Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 12th Jul 2011 20:47 UTC
Legal Tell 'm like it is, HTC. "HTC is disappointed at Apple's constant attempts at litigations instead of competing fairly in the market," said HTC general counsel Grace Lei in a statement, "HTC strongly denies all infringement claims raised by Apple in the past and present and reiterates our determination and commitment to protect our intellectual property rights."
Thread beginning with comment 480925
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
molnarcs
Member since:
2005-09-10

Since I never claimed software development wouldn't happen without patents I'm not sure why I would have to prove that. I have claimed that no large software development project, hell no large R&D project in any industry, out there that wasn't government funded isn't encumbered. And you simply want to ignore the funding aspect of R&D as though it's not important.


My point is, that software patents are a terrible idea. Finally, you seem to have grasped why. I am relieved. If you go back and read that single part, that sums it up nicely. But if you have difficulties comprehending the implications of what you wrote, I'm going to spell it out for you.

The software patent system has existed for a while. One segment of the software industry made full use of this system (Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, etc.) In fact they used it "so well" that now there is no software that is not encumbered. Software that they did not write. You can bet that KDE is encumbered by patents owned by MS & co. Microsoft itself tells us that Linux is encumbered. All software of some complexity is encumbered - just as you say. Interestingly, you felt compelled to argue when I made the same point earlier ;)

Fact is, a fairly large segment of software development was done by people or organizations that opted out of the patent system, partly because software patents are a US only thing (and Japan perhaps?). KDE iteself is larger than the Office division at Microsoft. All software produced by any single company will be much smaller than the GPL covered software out there. Which brings me to Red Hat - yes, Red Hat has patents, but they are largely irrelevant to their contribution to software development. The GPL explicitly prohibits any additional restrictions, so they can't use their patents offensively (ie they can't go after users of their GPL licensed software).

So you see, there is simply no reason software patents should exist in the first place. It does not help innovation, it does not help develop new concepts or technologies. It does, however, pose a significant threat to those who don't have the financial clout to gamble the patent system. Loosely organized free software projects, for example. Non-profits, like KDE, or corporate sponsored development (Linux comes to mind, which is partly corporate sponsored). Even individual closed source developers have suffered from this threat (the patent troll, Lodsys's harassment of iOS app developers).

Thanks for finally coming around and agreeing to my point. I consider the issue closed, but boy, did it take while! ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

"Since I never claimed software development wouldn't happen without patents I'm not sure why I would have to prove that. I have claimed that no large software development project, hell no large R&D project in any industry, out there that wasn't government funded isn't encumbered. And you simply want to ignore the funding aspect of R&D as though it's not important.


My point is, that software patents are a terrible idea. Finally, you seem to have grasped why. I am relieved. If you go back and read that single part, that sums it up nicely. But if you have difficulties comprehending the implications of what you wrote, I'm going to spell it out for you.
"

Well, I'm glad that we can finally agree that what I'm saying is reasonable.

The software patent system has existed for a while. One segment of the software industry made full use of this system (Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, etc.) In fact they used it "so well" that now there is no software that is not encumbered. Software that they did not write. You can bet that KDE is encumbered by patents owned by MS & co. Microsoft itself tells us that Linux is encumbered. All software of some complexity is encumbered - just as you say. Interestingly, you felt compelled to argue when I made the same point earlier ;)


I don't believe that I argued that point since it's a pretty basic point. Are you confusing me for someone else?

Fact is, a fairly large segment of software development was done by people or organizations that opted out of the patent system, partly because software patents are a US only thing (and Japan perhaps?). KDE iteself is larger than the Office division at Microsoft. All software produced by any single company will be much smaller than the GPL covered software out there. Which brings me to Red Hat - yes, Red Hat has patents, but they are largely irrelevant to their contribution to software development. The GPL explicitly prohibits any additional restrictions, so they can't use their patents offensively (ie they can't go after users of their GPL licensed software).

So you see, there is simply no reason software patents should exist in the first place. It does not help innovation, it does not help develop new concepts or technologies. It does, however, pose a significant threat to those who don't have the financial clout to gamble the patent system. Loosely organized free software projects, for example. Non-profits, like KDE, or corporate sponsored development (Linux comes to mind, which is partly corporate sponsored). Even individual closed source developers have suffered from this threat (the patent troll, Lodsys's harassment of iOS app developers).


I don't disagree that patents are misused. However, I do disagree that there is any evidence that the software industry, or any other industry for that matter, would exist as it does today without patents. First, as I said previously, much free/open source software is a reimplementation of some closed source system (it was specifically started to re-implement closed source software, that was it's mission). Most of the open source software software that isn't a reimplementation of a closed source thing (the internet, world wide web, email, etc) was built either directly by a government or through direct government funding. Where do you find large scale new development of anything, software or otherwise, by a private organization that isn't being protected by as much intellectual property as possible?

Reply Parent Score: 2