App Developers Dropping Out Of US Out Of Fears Over Patent Lawsuits
from the innovation! dept
A whole bunch of you have been submitting this story about how mobile app developers around the globe have begun pulling their apps from the US Apple iOS and Android Market stores because they're afraid of getting hit by patent lawsuits in the US. This shouldn't surprise anyone. Plenty of folks in the tech industry have been warning for well over a decade about the problems with our patent system and how it's basically being used to extract money from innovators, rather than to encourage innovation. The article quotes a bunch of developers, some of whom say that they're "concerned about my future as a software developer due to these patent issues."At what point will people finally admit that the system is broken? Totally and completely broken?
And yet, what did Congress do? It took them five or six years, but they passed a totally toothless bit of patent reform that won't address a single one of the problems we all know are facing the system. But how can people deny that the patent system is a problem when it's clearly keeping innovation out of the US market?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Next...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here are some of my observations from reading past cases. Software itself cannot be patented. The patent will be for preforming some physical task using the software as a tool. A patent may have non-patentable components but those components cannot be the only thing unique about the patent. Advocates will claim that combining new software with a computer transforms it into a new special purpose computer. Detractors (myself included) claim that a computer is already designed as a universal device capable of running any software, and so adding software does not make its capabilities any different from what its designers intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Naw...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worth noting in that Guardian article...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am for patents as a way for inventors to have a chance to bring their products to market first and get paid for it, but it shouldn't be something to just put in your back pocket and wave around when you need a new paycheck for no new work.
The reason I am for them is that some people are creative in how to invent something, but not in how to market it - a patent gives them a chance. But it shouldn't be like winning the lottery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Still, there might be something there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You do get first crack at it by bringing it to market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But I like the idea of no patents at all.
They only serve one purpose and that is to exclude others, they don't reward cunning or competence they don't promote innovation, they promote bad behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Plus, how would you handle 2 people *independently* coming up with the same idea and then filing and executing around the same time? Does the first to finish execution get all the spoils?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Solution is so simple it is obvious!
> coming up with the same idea and then filing
> and executing around the same time?
The solution to this one is blindingly obvious.
If two people independently come up with the same thing, then it is OBVIOUS. Not novel. Not an "invention". Merely evolution.
Therefore it does not qualify for patent protection.
Simple solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No need for making "Solomon's Choice" here. If at or near the same time while still being independently developed, then both should get the right to exploit the idea for a short period of time concurrently. The key would be in crafting the appropriate standards of proof for simultaneous, independent invention.
It might even force the inventors to work together and thus have a stronger product on the release side of things as well as a more stable company who will not have to face potential court fights from the other...
Just a thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ... then both should get the right to exploit the idea ...
Or in other, other words, there should be no such thing as patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents: They don't enable you to build a product
The fact is most products are *more* than a single patent. And the existing cloud of patents around your product means that your inventor can't bring his product to market on the basis of his patent. All he can do is either 1) force other products off the market, or 2) prevent products with his invention from entering the market, or 3) force products using his invention to pay him, or 4) get bought by some big corporation.
The option generally excluded by patents is the one where the inventor puts a product into the market and excludes other companies from making that product, and makes money by being productive. This option is excluded because Big Business will have plenty of patents to keep him out of the market, and if they choose to compete, then they will use their patents to force a cross licensing agreement (likely in their favor, not the inventor's).
But in no case recently that I can recall has the small inventor created a product, and used their patent(s) to make money by being productive and to keep the big corporations out of their way, and made loads of money.
Patents make things stop. They can't make things happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well, not quite
/reality check elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
manipulate with incentives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That seems to be all it is used for. Big players with big money can buy patents and sue the little guys. The little guys create their own patents and then still face a massive finical burden to claim cost recovery on the big players using it. How long and how much it is cost i4i to finally win against Microsoft? How many start-up have that kind of capital and time to engage?
The current patent system encourages stagnation as that is much more profitable in the short term.
Part of the American downfall is that the smart people, the ones who innovate are staying home or leaving. American is quickly becoming an innovation economy of stagnation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Guaran-fucking-teed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I won't do it
Today, I don't bother trying to negotiate those kinds of terms. I don't write code for any entity other than the company where I work. The simple reason for my stance is that I can't afford to become moderately successful, should I write something that people actually want. With the current state of patent law, there's too great a chance that whatever I create will be viewed as infringing on a patent held by someone else. Even if I were willing to bear the costs of doing patent searches, there is no guarantee against someone with deeper pockets alleging that I have infringed on their patent(s).
In the end, it makes me sad that I can't create things without worrying who will accuse me of "stealing" their idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I won't do it
I believe the only time you should be sued over software is if they can prove you copy/pasted their code. A lot of companies/individuals are being accused of stealing when they wrote their code using a completely different programming language than the patent holder used. So how can that be stealing?
Instead of lawyers fighting in court, why don't they let the programmers come to court and explain how they came up with the idea, why, and how it was implemented. Show the judge the actual people who spent the time to develop something from scratch... and then see if he can still call them thieves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misreporting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patent bill
They should go to China where there are no property rights. The state owns and controls everything. That's where all US jobs are going thanks to large US tech firms. Thanks to the patent bill Congress is on the verge of passing all that will accelerate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Wait Until. . .
Bryan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents and Innovation
I agree on all points, except I will point out two things:
1. Congress, I believe, passed "first to file" laws; a step in the right direction. Big business has done a good job of claiming it harms small inventors, which isn't true, but it passed.
2. It is the way patents (and IP generally) is implemented that is so harmful. As an IP attorney, I see the advantages of properly done IP all the time - and the enormous harm in the way it is usually done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]