I'll be completely honest. Prior to this I disliked patent trolls in a sort of abstract way, but now, I have a visceral feeling of disgust just thinking about patent trolls.
Lodsys in particular seems to have no shame.
I wonder if a few more of these higher profile lawsuits might pull the general public's attention from whatever the latest reality TV show is. Maybe then the political system could do something useful to stop the patent lawsuit insanity.
Considering that one of the biggest names in computing in the eyes of the public (IBM) in extremely pro-software patents, that's not likely to happen. IBM says:
Given the reality that software source code is human
readable, and object code can be reverse engineered,
it is difficult for software developers to resort to
secrecy. Thus, without patent protection, the incentives
to innovate in the field of software are significantly
reduced. Patent protection has promoted the free sharing
of source code on a patentee’s terms—which has fueled the
explosive growth of open source software development.
That's from their brief to the Supreme Court for the Bilski case.
Then you should get a copy of the full brief and read it, as you'll probably get a good laugh from more of it, like where they say software patents encourage the adoption of standards on the web and net.
I think the general public would stab their local IBM Global Services consultant in the eye with a pen if they thought it would help their beloved Angry Birds in the patent dispute.
> Given the reality that software source code is human readable, and object code can be reverse engineered[...]
It's now abundantly clear that this argument was put before someone who is not familiar with the difficulty inherent in divining the intent of original source code, much less source that has been reverse engineered off the opcodes.
So, they are deliberately misleading the judges. I really would like that to be recognized as "lying under oath" (or is there no oath attached to such briefs?).
My comment was meant at least slightly tongue-in-cheek. I've seen some people (usually pretty deep compiler experts) who were able to do a remarkable job of reconstructing original source from object code. There obviously is brilliantly written source code out there that is a downright pleasure to read.
In general we don't enact legislation entirely against the worst cases, for good reason.
It seems to me that it is the obscurity of source code that enables copyright violation.
If software could not be copyright unless it was registered with the library of congress, then the library could run a filter on all new arrivals and check they were different from previously posted source from other sources.
What if two people independently arrive at thesame algorithm, say, an optimal implementation with the least possible amount of code in a given language. Is it still a copyright violation? You can't copyright math, can you?
Legally that is not a copyright violation. There are examples where this is likely, and companies make efforts to prove this no copying occurred. I think this is called a 'clean room' implementation.
In theory it seems like it should though doesn't it?
Maybe if we did something to fix the problems it wouldn't be so bad. Right now it's hard for little guys to get patents, partly because it costs a lot of money and time (lawyers are expensive). It's also too easy to patent trivial things so big companies can patent the simplest things at a relatively minuscule cost for them.
You're asking if monopolies, on technical solutions, being handed out by necessarily under-skilled government bureaucrats, sound like they'd help spur innovation?
Umm, no. Not in the slightest. Do you live in backwards day?
If we wanted to reward innovation we'd reward innovators. Instead of wasting money on patents and court we'd give it to people who (according to their peers) did the most to help us. No forms, no lawyers, just grants to helpful inventors and teachers.
Temporary monopolies. That's pretty key and you omitted it entirely.
> If we wanted to reward innovation we'd reward innovators. Instead of wasting money on patents and court we'd give it to people who (according to their peers) did the most to help us. No forms, no lawyers, just grants to helpful inventors and teachers.
So inventor X spends 5 years to research and make a cool thing and we grant him $1 million, after which the big corporations copy his idea and make billions. If he could have licensed his idea for the couple of years he had exclusive rights to it that makes it far more worthwhile for the inventor.
Also, where does the money for these grants come from? Shouldn't big corporations with billions have to pay to profit wildly from brand new inventions?
You're also ignoring the potential for corruption. Honestly, your plan is pretty naïve for this modern world. Instead of throwing out what we have we could try to fix it. At least we know some of the current problems, we have no idea what problems some other brand new scheme would have or how corporations and lawyers would twist it to serve their purposes.
> Temporary monopolies. That's pretty key and you omitted it entirely.
Oh yeah, never mind the government interference - it's only temporary. Never mind that it's still six times longer than the lifetime of the tech involved. Just like how copyrights are 'for a limited time' despite being longer than the average lifespan.
No, what's key here is untrained and uninterested people trying to provide a stimulus to something they don't understand by handing out monopolies on development. If you were to invent an analogy suitably horrible it would involve blind people and hand grenades.
> So inventor X spends 5 years to research and make a cool thing and we grant him $1 million, after which the big corporations copy his idea and make billions. If he could have licensed his idea for the couple of years he had exclusive rights to it that makes it far more worthwhile for the inventor.
And if wishes were unicorns... But back on planet Earth, patents only screw over inventors. Make a mistake in your paperwork and it's worthless. Don't file on time, worthless. Can't afford legal battles, worthless.
That million dollars that you scoff at would certainly be comforting to the 99.986% of independent inventors who don't win patent-bingo though. And teachers, authors, etc, would be eligible for this, unlike now.
> Also, where does the money for these grants come from?
From the dismantled patent system and the court costs that go to adjudicating it. Also, the innovative gains and lessened frictional costs of patents would mean higher profits and thus tax revenue.
Think what we might accomplish if every patent attorney and everyone involved in the industry stopped throwing their life's effort into a productivity black-hole and did even one useful thing with the time, instead of dragging everyone down to provide a relative boost to their team.
> Shouldn't big corporations with billions have to pay to profit wildly from brand new inventions?
Under this scheme they'd pay whatever you wanted to tax them, much like now.
But why should someone have to pay to use an idea just because someone else (might have) had it first? As long as you operate from ridiculous premises like that you'll keep coming up with solutions to non-problems - like patents.
> You're also ignoring the potential for corruption. Honestly, your plan is pretty naïve for this modern world. Instead of throwing out what we have we could try to fix it.
As my system could be expressed in about a page of non-legalese, I'd wager it'd have one ten-millionth the loopholes and cruft the patent system is carrying and would thus a lot less likely to be subverted.
But even if my system were totally corrupted it'd, at absolute worst, reward the wrong people. The patent system, on a good day, brings ruin and destruction to many worthwhile companies and ideas. Engineers are told (on sound legal advice) to never look at patents so the theoretical benefits to society aren't even being provided.
The patent system is already a run-away worst-case scenario.
Not until Lodsys goes after Kim Kardashian for violation of a patent they hold on how to screw a lid on perfume. As soon as someone breaks away from tech and takes it to pop culture, we may actually see some changes.
Don't mess with the publics ability to indulge in kids in tiaras or the brand of large booty they are into or there will be outrage to answer to.
I think that phenomenon might have more to do with the fact that the general public doesn't understand technology well enough to know when enforcing a patent on something (or granting one) is and isn't ridiculous.
I forget the details, and I might be wrong, but I think with the whole Microsoft XML file format suit thing, the suit boiled down to a company claiming they had a patent on using XML for document type file formats. But that's the whole point of XML, to be used as a general purpose markup language, to markup whatever you want. It's ridiculous to attempt to patent that when it's the whole point of XML to begin with. But the general public doesn't really know what XML is or what its for, so no one realizes how crazy it is.
If, on the other hand, someone tried to patent putting a doorknob on a door that leads into a postal office, as opposed to some other kind of building, everyone would realize how ridiculous it was. Because people know what doors and doorknobs and postal offices are.
It's not at all about just using XML as a file format, but about being able to build your own private business extensions to a vendor's (Microsoft's) file format and ecosystem. It may be a software patent and have all the attendant problems, but it is at least an invention and not pure bullshit.
Plus the plaintiff isn't in any way a patent troll — they were a real company with a shipping product that Microsoft was well aware of when they integrated "their" feature into Office.
This case is to software patent reform as "Hot Coffee" is to tort reform — it's almost perfectly constructed to spark nerd rage when initially described, except that the facts of the matter are entirely opposite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonalds_Restaurant...
It's not at all about just using XML as a file format, but about being able to build your own private business extensions to a vendor's (Microsoft's) file format and ecosystem.
XML is called extensible and has things like namespaces exactly for that purpose.
Why should they have shame? This is exactly how the system works. They are abusing the system in the same way that companies like Apple and Microsoft have been, the latter just seem to have a soft spot in some people's hearts.
We need a patent nuclear war. This needs to end. BRING IT ON LODSYS. May every patent holder in every nook and cranny start cashing in.
> We need a patent nuclear war. This needs to end. BRING IT ON LODSYS. May every patent holder in every nook and cranny start cashing in.
I couldn't agree more. I fundamentally disagree with what they do, how the patent system works, etc, but I think these malicious actors will serve to take down the system. The more patent suits of these sort go up, the better I believe the odds are that we'll end up with some sort of sanity.
Or we'll end up with more bullshit legislation which does nothing but make it harder to do legitimate business. We'll see.
We'll wind up with BS legislation as vested interests in the current system try to maintain their power even as protections are added.
As an example of the likely result, see the America Invents Act. Which changes us from first to invent to first to file. And then in section 18 carves out a big patent exception for the financial industry (because they had enough lobbyists).
BTW if you thought that our current system was bad, wait until it is irrelevant whether someone else previously shipped software product with your "invention" in it.
OK I'll bite and jump to defend Microsoft. Can you name a case where Microsoft has tried to screw some fairly small developer by using a patent lawsuit? (I _hate_ to be defending Microsoft. But I can't recall Microsoft having done this.)
I don't mind MS going after large targets with obvious infringements, but a lot of the alleged infringements are ridiculous. It seems to me that the complexity of modern hardware and software has made patents very difficult to administer, but then the question remains: would we be better off without patents altogether, or are we grumbling about minor annoyances compared to what we'd be dealing with without patents (e.g. lots of obfuscation)?
I think OEM are by far their most effective action again GNU/Linux on the desktop. FUD may help, but I think it helps much more to offer a (possibly conditional) discount the hardware vendors simply cannot afford to refuse (especially if they know their competitors will have the same discount).
As other responses have mentioned, Microsoft tends to use FUD and go after bigger players (like Android), which can be seen as a symbolic attack against fairly small developers. They also use proxies, like SCO and Intellectual Ventures, to do their dirty work, so they can claim they use their patents defensively when questioned by anyone unfamiliar with the proxies' behavior.
>Can you name a case where Microsoft has tried to screw some fairly small developer by using a patent lawsuit?
Why does it have to be a "fairly small developer"? Microsoft has a legacy of a lot of broad patents owing to the fact that they've been rolling in billions for decades (and hence can stomach having a lot of people filing trivial patents). With that they try to either run competitors out of business, FUD users into avoiding alternatives, or outright demand some extortion fees (see every Android maker and Microsoft's current patent shakedown).
"Obvious infrginements" is loaded and has little meaning given the incredibly broad patents allowed by the patent system.
>would we be better off without patents altogether, or are we grumbling about minor annoyances compared to what we'd be dealing with without patents (e.g. lots of obfuscation)?
We would be far better off without software patents. There is absolutely no doubt about that. I neither encourages innovation (it more likely discourages innovation), and it only helps to entrench the most successful.
Hopefully Rovio is big and well-connected enought to fight back, and maybe make a legal dent in this problem.
This weekend's This American Life was an hour long feature on the software patent mess. It's a good intro to the situation, especially to the non-tech public. Share with your friends (and send donations as a thank-you!).
Mine patents. Build grunts. Give all grunts the same unoccupied office suite in Texas. Sell patent to grunts with revenue sharing clause. Select a grunt, scroll to target, right-click.
More on-topic: they finish off the show by pointing out that Lodsys's registered address (104 E Houston St. #190) is the same as Oasis Research, a front company for Intellectual Ventures: the ultimate patent troll and the focus of the entire show.
I realized one point regarding patents that I haven't thought of before. Patents shouldn't be transferable or saleable.
A patent should be nominated to its inventor personally and for a company to profit from it they would have to connect with that person. They could employ him or otherwise compensate him for being able to do things that were patented.
This would diminish possibilities for all kinds of trickery and return the power back to the actual inventor. A company who wishes to invest in patents would have to compensate these inventors more than fairly to reach an agreement where the inventor only licenses the patent to that company. Futile, bogus, or useless patents wouldn't be paid for so nobody wouldn't bother to file them. Inventors would have a big financial incentive to invent things that are truly good enough to be worth somebody paying for them.
I'm not sure how taking away an inventor's current right to sell his patent counts as "return[ing] the power back to the actual inventor."
Also, under current law, an exclusive licensee can be granted the right to sue on a patent. So you'd have to change that part of the law as well, for your scheme to actually change anything.
I don't see how that would particularly help. If patents couldn't be sold, they would instead be licensed under highly permissive and exclusive terms. The effect would be the same and it would simply add needless complexity to the system. Complexity is largely the cause of the existing problem.
This is an excellent point. This gives the inventor sufficient protection, and lower the incentive to hog patents by non-inventors. May be a gradual degradation would be good. Any non-original inventor held patent expires in 1/3 of the time.
The real problem is that you should only be able to patent a solution to a difficult problem, while these "broad" patents often look more like you are patenting the problem itself, so that any solution is covered. This is totally against the original idea of patents (either software or hardware).
> The real problem is that you should only be able to patent a solution
Not just any solution, a non-obvious solution. If presented with a new problem, as tech often is, you can think up a solution in a day, it shouldn't' be patent-able because others are going to come up with that same solution. The one click check out is an example of this.
I've heard it argued that simply thinking of a new problem should be sufficient for patent protection, though I strongly disagree with that position. Put differently, identifying the problem can be significantly more difficult than creating the solution, but I still think patents should cover non-obvious solutions to any problem, rather than any solution to non-obvious problems.
Absolutely, only a non-obvious solution to a problem should be patentable.
But if they at least only granted patents to specific almost-obvious solutions, and not just to any solution (which is the same as patenting the problem), it would be a little better: You could at least try to find a different solution...
Rovio is in a unique position to effect change here. They should yank Angry Birds from US app stores and say "sorry America, you can't play because your patent system sucks". That would create the kind of mass upset that might actually get something done about this problem.
Giving in to Lodsys might make fiscal sense in the short term, but they would be painting a target on themselves for the snowballing patent troll industry. All genuine technology companies, but especially those at the formative stages like Rovio, need to think about the future health of their industry. Don't negotiate with terrorists.
US Courts need a script:
if(plaintiff == Lodsys){
dismiss;
}
Lodsys cases are the most BS cases I've ever seen. Unlike large evil corporations who are at least contributing some sort of innovation, all Lodsys manages to do is stifle innovation, and screw over the entire public.
Too bad we can't file a class-action suit against Lodsys for emotional damages.
What's interesting to note is that, as revealed on an episode of NPR's This American Life [1], Lodsys has the same exact address (down to the room number!) of Oasis Research, which is known to have a "back-end arrangement" with Intellectual Ventures.
So Lodsys is pretty much a front for Myhrvold and his despicable company.
It's a physical address [1] and in the radio show they actually visit it. They describe the location as being a little eerie:
The office was in a corridor where all the other doors looked exactly the same —locked, nameplates over the door, no light coming out. It was a corridor of silent, empty offices with names like "Software Rights Archive," and "Bulletproof Technology of Texas."
[1] 104 E. Houston street, suite 190, Marshall, Texas
Lodsys has been suing for such absurd things that maybe they are indirectly contributing to the downfall of the patent system as a result of public uproar.
The problem is with the US patent system, not with the patent trolls.
The benefit to society of granting a patent is that it gives companies an incentive to do R&D. The cost to society of granting a patent is that other companies have to pay money to use the same idea. In a healthy patent system, the average benefit of a patent is equal to the average cost of a patent.
If the average benefit is higher than the average cost, the Patent Office should be more lenient in granting patents, or should lengthen the term of the patent. The former solution would increase the number of patents, but the new ones would have lower average benefit. The latter solution would reduce the average cost of a patent. Likewise, if the average benefit is lower than the average cost, the Patent Office should be stricter in granting patents or should shorten the term of the patent.
The average benefit from a software patent is quite low; most software patents are for an obvious solution to an uncommon problem, not for a clever solution to a common problem. The average cost for a software patent is (currently) pretty low too, because patent holders usually don't assert their rights; but if patent holders asserted their rights whenever they could, the average cost would be very high. The solution is for the US Patent Office to be much stricter about assigning software patents.
In a healthy patent system, patent trolls aren't a bad thing. Patent trolls raise the price of patents by buying and using them; that increases the incentives to do R&D. Since in a healthy patent system, the cost to society of the patent troll asserting its patent rights is equal to the benefits from the R&D that gets done, that isn't a problem.
The problem is with the US patent system, not with the patent trolls.
Without addressing any of the other interesting points you raised, I have to rebut this one. I'll start by rewording the sentence to be more accurate by my judgment:
The problem is with the US patent system, and with the patent trolls.
I base my argument on the notion that ethics and morality exist independent of any legal system. Whether what the trolls are doing is legal is irrelevant; they are acting against the interests of society at large and small inventors in particular, under the guise of helping small inventors. Thus, what they are doing is unethical, and they are therefore part of the problem.
I've been hoping for a patent frenzy for some time, where all the major holders sue all the major violators. Maybe freedom and innovation will rise out of the ashes.
In an ideal world commonsense would prevail and there would be no such thing as software patents, but in the real world perhaps a software patent meltdown of the kind you describe would focus minds.
The next Rovio game I'd like to see: "Angry Nerds", where you hurl enraged developers at patent trolls and the structures under which they take cover (causing very satisfying damage, of course).
As in, what is actually being done that was "invented" by Lodsys so that other developers can either avoid it altogether, or know if they need to license something.
As practical matter, many of these patents are so incredibly broad that you can't actually create a modern piece of software without winding up in the grey area of possibly infringing on one patent or another.
As a legal matter, if you have a policy/history of proactively searching for patents, when (almost inevitably) someone alleges infringement, they can assert that because of your policy you must have seen their patent and thus infringed willfully, opening yourself up to treble damages and putting you in the position of having to prove a negative. Any IP lawyer will advise that inventors should never look.
Everybody always replies the same way, "it's broad", "there's prior art", etc, but does anybody ACTUALLY know how a game like Angry Birds specifically infringed on these patents in such a way that they will have to pay royalties?
I think the point is that at the time they file for patent violation, the patent holders don't have to say what part of the patent is violated (edit: except general things like patent number).
Troll: "We think you violated our patent, pay or else"
Company: "But how?"
Troll: "Look at the patent, it's not our job to tell you what you did wrong, in fact, it is our interests not to tell you"
Company: "But the patent is completely vague, it could be anything"
Troll: "Ah hah hah hah... Still want to go to court to fight this? "
Well, say the patent goes to court and Rovio begins to argue that they did not violate the patent, what would they say? This is my question, what specifically is violating? If they have to prove that they are not violating, what will they say?
TFA doesn't give the patent number, if you want to know you'll have to dig up whatever they've filed with the courts. I'd start looking in EDT; I'm just guessing, but it's where all the trolls file for quick, predictable payouts.
All the article says is that the patent allegedly covers buying new levels from within the game. So the patent is probably some generic nonsense about a method of having an ordinary computer do ordinary things. But nobody prior to them patented or mentioned doing those particular ordinary things on a computer, so it's not considered legally obvious, no matter how much it makes us want to bang our heads on a wall.
EDIT: I should mention that we won't know if they infringed at all (or whether Lodsys has a valid patent) unless it goes all the way through the system. Depending on what's being demanded, they may find it cheaper to settle, even if the patent is garbage and they may do so as a pure business decision.
The real problem is that one can't actually steal a patent (or copyright). It's virtual property. And there is no closely guarded secret, either; quite the opposite: a patent is published openly as part of patent process. Downloading any documents from Lodsys and disseminating them on the 'net won't hurt them in any way.
Also, I doubt there are any interesting technical documents on this invention (or any other invention for that matter) on Lodsys' computers ;-)
I thought this was going to be about a method for destroying pigs in structures by accelerating birds through the use of an elastic or spring-loaded device.
This patent crap is getting ridiculous. We should create a script to auto-generate Patent Violation Notices in masse to be sent to patent trolls. Business should be about creating value, not leeching and hurting others to steal their value and make it your own.
Well, here's the problem with that: patent trolls aren't actually operating any systems. Thus they are not violating patents - it's an asymmetric game that the troll can't lose. That's why it's so pernicious.
You can write your members, and maybe the members on the two Commerce Committees, but I don't think Congress ever met a monied patent holder they didn't like.
My impression in the last five to ten years is that the sleeping bag is looking like stuffed sausage with all the members and IP interests squirming around in there.
It is obvious that the overwhelming majority of HN dislikes software patents. Hence, links like these are simply religious arguments.
If Angry Birds wins this case, people will complain that given enough money companies can ignore laws. If Angry Birds loses, people keep complaining about patent trolls.
I guess there are a few kinds of arguments about the right approach. Legal, economic and religious.
At lest the religious argument are the one I value most. One concept is that ideas should be free. Another is that ideas are property which should be respected.
The legal argument is that it is difficult to create independently many kinds of software without infringing some patent. This implies that patents are being granted on things that are obvious to those skilled in the art. I.e. most patents are probably not valid. An alternatively the legal argument is that software is mathematics and mathematics is not legally patentable.
And the economic argument is that these monopolies are used by established players to stifle innovation, for example the history of flight in Europe and the US, where the Wright brothers patents killed innovation.
I think it is a really hard issue, because I don't think it can be determined well with any system of governance that we have. The voters are not well informed so democracy won't work. Lobbyist and experts represent established monopolies which are not innovative, so other systems won't either.
A day after the big news in tech was about patents, the TAL episode and Intellectual Ventures and they pull another crazy patent lawsuit, just to drive the point home.
They are making themselves a big target. Those that didn't really follow patent news previously likely all know now who Lodsys/IV etc. are and what they are up to.
I hope these cases lead to reform of the entire system.
This is going to be the case that breaks the USPTO system to bits. Either that, or no new companies are going to release in the US, and instead create shells in other countries, which will only hurt our economy more.
By selling inside of the United States that makes them subject to US patent laws. That is why Rovio is subject to this lawsuit despite being a Finnish company.
But if they are Finnish, how is someone going to their (Finnish) website and buying something different from someone physically traveling to Finland and buying it? They don't have a 'physical presence' in the US, so by the same rationale that US companies don't have to charge sales tax in other states it seems they should also not be bound by this.
If I make a website containing content illegal in <some country>, am I committing a crime in <some country> if someone from there looks at my page?
Yes you are. A court in Italy found several Google executives, that had never stepped foot in the country, personally criminally liable for a Google Video video that violated Italian law. Those execs wouldn't want to travel to Italy while that ruling stood, if it doesn't still. http://www.thedomains.com/2010/02/24/italy-finds-3-google-ex...
What makes Angry Birds the case that "breaks the USPTO system to bits"? There have been plenty of similarly (if not more) egregious, costly, and publicized cases.
I think the GP was referring to the broader case of Lodsys going after iOS Apps developers. The fact that they kicked it up a notch and went for larger companies with this move only increases the likelihood that more companies will feel that they are not immune to patent trolls.
The greed machine is at it again. This is exactly why I hate patents. Innovate or take a seat and be entertained. Do not leech or you'll bring the whole system down.
Remember folks.. MS has been using scare tactics for 20 years to keep firms form choosing Linux..with those efforts being dismal failures and at times including patent trolling..this is the new MS Patent trolling chapter of Linux..
It's not pretty, I'll tell you that. HN doesn't tell me how low my first comment went (it just appears to be pegged at -4), and my second one is at -2.
Lodsys in particular seems to have no shame.
I wonder if a few more of these higher profile lawsuits might pull the general public's attention from whatever the latest reality TV show is. Maybe then the political system could do something useful to stop the patent lawsuit insanity.