guess it's okay if it's Google, though. That's different. I guess.

But since you ask, in discussions at (in particular) the various Linux Foundation-sponsored Collaboration Summits to which I've been invited, with a variety of the kernel hackers, the subject of Google's use of open source has come up a number of times.

Google clearly has several heavily modified versions of Linux used in-house, and they've said as much, for various purposes. Those modifications are intendedas I saidto boost performance, mainly, particularly within their server farms. Since they don't "distribute" these versions of Linux, they're not obligated to share any of these improvements, and, indeed, they don't.

Now, on a couple of occasions, Google has attempted to share patches. In most cases, they've been rejectedas in the case of Google's proposed modifications to the kernel for Androidon a variety of grounds, for reasons that one might characterize as "wrongheadedness", "sloppiness" and the like. The upshot is that Google is pretty much the first organization around to fork the kernel in a significant and impactful way. Now there are two: the "regular" Linux kernel, and the "Android" Linux kernel. Thanks, guys!

It's been saidand this was reported right in the LWN article I pointed out to youthat Google itself recognizes that the quality of its own work, even when not secret, is too "godawful" for them to even bother submitting.

But why am I telling you this? You "work there".

Right?

Maybe if you spent more time cleaning up your code, and less time looking for trouble on LWN, we'd all be better off. Or is this how you spend your "20% time"?

What is Florian's strategy?

jra — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:58:03 +0000

So you've gone from asserting about Google:

> "all those neat kernel performance patches they've been keeping to
> themselves all these years"

after being told "Actually, those mythical patches are gawdawful on the whole and we don't want them" (which is quite true by the way).

to:

> "Yeah, knew that, actually"

So what actually *do* you know Lefty ? It's easy to make assertions about withheld "neat kernel performance patches" which you then agree are "godawful .. and we don't want them".

So what was the point of asserting there were valuable kernel performance patches held private by Google ? You knew it wasn't true, by your own admission above.

Merely trolling ? It would match your behavior on the Gnome lists, but I was hoping that you might behave better in a forum such as lwn.

I guess the most probable reason was try try and damage the reputation of another poster by attempting associate him with lies about bad behavior by his employer. Which is pretty low. I'd prefer it if you were just trolling I think.

Jeremy.

What is Florian's strategy?

Lefty — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:32:31 +0000

Yeah, knew that, actually. I was just wondering where that particular situation fit in with Jeremy's bold, non-capitulating, freedom-fighting worldview. "It's a conspiracy."

Mm hm.

What is Florian's strategy?

FlorianMueller — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:14:55 +0000

Thanks, Daniel. It feels good to be supported, but I can't claim for my work the "level of significance" you mentioned. I do, however, believe that I can help point out things that some others don't. If my blogging, tweeting and other communications result in people looking at things from angles they didn't consider before, that makes me happy enough, even though not comparable to the luminaries you mentioned.

What is Florian's strategy?

daniel — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:13:49 +0000

Really? Golly. Perhaps, since you're all about advocating free software and all, you could get them to liberate all those neat kernel performance patches they've been keeping to themselves all these years. Isn't it all about sharing?

Actually, those mythical patches are gawdawful on the whole and we don't want them. They're more about abusing the kernel in various ways to do specific things in a way that could be be best described as one off hacks. Mostly left in the dust by sensible upstream patches created by developers not on a short lease.

What is Florian's strategy?

daniel — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:07:30 +0000

Florian, you have the patience of a saint. The work you do and the work you have done is nothing less than fundamental, of the same level of significance as Linus's and Richard's. Just wanted to say that not everybody misses the point. Best of luck, Daniel

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

Lefty — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:04:50 +0000

I honestly haven't the slightest idea what the relevance of any of this to my comment is.

I'm pointing out that as part and parcel of the idealized world of "software freedom" that RMS discusses in the essay I cite, he states very clearly that developers are overpaid, and in fact have unrealistic expectations about what they should get paid. He goes on to say that making all software "free" would resolve this, per force as it were, by reducing incomes for programmers down to "a mere living". The massive reduction in pay (and corresponding reduction in ROI on their investment in becoming programmers in the first place) would be offset by their rediscovering the "joy of accomplishment" inherent in their work.

I personally don't believe that 99% of developers what anything like that, regardless of how they feel about "free software" otherwise. I've never met a programmer worth the air he consumed who was willing to cut his own pay down to minimum wage to further the cause of "software freedom". I suspect a number of them might, under those circumstances, find greater "joy" inhering to the accomplishments available to the occupations of lawyer, architect, stockbroker, or any other highly-skilled job which hasn't had its payscale "freed down" to a level which might seem like prosperity "only to a Pakistani bricklayer" as Neil Stephenson put it in "Snow Crash".

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

hozelda — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:16:32 +0000

[from grandparent]>> and while none of them earn more than a 'mere living'* at it

Large companies have a number of levers over start-ups. Starts-up have their own share, but, as a rough indicator of lever strength, we can consider the longevity large companies tend to have vs start-ups.

Mike and the people over at techdirt make a decent case on an ongoing basis that execution is more important than IP (and don't like IP or at least not in its current form and how it is (ab)used). They show cases of small firms thriving without leveraging it, even as larger firms try to copy them. They frequently target copyright, and, as another example, show the successes and diversity found in many industries where copyright is not applicable (eg, fashion, restaurant, comedy, football, ...). Most people would probably agree copyright is way too long so way past the point of promoting the progress as the years run by.

Whether patents were once a tool of the start-up, it seems now the large companies have the advantage (and this has promoted somewhat the spread of the patent troll business model, if only because the large co offer a very large target and because they otherwise hold so much leverage against you if you try to take products out under the current patent landscape). Many people like the idea of a healthy environment for start-ups. It's a different character of people that tend to seek employment at these firms, but I think it's healthy to make sure start-ups will not be drowned in courtroom patent attacks or face any sort of significant handicap when the large companies come asking for tribute (or outright injunctions).

What is Florian's strategy?

hozelda — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 14:43:19 +0000

Well, as for Windows integration, I was stating what I remember reading. I am not the webmaster or author of the TurboHercules com website, so I can't say why they would have said (iirc) that they had good integration with Windows. [Recollecting, I don't know if they used that word "integration"] In particular, with or without "integration" the product mentioned by name appeared to be one they shipped with a Windows environment. The integration stands out because otherwise they likely would have felt no need to have picked Windows.

Yes, I could have googled and didn't. I wanted to mention the TH thing, but that event is in the past and was mostly off topic. Since their page appears to have changed, it's not too useful to me right now to go further into it (I'm not a fan of IBM's patent policy, though it does appear to be friendlier to Linux today (and IBM does leverage the Linux community much more than does Microsoft, so that much would make sense).

The most I can say for IBM in terms of excuse is that they repeated their pledge (for what it's worth, since obviously they have many more patents off the pledge and which obviously might apply). I do know that the groklaw articles had mentioned there might have been some inconsistency in who had taken what action by what point in time and that the letters might not have shown the whole picture. In any case, we all gain in these respects without sw pats.

My personal view is that I care about open source being safe and do not worry about closed source. This means I would be happy if open source was safe regardless of the closed source situation (open source provides all the blueprints and this is very developer/end-user/progress friendly, especially in the long run); however, I can understand the closed source folks also feeling frustrated with sw pats.

Specific to Microsoft, they are a monopolist of an important segment (desktop OS) and very ambitious (they would easily take over google's market share and then some if given the opportunity). I don't support that. I don't port to Windows. I want the high-value FOSS products to exist on open platforms, preferably exclusively. On proprietary platforms, FOSS apps are completely dependent on the underlying OS so are not FOSS as a piece of software actually running on the system. When Microsoft leaves their position in the market clearly, I won't be so negative, at least not towards them with bias.

I would like Google to spread Linux, but I personally am not interested in their OS product and would recommend people switch off it as Google adds proprietary components and lock-in (ie, in the future).

What is Florian's strategy?

hozelda — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 14:07:34 +0000

>> - for funding, assuring the VC people that your idea most likely is new and equally importantly does not infringe existing rights

I don't think it can be possible or would be expected to show that you are not stepping on other patents. [depends on your product, but we'll assume sw pats would be in play and we are talking about that industry]. Also, a major rise in sw pats occurred this decade, so if you started off in the 90s or earlier, you might have landed in an area to have avoided (for a while anyway) most problems.
http://www.unionsquareventures.com/2010/01/we-need-an-ind...

Obviously some industries might not likely have so many relevant patents in your area.

>> - for startup, making sure you are not killed off by large existing players

It's not likely you can avoid infringement today in many sw (or similar) areas (again, assuming sw pats were in play), so companies can definitely come and pressure you to pay some big bucks or sell out or in fact be driven out of business. These have all happened enough times that it's probably safe to say you cannot add surety at all.

>> - for cross licensing purposes, typically used by those making a living from their IPR portfolio

Again, looking at these areas where we might presume many patents in effect, if you focus on creating patents and not products, then you could try to make money off the patents, but if you make products, there is a very good chance you infringe somewhere. Those cross-licensing, I think by definition, are making products.

This is probably the end of discussion...

coriordan — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 08:59:24 +0000

Another option is to put a "> " at that start of the line. LWN automatically marks it up like this:

> blah blah blah

Who said "changing rules" means "removing rules"?

SecretEuroPatentAgentMan — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:59:54 +0000

OK, since we are well on our way to tangent land...

There is a rather well known (moral) tale from the world of R&D about truly understanding your experiments. One pharmaceutical research group discovered that by giving their test animals a certain drug they lived significantly longer than the reference group. You can imagine the expectations of wealth and fame here.

And it was all dashed when it was found out the drug made the test animals sick so they could not eat too much while the reference group were overeating and "anjoying" a western styled reduction in life expectancy.

I have not heard if they applied for a patent.

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

butlerm — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:26:09 +0000

> For 1 USD I guess you would have to dispose of novelty search and examination of patentability. That would most likely destroy the patent system.

I think you are missing the point, which is that the only thing keeping the USPTO from destroying the economy now is the economic costs of obtaining a patent. Their standards are so low that if everyone entitled to a patent under current standards was granted one at a sufficiently minimal cost, all creative enterprise would stop.

It is not too far beyond the pale of reason to trace one of the major causes of the current recession in the United States to the practices of the USPTO over the past decade. The USPTO is a black hole contributing to a net loss of health, wealth, and prosperity in the country, and the software division more than most.

This is inhuman excuse...

Lefty — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:24:09 +0000

Using hyperbole can be a very useful tool.

If you're attempting to appeal to emotion rather than reason, perhaps.

It was stated that the analogy was aimed at our relationships to bad laws (and not specifically a patent issue).

Which would make it off-topic and irrelevant, unless someone can manage to tie it back to a patent issue, something which no one seems capable of managing.

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

butlerm — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:19:38 +0000

Okay, lets take the independent claim of patent 6826762:

"An abstraction layer for interfacing a computer to a telephony radio, comprising: a set of application programming interfaces (APIs) for abstracting out multiple radio technologies without knowledge of the telephony radio or cellular network, wherein the set of APIs correspond to call control functions, wherein the abstraction layer comprises a proxy layer and a driver layer, wherein when the proxy layer receives a call at a first interface to one of the set of APIs, the proxy layer transforms the API call to a command understood by the driver layer and sends the command to the driver layer at a second interface, and wherein the driver layer receives the command at the second interface and determines at least one standard telephony radio command corresponding to the called API and sends the telephony radio command to the telephony radio at a third interface, and wherein the proxy layer is hardware independent and the driver is hardware specific."

The value of this so-called "invention" is directly proportional to its value to rule out the standard engineering practice of any and all competitors in the field. That is the main problem with most software patents, most don't cover anything rightly termed an "invention" at all.

Standard engineering practice is not an invention. This sort of thing (abstraction layers for interface conversion) goes back decades. Outside of software it goes back centuries. The only remotely "inventive" aspect of this claim is applying standard engineering practice to a mobile phone. The only conclusion one can make is that either the patent examiners are remarkably stupid or naive, or the standards of the USPTO are so lax as to be non-existent.

What is Florian's strategy?

Lefty — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:11:59 +0000

Yes Lefty, it is.

Well, we'll simply have to agree to disagree on that.

Advocating *for* software patents, which is what both you and Florian do, is incompatible with advocacy for Free Software.

See, you've completely confused "advocating for software patents" with "recognizing the legal reality that there are indeed patents out there, related to software, which courts are quite likely to hold to be perfectly good ones if they should happen to be asked about it by anyone".

They're not the same thing, though I can see how one might confuse the two. Sort of. Apparently "advocating against software patents" amounts to "pretending they don't exist" in your thinking. Ignoring reality, especially in the context of brushes with the legal system, has proven to be a risky strategy.

In my opinion, Florian can call himself a "free software advocate" if he advocates in favor of free software licenses (as opposed to open source ones) and, I suppose, at least some "free software" positions. I would certainly hope that he's free to make suggestionsas he hasexpressing his views of things that would constitute improvements, in his opinion, and based on his expertise.

You, howeverand you're far from alone in thisseem to want to insist on a completely homogenous and undifferentiated groupthink, which seems odd coming from such partisans of "freedom". I don't "dislike Free Software" per se. I do despise this sort of think-how-we-tell-you version of "freedom" you folks seem to have going.

For my part, I am not and have never been a "free software advocate". I have advocated for open source software, on purely pragmatic grounds: some wheels don't need to be reinvented, and functions which don't differentiate aren't things on which a company can compete. I don't love the GPL(v2) more than the MPL or the BSDL. And I loathe the GPLv3. Simple as that.

Might it be because you'd like to use it in your own proprietary software ?

If the license allows it, and it's got useful functionality, I'm more than happy to use any piece of open source-licensed software as part of an overall project consisting of a mix of proprietary and open source software, sure. That's actually how I make my living,advising on open source licensing compliance, among other things.

I'd like you to show where I've tried to get anyone to "accept a patent tax", here, on a GNOME list, or anywhere else, however, because I can't think of any instance in which I've done anything like that. Once again, I've simply recognized that patents exist. I've never suggested that anyone license one, outside of a business meeting.

Google conspiracy theories are *so* twentieth century.

Are you sure you work at Google? I only ask because it's pretty common knowledge, and has even been discussed at places like the Linux Foundation's Collaboration Summit, that Google maintains a pretty significant volume of internally developed patches to a variety of GPL-licensed components, including the kernel, which they do not share with the rest of the world, not being obligated to since they're never "distributed" the corresponding binaries outside of Google itself.

In fact, it's been at least alluded to right here on LWN. "Linus asked: why aren't these patches upstream? Is it because Google is embarrassed by them, or is it secret stuff that they don't want to disclose, or is it a matter of internal process problems? The answer was simply 'yes.'"

What is Florian's strategy?

SecretEuroPatentAgentMan — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:08:26 +0000

>>> Microsoft successfully developed a decent rival product (Bing) without licensing PageRank.

>>Is their algorithm known?

>Of course, no. But it surely adds boost in search result pages based on number of incoming links.

So how do you know?

Since you write "surely" I hope you can also tell me if the Microsoft implementation was based on the disclosure in the Google PageRank patent.

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

SecretEuroPatentAgentMan — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:03:46 +0000

> Why are we protecting ideas for 20 years that are, at best, obvious to the independent practitioner a year or two down the road?

The purpose of the patent system is to promote advancement and one means towards that is the fact that a patent is published. The very act of publishing a patent (or patent application) that fulfulls the enabling requirements, clarity and sufficiency for a person skilled in the art to work the invention is what makes the invention obvious. If the invention is considered well known by everyone 10 years down the road then this can be taken as a sign of success.

The alternative is secrecy. There is very limited protection in a trade secret, on the other hand it can last forever and is cheap. And it can work surprisingly well. From my own experience I was involved in developing a new microprocessor architecture that was kept secret, not just how it works bit also where it is deployed. This is now close to 20 years ago and while the finished design documents made it seem obvious a recent search shows it has not yet been reinvented or published by others. Nor has the use been discovered by the competitors who do not realise the importance of the architecture in getting products quickly to the market.

This was my first experience seeing how clear things are in hindsight yet remains non-obvious at the time. Had a patent been applied for the competitors would probably have been using the technology already.

Publishing is one part of the deal made between the applicant and the authorities, getting a time limited protection is the other. If the time is too short more companies will find secrecy more attractive.

please cut out the bold

ABCD — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 05:38:29 +0000

Any logged-in user can change the displayed color of the purple text via My Account → Customize your account (the option is Quoted text (in email) color under Display preferencesnot to be confused with Quoted text preferences, which is the dark red color in articles), so if you don't like that color, just change it. ☺

What is Florian's strategy?

FlorianMueller — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 04:19:51 +0000

I remember at least looking up their product on their website and having them tout it as having Windows integration.

There's no "Windows integration" going beyond the fact that the emulator, originally developed for Linux, is available for Windows. So what's wrong with that? Are you basically saying that free and open source software can be attacked in any way just because there's a Windows version? How about Apache, MySQL, Firefox etc.? Are they fair game because there are Windows versions? Or do you mean to say their Windows versions are fair game for any kind of attack (or for a denial of what antitrust law requires)?

I can't remember if the letters themselves stated explicitly of the Windows connection.

You could have easily googled those letters. At any rate, here's a link and there's no mention of Windows.

We have to keep working on abolition

FlorianMueller — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 04:14:54 +0000

people do vote on issues without knowing the details if they trust (and like) the "experts" who would be making a case for why this matters to J Smith.

That's not how it works. We've leveraged that kind of resistance, and all we were able to achieve on that basis was a defensive victory (we prevented a new law from being passed), but once you really want to go on the offensive and get a law passed that's more restrictive than what's already there, it just won't work.

Also, politicians won't just vote on a subject like this based on trusting and liking "experts" making a case for ordinary citizens. Theoretically, each member of a parliament is free to vote, but in reality, there's a process that results in a party line followed by most of them, or even all of them. If a matter of economic policy, such as patent law, is discussed within political parties, there's absolutely no way to win (except within smaller parties) unless you demonstrate meaningful support from businesses.

What is Florian's strategy?

FlorianMueller — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 04:09:36 +0000

You quote me saying that IP is guaranteed by those constitutions, and then you argue that the term IP isn't explicitly mentioned. I didn't say it's explicitly mentioned everywhere, but the concept is guaranteed.

What is Florian's strategy?

FlorianMueller — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 04:05:21 +0000

I don't say one shouldn't "try and advocate for change". I said it's pointless without serious support from significant businesses. As long as it's just a political game of Free Software ideology vs. "the economy", it's not winnable.

Also, those patents exist now, and Free Software wants to exist now. So some solutions must be found.

Concerning your last question, we had that before and I addressed it.

What is Florian's strategy?

jra — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 03:44:12 +0000

> I don't believe that's a determination you get to make, actually.

Yes Lefty, it is. Advocating *for* software patents, which is what both you and Florian do, is incompatible with advocacy for Free Software. So Florian's statements do disqualify him as a Free Software advocate (which is what he claims to be). I don't say the same about you, as no one in their wildest dreams would insult you by calling you an advocate for Free Software. I do wonder what it is you actually try and achieve by your comments both here and on the Gnome lists though ? You dislike Free Software so much, why do you spend so much time arguing with its supporters and trying to get them to accept a patent tax on their own work ? Might it be because you'd like to use it in your own proprietary software ?

I think you might need to go get some patents of your own to achieve that :-). It's the only sure way it seems :-).

> Really? Golly. Perhaps, since you're all about advocating free software
> and all, you could get them to liberate all those neat kernel performance
> patches they've been keeping to themselves all these years.

Lefty, Google conspiracy theories are *so* twentieth century. You might want to replace your tinfoil hat, it seems the mind control rays must be seeping through your existing one.

Jeremy.

Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

hozelda — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 03:28:46 +0000

>> It's interesting to see how the criticisms of Florian's posting fall into two broad categories:

And now we know more about the color of your lenses.

Not meant as an insult, but I think you have overgeneralized conveniently perhaps.

It's simpler...

hozelda — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 03:23:00 +0000

>> This seems a little unlikely. Why would anyone ever stop "calling the bluff" under those circumstances?

Because in some cases it might not be a bluff (I'm thinking poker). The contexts would be different across parties. As an example related to Windows being given cheaply, this would depend on the size of the account and on how likely Microsoft thinks they might stick with Linux and influence others.

Also, each different party is likely unaware of what the earlier party got.

[So, I didn't intend to suggest a generalization, but was suggesting that in some cases it might be happening that those that "call the bluff" somewhat get more than others that don't.]

>> Which provides exactly zero support for the notion that they'd give way a license on these patents.

No, because the point is that the end game is not just that one party. There are consequences for gaining or losing an account. This is particularly important for those that deal heavily in monopolies and/or rely on certain psychological tools working for them.

>> So, somehow, no one in Tom Tom's legal department, and no one in Motorola's legal department, and in fact, no one in the entire legal world has really been able to convince themselves that there are flaws in these patents worth bringing into a courtroom.

Again, not necessarily at all.

Microsoft picks and chooses the licensee (they haven't created problems for everyone). This is where the bluff comes in. In some cases, Microsoft will not budge, but in others they will because there could be costs to their overall end game.

Eg, having a streak of "winning" negotiations is very valuable for lowering future resistance; hence, to preserve that advantage, they might settle with someone under terms where all references to the deal would be in terms laid out by Microsoft, and Microsoft might even pay the other party for this privilege (of course, this would be a case of a bluff gone badly, since Microsoft can generally just ignore someone if they think that party might conceivably end up creating problems for Microsoft).

All of these are realistic business possibilities.

Another possibility is that Microsoft has offered to share future royalty payments.

Another possibility is that Microsoft argues that striking any sort of eventual deal can help the other company by trying to argue that supporting software patents would help that party down the line.

These are all realistic business possibilities. Microsoft might try these or others on a case by case basis. Why not? Is business not their game? Are they likely not very clever and resourceful?

We have to keep working on abolition

bojan — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 03:22:22 +0000

The word you're looking for is "patronising", I'm sure :-)

This is inhuman excuse...

hozelda — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 03:04:36 +0000

>> This impression may, for all I know, be entirely accurate. If it isn't, however, and if you don't care to make the impression that you're simply a histrionic indulging in ridiculous hyperbole, you should choose your analogies more carefully. If your certainty is accurate, see whether you can manage to make better (or even some) sense next time around.

Well, I didn't make the analogies. I'm not even sure if I read over the examples, but I could find common points and so I replied. Using hyperbole can be a very useful tool.

Someone (pboddie) who apparently did pay more attention to the example already commented on it in a reply to me. It was stated that the analogy was aimed at our relationships to bad laws (and not specifically a patent issue).

What is Florian's strategy?

bojan — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 03:03:20 +0000

> there's more to implementing a successful service than just knowing the algorithm

This whole thread actually shows rather nicely why software patents are not a necessary thing: there is far more to it when it comes to success/failure of a business. Both "sides" of the discussion essentially agree with this.

Then why complicate lives of so many to gain essentially nothing for general public? Because once the privilege is given, it is hard to take it away. Nobody in their right mind is going to give up on a potential monopoly when they can squeeze their competitors for longer without doing anything else business-wise to be more successful.

Unrelated point:

I remember discussion from awhile back about software being like artwork. Anyone still remembers that Google ad where the solution to a mathematical problem led to a phone number to call (or something like that - don't remember the details exactly)? How many "artists" would get that?

I am sure Google had that ad up because software had nothing to do with maths :-)

This is probably the end of discussion...

hozelda — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 02:57:54 +0000

>> a "load-leveling" method for NAND Flash, to cite just one example, ain't that "abstract".

I will guess what that is about, and it seems it isn't a software patent issue in the sense of limiting what software you run on the device.

I worry as a user and foss developer. Sure, patents have problems for many groups. The idea though is that once you buy the hardware, the patent issue has been resolved and you can create for it whatever software you want.

The open source hardware people will have more stuff to worry about, yes. And indirectly so will those of us that would prefer open source hardware.

One reason I care more about software is that most changes and creations occur as software. To relate to a different field, I don't want novels and other writings to be bogged down by patent monopolists. That too would remove too much from society.

I think one way to get the legal profession to rethink patents would be to allow patents for the work carried out routinely in that profession. A monopoly is just disgusting (for most participants) if you care about the practice.