Comment by Declanomous | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Declanomous | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Given how important standards are in the realm of computers, I think the degree of protection patents provide is ludicrous. Patents ostensibly exist to benefit society while allowing the inventor to benefit from their invention. I feel like in the digital world the balance has tipped too far in favor of the inventor.

If we look to the industrial revolution for example, we have the conversion of linear motion to reciprocating motion. This is an incredibly important development for getting useful work out of steam engines. The most common solution is the crank and flywheel, but when James Watt was designing his steam engines he found that the crank was patented by James Pickard. Rather than license the crank, he invented the Sun and Planet gear[1]. The Sun and Planet gear was less efficient than the crank, but it was a suitable workaround which allowed Watt's engines to be competitive.

When it comes to computers, you either have the ability to interact or you don't. If you don't have the right radio, you cannot build a cell phone. If you don't have the right codec, you cannot build a web browser. Functionally, these patents are effectively more like patenting the concept of changing linear motion into rotational motion than patenting a particular mechanism for doing so.

I'm glad Apple is forcing Qualcomm's hand on this one.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_and_planet_gear

I've come to the same conclusion you have re: software patents. And it is the courts' fault. The use of functional language in patent claims is allowed without applying means-plus-funtion case law.

If you say "engine means for creating torque" in your patent claim, when you try to enforce your claim the court will look at the actual engine you disclosed in your patent's specification. You can't disclose a crank and flywheel and then assert it against sun and planet.

But if you call it an "engine module configured to provide torque" courts will let you assert that claim against pretty much anything vaguely like an engine that provides torque.

This phenomenon, where the need to license a patent is driven primarily by the need to comply with standard, rather than the advantages of the invention relative to alternatives, is accounted for in recent changes in the law of patent damages. See https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=175128776687856....

Under this 2015 case, the patent owner gets less money if people just use their patent to comply with the standard, and not because it's a better way of doing something.

These patents aren't cheap to develop or obvious. Of all the tech patents that are out there, high bandwidth and low latency communication is the hardest to develop. Apple is sitting on a mountain of cash, Qualcomm is absolutely in their right to charge them at the threshold it would take to develop an alternative.

In terms of "good to society" it's hard to say what expiration date is the optimal one at maximizing innovation over all possible futures. I think it's probably greater then 0, but below 100 years.

it will only help apple, not you.

the article convenietly leaves out the pricing rules being disputed.

remember that there is already regulations for std patents to be priced reasonably and non discrimatory.

what apple is hunting here, is a discount. nothing else.

These are all FRAND patents that the dispute is over. In short, Apple is claiming that they aren't priced reasonably, which is a reasonable claim to make.

Why should Apple pay Qualcomm more for a radio in a 128GB iPhone than a 32GB iPhone?

because the royalties are proportional to the profit. since the patent claim is the profits wouldnt exist without the original work. it's just like tax works. a judge cannot declare that illegal without criticizing all of tax law.

What is reasonable and non discriminatory is a question of interpretation.

At the heart is the argument that only part of the iPhone value is wireless and putting a tax on the whole is not reasonable. Imagine the iPhone software and chip embedded into a car. Would it be reasonable for the car manufacturer to pay the same percentage to Qualcomm as Apple? Where do you draw the line?

There is a huge amount of innovation in the iPhone: Mechanical engineering, materials, sensors, camera, screen and software. None have anything to do with Qualcomm.

The value Qualcomm adds is equivalent to a very fast portable, wireless hotspot. A great thing to have and worth paying for.

this is an excellent analogy!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com