Google: It may be time to abolish software patents - Polidicks

[url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57496747-38/google-time-to-ditch-our-current-software-patent-system/[/url] [img]http://asset0.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/08/20/chavez_270x195.jpg[/img] [quote=CNET]Google suggested today that it might be time for the U.S. to ditch software patents. "One thing that we are very seriously taking a look at is the question of software patents, and whether in fact the patent system as it currently exists is the right system to incent innovation and really promote consumer-friendly policies," said Pablo Chavez, Google's public policy director. Chavez's remarks at the Technology Policy Institute's conference here this morning come as the Mountain View, Calif. company is enmeshed in a series of legal actions involving software patents, including Oracle (which Google won at trial) and Apple (which is still pending). Software patents have become increasingly controversial in technology circles, in part because of the rise of what are derisively called "patent trolls," and in part because of the mixed quality of the patents that the U.S. government has granted. In April, Twitter announced a kind of Hippocratic Oath for tech companies, saying its patents would only be used for defensive purposes -- not to block rivals from innovating. "We think that these patent wars are not helpful to consumers," Chavez said in response to a question from Rick Lane, News Corp.'s senior vice president of government affairs. "They're not helpful to the marketplace. They're not helpful to innovation." Google has criticized software patents before. Last summer, it said they were "gumming up the works of innovation." And a 2009 brief (PDF) before the U.S. Supreme Court signed by Google, Metlife, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and others said: [quote]The recent surge in patents on abstract ideas such as how to run a business or software that merely implements such methods has not promoted innovation in the financial services or information technology fields -- to the contrary, such patents create a drag on innovation.[/quote] Chavez said that software patents can be differentiated from patents in areas such as medicine. There are a "lot of structural differences between that industry and the software industry," he said. "With that in mind, we are starting to brainstorm longer-term solutions." Lane, the News Corp. executive, had accused Google of acting anti-competitively by having its Motorola subsidiary bring a counter-action against Apple last week that could imperil imports of iOS devices. (News Corp. blames Google for doing more than any other company to derail the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, early this year.) "If we tried to do that as a content community, all heck would break loose," Lane said, referring to the patent action. "We'd be accused of stifling innovation protecting old business models. What about all the investments that have been made in iPad apps?"[/quote]

Yeah no suprise this would come out of google. Considering that they sometimes act as if they didn't exist.

Recently, I've been thinking that Google is getting too big for its britches. Well, maybe way before recently, but still.

I think the time was 20 years ago but w/e. Better late than never.

[quote]In April, Twitter announced a kind of Hippocratic Oath for tech companies, saying its patents would only be used for [b]defensive purposes[/b] -- not to block rivals from innovating.[/quote] But that's exactly what companies say when they [i]are[/i] trying to stifle innovation.

Google, I just love you so much.

As much as it sounds like Google is trying to start a bandwagon they do have a nice point. That fine line in the patent world also has problems with things such as open source projects which can and have in the past gone open source one day and closed the next. Software patenting overall is a really inefficient idea.

I agree with this since I think that if you're doing something well, then people will buy your stuff, if someone is doing something similar and getting more money from it, then you're probably doing something wrong - not that they copied you

Yeah then companies would have a real incentive to make new things when they could now be legally pirated. This is just because Google regularly violates software patents anyway.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37342747]This is just because Google regularly violates software patents anyway.[/QUOTE] Like all the other big electronic companies.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37342747]Yeah then companies would have a real incentive to make new things when they could now be legally pirated. This is just because Google regularly violates software patents anyway.[/QUOTE] If you don't know, or realize that software patents, can and ARE abused quite easily, then you shouldn't talk about this. Software patents allow for entirely mundane, incredibly vague, and misrepresentations of "theft" to occur all too easily. You should be able to say "I made this function work in this very specific way based on all these things being in this specific manner". This however, is not what you need to do to get a software patent. You shouldn't have "This action does this function. Give me money" with no further explination and complicated and specific ways to accomplish that, it's a simple and important distinction that patents currently do not have, and if you think the current system encourages any form of innovation, you're very, very wrong.

Great artists steal etc

[QUOTE=Jimbojib;37342659]I agree with this since I think that if you're doing something well, then people will buy your stuff, if someone is doing something similar and getting more money from it, then you're probably doing something wrong - not that they copied you[/QUOTE]That's a nice world view but reality is totally different. If someone who's richer copies you and advertises their product they will sell more. Has nothing to do with how good their stuff is. So if you're a small guy and a big ass rich corp steals your stuff you can't do anything.

I think we just need to wipe Apple's patents off the books. They didnt innovate anything. If Apple's patents are gone then we would have 90% less fighting

[QUOTE=areolop;37344042]I think we just need to wipe Apple's patents off the books. They didnt innovate anything. If Apple's patents are gone then we would have 90% less fighting[/QUOTE] Well, as much as I think apple now is a huge pile of nonsense, they did do a lot of good work in their early days. It would be better if the US had somebody with an IQ higher than their shoe size who would refuse patents to apple like "unified search" that have been around long before they had any devices that used it, but realistically I think the system is just flawed at every level.

I dunno man, patenting a rectangle with rounded corners is a bit of a cheap shot

It all comes down to who steals Xerox's TV first. Every goddamn time.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37342747]Yeah then companies would have a real incentive to make new things when they could now be legally pirated.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Reality, sometime back in 2004]Software patents have grown rapidly and now comprise 15 percent of all patents. They are acquired primarily by large manufacturing firms in industries known for strategic patenting; [B]only 5 percent belong to software publishers.[/B] The very large increase in software patent propensity over time is not adequately explained by changes in R&D investments, employment of computer programmers, or productivity growth. The residual increase in patent propensity is consistent with a sizeable rise in the cost effectiveness of software patents during the 1990s. [B]We find evidence that software patents substitute for R&D at the firm level; [I]they are associated with lower R&D intensity.[/I] This result occurs primarily in industries known for strategic patenting and is difficult to reconcile with the traditional incentive theory of patents.[/B] ... Our results are difficult to reconcile with the traditional incentive theory—that granting more patents will increase R&D investments. [B]Rather, if legal changes have encouraged strategic patenting, the result might well be less innovation.[/B][/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.phil.frb.org/phil_mailing_list/research-and-data/publications/working-papers/2003/wp03-17.pdf"]:eng101:[/URL]

And they say this right after suing Apple through a company they own. :v:

Software patents are a joke, that's why the EU doesn't have them!

Of course Google would want this. Being at the top of the food chain there's no large threat of anyone profiting from a copycat Google service. Google, however, has already shown they like to copy existing ideas and steal the spotlight before the original creators have time to develop it.

[QUOTE=areolop;37344793]I dunno man, patenting a rectangle with rounded corners is a bit of a cheap shot[/QUOTE]That's not a software patent though. Unlike slide to unlock

[QUOTE=PowerBall v1;37346864]Of course Google would want this. Being at the top of the food chain there's no large threat of anyone profiting from a copycat Google service. Google, however, has already shown they like to copy existing ideas and steal the spotlight before the original creators have time to develop it.[/QUOTE]Hard to say Google is at the top considering: [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1206670]Apple becomes most valuable company of all time[/url] [editline]21st August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=itisjuly;37346908]That's not a software patent though. Unlike slide to unlock[/QUOTE]The post he was responding to however wasn't talking specifically about software patents.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;37346917]Hard to say Google is at the top considering: [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1206670]Apple becomes most valuable company of all time[/url] [editline]21st August 2012[/editline] The post he was responding to however wasn't talking specifically about software patents.[/QUOTE] "food chain" as in their products.

[QUOTE=Cuel;37346973]"food chain" as in their products.[/QUOTE]Not actually. Being at the top of the food chain means being in a position of power over all others. Arguably being the most valuable company of all time qualifies them for "Top of the food chain" status.

but that's not what he meant

[QUOTE=Cuel;37347057]but that's not what he meant[/QUOTE]You have no way of knowing what he meant at this stage, don't try that.

it's quite clear if you read his post

It's funny that it's coming from Google's mouth, but I happen to agree.

It would be google