|
|
|
|
|
|
by hn_decay
5427 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.