[Newsbot]

Title: Google fined $5m over Linux patent row
Category: Tech
Posted By: Curtman
Date: 2011-04-22 04:44:46

[Curtman]

Software patents are great for lawyers, bad for innovation, bad for consumers, and a nightmare for developers.

Bedrock Computers LLC is a great example of a patent troll. They don't make anything. They have no products. They own patents for the sole purpose of legally extorting money from companies that actually do make things.

Software doesn't require huge manufacturing plants. Making a prototype requires late nights and lots of coffee. There are no startup costs necessary, just ingenuity and creativity. Patents have no place in mathematics.

[Public_Domain]

[Curtman]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Yeah I'm fine with this

Which part, patent trolls suing Linux users? How would a communist agree with something like that?

[commanderkai]

Curtman Curtman:

Which part, patent trolls suing Linux users? How would a communist agree with something like that?

I think you misread the article. Google was sued.

[Curtman]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Curtman Curtman:

Which part, patent trolls suing Linux users? How would a communist agree with something like that?

I think you misread the article. Google was sued.

For being a Linux USER.

$1:

The software is used by Google for its server platforms

[dino_bobba_renno]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Curtman Curtman:

Which part, patent trolls suing Linux users? How would a communist agree with something like that?

I think you misread the article. Google was sued.

It also mentioned the possibility of patent lurkers trying to sue personal users. I don't think you would ever see them go directly after existing users but trying to institute new charges for downloading the source is entirely feasible.

There's all ways some jack ass some where trying to make a quick buck off of someone elses hard work.

[Curtman]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

It also mentioned the possibility of patent lurkers trying to sue personal users. I don't think you would ever see them go directly after existing users but trying to institute new charges for downloading the source is entirely feasible.

That's exactly what they are doing. They just went after the Linux user with the deepest pockets first. That's Google.

$1:

The case resulted in a victory for a firm called Bedrock Computer Technologies which has also sued Yahoo, MySpace, Amazon, PayPal, Match.com and AOL.

[commanderkai]

Curtman Curtman:

For being a Linux USER.

$1:

The software is used by Google for its server platforms

If Bedrock Computers developed the coding that these major corporations are using, without being paid a decent amount for it, then yes, Google and the others should be punished.

Why? Because, as much as you might think otherwise, developing code is time consuming. If people are developing said code to develop a product (somebody making games, or what this company did), they have a reasonable expectation to receive some money for it.

If this is just a patent company, then the actual writer of code deserves some credit and financial compensation. As in, why patent companies exist.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Curtman Curtman:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

It also mentioned the possibility of patent lurkers trying to sue personal users. I don't think you would ever see them go directly after existing users but trying to institute new charges for downloading the source is entirely feasible.

That's exactly what they are doing. They just went after the Linux user with the deepest pockets first. That's Google.

$1:

The case resulted in a victory for a firm called Bedrock Computer Technologies which has also sued Yahoo, MySpace, Amazon, PayPal, Match.com and AOL.

What I was referring to was a company trying to go after personal users in the same manner, by sueing each on an individual basis. That would be a pretty extraordinary measure.

[Curtman]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Curtman Curtman:

For being a Linux USER.

$1:

The software is used by Google for its server platforms

If Bedrock Computers developed the coding that these major corporations are using, without being paid a decent amount for it, then yes, Google and the others should be punished.

Why? Because, as much as you might think otherwise, developing code is time consuming. If people are developing said code to develop a product (somebody making games, or what this company did), they have a reasonable expectation to receive some money for it.

If this is just a patent company, then the actual writer of code deserves some credit and financial compensation. As in, why patent companies exist.

It was not.

Richard Michael (Brooklyn, NY) got his patent in 1997. It's a patent for an idea. Not a physical manifestation of anything. It's not a copyright claim on a piece of software code.

[dino_bobba_renno]

A good example was Black Berry in the US. Some yutts went out and made a ton of patents (some buy old ones) and then turned around and sued RIM for infringement even though they never once contributed to the development of the Black Berry or it's email service. The patent infringement suit was based on the idea not any actual work that the holder had done.

It's a crazy world I tell ya.

[raydan]

Curtman Curtman:

Richard Michael (Brooklyn, NY) got his patent in 1997. It's a patent for an idea. Not a physical manifestation of anything. It's not a copyright claim on a piece of software code.

Patents on ideas have existed since they started patents... and yes, you can sell your idea or patent to someone else. In the beginning, that's a big reason why they had patents, to protect ideas.

I've seen some patents with drawings on napkins.

[Curtman]

raydan raydan:

Curtman Curtman:

Richard Michael (Brooklyn, NY) got his patent in 1997. It's a patent for an idea. Not a physical manifestation of anything. It's not a copyright claim on a piece of software code.

Patents on ideas have existed since they started patents... and yes, you can sell your idea or patent to someone else. In the beginning, that's a big reason why they had patents, to protect ideas.

I've seen some patents with drawings on napkins.

It's not enough to have a napkin drawing. You need a prototype. A real thing that you can hold in your hand. You cannot get a patent without one. Except for in the software world.

[Curtman]

Here in Canada, the patent act reads:

Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4

$1:

Subsection 27:
(8) No patent shall be granted for any mere scientific principle or abstract theorem.

The concept seems simple enough. It's a U.S. bastardization of the patent system.