Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Jul 2011 17:09 UTC
Google For the first time, Google has opened its mouth against the patent trolling by Apple (and by proxy, Microsoft) against Android manufacturers. By way of Eric Schmidt, Google's chairman, the company took stand against the legal actions, and stated they aren't too worried. If need be, Google will ensure HTC doesn't lose the patent case against Apple.
Thread beginning with comment 481677
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: How can this be fixed?
by organgtool on Wed 20th Jul 2011 01:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: How can this be fixed?"
organgtool
Member since:
2010-02-25

Copyright protection of source code affords you absolutely no protection in actual litigation scenarios.

Care to elaborate?

If you believe the construction of software is just the creation of source code artifacts and that is the only value, then you are correct. Copyright is all you would need.

I never said that software development is simply sitting down and thrashing out code. However, the code is the final product of all of the planning, requirements, design, and testing. It is the sum total of all that work and is much more valuable than the overly-broad garbage contained in a software patent.

But it seems to me you have so seriously devalued your own contribution that you are expendable.

The numerous promotions I have received recently tell a different story.

Not every absurd social network website or web 2.0 (no wait 3.0!) deserves patent protection. They all deserve copyright protection.

Your guess of my occupation is nowhere near on-target. Let's just put it this way: it's not web-based and it requires years of planning before a single line of code can be written.

There is a class of software deserving of patent protection in order to recoup the costs of its construction. All of the costs not just the cost of you typing it down.

Again, the code is the end result of all of the planning that went into the project. Just because a project takes a lot of planning and a long time to produce results doesn't mean that you should be able to prevent other people from doing all of their own work to produce their own implementation.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: How can this be fixed?
by Alfman on Wed 20th Jul 2011 03:07 in reply to "RE[5]: How can this be fixed?"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

organgtool,

"Again, the code is the end result of all of the planning that went into the project. Just because a project takes a lot of planning and a long time to produce results doesn't mean that you should be able to prevent other people from doing all of their own work to produce their own implementation."

As a developer who writes original code all the time, this seems dead obvious to me.

What is it about the mind set of non-devs that creates the impression that only the first implementation of an algorithm has R&D costs and that subsequent implementations are free?

Why is it that nobody but the developers can see that the software patent system is inherently not scalable, and that we are already past the point of diminishing returns?

Why are there so many posts that say "if I wrote software then I'd need patents because..." when there are already many software developers here who actually do write software and don't need patents?

I don't understand why people are so surprised when they hear that software developers don't like patents.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: How can this be fixed?
by Not2Sure on Wed 20th Jul 2011 18:30 in reply to "RE[6]: How can this be fixed?"
Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

Why are there so many posts that say "if I wrote software then I'd need patents because..." when there are already many software developers here who actually do write software and don't need patents?

I don't understand why people are so surprised when they hear that software developers don't like patents.


I don't understand why people are so surprised when they hear that software developers don't like software testing.

Show good developers the value of testing and they incorporate it into their work. Same goes for patent work.

Only downside is it involves working with lawyers who generally lack the technical ability and social skills to work well with engineers.

I have often thought it would be a useful career path for developers when their productive years are behind them to become useful in this process. Currently it's become a manager or die which sucks. Would have the advantage of making patents granting/review process better and also I could see a journalistic endeavor whereby useful patent grants are communicated to a wider technical audience in language they understand and appreciate (thinking of the I dunno the semi-regular occurence of engadget or wired-esque posts of "hey look Apple filed a patent to do X" without all the gee-whiz fanboi pandering)

The problem is that a generally despicable cadre of professionals ("lawyers") for probably good reason have set themselves as the gatekeepers here ("the bar") and don't welcome outsiders doing "their" work. At the other end of the spectrum are some unqualified govenment beaurocrats that like their job security.

Reply Parent Score: 1