throwawaykf

I don't understand - have I appropriated that software by any means? Then why would you be owed some payment?

> are you (obviously dishonestly) claiming that they have the funds at their disposal to pay for the "in shop" prices of those files?

No, I'm claiming that they should not be copying those files. Are you implying that none of those children can get funds for paying for those copies?

That's a very narrow view of the situation. Ask yourself, where do trolls get these patents? Well, there's at least one study [1] about that, and the answer is pretty complex. But in the context of this thread, the relevant information is that trolls get a significant chunk (about 29%) from individual inventors.

It's important to note that not everyone is like the inventor in TFA. As an individual, it is very difficult to get companies to license your patent, especially since both sides know that the only way to enforce it is a very expensive, complex and uncertain lawsuit. So these inventors may often "outsource" the enforcement to NPEs.

If you want to see this in action, go to CES. Many well-known trolls like Acacia actually have a booth at CES, and most of their traffic is from individuals who drop by to say, "Hey, I have this patent that XYZ probably infringes..."

1. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1792442

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal

steal [steel] stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun verb (used with object)

1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.

2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

...

Some jurisdictions have a much broader definition of theft too, e.g.: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9a.56.020

1) "Theft" means:

(a) To wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services; or

(b) By color or aid of deception to obtain control over the property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services; or

(c) To appropriate lost or misdelivered property or services of another, or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services.

(Emphasis added)

The point that is missed when engaging in these word games, of course, is that in common parlance, "theft" is used to mean any act that deprive others of something. In this case, it is the rightful payment for the value provided by the intellectual property that has been appropriated.

Hmm, I read that as a precursor to your later arguments.

> "We did not enter the search business, Jobs said. They entered the phone business. ... This don’t be evil mantra: “It’s bullshit.”

Ahh, OK, a bit indirect, but I can see where you're coming from.

> The rest of your post comes down to a disagreement on basic principles for which we will never agree.

But that's exactly my point! You and many people here pass judgement on things based on their own principles as if those were a given! I try to present an alternate perspective because it's hard to come by around here.

Now, even if asserting opinions as fact is taken as a reality of forum life and overlooked, there's another thing irks me: when it comes to patents, those opinions are almost always poorly informed, and my agenda really is to spread more awareness. This is also why I try to support my points with studies instead of regurgitating talking points put out by tech media outlets.

> I have opposed software patents for decades, far longer than I've been a Google employee (indeed, I was attracted to Google because of its stance on software freedom)

Yes, Google certainly is one of the stronger proponents of free software. But you should ask how much of that is because it conveniently aligns with their business strategy (see: Spolsky's "commoditize your complements.") And again, it would be useful to keep Google's antics with Motorola in mind. I do not say this to disenfranchise you with Google -- it is indeed an excellent company to work for -- but more from the perspective that an employers' stance on IP should not affect an employee's opinions. The employer is acting in their own best interests. So should the employee.

> possibly even a lawyer or an employee of IP vultures.

Heh, no, just a geek with a very strong interest in IP. I did previously work with a very IP-focused company, which is where I picked up my patent background, but this was the proverbial little guy that had been ripped off by the big guys, almost went under, and only managed to prevail through patents. Thus I have a very different view point on these things.

> All the other attempted utilitarian justifications are bullshit. They might hold for pharmaceuticals, or other industries where it may take 10 years to R&D a drug, but the idea that software patents represent extreme risks and expenses in development is ludicrous, and anyone who has written more than a few thousand lines of code knows that.

Any 12 year old can write a few thousand lines of code. Which thousand lines of code to write to provide the most value is something that only comes with a lot more insight.

Ask yourself: how much do software companies invest in R&D? See that war for talent out there? How much does it cost to retain the best talent? How much does the free food and health insurance and perks cost in addition to the 6-figure salaries? What are Google's biggest expenses? Would you call that a trivial investment? Now think about what that investment gets you, and whether that's something that a company can reasonably want to protect.

> The VC justification is bullshit too, I founded, raised funding, and sold two startup companies without patents.

Just because you did it that way doesn't mean it's the best way. I posted studies showing that it's easier to get financing if you have patents, and companies with patents are more likely to have successful exits. Sure, your experience is valid, but that does not mean others should deny any advantages they can rightfully take.

> The concept of predatory pricing makes no sense for something owned by the public (open source).

Nit-pick, but most open source is not really owned by the public. Especially not Android. Not when it takes an Amazon to fork Android.

> I would argue that if companies battling it out is creating and giving away knowledge or information to be owned by the public and freely copied, then it is a good for society and is exactly the kind of thing we want to be encouraging.

Couple of things:

1) If it's knowledge you created all by yourself, you can give it away all you want. But if it's simply a rehashing of knowledge somebody else created, not so much. This is essentially the purpose of IP, which you're free to disagree with, but society in general has decided to support it.

2) If giving away knowledge was such a great thing, why doesn't Google open source all it's IP? Think about where you draw the lines.

> Your vested interest is in protecting corporate interests against the public it seems.

Oh no, very much no. I don't have any vested interests yet, but if I do, they will be very much in my own interest rather than any corporation or any public. That may seem selfish, but I have seen with my own eyes time and again how the public and corporations will take what they can get and give back nothing if they can get away with it.

For those who've never visited that site, it's a highly regarded blog that covers all kind of patent issues in all kinds of areas. It does get a bit esoteric for non-legal folk, but even for us it's worth reading the introduction to each article just to get an idea of the patent situation in other industries. (You may soon realize that it's not all that different from ours.)

To get back on topic for this submission, it's a good quick read, again if only to get an idea of the patent issues other industries grapple with. For instance, "PARTS Act (S.780)" hints at some dissatisfaction in the auto industry.

> Google doesn't make any money from Android.

Are you claiming Google puts out Android as an exercise in charity? If not, this is a non-sequitur.

> Which company has a founder/CEO who openly proclaimed in inflammatory rhetoric that he was going to "destroy" and go "thermonuclear"?

Ok, let's play this game too! Which company has a CEO who openly proclaimed "if you have something you don't want other people to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place"? Oh, hey, look, Google supports the NSA!

> shaken down

> abusing

> abusing the legal system

> Microsoft's shakedown of B&N's Nook

I thought we had discussed the usage of this rhetoric in view of your employer's antics. Don't remember? Read on!

> You think that's morally equivalent to Motorola?

Oh, you want to bring up Motorola? Well, aren't you in for a treat! Read on!

> This is about as intellectually honest as...

Oh, you want to talk intellectual honesty, do you? Well, why don't you read on to see what your employer has been up to!

> Yes, Google is pursuing what is in their self interest, but there is nothing immoral about releasing stuff as source for free or competing in the marketplace.

And there is nothing immoral about protecting your legally given IP rights. Unless, of course, you assume your definition of morality. Which oddly enough, happens to align with Google's whenever it's convenient.

> It is not evil, despite the fact that Jobs tried to say it was.

(This is an aside and actually detracts from my point, but I'm genuinely curious; did Jobs actually say that?)

>* What is immoral is gumming up the courts and using the force of the government to beat your competitors because you can't stop consumers from choosing other products.*

No, what is immoral is trampling on other people's Intellectual Property rights, ripping off their creative work without proper compensation, avoiding the extreme risks and expenses in creating a new market that they undertook, and then competing unfairly by undercutting them by dumping a product for free funded by search monopoly profits.

See? I can spin things to fit a narrative too!

And customers' choice?? Hah! Customers will choose whatever is cheaper, which is exactly why antitrust law has provisions against predatory pricing.

Wait, what's that? Google has not been sued under antitrust laws? Well, guess what, Microsoft and Apple have not been sued (successfully, at least) for abusing patents either, yet you and others here sling that accusation around here pretty freely.

But wait! Did someone say "sued for abusing patents"? (And here's the pay-off) Guess who has been sued and slapped by a federal jury with millions in damages for abusing patents!

> Releasing Android was not an "attack". It was entering a market with a competitive product. The fact that Google was able to leverage new methods and resources (open source and the continued evolving of the Linux kernel) to reduce the cost of their offering (to the point of changing where revenue is generated in the product) is a normal market behavior.

That's one perspective. See my response to the sibling comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6657912) to see another perspective. Google was not the first to think of using Linux for a mobile OS (See: Maemo). But think of where the real competitive advantage for Android came from: Now can you now think why Apple is unhappy?

>* Pooling monopolistic grants and abusing the legal system to thwart market behavior is not something I think we should condone, regardless of how much the other companies felt under attack.*

"Monopolistic grants" is just a biased way to look at the patent system that most of the other tech industry works with just fine. "Abusing the legal system"? Again, let's just keep in mind it was not Apple or Microsoft, but Google which was found by a federal jury to be doing so, and charged millions of dollars for that.

Google did whatever they thought they could get away with legally to get an advantage. These companies are simply doing the same.

But wait, there's more! It doesn't end at Apple and Microsoft! Google also ripped off Sun by co-opting, without license, the Java dev environment (that cost Sun millions of dev dollars) and more importantly, the Java work force (that cost Sun billions of marketing dollars), just so they could get more people to make apps for their mobile OS. Guess what! Sun/Oracle sued them too!

Wow, if all these companies are suing Google for ripping them off (and considering multiple patent-related injunctions issued against Android vendors), it must mean Google has been ripping them off!

See? I can spin facts to support arbitrary biases as well.

Now, let's drop the incendiary language that most posters here stoop to. Here's the (overly simplified) reality: Google took for free what they thought they could get legally away with (and their gambles have so far paid off), and their competitors responded by trying to restrict them by using other legal counter-measures. Each side is doing exactly what they can get away with legally. People just happen to side with Google because their actions agree with their personal biases.

1) For all the talk of Microsoft and Apple "abusing patents", it was actually Google that had to pay 14 million in damages for actually doing just that. Let's just not forget that before deciding who should be "alienating the tech community". However, Google's PR really is very good, and unfortunately, most people here accept it without critical thought because it confirms their biases.

2) This is business, and business is war. Giving away Android for free was a direct attack on Microsoft's and Apple's business model. They are simply responding in kind. Most people here root for Google simply because they give away tons of really cool stuff for free, and/or because they seem to be "more aligned" with free/open source, which appears to be the dominant religion 'round these parts. However, people elsewhere would see this as perfectly natural.

3) Google is very weak on the patent front, and they know it. So while they hustle to buy up patents from all sorts of sources, they simultaneously try to spin the patent system as "broken" and their own moves as "defensive" in an attempt to reduce their disadvantage in the long term. It may seem counter-intuitive: why simultaneously buy patents and work to weaken their value? Because buying patents is just a short term defensive move. In the long term, Google would be perfectly happy to not have a patent system at all because all their competitive advantage is locked away in their data centers. This is a luxury Apple and Microsoft do not have. They put out products that anyone anywhere can copy, so they would prefer having a patent system.

4) As mentioned below, Google had an option of joining the consortium, but decided to go it alone. Drummond's blog post says it would not have helped Android, but that is very shallow reasoning. They could have always joined in and negotiated the rights to indemnify Android vendors in exchange for contributing a lot more towards the winning bid. Maybe the consortium would not have agreed to it -- we'll never know, because Google peremptorily declined to join in. But I have no idea why they though they could outbid a consortium of multiple giants in the space.

5) As mentioned in TFA, there is some truth to the argument that Rockstar is actually independent of Microsoft and Apple. I know of patent trolls that have funding from e.g. hedge funds, but operate entirely independently. Heck, IV is a perfectly good example. They have funding from Google themselves, and yet they turned around and sued Motorola!

Now, allow me to address your theory: You posit that this may invoke the ire of the "tech community" and this would be a disadvantage to Apple and Microsoft. Some questionable assumptions:

1) The tech community in general has a similar world view as the HN (or is it SV?) bubble. Trust me on this, HN is an enormous echo chamber. If you ask software engineers outside this bubble -- which is, you know, most of the world -- about patents, you'll get three responses:

a) "What's a patent?" (No, really.)

b) "I don't mind patents."

c) "Having a patent as an achievement!"

2) The tech community, even if it does by some remote chance share your world view, won't care. This is business as usual, and has historically always been so.

Now you may move the goal posts and say that by "tech community" you mean "the good ones", the "hackers". Again, I'm not so sure. Consider the NSA revelations: All the comments on HN are rife with outrage. Yet would you believe, even for a minute, that the NSA does not have the best of the best?

Edit: I really do not wish to come across as supporting one company over another, and hope to maintain a neutral tone. I think all the companies involved are perfectly good companies to work for, and perfectly justified in what they're doing. I'm just trying to present a perspective that is somewhat lacking in most comments so far.

However, your observation about many software startups would prefer to release an MVP and iterate rather than invest a lot of upfront work and patent is also borne out by data in [1] and in other studies, such as some of Bessen and Maskin's papers.

I think Malandrew's sibling comment is also a very salient point, and combined with my hunch that a vast majority of startups (or, heck, software companies in general) are not doing particularly technically innovative work, it goes a long way in explaining the data in those papers.

1. Study of startup patenting in various industries indicating entrepreneurs say patents help getting financing: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/9135.htm

(There was controversy around this study, where VCs with an anti patent stance, such as Brad Feld, publicly disagreed with the analysis. As TFA shows, they are probably in the minority.)

2. Study showing startups with patents more likely to get late stage financing and/or have a successful exit: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=802806

3. Study (apparently -- it's paywalled unfortunately) showing startups with "stronger than typical" IP more likely to succeed: http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=ae1d78db-9c5e-4... (Note that the study was done by MIT Sloan and IPVision, an IP consulting firm, so something to keep in mind.)

Keep in mind that all studies must necessarily make some assumptions to make sense of their data, and some assumptions may be more valid than others. Also, different data sets and different methodologies give different results. For instance, the 2007 paper in [2] found much lower patenting rates in software than did the 2008 survey in [1].

Yet the patent possession/success correlation is hard to doubt. In addition to [2] and [3], there are other papers, such as by Rosemary Zeidonis, that also show a robust correlation between patenting and eventual success in high tech industries. Also, there's a working paper by a Pepperdine professor showing firms with patents four times more likely to succeed. I linked [2] particularly because it has a greater focus on the software industry.

I do agree that Twitter's strength is in network effects, and so is less likely to be affected by issues affecting other startups. Just trying to show some numbers to explain why (some) investors see the lack of patents as worrying.

However, the argument that the Innovators's Patent Agreement will attract the "best and brightest" is a false premise, handily disproved by Google and Facebook, just to pick two. It will attract a certain type of talent, maybe something Twitter is particularly looking for, but "best and brightest" is not necessarily it.

2. I'd love to know how many people voting on that poll meet the following criteria:

a) know what claims are;

b) did their own research rather than parroting what others say.

My point is always this: if we really are nerds, we should know what we're talking about, and woefully few of us meet that criteria when it comes to patents.

Saying they exist only to litigate is missing the whole picture. That is simply what they specialize in, primarily because patents are essentially a right to sue, and there's a gap in the market when it comes to enforcing patents.

Now you may say that patents themselves are crap and represent no value, but 1) that's a different problem than trolls, as others have mentioned, and 2) you'd be making a generalized assertion with little data to back it up. Even if you are an experienced patent litigator who's seen a lot of cases, there are biases at play. Which is why, again, we should turn to studies, which, again, do exist and, again, present a much more nuanced reality.

As always, the topic is so much more nuanced than "good" or "bad". The first result, "Patent Troll Myths" by Michael Risch is a good start.

Sure, you will find the papers by Bessen et al where the "trolls cost the economy 29 Billion" meme comes from. But you'll also find a paper (by Schwartz and Kesan) that debunks Bessen's paper, which got nearly 0 coverage in the press. You'll even find a paper showing trolls have better patents than average! But these tend to get settled quickly, so typically the poorer ones go to trial, and so you get papers (like from Lemley) showing that trolls lose more cases than average.

You'll also find papers arguing the benefits of trolls, debunking some of the common arguments against trolls, and introducing new previously unconsidered harms of patent trolls.

And of course, just like there's no clear definition of "software patents", there is no clear definition of "patent trolls" either, and you'll find papers discussing this. 

And because they use different data sets, different papers look at the same problem at the same time and reach completely opposite conclusions.

And further, because the authors are almost never practitioners in the field, you get some really obvious findings being reported... and then misconstrued! For instance there's a paper showing litigation has shot up since 2007, and presenting various theories, completely missing the  Medimmune v Genntech decision that effectively upended the rules of patent licensing. And there's the paper that argues patent quality is dropping because more patents were being issued, without being aware of the ending of the misguided "reject, reject, reject" unofficial policy instituted by former USPTO head Jon Dudas (http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/03/16/prespective-of-an-anony...)

And as always, it's helpful to keep in mind where the authors' funding comes from. Bessen of the "29 billion" fame, for instance, is funded by the "Coalition for Patent Fairness". Check out the list of supporters. It's almost ad hom, but hey, if we can point out that studies showing the harms of piracy are often funded by the MPAA, we can point this out too.

Yes, there are clear bad actors like Lodsys, but there are so many more variables out there, and many are arguably helping more than harming. 

Yet, somehow, it's only one small side of the story that gets told. 

As this is a hot-button topic, we should take an objective look at the data. Because, quoting from one of the papers above, "Without a better understanding of the many complicated effects of patents in high technology markets, we run the very real risk of misguided policy decisions."

But the more salient point is, were he/she/they completely wrong in their accusations? Were all the examples he/she/they presented of articles dropping off the frontpage just instances of flamewar detection, or natural HN ranking at work, or something else?

I'd go with your other theory (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6591687)

And for that they'd be accused of being, I kid you not, "Microsoft zealots"!

I have been lurking here since about 2 years before you created your account (see what I did there?), and while comparisons with Reddit may have been misplaced, comparisons with Slashdot look more and more apt to me.

http://[0::0:ffff:b8ac:a4a]/

As with all tech media discussion about patents these days, this article talks about what the patent "covers" without so much as an idea of what claims are.

http://[0:0:0:0:0:ffff:b8ac:a4a]

http://asdf:qwerty@3098282570/

http://asdf:qwerty@[0:0:0:0:0:ffff:b8ac:a4a]:80

(Might get a security/phishing warning on the last two links in some browsers.)

I also recall reading one of the EU's regulators (was it Joaquin Almunia?) say that (paraphrasing) "we start sniffing around when any one party gets a market share north of 60%." Unfortunately, I cannot find that article.

As he says, the utility does not really matter: it could be just a neat trick, or pure entertainment value, or intellectual gratification, or a security vulnerability, or something genuinely useful.

Ironically, by his own definition, I also think most of RMS' own work cannot be called "hacking". Gcc and emacs, for instance, are simply very useful software engineering projects, but in themselves not hacks as a whole. On the other hand, his one work that is clearly a clever hack is the GPL, which uses copyright to transfer control of rights to those whom it was not intended for.