[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.