What If Android Lost the Patent War? 248
adeelarshad82 writes "The patent system is certainly complex, especially when it comes to smartphones. The Financial Times estimates that as many as 250,000 patents are at stake in a smartphone. Industry titans like Microsoft, Nokia, and Apple have tens of thousands of patents each, but Google's portfolio is reportedly on the low end — 'under 1,000.' Taking advantage of the opportunity, Apple has its patent strategy aimed squarely at the number one rival to its iOS mobile operating system, Android, which is now embedded in 40 percent of all U.S. smartphones compared to Apple's 26.6 percent. Apple's lawyers have been aggressively suing Android manufacturers HTC and Samsung for various technologies, from the 'look and feel' to how it connects to broadband networks. A recently published article takes a deep dive into the lawsuits' possible outcomes and their effect on end users."
We're going to do what we do every day (Score:3)
Pinkey and the Brain (lawyers, newly qualified)
Re: (Score:2)
His name was Pinky! Don't you dare misspell the names of my beloved childhood cartoon characters. I should also note that Pinky and Brain were never successful. Well, they were once when Pinky came up with the plan, but Brain managed to mess everything up.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, some of those plots clearly took weeks and even months to come to fruition. Perhaps if they had focused on them rather than starting a new one every day they might have been successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You LOST me there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But if you called them Sad Meals no one would buy them.
Re: (Score:3)
C'mon. I suddenly realise that I have the first post and it's my duty to save us from another homeopathic Tamagotchi porn posting. I post something vaguely related to the topic and without anything much offensive.. You expect spelling?
My posting even has a serious point though. We'll soon have a situation where everybody from the USA, even cartoon characters, have to be drafted in as lawyers to keep up with all the ongoing law suits. In most countries, the majority of politicians are now lawyers by t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:We're going to do what we do every day (Score:4, Insightful)
"Getting rid of patents, at least in software, would free up vast amounts of resources."
That's the problem, isn't it. What would all the lawyers do for an income? Especially when many people have already passed the point of diminishing returns for more stuff?
Excessive bureaucracy is a from of "make work" to prop up a society that can not admit its socioeconomic model (based on an income-through-jobs link) is broken in an age of abundance from cheap technology (like from an Android-powered supercomputer in your pocket relative to a 1970s definition of supercomputer); see also this knol I put together on good and bad ways to deal with that:
http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I'd suggest some sort of televised tournament involving fights to the death.
Software Patents... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be more interested in reading what would happen if software was considered un-patentable tomorrow and all software patents rendered void.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Software Patents... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
IV is actually owned by google, MS and other fortune 500 tech companies. it's like a mutual fund
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently there are more “This American Life [thisamericanlife.org]” listeners on Slashdot than I would've expected.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet surely there is a subsequent decrease in valuation of a company due to the patent portfolios of competitors. Such that Google would see very little devaluation due to "loss" of their relatively small patent portfolio but with a potential sizable gain in value because their competitors no longer have that sword dangling over them.
And while Apple might seem to be in the cat bird seat regarding patents, they are still embroiled in patent disputes, some of which aren't going their way. [tuaw.com] Those problems would
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because patents are part of their valuation. Credits are obtained with patents as a security. They are assigned value, and kept as assets. If they become worthless over night, many companies will just be bankrupt in the morning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Software Patents... (Score:4, Informative)
No, they don't. There's plenty of evidence out there refuting your claim.
There are many barriers to entry aside from patents. Actually getting something done is one, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They would hardly collapse through that - the patent suits are there just to discredit and mess up things.
What would happen is that the other companies would try to find other ways to be competitive - and maybe force them to really think about quality rather than litigation to stay on the edge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
250,000? (Score:3, Insightful)
May I be allowed to say: holy fucking shit. 250,000 patents in one phone? Insane. Absolutely insane. The patent system is supposed to be used so a new device has maybe a handful of patents in it. Quite often, only one. Because very few inventions are really novel and deserving of protection. But everyone on /. should know this already, and I'm just treading old ground.
I'll end this by just saying: fuck lawyers. There is good reason why so many people despise and hate them, and our present patent system is an excellent example. Leeches, most of 'em (to be fair, a few are alright... but very, very few.)
Re: (Score:2)
The patent system is supposed to be used so a new device has maybe a handful of patents in it.
Why? Because you said so?
Re: (Score:2)
The patent system is supposed to be used so a new device has maybe a handful of patents in it.
Why? Because you said so?
No, because we're talking about patents in the US, and, by constitutional decree, they're only supposed to cover Discoveries.
Re: (Score:2)
May I be allowed to say: holy fucking shit. 250,000 patents in one phone? Insane. Absolutely insane. The patent system is supposed to be used so a new device has maybe a handful of patents in it. Quite often, only one. Because very few inventions are really novel and deserving of protection. But everyone on /. should know this already, and I'm just treading old ground.
I'll end this by just saying: fuck lawyers. There is good reason why so many people despise and hate them, and our present patent system is an excellent example. Leeches, most of 'em (to be fair, a few are alright... but very, very few.)
Lawyers are a consequence of bad law, not the other way around. Lawyers are not the problem for the most part... it's the people you elected to office and passed the laws that make lawyers necessary.
Indirectly, it's more your fault than the lawyers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
THIS!
If there was ever a reason to separate the three branches of governance this is it. Prevent people from serving in two branches of government at the same time. Since this is only a problem with Lawyers (part of the Judicial branch by default) prevent Lawyers from EVER holding office of Executive or Legislative branches of government ... ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Prevent people from serving in two branches of government at the same time.
I'm not well-enough versed in the Constitution to claim whether or not an individual person could legally hold offices in two or more branches of the government simultaneously. Intuitively, I'd say "not" but I don't know for sure, because honestly, the idea never occurred to me. However, for the point I believe you are trying to make (as opposed to what you
Re:250,000? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you should go out and tell people how the patent system is *supposed* to be used then since apparently the problem is that people have misunderstood the whole thing. I'm really tired of the "the software patent system really works in theory, but people/organization are not using it correctly" argument. Let's pretend that the argument makes sense, then we could also argue that "the communist system really works in theory, but people wasn't using it correctly".
If a system can be abused it's broken. You
Re: (Score:2)
Software patents do *not* work "in theory." (Neither does communism, IMHO, but I must tip my hat to the nice straw man/ red herring argument there) The people who created the system are, in point of fact, lawyers and companies who want to create business for themselves and monopolies, respectively. As someone commented above, most members of Congress are lawyers. And by definition so are all the members of our court system. Lawyers love business, like all professions, and I have no problem with that necessa
Re: (Score:2)
May I be allowed to say
No, you may not.
The patent system is supposed to be used so a new device has maybe a handful of patents in it.
I liked this [slashdot.org] response.
I'll end this by just saying: fuck lawyers. There is good reason why so many people despise and hate them, and our present patent system is an excellent example.
Ah, well, at least you've got some well reasoned and sensible discourse going on. Thanks for the value you've added to the discussion.
One Patent, Please! (Score:4, Interesting)
The Financial Times estimates that as many as 250,000 patents are at stake in a smartphone. Industry titans like Microsoft, Nokia, and Apple have tens of thousands of patents each, but Google's portfolio is reportedly on the low end — 'under 1,000.'
Luckily patents are not created equally and I would imagine that companies decades older than Google and with far more product lines, areas of business, etc have more patents. Is this really grounds for assuming Android is teetering upon a rain slick precipice of darkness?
... er Lawyer guidance modules. Legions and legions of lawyers. Row upon row of mindless litigant bastards that will close ranks when one of their number is befallen by a fatal case of morals or common sense.
I think patents are kind of like nuclear warheads and mutually assured destruction requires only that you have a couple thousand strategically positioned with MIRV
Re: (Score:2)
Row upon row of mindless litigant bastards that will close ranks when one of their number is befallen by a fatal case of morals or common sense.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Perhaps you mean "litigious?"
Software Patents Should Be Abolished (Score:3, Insightful)
Software patents are a pox on this nation. They undermine the system, stifle, rather than motivation, innovation, and are used as clubs by the bullies in industry.
The idea that I can "create" something intangible, easily replicated, and quite literally out of nothing simply by typing some characters on a keyboard is absolutely insane, and should never have been allowed in the first place. Had the system existed like this centuries ago, the book market would have been driven into the ground by publishers who owned the patent on "arranging characters on a page to create words and express ideas".
And the fact hat Apple is choosing to beat Android into submission with them, rather than make a superior product, is very telling indeed.
Re:Software Patents Should Be Abolished (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not a fact. That's an opinion. An argument can be made that Apple is making the superior product and beating down Android/Google with patents (which are not all software patents, I should point out.)
I'm no fan of software patents, I think they're entirely wrong-headed, but if you're going to hold Apple's feet to the fire, at least do it with a clear view of what is going on. They make plenty of real mistakes and do lots of obnoxious things, no need to invent fictitious ones.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not a fact. That's an opinion. An argument can be made that Apple is making the superior product and beating down Android/Google with patents
Uh, the fact they need to beat down on their competitors is a very, very compelling argument against Apple having the superior product.
If the Ipad was truly so superior to the tablet Samsung produces then it would not need to use the courts to artificially stifle competition because to do so is a very expensive operation which is not needed when the competitors are unable to compete. These suits targeting Samsung are nothing less then an attempt to force Samsung out of the market, Apple did not ask for l
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Using the law as an excuse for your misdeeds only works if you're not also lobbying the crap out of the government to bend said laws to your advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
> The idea that I can "create" something intangible, easily replicated, and quite literally out of nothing simply by typing some characters on
> a keyboard is absolutely insane, and should never have been allowed in the first place.
Believe it or not, it gets worse. About 10-15 years ago, copyright was extended beyond mere mechanical reproduction of blueprints to actual architectural design. So, someone who comes up with an "innovation" like a garage with built-in recess to accommodate an electric-car c
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Pick your sources wisely, PCMag (Score:4, Informative)
Is Florian Mueller the king of Slashdot? It seems so since he gets mentioned more than any other single person.
Florian Mueller is the current more vocal MS shill in the war against google. Is is doing the same role as Enderle does, only Enderle is by now completely discredited, and some still quote Mueller as if he knew what he is talking about. As usual, your best source is Groklaw, they've discredited many of Mueller's ravings already.
Re: (Score:2)
He does except for Steve Jobs or Steve Balmer or Larry (get off my boat) Ellison.
Re: (Score:3)
His most objective articles are about Lodsys vs mobile app devs, BTW.
His stance in Oracle vs Google is obviously against Google, in the form "I think" and "I agree with". Or maybe he has an issue of writing a diplomatically impartial text.
On
Re: (Score:3)
Can someone explain what the problem with Florian is?
The fact that he's not a patent or FOSS expert but he plays one in real life. That whole issue with Bionic was moronic and knowledge of the history of linux and the GPL would have shown it as a clear non-story, so he was either ignorant (in his purported field of expertise) or ran with it anyway just to make some noise and drive hits to his blog.
Why should we care? (Score:3)
I realise that Slashdot and PCMag are US-oriented but I'm getting a bit tired of articles written as if what happens in the US affects the whole world. Where is Apple suing HTC and Samsung? In the US. That kind of patent bullshit does not fly everywhere in the world, and HTC and Samsung are not even mainly US-based. Granted, the US is a big important market, but it's not everything.
So ok, worse case scenario, they win and the US is taken over by Apple alone. Frankly, I doubt Microsoft will let that happen, 'cause it needs hardware to put their OS on, and we all know Apple will never let them put it on theirs in a million years. But ok, let's say for the sake of argument.
So? Why should the rest of the world care? I'm seriously asking. How will the rest of the world be affected by a decision given in one country, that's the host of a fairly atypical, malformed and out-of-control patent system? Will they be able to replicate this feat elsewhere in the world?
Re: (Score:2)
I think that you're asking this question a few years too soon. At the moment the size of the US market drives and supports investment. I suspect that you need to be sure that you will sell a large number of devices there before you can afford to develop new products. India and China will eventually start to drive innovation at the cutting edge but individual people there are just not wealthy enough yet. This is speculation because I'm not an expert in this stuff.
You hit the 'nail on the head' (Score:2)
Many folks here address issues from a US of A perspective then extend their often flawed logic to world scenarios.
In reality, if Android lost the battle, it would still flourish in the rest of the world, as it is doing now.
Heck, Nokia is almost unheard of in major US markets, but is doing quite well worldwide.
I liked your assertion:
...Granted, the US is a big important market, but it's not everything...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why should we care? (Score:4, Insightful)
You should care because if Android phones lose the entire US market, they will become much less profitable to make. As a result, companies will either spend less money making them or raise their prices, since engineering costs will now be amortized over a smaller number of sales. Likewise, app developers will shift their focus towards iOS, so that they can reach the US market.
End result, Android phones become more expensive, lose their edge on hardware, and get fewer apps developed for them.
Economies are interconnected. Don't think for one moment that bad things happening in one part of the world won't ripple over and affect you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why should we care? (Score:5, Informative)
So? Why should the rest of the world care? I'm seriously asking. How will the rest of the world be affected by a decision given in one country, that's the host of a fairly atypical, malformed and out-of-control patent system?
Because the US government spends a considerable amount of time and effort trying to push their concept of 'Intellectual Property' on the rest of the world.
Google would pay (Score:2)
One way or another, though, they're going to need to pay something to someone. Hell
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, this is the great horror that awaits Android should the apocalypse happen and "Android lose the patent war" (who comes up with this shit?) Google would have to pay license fees (just like every other company out there) and pass them on to handset makers, oh the humanity !
Re: (Score:2)
Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.
Well. (Score:3)
Google patents are not so many. But the companies who would be immediately hurt - they hold a lot. I mean the idea of starting a all-out patent-war against Sony, HTC, Samsung, Dell, Archos, Asus and some chinese manufacturerers (many of them veterans in the PIM/mobile business), which could block a company easily from half of the markets, would be stupid. I mean sure Apple *could* bet that Sony does not find some Japan-only patents (yeah, they exist) (moreover in JP they would go against NTT...). Sure they can bet that the legal fight in intransparent judical systems are worth it.
It would be much more reasonable to compate the patent stack and pay some money and settle the thing by agreeing not to step on anybodies feet.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the part where the consortium that bought those Nortel patents recently included not only Apple but also Sony, RIM and Ericsson. What makes you think all those companies you mentioned are willing to be dragged into a patent war by Google ? I see these guys licensing WebOS or heaven forbid Windows Phone 7 before being dragged into that kind of insanity.
Re: (Score:2)
No i did not miss that point. In the end they all want to sell something. It may be a problem for google, the phone company. So maybe google stops selling own android devices.
That would not hurt at all i guess. The fact that they bought this patents together means they want to settle it friendly, since they include ios, android and qnx based phone makers, which means that these three companies probably have very far reaching agreements no to step on each others toes.
And responsible for patent violations is
Re: (Score:2)
It is also interesting to note that these companies are competing against one another. While it would be a competitive advantage to protect themselves from lawsuits, there is a need to differentiate and sell products. This implies it may not be best for all to put patents into a communal Android pool. Indeed,the fact that many Android OEM seem to fighting and paying MS individually might indicate they wish to
Re: (Score:2)
Believe me they will find a possibility to team up if its in the interest of everybody and fight against each other where appropriate. However, if android sinks, they all loose money. Android was a gift from heaven for most of them who ran into solutions which could not compete or had other hooks. letting them kill android would make the smart phone market a present to apple (consumers) and rim (business).
How can Google win with only 1000 patents? (Score:3)
Sell a few selected patents to an independent shell company. That company, which neither creates or sells products and is out of the control of Google, will be free to sue Apple and Oracle (and any other threat to the Android market) freely for patent infringement, but not Google (due to a contract that went along with the sell). This independent company cannot be targeted for patent infringement no matter how many patents Apple and company might have. Any funds can flow to filing more patents and buying more patents in order to maintain their attacks.
Or better yet, funds collected might be used to fund patent reform efforts (again by contract).
1000 patents is plenty to launch a number of these companies, which could cause Apple huge amounts of damage, while Google itself (not really making phones directly) would be largely immune from this sort of attach.
I have been thinking about this for a while, and can't really see a flaw in the approach, other than it is really Evil.
Re: (Score:2)
The outcome is simple (Score:3)
I tether a laptop to a feature phone and tell Apple, Microsoft, and Nokia to suck it.
Florian Müller again (Score:3)
I immediately loaded the article and searched for "Florian Müller". Imagine my surprise when the name didn't come up. His first mention is on page 2.
How is a horizontal swipe not obvious? (Score:2)
Writing on the Wall (Score:2)
Depends on the area of the Patent (Score:2)
If they are software patents then most countries are not affected. The problem would be mostly the USA and Japan. If I am not mistaken: China, India and the EU do not have software patents. Also in Latin America there should be no problem selling such phones. And I doubt that it is any different in Africa. So in the end it is a local problem.
If these patents are on hardware designs, the situation would be slightly different. And it could be a big issue. However, on the hardware market this is no longer a ga
What If Android Lost the Patent War? (Score:4, Funny)
Then Google would have to buy Microsoft, Nokia, and Apple.
There is always WebOS (Score:2)
If Google lost and Android was no more, then I would look at WebOS. The Palm Pre was underpowered, but the OS was not that bad. I liked it more than Android in many ways. Unfortunately, like beta-max, it lost out.
Worry about Oracle, not Apple (Score:2)
Oracle is suing Google for patent infringement - the Dalvik VM appears to directly infringe the old Sun patents. They have emails that seem to show that Google knew about the possible infringement and proceeded anyway.
The Apple patents are a sideshow - Oracle vs Google is where it's at.
Oh, then once Oracle is done then Apple is next in line.
Re: (Score:2)
Competition is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is Google aren't stupid. They'll wait until their market share is really high in mobile then start charging for Android.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ONLY things that should be patentable are physical devices.
ANYTHING other then that is covered by copyright.
You come up with a fancy new IC that increases radio reception by 10 fold, it is a physical device and can therefor be patented and under your control and you will sell them by the truck load or license the manufacture of the device and collect royalties. The WORLD will beat a path to your door trying to get it. Some companies will offer you huge sums for an exclusive license.
Software patents on
Re: (Score:2)
> The ONLY things that should be patentable are physical devices.
> ANYTHING other then that is covered by copyright.
Actually, that argument is kind of like advocating cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. As bad as software patents are, replacing them with copyrights would be worse. At least patents aren't eternal in duration and expire someday. If only literal sourcecode could be copyrighted, I'd be in agreement. However, if you're going to allow copyright to be blurred into 'look & feel' i
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, ONLY your COMPLETE source code would be patentable. Anything you only have binary images for from a THIRD PARTY read that as closed source drivers, microcode binaries, obj files, RTL's etc SHALL be specifically and obviously noted in your source code with reference in comments as to the copyright holder.
Look & Feel would not be copyrightable in any way shape or form, nor would they be patentable.
Copyright would be be for 10 years, renewable one time for 5 additional years.
That means we have t
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, copyrights cannot stop independent innovation.
If something's patented, you can't copy it period. However, copyright will prevent copying but if you do your own engineering clean room style, you're safe.
Re: (Score:2)
then there was linux based PDA's with phones in them (sony) then palm phones and a half dozen others then Opps apple "innovated" the smartphone and all other phones before it did not exist
Re: (Score:3)
Ideas are cheap. It is the implementation of the idea that is so difficult.
There were natural barriers to entry into the industry which gave Apple a big advantage for 2 to 3 years. Developing a mobile OS that can compete with iOS is not easy to do and not cheap. Apple was able to crush the competition because it executed their platform better than anyone else without the need for patents.
It wasn't until Google and Microsoft finally came out with products that were in comparable quality to the iPhone that
Re: (Score:2)
Your idea isn't worth shit. If you implemented that idea using a unique and non-obvious technique, then you would have an invention which may be worth patenting. The problem is that software is implemented via code and code is covered by copyright
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the problem with your whole scenario:
I was carrying around a phone and a PalmPilot some years ago, wishing they were the same device. THE idea was not something novel, as I'm sure I was not the only one thinking the same exact thing. The moment you toss in Internet Access (DATA) availability, some things just become obvious. The problem isn't that these aren't inventions, they were obvious extensions of what already existed.
You can't say take "email" which has been around forever (computer terms) and
Re: (Score:2)
You're right in the sense that if Apple & Microsoft were able to banish new Android phones from America, a large group would jailbreak their phones and reflash them to Android in pure spite and disgust, but make no mistake... Android is as good as it is largely because well-funded companies pay lots of developers to work on it full time. If that development dried up, Android would end up kind of like Netbeans -- still still viable, but nowhere near as vibrant, polished, and cutting-edge as it was pre-Or
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen how people act about their phones. They have the attitude of "from my cold dead hands" of an NRA freak mixed equally with the behaviors of a meth addict. They can sue until the cows come home, but the cat has gotten out of carrier. You won't be able to put it back in. Android phones (or the like) will go underground like drugs. All the enforcement (patent or otherwise) won't change that. It would only become a question of how to get them over the border.
Please. Most people who have android phones either got them because there was no iPhone on their carrier (or still isn't) or because it was offered to them for free by their carrier.
I'd be interested to know what the return rate was for Android phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You think Apple doesn't pay license fees to other companies for all the stuff they cram into an iPhone ? Why should Google get a free ride ?
Re: (Score:2)
APPLE listen up! If you sue them out of existence I will never buy another product of yours for myself or as a gift. ever. after all if your fancy UI is so superior why would you need to result to lawsuits to prove it?
If Apple does not defend their IP then many companies will abuse it and consumers will buy the barely sufficient copy instead of the real thing.