The sad thing is that the only ones who can change this are the ones who have no interest in changing this at all. Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, and so on, all have a vested interest in keeping the patent system as it is - the only changes they are lobbying for are changes to make it harder for smaller entities to use the patent system. While this may stop lawsuits going from patent trolls to the larger companies - it will also turn the patent system into even more of a stomping ground for these same large companies than it already is.

So, what am I missing here?

Furthermore, how many cases have we seen of larger companies filing patent lawsuits against small, independent developers?

we have vocal individuals who are actually actively advocating software patents, only because not doing so would put them at odds with their pet companies

If things like a grid of icons can be patented, claims that it is impossible to write a single line of code without violating a software patent suddenly become a whole lot more believable

The fact that this wasn't a reference to Lodsys?

It's the threat that counts. To take this way over the top - terrorism is not about killing people or making casualties. It's about scaring the crap out of your enemy.

If things like a grid of icons can be patented [...]

in future, as Hollywood movies and American cars gets less popular.
BTW. Can anyone in future claim ownership of the whole Universe and become The Omnipotent God to other humans?

Complains about appeal to emotion argument, bases argument around emotion...

Furthermore, how many cases have we seen of larger companies filing patent lawsuits against small, independent developers? I'd assume that a lot of bad PR would go along with that, and bad PR is like kryptonite to these corporations. I'd also assume these large companies would be happier going after other large companies, where surely more money could be had. Why would they give two shits about some Joe working on a small app out of his bedroom?

Ok, so again... where are the examples of these 'little guys' getting picked on by these large companies?

The guy says that large companies have no interest in changing the system, but perhaps they will call a truce when they finally get tired of being sued by each other.

And for every one of those stories you'll find one of small developers who've been screwed over because they neglected to cover their butts with patents only to have one of the big software houses stomp them.

As I've said in previous posts, abuse of the patent system is a problem. However, the kind of advocacy shown by posts like this is completely counter productive.

As I've said in previous posts, abuse of the patent system is a problem. However, the kind of advocacy shown by posts like this is completely counter productive. For example:

"If things like a grid of icons can be patented [...]

Ummm, isn't this a case of a lawsuit going from a patent troll to a smaller company? Iconfactory is currently getting its ass handed to it by a patent troll, and this guy is blaming the larger companies who are trying to make it harder for patent trolls to abuse the system. So, what am I missing here?

You want an example: Microsoft was granted a patent on sudo. SUDO! How many DECADES has that been in Unix like systems? 3-4? That a company can actually get a patent on that is absurd. Just like the obvious implementation of long file names in FAT. Its just an abbreviation using 2 chars. How does that qualify as innovative? The patent system is broken. Software patents are just the most obvious place it shows.

"As I've said in previous posts, abuse of the patent system is a problem. However, the kind of advocacy shown by posts like this is completely counter productive.

The statement "grid of icons can be patented" is as emotional statement as "without software patents there will be no software R&D". However, I don't see you debunking the second one.

Now fast forward to today. We have Microsoft in first with 90% share. They use their patents to bash Android instead of making a better product.

We have Apple and the rest of the mobile market being sue happy. We have patent trolls. We have less choice and less innovation. Are we really better off with patents? I dont think so.

"Now fast forward to today. We have Microsoft in first with 90% share. They use their patents to bash Android instead of making a better product.

Its pretty well known that Microsoft has a 90%+ share of the desktop market. Second, their WP7 OS is a flop. According to Gartner, Microsoft occupies less than 5% of the mobile market. So I would say that they are NOT competing by making a decent product.

I am not saying we have less choice. I am saying there was no explosion of innovation all of a sudden when software patents were suddenly allowed. We are still basing our OS's off of designs from the 60's and 70's when most of them weren't even copyrighted. So all this intellectual property protection obviously hasn't done anything good.

Edit: Also, they probably could have used a good computer programmer like me. Today there are more of us than jobs.

Furthermore, how many cases have we seen of larger companies filing patent lawsuits against small, independent developers?

The patent number is? I'd like to read it.

How exactly does such a system foster innovation?

Prior to the start of Watt’s commercial production in 1776, there were 510 steam engines in the U.K., most using the inefficient Newcomen design. These engines generated about 5,000 horsepower. By 1800, when Watt's patents expired, there were still only 2,250 steam engines used in the U.K., of which only 449 were
the superior Boulton and Watt engines, the rest being old Newcomen engines. The total horsepower of these engines was 35,000 at best. In 1815, fifteen years after the expiration of the Watt patents, it is estimated that nearly 100,000 horsepower was installed
in the U.K., while by 1830 the horsepower coming from steam engines reached 160,000. The fuel efficiency of steam engines is not thought to have changed at all during the period of Watt’s patent; while between 1810 and 1835 it is estimated to have increased by a factor of five.

What system doesn't allow abuse? And how do you propose changing the patent system?

Just because a company chooses to use the legal system doesn't mean they aren't producing and competing with a good product too.

It's pretty well known they have a 90%+ share huh? http://itsalltech.com/2011/07/12/windows-loses-market-share-as-micr...

And they occupy less than 5% of the market? http://m.thenextweb.com/thenextweb/#!/entry/microsofts-mobile-marke...

The one thing we can say for sure, there isn't a statistic you aren't willing to make up.

Rhavyn,

Are you some kind of idiot? Seriously! You linked to articles that pretty much have the exact same info that I was looking at. Apple has been eating at Microsoft in the last couple years, Microsoft is at 86% roughly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

As for Mobile OS market share, all you had to do was look at wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system#Market_share_b...

The page you linked to only specified smartphone subscribers. I don't know if that makes a difference to the data but even if it does its less that 1%.

As for copyright, you obviously aren't old enough to know that before the Copyright Act of 1976, you had to register to receive copyright on something. Part of the reason for the settlement of the AT&T vs BSD case was because AT&T hadn't copyrighted most of the Unix source code. After 1976, copyright was automatic upon creation of the work.

"The patent number is? I'd like to read it.

"It's pretty well known they have a 90%+ share huh? http://itsalltech.com/2011/07/12/windows-loses-market-share-as-micr...

And they occupy less than 5% of the market? http://m.thenextweb.com/thenextweb/#!/entry/microsofts-mobile-marke...

The one thing we can say for sure, there isn't a statistic you aren't willing to make up.

On the second statistic, that 7% still includes all of the WinMo devices. So yes, their WP7 has that smallish sub 1/20th of the market.

And do you realize your splitting hairs over pretty much nothing.

You claim people are just making emotionally charged arguments with no basis in fact. Its pretty easy to see that at least my arguments were grounded in fact.

Are you honestly contesting that 88% market share on the desktop is not the same as 90%? Way to nitpick.

When they are forcing patent licenses to be applied globally, they are abusing the US system to force the patents in countries that don't have them. Abusing is not the same as using. And MS is abusing.

HTC pays MS a patent license fee off ever single Android phone they make, not only those that end up in US.(That is not really provable, due to the associated NDA that comes with the license agreement. But Bloomberg is a good source of info for me.)

When I see the price of an HTC phone in the store in my own country(that does not have any software patents valid) I see a price with that patent licence included.

So why the hell does the phone have that license fee included? It's basically abusing the US system to force a US patent down my throat.

So this is speculation?

If these are not legitimate patents or if they can't legitimately be enforced where you live perhaps your ire should be directed at HTC? They're the ones charging you and it's not like they're some small fly by night company that can't afford a law suit.