Jump to content
Can't remember your login details? Read more... ×
Charcoal

Google Buys ‘Android Partner’ Motorola For $12.5 Billion

Recommended Posts

Patents = bad?

Generally, yes.

They certainly helping to create innovations and increase competition in the market place.

 

They are a government mandated monopoly really.

 

We need patents ... but it's way they are implemented. Idea is sound but implementation of enforcement sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's all about making money, that's called running a business.

That's not what I meant by generic, I mean common sense things like multi touch input.

And I don't blame companies like MS for charging other companies when these companies use their patents, they were after all awarded by the US Patent office so they should be able to.

The problem is that companies are being allowed to get patents for such "common sense" ideas in the first place.

Of course they seem like common sense afterwards.

That's the beauty of a good invention, everyone else slaps their fore-head.

 

If multi-touch gestures are as "common sense" as you say, then why didn't anyone patent them years ago?

Why were we using styluses, and fingers, to act like mice on tiny screens for so long?

Because it wasn't put into a coherent, patentable idea.

 

The idea that a body submerging displaces an equal volume of water is "common sense". Doesn't stop the fact that there were thousands of years where everyone was ignorant of it.

The concept zero is "common sense", and yet it took a lot of work by a lot of people to make it so.

The concept of voltage, resistance, current, are all inherently "common sense".

Radioactivity makes sense, when you think about it.

And of course runaway chain-reactions of highly fissile material above critical mass can be used to cause destruction, and yet it was once thought of as speculative.

 

Most phone patents aren't about the UI, or gestures, or whatever. Most of them are about underlying technologies that allow reliable, constant connection to your phone towers.

What you might think of as "common sense", can take years of research to make a patentable reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see this as a bad move, Google is getting slammed by crappy patents mainly because they don't have a lot of them to fight back with. Patents are becoming the weapon of choice to slow down competitors.

 

The one thing to remember is that Android is open source and is GPL licensed, so it's not like they are going to freeze out competitors. It is in Googles interest to have the OS on as many devices as possible.

 

Secondly Google is one of the biggest contributors to Opensource software as well as one of the few large companies actively campaigning against software patents (although this could be viewed from the angle that they don't own many).

 

All in all many reports from other Android device makers have been positive, Google having defensive patents can be used to protect them. Remember again it is in Google's best interest to have Android on as many devices as possible, Android itself doesn't directly make them money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they seem like common sense afterwards.

That's the beauty of a good invention, everyone else slaps their fore-head.

 

If multi-touch gestures are as "common sense" as you say, then why didn't anyone patent them years ago?

Why were we using styluses, and fingers, to act like mice on tiny screens for so long?

Because it wasn't put into a coherent, patentable idea.

 

The idea that a body submerging displaces an equal volume of water is "common sense". Doesn't stop the fact that there were thousands of years where everyone was ignorant of it.

The concept zero is "common sense", and yet it took a lot of work by a lot of people to make it so.

The concept of voltage, resistance, current, are all inherently "common sense".

Radioactivity makes sense, when you think about it.

And of course runaway chain-reactions of highly fissile material above critical mass can be used to cause destruction, and yet it was once thought of as speculative.

 

Most phone patents aren't about the UI, or gestures, or whatever. Most of them are about underlying technologies that allow reliable, constant connection to your phone towers.

What you might think of as "common sense", can take years of research to make a patentable reality.

FFS I didn't say touch input was common sense did I, nor did I say basic physics principles were.

And I didn't say businesses shouldn't get patents, they should get patents, especially when it comes things like radio related tech.

I said they shouldn't get patents for common sense ideas, like mobile processor underclocking. Things like this already existed in another form (desktop processor underclocking) and all these companies calming that they invented these ideas should not get patents for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are generic. Now.

The reason they are generic is because who ever developed such technology, patented their design and then licensed it out to other vendors to use.

So now all these vendors are using said technology, making it common and mainstream, but the original 'inventor' still makes income from their original patent.

Did you read the article Cyber posted?

It's all about making money dude.

 

I invent the "touch screen stylus" but I can't push enough of my products. My competitor can, they have market share. But they can't use my technology because I own the patent.

How can I make money if no one is buying my devices?

Let the guy who IS moving units use my technology, and I just take a cut.

 

Is the way I understand things to be anyway.

 

At the end of the day, the general public, you and me, get all this good stuff......in the background somewhere, a lot of money is changing hands and someone is making a bucket load of cash.

I don't care, I get to play with cool shit.

Exactly. If google is upset because MS owns patents used in Android, and other products... they're just going to have to suck it up.

 

If we didn't have patents... we'd probably all get up in the morning. Put our Googles on, have a cup of Google, with two pieces of Google. Maybe pack an Apple in with our Google. Get in our Google and drive to work, doing the same mundane Google.... but in a world where the big guy with lots of Google can just take over everything.

 

If you're not prepared to pay your competitor... then make something different... or better. Don't have big sad's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they seem like common sense afterwards.

That's the beauty of a good invention, everyone else slaps their fore-head.

 

If multi-touch gestures are as "common sense" as you say, then why didn't anyone patent them years ago?

Why were we using styluses, and fingers, to act like mice on tiny screens for so long?

Because it wasn't put into a coherent, patentable idea.

 

The idea that a body submerging displaces an equal volume of water is "common sense". Doesn't stop the fact that there were thousands of years where everyone was ignorant of it.

The concept zero is "common sense", and yet it took a lot of work by a lot of people to make it so.

The concept of voltage, resistance, current, are all inherently "common sense".

Radioactivity makes sense, when you think about it.

And of course runaway chain-reactions of highly fissile material above critical mass can be used to cause destruction, and yet it was once thought of as speculative.

 

Most phone patents aren't about the UI, or gestures, or whatever. Most of them are about underlying technologies that allow reliable, constant connection to your phone towers.

What you might think of as "common sense", can take years of research to make a patentable reality.

FFS I didn't say touch input was common sense did I, nor did I say basic physics principles were.

And I didn't say businesses shouldn't get patents, they should get patents, especially when it comes things like radio related tech.

I said they shouldn't get patents for common sense ideas, like mobile processor underclocking. Things like this already existed in another form (desktop processor underclocking) and all these companies calming that they invented these ideas should not get patents for them.

 

 

So they put all the hard work into devloping somthing and then they just give it away for free to there competitors.

 

 

Strong Logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they put all the hard work into devloping somthing and then they just give it away for free to there competitors.

 

Strong Logic.

Where did I say that???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's good logic, because you're misinterpreting it. If I went and patented 'the use of logic gates to perform boolean functions in a tablet form factor', you'd better bloody hope it wouldn't be granted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they put all the hard work into devloping somthing and then they just give it away for free to there competitors.

 

Strong Logic.

Where did I say that???

 

 

/face palm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS I didn't say touch input was common sense did I

Pretty sure you did.

 

What annoys me about these "patents" though is that they cover such generic things, like touch input processor down clocking and the many other patents that are just common sense.

Edited by twinair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS I didn't say touch input was common sense did I

Pretty sure you did.

 

What annoys me about these "patents" though is that they cover such generic things, like touch input processor down clocking and the many other patents that are just common sense.

Appears I missed the Multi, in Multi touch input

 

But as this thread is going nowhere, I will state the point I was trying to make one last time, as I obviously did not explain myself well enough.

I support patents when they cover new technology, or technology that is very different to existing tech.

I do not support patents that are similar to existing tech, or are particularly vague in their description of what they are trying to patent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The patent system was designed around hardware, and is ill-equipped to manage weird stuff like software,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not support patents that are similar to existing tech

You can't patent something after it's been invented by someone else.

 

If it already exists, there's every chance somebody has already patented it, since somebody had to have invented it, most likely with the intent to commercialise it.

 

In the case of touch-input or multi-touch, there was a point at which it didn't exist. Then someone invented and patented it. That patent was then sold to somebody (e.g. Apple, Samsung, etc) to either licence it, collect royalties on it, or stop the competition from using it.

 

Someone didn't see multi-touch, and think to themselves "Hey, we'll take out a patent on that!".

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not support patents that are similar to existing tech

You can't patent something after it's been invented by someone else.

 

If it already exists, there's every chance somebody has already patented it, since somebody had to have invented it, most likely with the intent to commercialise it.

 

 

This is the argument that A Hitman is making. He thinks that these common sense things already exist. Clearly doesn't understand the underlying technology.

 

 

 

Appears I missed the Multi, in Multi touch input

On several occasions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×