[SwellJoe]

You're right. I side with Google. At least on the patent issue and the fair use issue. I'm not sure about the anti-competitive shenanigans against SkyHook, as I don't know the facts.

My opinions are not because I "don't believe in IP", but because I believe that IP has been abused to the detriment of human advancement. I believe in fair use, I believe software patents are evil, and I believe making information available (within the bounds of fair use) is good for the world. I make my living off of IP. I'm a software developer, a published author, and a songwriter (I don't make any money on that, but I still like the protections copyright provides), but Google has a history of not being evil when it comes to wielding patents and IP against competitors, and your examples don't change my opinion on that. They're the company being sued in both cases.

[kenjackson]

They're the company being sued in both cases.

Of course. Because they're the ones who generally break the law. Google is like the guy who says that in a free society, everything belongs to the people. And then breaks in my house to steal my stuff. Of course I have him arrested and press charges. Your the guy who subscribes to this "free society" and argues in Google's support by saying that Google never has anyone arrested, people only arrest them. Indeed -- no one breaks into their house to steal things, but they're always stealing from others.

As a supporter of this "free society" you take the fact that they always steal and get arrested for it as a sign of their purity. I see it for less than that. Especially since they haven't come right out and denounced the patent system. At the very least they should buy PageRank from Stanford and make it open -- at least a symbolic gesture. The next step would be to open their search algorithms and make use of them free. Not likely to happen though. Even for Google, they believe in IP protection -- just not yours.

[SwellJoe]

Because they're the ones who generally break the law.

Allegedly. The courts have not yet decided whether the allegations are true or not.

Google is like the guy who says that in a free society, everything belongs to the people. And then breaks in my house to steal my stuff.

I can't believe I even try to have a conversation with you at this point. You're such a ridiculous extremist that your arguments don't even make sense.

Are you actually a software developer or are you a "business guy"? I just don't understand how a programmer could have such screwed up notions of IP and believe in such bizarre analogies for IP law. Copyright infringement is not theft. It is copyright infringement. Patent infringement is not theft. It is patent infringement. IP and physical property are very different concepts with very different case law defining them, and it's disingenuous to conflate the two.

The next step would be to open their search algorithms and make use of them free.

This is a specious argument, and I assume you're smart enough to know it. No one in this discussion is arguing against trade secrets, or insisting that everything anyone ever thinks of be Open Source.

[gaius]

Patent infringement is theft of the money invested in R&D. If someone steals electronically from your bank account, is it any less theft because there was no physical cash involved?

Yes I agree that software patents are wrong, etc etc but that is a flaw in the implementation of the patent system, not its fundamental design.

[SwellJoe]

Patent infringement is theft of the money invested in R&D.

Patent infringement is patent infringement.

If someone steals electronically from your bank account, is it any less theft because there was no physical cash involved?

Stealing electronically would be theft, not patent infringement. Theft via electronic means is nothing like patent infringement.

It is tempting to try to simplify complex topics with analogies or metaphors...but, in this case, the case law for intellectual property and physical property or money are vastly different. Conflating the two only serves to confuse people into thinking they are the same, when the law says they are actually quite different.