[cheald]

I'm not sure how to say this without coming across as incendiary, but what the hell? Is Gruber utterly oblivious to the horrible state of software patents and their abuses? Is he actually condoning the abominable software patents that every other sane developer despises?

Yes, Google is trying to ward off being picked to death by a myriad of utterly worthless (in the market, not legal sense) patents. Yes, Google is likely in violation of several thousand patents with Android, and all of its other software products. Guess what? So is damn near every other developer on the face of the planet, but Google has a big fat target painted on their back because of Android's success. They would be crazy to not try to acquire a defensive patent portfolio.

I'll guarantee you that I violated a good half-dozen patents in the course of my absolutely routine work today. That doesn't mean that I'm a mean nasty violator out to undermine free enterprise, it means that software patents suck. Apple and Microsoft have both proven that they will use these garbage patents offensively to drive competitors out of the market, and Google is left in the position of "acquire means of mutually assured destruction to protect ourselves with or die by horribly broken patent law". Which do you think is the sane and responsible course of action?

[pkamb]

"No one other than Nathan Myrvold and his cronies sees the U.S. patent system as functioning properly, but Google’s hypocrisy here is absurd. Google isn’t arguing against a handful of never-should-have-been-issued software patents. They’re not arguing against patent trolls like Myrvold and his shell companies like Lodsys — companies that have no products of their own, no actual inventions, just patents for ideas for products." - Gruber

[cheald]

That one line doesn't really discount the tone of the whole rest of the post.

Google supporters claim that Google only wants to use patents defensively. But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates? - Also Gruber.

The implication is that these are legitimate, unassailable patents that Google has ripped off in some nefarious scheme to steal Apple's good ol' homegrown American hard work. Software patents are a severe problem that are retarding innovation and progress, not helping it, and to imply that Google is hypocritical because they wanted the patents, then railed against them is intellectually dishonest. Google's extremely obvious goal is to protect itself and its products from the abuses of the patent system. For Gruber to pooh-pooh their actions like that is effectively a means of condoning those patents - and software patents as a whole - as legitimate and worth protecting.

I'll guarantee you that if it were Google holding the patent gun to Apple's head, and Apple were to post a similar PR statement after a failed bid to acquire said patents, he wouldn't be singing the same tune.

[tomerico]

The implication is that these are legitimate, unassailable patents that Google has ripped off in some nefarious scheme to steal Apple's good ol' homegrown American hard work

I would argue that android "borrowed" a lot from Apple, and that the iPhone was truly innovative in many ways. The question whether they copied too much, or whether Apple's idea were innovative in the first place is what the Patent system is trying to answer.

There is little doubt the current patent system is a big mess. But I see opposing the idea software patents in the same light as opposing patents in general. It is likely that allowing companies to copy everything is good for consumers (at least in the short term), and increases competition.

The question is where you put the line, for example - if Android was an exact copy of iOS, would you still say that it should be permitted?

[blinkingled]

I don't think you can mention Android borrowing from iPhone while ignoring that iPhone borrows from Android too - iOS 5 notifications being the prime example.

All complicated systems borrow from each other - there is nothing evil about it - it's just evolution.

[Caballera]

Can you show us the patents Google has on notifications?

[blinkingled]

Let's first try to understand what is implied by your question. Is it that unless an idea is patented it does not qualify as innovation and in that case if someone else copies it, it becomes acceptable?

[fpgeek]

The whole "did Android copy iPhone or not" is beside the point in the patent debate. The patents Apple is asserting against HTC (the only ones that made it past the first round of the ITC process that determines whether Apple can get an import ban) are from the 90s! 1994 and 1996, IIRC.

Can we all at least agree there is nothing innovative that Apple did for the iPhone that dates back over 10 years before it was released?

[tolmasky]

How is that relevant? Nortel's patents do not represent the cases where Android borrowed from iPhone, if they did, then they would be Apple's patents wouldn't they? These patents were being violated by BOTH parties, and one happens to own them now.

[linuxhansl]

What exactly did Android borrow from Apple?

If Android was an exact copy of the iOS but developed separately (with no code copying) that would be perfectly OK. Why shouldn't it?

[mikeash]

Ideas are worth almost nothing. What matters is execution, and Google hasn't ripped off any of Apple's execution.

So what if Android borrowed a lot from Apple? It doesn't make the iPhone any worse, and we all benefit from cross-pollination of ideas.

[tambourine_man]

I wouldn't say that. Some people are really great at execution but can't think of an original idea if their life depended on it. Conversely, there are those brilliant creative people who can't make a scrambled egg.

Having a finished product like the iPhone as a horizon surely helped Android. But of course, that's not the whole story. Only Google managed to be inspired by the iPhone and launch a successful competitor. The rest of the industry was simply inspired.

[kelnos]

The issue here is that Gruber seems to believe that Myrvold is the only person with junk patents, and the only person abusing the patent system. Of course his beautiful saintly Apple couldn't be doing the same! No, no, of course not. It's just that Apple actually builds stuff, so we give them some respect.

[petervandijck]

Amen. EVERYONE violates patents when writing software, even a simple web app. Be sure of it. The best defense (I've been told by laywers) is NOT to look up possible patents, so at least you can say you didn't know if you ever get sued. It's a strange world. Google is totally doing the right thing.

[technoslut]

I don't think that Gruber was making a case for software patents. He has said in the past that he doesn't believe in them. His argument seemed to be that instead of Google lobbying to rid the world of software patents, they seemed to be playing the same game as MS, Apple & Oracle by bidding on the Nortel patents. It doesn't help Google's case that they're an investor in Intellectual Ventures as well.

He makes an interesting point that if software patents are valid then why should these other companies allow Google to use it and give away Android for free to undermine their own business.

It's all the more reason that the patent system needs to be reformed but it will never happen because there are too many powerful people involved that don't want to see it happen.

[hn_decay]

I don't think that Gruber was making a case for software patents.

But he was. He is arguing that only a small handful of patents -- those used to attack Apple and/or app store developers -- are the problem with the patent system. That is directly in the section quoted.

His argument seemed to be that instead of Google lobbying to rid the world of software patents, they seemed to be playing the same game as MS, Apple & Oracle by bidding on the Nortel patents.

Google is essentially the bitch of the patent world right now, simply because they're a younger company and a land claim occurred. They can both appeal for changes -- which that very blog entry does in droves -- while preparing for the reality that nothing is going to change overnight.

Google will likely acquire a lot of ammunition (the IBM purchase puts them in a very interesting position relative to Oracle, threatening Oracle's entire platform), make life painful for its competitors, and then will be in a position to call for change without everyone declaring, as they are now, that it is merely convenience.

[kenjackson]

Google is essentially the bitch of the patent world right now, simply because they're a younger company and a land claim occurred.

I think the real problem with Google is they're using open source technology. This makes yout a lot more susceptible to patent lawsuits.

Back when I used to control patent budgets one of our rules was that things we patented had to be discoverable. That is, if someone infringed, but it was hard to prove, it wasn't worth spending the money on a patent. Just keep it a trade secret. With Android everything is available by just looking at the source code repository. With iOS, WebOS, WP, and RIM, you have to do a fair bit more sleuthing to see if they're actually infringing.

[shabble]

I'll give a cookie to the first person to find me a patent that Markdown infringes :p

[fpgeek]

You're absolutely right. Here's (yet another) example of Hacker News violating one of Apple's patents (as asserted against HTC): http://www.google.com

[ddrmaxgt37]

i think you missed the point.