[rosejn]

He has to turn comments off on Daring Fireball or else he would be called out as an Apple fanboy/lobbyist after posts like this. Plenty of companies are willing to compete by creating better products rather than taking their competition to court. The iPhone is getting pushed aside by Android and they are playing dirty to stop it. Unless you can point to some novel technology that Apple should control because it was truly new and different, then Android should be able to compete. Just calling it "competitive" rather than offense and defense is a political tactic that tries to make Google look just as bad as the other guys, or conversely make Apple look just as good as the others. This is not a valid comparison. Combative patent lawsuits are not a requirement for successful businesses. There is a major difference between companies that choose to be litigious to stifle competition rather than focus on creating better products at a cheaper price. Buying a patent portfolio in order to stifle innovation rather than to enable you to create new or better products goes against the purpose of the patent system as it is described in the constitution:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

They should have pooled these billions to create a massive patent reform campaign. It probably would have been cheaper and more effective in the long run.

[halostatue]

Just a point: John Gruber has never allowed comments on Daring Fireball. This is not a new policy nor something he chooses on a per-post basis.

To me, Gruber is being consistent here: he doesn't like software patents (see his commentary on Lodsys and other NPEs), but the fact is that they exist and the way they're used now is as he describes. Google is being disingenuous about Android and patents; Google's lawyer lied about the Novell patents and the lie has been called out by Microsoft. Google may have good reason to have not wanted to go into a co-purchase agreement of the Novell patents (as Gruber outlines in this post), but to complain of unfairness now that you lost a bidding war? That's childish.

Google would actually have a moral high ground if they hadn't even bid for the Novell patents. Not bidding for them would have been a remarkably stupid move given the current patent/legal landscape, even though it meant that Google gave up the moral high ground.

Patents in the U.S. are badly broken, and I despair that software patents were ever granted in the first place. One of the things that I suspect that most people who oppose software patents forget, though, is that even if software patents were taken off the table tomorrow, the existing patents wouldn't go away. The government wouldn't retroactively invalidate any software patent ever granted (it'd be a hard enough fight just to get software patents blocked for the future), and courts examining the patents tend to look at whether the patent was (or could have been) valid at the time of its granting, not whether it makes sense now.

[mcantelon]

>Gruber is being consistent here: he doesn't like software patents

Funny that he doesn't say that in this post. Nothing like "I'm against software patents, but Google seems to play the software patent game when it suits them". Instead he says 'there are some who will argue that there are no “worthy patents”' which 1) implies he's not one of them and 2) conflates software patents with all types of patents.

>Google would actually have a moral high ground if they hadn't even bid for the Novell patents.

Google has the moral highground because, unlike Apple and others, they have not been suing people over software patents.

[halostatue]

Gruber's posts shouldn't be read in isolation -- and that applies to this post and his stance on software patents; agree with him or disagree with him, he has a narrative that is consistent[1] through DF and The Talk Show.

If you only read Gruber's posts that make it to HN, you're missing context because he may have made other posts that provide background (and, while Gruber's fairly good about linking back to what he's said in the past, he's not perfect).

If you only read Gruber's posts, you miss context that may have been building in comments he makes in his linked list entries. In fact, Gruber has mostly avoided saying anything about Lodsys because he has been linking to others that he feels have said what he believes more eloquently, adding a small paragraph of commentary.

I'm not claiming that Gruber's "perfect" by any means. I'm simply saying that Gruber has a narrative to what he writes that shouldn't be subjected to soundbite treatment.

With respect to Google, we must simply agree to disagree that they have a moral high ground on this and other matters. Gruber contends (and I mostly agree) that they do not for various reasons.

[1] I'd originally said remarkably consistent, but the only thing remarkable about that is that so many other journalists/bloggers aren't. This consistency, by the by, is also ignored by anyone who suggests that Gruber is an "uncritical fanboy". Over the last year, I can think of a number of posts where Gruber has criticized Apple fairly harshly over decisions that have been made, including the removal of "store" buttons from the Kindle and Kobo apps, etc.

[mcantelon]

>If you only read Gruber's posts, you miss context that may have been building in comments he makes in his linked list entries. In fact, Gruber has mostly avoided saying anything about Lodsys because he has been linking to others that he feels have said what he believes more eloquently, adding a small paragraph of commentary.

I think it's pretty normal to base criticisms of a blog post on the blog post itself rather than a complete reading of all of a blog's posts.