|
|
|
|
|
|
by icarus_drowning
5435 days ago
|
|
|
Google’s blog post comes across as whining that Apple and Microsoft (Microsoft especially) aren’t sitting back and allowing Android to destroy their businesses. No, Google's blog post rightly points out that Microsoft and Apple haven chosen to fight against Android by litigation rather than invention. If Google where "whining" that Microsoft and Apple were building cooler stuff into their phones, it would be laughable. But that isn't what Google is saying. Suggesting that Google wants MS/Apple to "[sit] back and [allow] Android to destroy their business" is an obvious and clumsy strawman. Gruber isn't arguing the merits of the platforms. He's arguing that the patent system as-is does work, and that Microsoft and Apple shouldn't be criticized for using it. The problem is, they aren't merely using it, they are abusing it, which seems to suggest that it doesn't work nearly as well as Gruber says it does. [EDIT: Minor grammatical cleanup] |
|
|
http://daringfireball.net/2010/03/this_apple_htc_patent_thin...
From the post: "But for software the system, in practice, is undeniably broken. There’s an argument to be made that software is inherently different than other fields of invention, different in such a way that patents should not apply — or, should apply for a significantly shorter period of time before expiring. You can’t (or at least shouldn’t) be able to patent mathematics, and there are good arguments that programming is a branch of mathematics. But because software patents are granted, concede at least for the moment that certain kinds of software innovations ought to be patentable. Even with that in mind, clearly the U.S. Patent Office is and has granted patents for things which ought not be patentable. Not just silly frivolous things, but patents that have been granted for concepts alone, rather than specific innovative implementations of said concepts. Ideas in the abstract, rather than implementations of ideas."
To me this sounds like a well-reasoned post that acknowledges the patent system is broken. I'm not sure if I would validate software patents at all but it's a far better system than what's in place now.
Also: "To me, “user interface” patents are hand-in-hand with “business method patents” as examples of things which, no matter how innovative or original, ought not be patentable. They’re idea patents."
This is just something to point out that this where Gruber and Apple do seem to stray paths. Gruber may be an Apple fan but it doesn't go beyond all reason.
Regarding the situation with Google, I do think he is mostly right. I would have liked to have seen Google publicly lobby against software patents in general, with the consumer and Congress. That is not the path they chose. Instead they chose to become an investor in Intellectual Ventures and play the game of mutually assured destruction with MS, Apple & Oracle. Doing so makes them equally complicit in the process. Winning the battle against these three companies does not protect the indie dev. It only serves Google's end which means their motives are ultimately selfish. If they can play selfish why can't others who currently have the law on their side?