[bsullivan01]

Let's cut the crap and get to the point: are you saying that the Patent Office should grant a patent for tip splitting to Google? Yes or no?

It's sad and hilarious at the same time to see Googlers defend these ridiculous positions as their company shifts strategy every week chasing an extra dollar. Who knows what you'll defend next week.

You build up a nuclear arsenal so that it becomes unthinkable by your opponent to attack

Redmond and Palo Alto are shaking in their boots, this tab splitting innovation from the smartest people on earth really tipped the balance :-). Apple and Microsoft have been building operating systems and patenting each step of it for 30-40 years. That's why every Android manufacturer bowed to Microsoft

[cromwellian]

Let's get this straight, I agree wholeheartedly with Oracle (prior to their buying Sun), I don't believe in software patents period. But I also don't believe that people should have nuclear weapons. That doesn't mean I think the US should unilaterally disarm.

Apple and Microsoft built their operating systems during a period when many people thought you shouldn't patent software, indeed, when Bill Gates wrote Microsoft Basic, thee wasn't even widespread agreement on software copyright. They were able to appropriate what came before them mostly for free, and operate in an environment of relative legal calm. And now they've benefited from the privilege of that, they want to turn around and maintain their empires by punishing up and coming enterprises who threaten to disrupt them by poisoning the atmosphere.

Where would Apple be if Xerox had behaved like Apple and MSFT with respect to litigiousness? Where would the PC revolution have gone if IBM had won against the clone makers and maintained a monopoly over the PC? Apple is trying to "own" the smartphone like IBM tried to own the PC, not content with $150 billion in cash and 50% of the US market, they want to use the courts to prevent competition.

Until the US Patent Office/Courts stops granting bogus patents period, and nullifies the power of the existing software patents, the only way to fight the system is to use it.

[sbuk]

> Where would Apple be if Xerox had behaved like Apple and MSFT with respect to litigiousness?

They tried and failed for a number of legal reasons, the fact that they had been paid for the access Apple was given amongst them. I'd also ask where would Xerox have been had Doug Engelbart, SRI or Donald Sutherland had been litigious; all had a case against Xerox.

[magicalist]

Notably, Apple also tried and failed to sue Microsoft over the "desktop metaphor" in the 90s, which is also just as well. Things were quite different back then, to all of our benefit. No one had to pay 25 cents per copy to include scrollbars in their application, or 50 cents to include a dialog box.

If anyone is curious about what happened to change things, it was these guys: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-a-rogue-appea...

Great article if you're interested in how we ended up in the patent mess we are in.

[throwawaykf02]

Yes, but the article (and the "sponsored comment" at the end) also say that before the CAFC happened, it was a different, though equally painful, patent mess.

[sbuk]

The point goes wooshing by...

[cheald]

I don't think the patent should be granted. I also think software patents are unequivocally bullshit.

All that said, Google's playing the game here. You file for whatever you can, because the cost of filing is minimal. You take whatever sticks. You then use your collection as a latent threat to deter other more sue-happy players from challenging you on some bullshit claim because of some bullshit software patent they hold, because the greater the chance that they're infringing on some bullshit claim on some bullshit patent you hold, the more bargaining power you have to force a beneficial a cross-licensing agreement rather than an expensive legal judgment.

The problem is that software patents exist and that the USPTO grants them and that the courts enforce them and that companies like Microsoft and Apple assert them as tools to stifle competitors (as opposed to protecting actual innovation). Refusing to play the game just leaves Google in a weak position.

[afsina]

You would cry if you see those "patents" MS is using for extortion. Most have nothing to do with OS. If any is related, MS is too scared to disclose it because it would be against Linux or Unix (which is around for 40-50 years).

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/the-three-patents... http://androidcommunity.com/barnes-noble-reveals-microsofts-...

[bsullivan01]

Am i supposed to believe your word over the reality, given that all (other than Motorola) have licensed patents from Microsoft?

>> Most have nothing to do with OS. If any is related, MS is too scared to disclose it because it would be against Linux or Unix (which is around for 40-50 years).

40-50 years patents are non-existent, at least in the USA. And "Most have nothing to do with OS" is irrelevant, Microsoft has tens of thousands of patents, all they need a few dozen key OS patents to work with.

A search for "strength Microsoft patents" yielded this http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/272100/survey_microsof...

"The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ (IEEE) annual Patent Scorecard, released in December 2008, gave Microsoft the top score among all categories. This is the second consecutive year Microsoft has topped the list.

IEEE’s Patent “Pipeline Power” ranking takes a number of factors into account, including the number of patents held, year-over-year portfolio growth, the variety of technologies influenced and the number of times a company’s patents are cited in the patent applications of other inventors."

I am going to take their word over yours. Sorry.