Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Aug 2011 21:38 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y The Google-Microsoft patent war of words is continuing. Yesterday, Google (rightfully so, in my book) accused Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle partaking in an organised patent attack against Android, instead of competing on merit, claiming that they bought up Novell's and Nortel's patents solely to attack Android and its device makers. Microsoft struck back, claiming Google was offered to join in on the bids for the Novell patents, but rejected the offer. Google has now responded to this accusation - and to make matters even more confusing, Microsoft responded back. A public shouting match between two powerful parties? Count me in!
Thread beginning with comment 483787
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Then, what is exactly wrong with software patents? Why shouldn't execution approach for implementing an idea be protected?


Because code is protected by copyright. Software patents would be akin to plot patents - patents on the detective novel, the romance novel, the scifi novel, etc.

Reply Parent Score: 1

deppbv78 Member since:
2008-06-29

Code in itself is not the implementation approach. I can write the code for an algorithm (approach) in such a way that my code is different from the original source. I'm not improving the approach in anyways whatsoever. In such cases, I'll not be in violation of copyright. But, shouldn't I be in violation of the approach (even if it is not patented)?


Can you please explain how copyright protection works when I use a different programming language?
For Ex: Say a developer at X wrote a program for a unique feature for their phone. The code is copyrighted but the feature is not protected. The code for the same is available for others. I'm from company Y, I take this source code and then rewrite the same in a different programming language.

Is company Y in violation of copyright from a legal standpoint? Y does not care for technical or moral or ethical standpoint.

As an additional example, I want to use the case of Android notification system which Apple blatantly copied in iOS. In such a case, how will you prove the copyright violation? OTOH, had Google patented its notification system, Apple would be liable for infringement.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

As an additional example, I want to use the case of Android notification system which Apple blatantly copied in iOS. In such a case, how will you prove the copyright violation?


You can't, and you shouldn't be able to. That's the whole point.

OTOH, had Google patented its notification system, Apple would be liable for infringement


Which would be idiotic. I'm happy Apple copied Android's notifications, because it is a good design. It makes iOS a better operating system, and thus, benefits consumers the world over. That's the point!

Reply Parent Score: 3

przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

If you can prove that this new code (in different language) is "just" copy of your code, than you won it in court. Its similar to copyright protecting your work even if someone will translate it to different language!


On the other hand, I do not understand, your "execution" portion.
There is idea, there is code. No "execution procedure".

Reply Parent Score: 1

molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Code in itself is not the implementation approach. I can write the code for an algorithm (approach) in such a way that my code is different from the original source. I'm not improving the approach in anyways whatsoever. In such cases, I'll not be in violation of copyright. But, shouldn't I be in violation of the approach (even if it is not patented)?


My general approach to people who are ignorant to the vast literature about why ideas/software patents are a bad idea is to inform them. The specific "code" are the numerous comments I have posted on OsNews and elsewhere. So here's an idea - why don't I patent my "approach" to how to deal with ignorant people. Why shouldn't my "approach" be protected by law? Why won't the government grant monopolies over my ideas?

Almost forgot - here's one of the most recent, and perhaps the best article that would answer almost all your questions? Are you going to read it?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/patent-reform-congress_n_9...

Reply Parent Score: 1