Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents Businesses Google The Internet Apple Your Rights Online

Broken Patent System? Google, Apple Disagree 230

Whiney Mac Fanboy writes "The AlwaysOn Stanford Summit featured the panel discussion 'The Patent Crisis: Crossroads for the Business of Technology.' Speakers included patent lawyers from Google, IBM, and Apple. According to The Register, Google's and Apple's patent jocks had diametrically opposing views. Google's head of patents believes the system is in crisis: 'The Patent Office is overburdened,' she said. 'The volume of patents going in is huge. And the quality of patents coming out — it could be better.' But Apple's chief patent counsel said the US patent system was 'not broken' and 'not in crisis,' calling it 'the best in the world.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Broken Patent System? Google, Apple Disagree

Comments Filter:
  • by bcolflesh ( 710514 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:12AM (#20086391) Homepage
    ...it never needs replacing!
    • by The13thSin ( 1092867 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:14AM (#20086423)
      And Google just perceives everything to be still in beta!
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:21AM (#20086563)
      Please note who said what: "But Apple's chief patent counsel said the US patent system was 'not broken' and 'not in crisis,' calling it 'the best in the world'."
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Lame excuse to save Apple's ass.

        Please note who said what: "But Apple's chief patent counsel said the US patent system was 'not broken' and 'not in crisis,' calling it 'the best in the world'."
    • by HermMunster ( 972336 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @02:03PM (#20089721)
      Luckily we are smart enough to know we are listening to corporate dogfish that are in it for the money. They are the reason for every incredibly ugly lawyer joke. Bottom line, the system sucks. Soon we are going to have patents covering the sounds of a song or the look of a picture so that no one can create that same sound or produce similar pictures.

      Of course it is broken. Patents for real products made of real materials are one thing but patents for ethereal objects made from ideas are not valid and due to the complexity of software engineering it would be nearly impossible for a patent clerk to understand and apply all the rules of law accordingly. So, of course it is broken, because it is impossible.

      What Microsoft and other patent holders are relying on is that the system that grants these don't have a clue about how to decipher them adequately in order to determine prior art or obviousness. The only saving grace is that the Supreme Court of the US adjusted the rules about how to determine those things granting a much broader examination across any industry.

      The only other saving grace here is that the world is producing software at a much more rapid pace than Microsoft ever could and are ESTABLISHING a HUGE body of PRIOR ART. The end result will be patents that are easily over turned due to prior art and the obvious obiousness.
  • doesn't believe there is an issue, why attend the "Patent Crisis Panel"?
    • The biggest winners are always laywers, regardless of which side they represent.

      Though, considering the amount of times Apple has been bitten in the ass (and will be in the future) I am surprised.
    • by Vokkyt ( 739289 )
      What better place than a discussion panel to bring up their viewpoint? If only people who believed the system was flawed attended, it would be just like an internet forum, except replace porn and furries with patent office.
      • by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )
        I realize you can find every sort of fetish out on the 'net, but that is just so, so wrong.
    • why attend the "Patent Crisis Panel"?

      If Apple didn't attend the panel with the excuse that they "don't believe there is a crisis", you or someone else here would ask, "Why didn't Apple attend to make their point of view heard?"

      When there's a prominent industry function, it should be a matter of course that the industry leaders would attend to make sure their views are heard. Suggesting that they should or shouldn't go because of their views can create an impossible double-standard.

      They have interests that a

  • by CrackedButter ( 646746 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:17AM (#20086467) Homepage Journal
    But who do I take sides with? Who is the evil one here, the one in the wrong? Are you sure the article isn't missing a paragraph by a Microsoft manager or something, I need to attack somebody needlessly and follow someone mindlessly!
  • by dingleberrie ( 545813 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:18AM (#20086505)
    Our judges and juries attempt to settle items that they can relate to and understand the importance of, such as loosing life, property, or liberty.

    Is the judicial system really qualified to test for items such as obviousness in a technical field in order to dismissing a patent. For every witness that says it is obvious, I'm sure the opposing side will say it's not. Perhaps we should have a select group of technical judges just for this purpose.
    • Is the judicial system really qualified to test for items such as obviousness in a technical field in order to dismissing a patent. For every witness that says it is obvious, I'm sure the opposing side will say it's not. Perhaps we should have a select group of technical judges just for this purpose.

      Yes, both sides are usually going to find experts who will testify to what they want said -- and to at least some extent, both will usually be correct. Relatively few patents are granted for things quite as o

  • by cerelib ( 903469 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:21AM (#20086565)
    That night Apple submitted a patent for "A handheld device capable of playback of digital audio."(No link needed, this is the full text of the submission) which was immediately, and without review, approved by the head of the USPTO himself.
  • What patent of Apple's is Google infringing on?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jc42 ( 318812 )
      What patent of Apple's is Google infringing on?

      We can't know that until the courts decide.

      This simple fact is the main evidence of how broken the system is. Current patents, at least in the US, are unreadable by the engineers that they are ostensibly written for. Even if you read one and think you understand it, fact is that if you aren't an experienced patent lawyer, you do not understand it. In Legalese, there are a lot of English-like words whose meanings are rather different than in normal English, a
  • by Jtheletter ( 686279 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:23AM (#20086613)
    The patent system can be BOTH 'best in the world' and 'broken and in crisis'. I don't know about being the best in the world, but I think it's completely obvious to anyone who's salary is not directly tied to the system that it is, in fact, a mess. Somehow I don't think patent attorneys really are the best qualified to make these statements. Yes, they know the industry exceedingly well, but it is their direct best interests for it to be complicated, hard to navigate, and functionally impossible to use without hiring one of their ilk. Having researched the costs and difficulties (and chances) of getting a simple patent I feel confident in saying that applying for a patent without an attorney to assist 99.99% guarantees you will not get the patent. Or it will cost you as much as hiring a patent attorney in the first place, or you'll get the patent but the wording will not be 'just so' and it will give you no protection.

    If an inventor can't get a valid patent for a (let's assume) perfectly novel and new invention on their own with reasonable cost and chance of success then the system is BROKEN. That's how it should be defined.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by noidentity ( 188756 )
      And if a corporation can get a valid patent for a perfectly obvious and well-known device on their own with reasonable cost and chance of success then the system is also BROKEN. That's how it should be additionally defined.
      • Not that I disagree with you, but I would like to point out I did specifically word the criteria as being an actual "novel and new invention", that's sort of a given.
    • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:55AM (#20087117) Homepage

      If an inventor can't get a valid patent for a (let's assume) perfectly novel and new invention on their own with reasonable cost and chance of success then the system is BROKEN. That's how it should be defined.

      I do like this way of thinking of things. It could be productive to think of situations which would cause us to say the thing is broken. Some ideas come to mind:

      • If an individual inventor can't reasonably get a patent in spite of having a truly novel design
      • If that same individual inventor can't reasonably protect that patent once granted
      • If people can get patents to things that are obvious and unoriginal designs
      • If people can get patents to ideas rather than designs
      • If people can get patents for designs that are inevitable (meaning it is *THE* solution to a known problem which will be solved in the course of normal progress)
      • If whole industries, scientific progress, or the productivity and well-being of a society can be held up by a patent

      These are just suggestions, and you might disagree. However, even if you do agree, I still don't know what should be done about it. How can we improve our current system or build a new one which won't have these problems?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jc42 ( 318812 )
        It could be productive to think of situations which would cause us to say the thing is broken. Some ideas come to mind: ...
        . If whole industries, scientific progress, or the productivity and well-being of a society can be held up by a patent


        Various historians have written about how this has been true since the early days [ucla.edu] of the patent system. Using our current terminology, the patent system was broken by design. Its supporters always claim that patents encourage improved technology,
    • by dfghjk ( 711126 )
      While everything you say is true, it's also true of the entire legal system. The patent system is broken in far greater ways than just its accessibility to the layman. You CAN get a patent on a "perfectly novel and new invention" on your own, it simply costs money and involves hiring someone to help with the process. Hell, filing your income taxes is, for many people, the same way.
      • You CAN get a patent on a "perfectly novel and new invention" on your own, it simply costs money and involves hiring someone to help with the process.

        I'm not sure if you noticed but hiring someone is a direct contradiction of doing it on your own. And while understandably the process does cost money, the problem is that without a patent attorney to assist in every step of the process it becomes very likely that the patent will be rejected for any number of procedural/wording reasons, at which point there
    • If an inventor can't get a valid patent for a (let's assume) perfectly novel and new invention on their own with reasonable cost and chance of success then the system is BROKEN. That's how it should be defined.

      I disagree. If it doesn't take considerable effort and cost to get a patent, then people will (even more than they do now) patent every little idea they have. The cost and effort that it takes to get a patent force inventors to decide whether getting a patent is actually worthwhile for the idea th

  • My dad used to say, 'The US Government is the worst, except for all the others.' This feels like what Apple's argument is-- that because we have the best patent system, thus, our system must be good enough to rely on forever. Google seems to be saying that we don't have forever to resolve some issues our current patent system presents. I don't see Apple as having much of an argument to the broken elements of our patent system.
    • by feijai ( 898706 )

      My dad used to say, 'The US Government is the worst, except for all the others.'

      Your dad was Winston Churchill? [quotationspage.com]

  • by demallien2 ( 991621 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:30AM (#20086703)
    Considering that Google does software, for which the idea of patents is just ludicrous, whereas Apple does hardware, where patents are clearly much more applicable. To be honest, it would have been surprising if the two didn't disagree...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mpapet ( 761907 )
      Apple does hardware, where patents are clearly much more applicable.

      Except when a mom-and-pop builds a clever and Patented asic that Apple wants. Most likely Apple gets one of it's off-shore suppliers to copy the ASIC. Goodbye mom-and-pop.

      Except when Apple doesn't like some competitors hardware and discovers they have enough money to go a few rounds in court. Then an absurd patent/trademark violation case is started for no reason other than to kill a competitor.

      Both situations happen regularly. The paten
    • I keep hearing that "software patents" are bad, but "hardware patents" are not. Could someone please explain to me why it's worse to patent software than hardware? As far as I can tell the problem with patents on obvious ideas, and the abuses of patents by people with enough money to bring or withstand a legal challenge are the same for both hardware and software. I'm not saying there aren't problems with the system, I just don't see what software vs. hardware has to do with it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        Simple. In hardware, compatibility with other hardware/software is not a requirement. If Intel patents something that AMD needs, AMD can implement something equivalent that doesn't work the same way, and software developers will write compiler extensions that take care of the details (for the most part).

        In software, the fundamental functionality of software requires that data files be able to be read by other applications. Often, these patents cover the only possible set of steps to decode a file forma

      • Software is a set of instructions. Just as patenting tying your shoes is ludicrous, patenting a optimal flow algorithm is similiarly ludicrous. Patenting a program that implements that algorithm is also silly. Should you be able to patent something liek "1 click buying" or "click to link to a hyper page"? This is tantamount to patenting "breathing", "opening a door". The fact that prior art exists doesn't seem to deter courts from awarding damages to these patent trolls. This signals the judges weren't comp
        • Hardware patents cover processes -- sets of instructions for completing a task using physical parts -- not just finished products. I don't see the fundamental difference between that and software.

          Likewise, the "obvious" factor and bad litigation can be applied to hardware patents as well. Should you be able to patent the wheel? It's been done.
  • Patently obvious (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:38AM (#20086863) Journal
    "Speakers included patent lawyers from Google, IBM, and Apple."

    Um, doesn't it go without saying that a bunch of patent lawyers, who are undoubtedly extremely well paid for working and exploiting the existing convoluted patent system, wouldn't want anything to change? If software patents go away, a certain percentage of patent lawyers go away. If the patent system was better designed, easier to understand, simpler for individuals to work with, then another percentage of patent lawyers would go away.

    If you've built up an entire career understanding and working within the confines of a complex system, you wouldn't exactly want the system to be made to work without requiring your professional qualifications, would you?

    Dan East
    • Re:Patently obvious (Score:4, Interesting)

      by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Thursday August 02, 2007 @12:04PM (#20087263) Homepage
      Um, doesn't it go without saying that a bunch of patent lawyers, who are undoubtedly extremely well paid for working and exploiting the existing convoluted patent system, wouldn't want anything to change? If software patents go away, a certain percentage of patent lawyers go away. If the patent system was better designed, easier to understand, simpler for individuals to work with, then another percentage of patent lawyers would go away.

      So most oncologists don't want a cure for cancer to be found? I've talked with a lawyer who works on patents on several occasions about this, approaching it from a slashdot-centric the-system-is-broken kind of viewpoint, but after hearing her talk about it I've come to the realization that the system isn't quite as bad as we make it out to be here. It is not easy to get a patent; patent applications are frequently denied, or revisions are demanded, and just because we've seen some dumb patents get granted doesn't mean that the whole system is somehow irredeemably broken.

      It's like the people who argue the legal system is broken because they cherry-pick instances where frivolous lawsuits succeeded (usually completely fabricated instances).
      • Every time the state sentences/executes/ruins an innocent person, the system has failed and is broken, when the guilty go free, it is broken. If "completely fabricated" lawsuits get through at all something is broken. This isn't the legal system you learned about in school, it fails, and when it fails it completely irrevocably ruins peoples lives. If you understand this and still argue that the legal system is not broken, you just might have a really big surprise coming your way.
    • Except, one or two lawyers could easily use their expertise to screw the rest over, by ruining the (money printing) system, these lawyer stand to earn a great deal.
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:40AM (#20086885)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • You haven't been paying attention if until today you thought that Apple's legal team was any different from anywhere else, even if the rest of Apple really does have a unique culture. They have, for years, consistently been making moves and saying things that seem to go against the general outlook on life that Apple tries to express with their PR and advertising. Slashdot itself has seen lots of stories of Apple suing people who don't really deserve it, trying to suppress information that's already out on t
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      From TFA:

      Speaking alongside Lee, Apple's chief patent counsel, Chip Lutton, wouldn't go quite so far as his Google counterpart. He said the US patent system was "not broken" and that it was "not in crisis," calling it "the best in the world". But he acknowledged that there was a "huge bubble" of patent assertions that needs to be scaled back. "The question with this bubble market, as with any bubble market, is 'Can we solve it without a crisis arising?'" he said.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 )
      Welcome to the Real World, where Apple is the world's largest seller of DRMed music, locks consumers into the iPod-iTunes combo, trumps Microsoft in terms of bundling, builds proprietary software on top of open source software, without always being eager to contribute back, sues people for spreading information, refuses to admit problems with their hardware, and on and on.

      Ok, so perhaps I painted a somewhat exaggerated picture of Apple. But the point stands: they're not angels.
  • Translation (Score:2, Funny)

    by athloi ( 1075845 )
    Apple: Our patent system is the best because it allows us to make money from trivial ideas before others can exploit them Google: Our patent system is in crisis because it sometimes threatens those of us who make money by exploiting your trivial ideas
  • said the patent lawyer

    the us patent system IS "the best in the world" ...the best in the world at keeping armies of patent lawyers well paid by large corporations
  • Havent read TFA (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GarfBond ( 565331 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:50AM (#20087029)
    but this standpoint may have something to do with apple's focus on hardware. Hardware patents have seemed to work better for them in general - see multitouch, magsafe, iPod wheel, etc.
  • by mattgreen ( 701203 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:50AM (#20087035)
    That'd be the sound of your cognitive dissonance knocking. Google/Apple = good, patents = bad. But, Google/Apple like patents!

    I wish they wouldn't run stories like this...now what are we supposed to think?
    • by jedidiah ( 1196 )
      Patents aren't bad in a "categorical imperative" sort of way. They are bad when they become an end to themselves rather than a means to an end. The problem "idea" is intellectual "property". That phrase brings with it a whole bunch of entirely inappropriate conceptual baggage and expectations.

      It were better if they were not thought of as property at all and not given any legal protection as such.
    • That'd be the sound of your cognitive dissonance knocking. Google/Apple = good, patents = bad. But, Google/Apple like patents!

      I wish they wouldn't run stories like this...now what are we supposed to think?

      Do you make a habit of using psychological terms in your everyday speech? I have yet to encounter anyone who would use the term "cognitive dissonance" in an ordinary conversation. Why do people on slashdot insist on writing like a walking thesaurus? Rather than making you appear more intelligent, use of uncommon words tends to isolate you from the the group and can make what you are trying to express more difficult to grasp for the average reader.

      I would suggest using common language to express how you f

  • by josepha48 ( 13953 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:50AM (#20087041) Journal
    .. and apple is wrong, take it from an ex-patent examiner.

    The way that patent examiners work is by number of actions on a case. Each patent application is a case and there are only at most 2 actions on a case: first action, usually a rejection for something; final action, either the patent is allowed or denied. Allowing a patent on the first round only gives you one action. The patent examiners are expected to complete a certain number of actions each week. As the patent examiner stays there longer they need to complete more actions. A new patent examiner, GS-5 or GS-7 would have to do about 4 patents every 2 weeks, where a GS-11 would have to do about 7 every two weeks. This never ever ever takes into account the complexity of the patent either. A 10 page patent application gets the same attention as a 150 page application. It does not take into consideration that the job is boring as hell unless you like dealing with lawyers.

    Many patent examiners are not from the technical fields that they are working in and some are fresh out of college. Patent examiners are government employees and thus have the same lazy attitude that most government employees do.

    Anyone who has been on /. for the past 5 years and seen some of the stupid issues that have come up because of patents would know that the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) is completely jacked up and not working.

    Take it from me, I worked there, and to reject a patent I would have come up with any f***ed up logic just to get it out the door on time, and usually allow them the second time around, unless I really did come up with some good BS

    • by sheldon ( 2322 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @12:35PM (#20087869)
      I knew a guy who went on to be a patent examiner.

      As he explained it, they were instructed to be very lenient on accepting patents, because it was simply taken for granted that any complaints or problems would be handled in the courts.

      That's the way businesses preferred it to be done, and perhaps that is Apple's position here.
    • by PatrickMMoore ( 984350 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @01:31PM (#20089033) Homepage
      You're absolutely right. When I was fresh outta college and working as an examiner, I would use whatever f***ed up logic that made my boss happy with my production numbers. I'm not proud of that fact, but it did make my life considerably better.

      I am agreeing with you that the system is pretty jacked up and no longer encourages innovation (which is what it was meant for in the first place. Thomas Jefferson would probably be working for Google if he were alive today.
      • Thomas Jefferson would probably be working for Google if he were alive today.
        Or screaming "Help help get me out of this fucking hole in the ground!" Yeah I'm bored today.
  • by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @12:04PM (#20087253) Journal
    Google's head of patents believes the system is in crisis: 'The Patent Office is overburdened,' she said. 'The volume of patents going in is huge. And the quality of patents coming out -- it could be better.' But Apple's chief patent counsel said the US patent system was 'not broken' and 'not in crisis,' calling it 'the best in the world.'

    Here's a novel idea. Is it possible that these two views aren't as mutually exclusive as some think?

    My thoughts as to why I postulate this idea (ignoring the obvious "broken" / "not broken" statements).

    1) From a certain point of view, the patent system is broken: the infamous business model "on the web", swinging on a swing, etc.
    2) From another point of view, the patent system is NOT broken: true inventions, novel approaches to solving a problem etc.

    Is the whole patent system "broken" because of 1? I agree that certain aspects of the Patent process ARE broken, but that doesn't mean the whole of it is.

    FOSS is just as "broken" as Patent System is. Probably more so with people starting to implement GPL3 (which isn't going to have the effect that the authors/designers wanted). Before you mod me down, I support and promote FOSS where I can, when I can. I don't use MS Office, I use Open Office. I use LAMP for all my web design work (I use Joomla, mostly). Firefox, Thunderbird etc for web applications. I think FOSS has a lot to offer, but it is far from perfect.

    The different agendas and people trying to force others to their view is insane. While I like the idea behind GPL3 (protect the source), I don't like the implementation. I think it is going to hurt packaging and bundling of components together to accomplish a job because of some clause in the GPL3 is vague enough and can be interpreted in such a way that bundling of a LAMP solution would be viewed as violation of GPL3. What is the difference between linking libraries, and linking applications???? Define a library vs an application. Isn't a library a small application????? It is a bit like defining PORN, isn't it? I mean, we all know "PORN" when we see it, but actually defining it can be .... difficult at best.
    • Probably more so with people starting to implement GPL3 (which isn't going to have the effect that the authors/designers wanted).

      Don't make a statement like that and not back it up with some information.. How? Why?

      The different agendas and people trying to force others to their view is insane.

      Yet here you are forcing your view on me.

      Before you mod me down, I support and promote FOSS

      So what? You want a medal? Oh since you support FOSS and are a fellow brother of the order I guess we should just ignore the B

  • The US patent system may be the best in the world - I'm no expert on foreign patent law, but I do know that not many people other than software folks are complaining about the current state of the US patent system. Software is still relatively young (compared to the age of the concept of patents) and it's not surprising that it is causing a lot of frustration... square pegs and round holes and so on; the patent system hasn't evolved to handle software yet.

    I'll go one step farther - I don't think the patent
  • by eiapoce ( 1049910 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @12:25PM (#20087663)
    The US patent system is not the best in the world because there can't be one. As soon you accept the idea of protectiong ideas you promote the economically implicit concept of scarcity of resource and various forms of implementation that are economically inefficient (monopolies and such).

    On slashdot people discusses about software patents knowing that they apply the most to high technology and computer science. Unfortunately they apply also to other things including medicine (drugs).

    Do not forget what happened a short while ago in Brazil when the president was criticised for an allerged violation of a patent. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18490388/ [msn.com]
  • Useless (Score:3, Informative)

    by Duncan3 ( 10537 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @12:28PM (#20087731) Homepage
    A patent will not stop China (who makes everything) from making copies of your product, because it's not the USA.
    A Patent will not stop Microsoft from using your product, because they can pay more to lawyers then you can - which is how the "legal system" works.

    How are patents helping the inventors exactly?
  • by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @01:13PM (#20088713) Homepage Journal
    allowing software to be patented is proof that it is broken.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    So... I think Google has a better understanding of tha patent system... as they are trying to digitally catalog it. Apple probably sees it from a purely business point of view. My friend in the patent office says they have a decade long backlog. He did Computer Engineering in college so I assume he is looking at software patents.
  • by muerdeme ( 1136491 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @01:44PM (#20089305)

    "Most patents issued are never litigated and never licensed," he said. "We need to focus on fixing the litigation system. That's most relevant."

    I couldn't agree with Apple's counsel more.

    Everyone seems content to blame the PTO for the problems in the patent system. The reason there are patent trolls applying for superfluous patents is not because they know they can sneak the applications through the PTO's inefficient, government run system. The patent litigation laws in the US are the source of the real problem. The massive potential returns on litigation make it economical for the trolls to exist, and, in turn, force the big companies to use their patents "like shields" against each other. One golden patent application in a 1000 is all it takes for a troll to pay for the fees associated with all of them.

    Get rid of the trolls and unnecessary patents by making them uneconomical, not by forcing the PTO to hire PhD's. With a lower upside to litigation, every application that is filed must necessarily be of a higher quality in order to make it worthwhile economically.
  • by codemachine ( 245871 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @02:26PM (#20090163)
    I think this partially has to do with the businesses they are in.

    Apple is mostly a hardware company. They want to be able to patent their innovations involving the iPod and iPhone. Though I'm sure they have some software patents too, most of their patents are tied to hardware and the software interface to hardware. For a company that tends to lead the pack on hardware innovations, the system works very well for them.

    Google's big business is web based software. Software patents have been handled fairly poorly by the patent office. And Google is arriving on the scene late. Apple and MS already have a huge patent portfolio. Google is probably building one as well, but since their business is software based, they are quite vulnerable to patent threats. Especially when a company that has stated they want to crush Google has one of the largest collections of software patents, and has already threatened the open source software that Google's business runs on.
  • by HiThere ( 15173 ) <charleshixsn@@@earthlink...net> on Thursday August 02, 2007 @04:18PM (#20092143)
    I'm no lawyer, and I don't know the laws of foreign countries. The US patent system may well not be the worst patent system in the world. It's bad enough.

    Actually, were I to rate how bad it was, my rating would be more on an absolute scale than on a relative scale. I feel that the US patent system is so bad that we'd be better off without any patent system at all. I'm sure this isn't the optimal answer, but it's a true one. An optimal patent system would require licensing patents for a fixed amount/copy, or an agreed upon lesser rate. It would require patents to be operationally useful, rather than the basis for legal arguments. (That one would be tricky to implement.) It would include specific tests that could allow one to reliably determine whether a patent was infringed. (Another toughie.) And it would impose an absolute limit on the total compensation that could be derived from a patent, say 50 or 500 times what it cost to develop, after which the patent would become free for common use.

    Optimality is notoriously difficult to prove, and even "almost optimal" can be difficult to implement. The current system, however, is closer to "almost pessimal". (Well, perhaps I exaggerate. I'm not sure. The fact that I can't be sure is a comment on the current patent system.)

Variables don't; constants aren't.

Working...