SGI Back From The Dead (Again) And Suing Tons Of Companies For Patent Infringement

from the troll-troll-troll-troll dept

Back when I moved to Silicon Valley, Silicon Graphics Inc., (SGI) was still a hot place to work. They were still pumping out cool machines and had a reputation for a fun corporate culture. Of course, that collapsed pretty quickly over the next few years, as SGI totally misjudged the market trends and fell victim to the innovator's dilemma. Basically, SGI never could come to terms with the fact that its premium products were going to be increasingly undercut as cheaper commodity technology improved. Back in 2006, we noted that what remained of SGI had indicated that it planned to resurrect the company by going patent troll. However, we thought we'd avoided that ignoble result when SGI sold most of its assets to Rackable for a mere $25 million three years ago. Silly us for assuming those patents would just go away.

While Rackable changed its name to Silicon Graphics International... the original company actually retained the patents, and renamed itself Graphics Properties Holdings... and over the last few years has been suing lots of companies for patent infringement. In the last year alone it has sued Apple, HTC, LG, RIM, Samsung, Sony, Acer, ASUS, Panasonic, Sharp, Toshiba, Vizio and Motorola Mobility.

As the link above notes, while some of GPH's patents are relatively early, it appears that lots of similar inventions predated key patents. However, the early date may make those patents look stronger, and give GPH much more leverage in getting companies to pay up -- or risk losing the ability to produce devices with nice graphics capabilities.

Filed Under: patent troll, silicon valley
Companies: acer, apple, asus, htc, lg, motorola mobility, panasonic, rim, samsung, sgi, sharp, sony, toshiba, vizio

Oracle/Google Case Shows Just How Totally Pointless It Is To Have Patents On Software

from the it's-now-how-people-code dept

Julie Samuels has a fantastic piece over at Wired using the Oracle v. Google case to explain why patents simply don't make any sense in the software world:

For starters, software often does not require the type of heavy investment that should result in a 20-year monopoly. Instead of expensive laboratories or years of testing for FDA approval, for example, you often just need a coder and a computer. Even complex programs don’t require 20 years of exclusivity to recoup their investment. Software patents are often not even necessary for successful businesses: Facebook and, yes, Google — never relied on software patents to grow their early businesses.

Software patents are also notoriously vague and difficult to understand, making it impossible for small inventors to navigate the system without expensive legal help. And that brings us to the most dangerous aspect of software patents: litigation.

It turns out that software patents are nearly five times more likely to be the subject of litigation as other patents. In fact, lawsuits surrounding software patents have more than tripled since 1999, and they have become part of the price of doing business in America. Take Spotify. After realizing much success in Europe, Spotify launched its U.S. product in July, and just weeks later it found itself facing a patent suit.

Of course, tons of software developers recognize this implicitly. I know an awful lot of software developers in Silicon Valley. I can't think of a single one who thinks patents are a good thing or even remotely useful (and this includes many developers who have patents). In development circles, it seems that nearly everyone thinks patents are a waste of time and money. And that's because software doesn't work the way that the patent system envisions.

Perhaps most troubling, the patent system fails to recognize how people create and use technology. Software is fundamentally situated as a building-block technology. You write some code, and then I improve upon it — something the open source community has figured out. Google’s use of Java in its Android OS also demonstrates how innovators create, by making its own product and and incorporating some elements of the Java language (which, incidentally, Java’s creators have a history of supporting). And when those two come together, it results in an incredibly popular product, here the Android OS.

It's the difference between an idea and actually bringing that idea to market. That difference is always ignored or underestimated by patent lawyers -- but developers know the difference. The patent system wasn't designed by software developers, though. And it shows.

Filed Under: android, java, monopoly, silicon valley, software
Companies: google, oracle

Hollywood Up And Comers Recognizing That The Big Gatekeepers May Be More Of A Threat Than Silicon Valley

from the fighting-the-status-quo dept

Despite the MPAA's insistence that it wants to "talk" to Silicon Valley, it still seems to think that just means getting together with Google's lobbyists in Washington DC. Thankfully, the MPAA doesn't really represent the full movie industry, and plenty of young filmmakers realize that the tech industry isn't the enemy and has been providing tons of great tools and services that up-coming filmmakers rely on every day. Some of them are realizing that perhaps the real fight is between the legacy gatekeepers and the up-and-comers... and as such, the up-and-comers should have a much closer relationship with the tech industry.

Gina Hall is a young Hollywood filmmaker who reached out to me and some others in Silicon Valley to begin this discussion, recognizing that perhaps the MPAA's claims don't match up with her best interests:

I feel like the solutions proposed from Hollywood establishment just might be in favor of the status quo rather than helping up-and-comers. Call it a hunch. So while industry bosses are distracted with their fight to sustain the old business model, I figured it might be a good time to start a series of conversations between the tech sector and young Hollywood to make some sense of the seismic shift happening in the industry.

There are a few quotes from me in that article, in which she notes that it really does seem like the tech industry is coming up with all the cool stuff that actually helps young filmmakers today -- from tools (like cheaper cameras) to services (like YouTube) to ways to monetize (like Kickstarter). Old Hollywood? Not so much:

Masnick's M.O. is disruptive innovation -- or as he describes it "how we get cool stuff." Creating cool stuff -- honestly, isn't that what most of us get in the business to do? The problem is, Hollywood isn't responsible for creating enough cool stuff these days (especially locally) to keep us all employed. A lot of the cool stuff is now coming from the tech sector with Hollywood standing idly by. In conversations with those employed with the studios, production companies and agencies around town, I've heard projects worked on self-described as "lame," "derivative," or the backhanded compliment: "Meh, at least it'll make money."

I'm looking forward to her continuing series, showing that the tech industry and young Hollywood are very much in alignment. The only real problem is with the legacy players in the business who are just looking to keep making money the way they used to, without actually changing with the market.

Filed Under: enablers, gatekeepers, gina hall, hollywood, pipa, silicon valley, sopa, young hollywood

Wyden Tries To Get Anti-ACTA/TPP Amendments Included In JOBS Act Vote

from the won't-happen dept

There's a lot of talk about how the Senate is likely to approve the JOBS Act today with a procedural plan put in place by Harry Reid that limits the ability for any real amendments to be debated or discussed. Unfortunately, the JOBS Act has been more controversial than it should be, based on some misinformation being spread about how it's somehow dismantling all investor protections from Sarbanes Oxley.

The fact is, this is a situation where the original rules clearly went too far in requiring onerous regulations on businesses that didn't actually do much to stop fraud and abuse, but did make it prohibitively expensive for many good companies to go (or stay) public. There should be a middle ground that is not the "anyone can go public based on hype" days of the late 90s, and the much more limited public markets we have today. The JOBS Act may go a bit too far in raising the ceiling for the IPO "on ramp" to $1 billion in sales, but it's not the free for all that some have made it out to be. It gives companies more time to meet full (expensive) Sarbanes Oxley compliance, but opponents make it out like in these five years, companies will just completely make up their financial documents (even knowing that they'll face a reckoning when the on-ramp is over). Making the on-ramp slightly smaller probably would have made sense (and there was an attempt to do that, which appears to be dead in the water), but this is a case where you have a basic trade-off. Yes, you can add regulations to public companies, but it means you'll have fewer public companies, and less money to spend on creating jobs. That's a real trade-off, and one where those advocating specific plans do need to recognize the costs and the benefits.

Separately, there are many other features of the JOBS Act that make plenty of sense -- such as allowing small businesses to make use of crowdfunding. Currently, crowdfunding is possible for pre-sales or donations, but not in exchange for equity. Yes, there is risk involved, but there are some limits here, and to some extent, people should learn to understand the basic risks of what they're investing in before they do so anyway. These crowdfunded operations aren't going to be giant companies dealing with Wall Street for the most part, so the talk of how this helps Wall Street is mostly bogus.

That said, because of the political process that will get this through quickly, it appears that Senator Wyden won't get to introduce two amendments he proposed, one of which would have made it clear that the US can't agree to ACTA without Congressional approval, and a second that would have required the USTR to make its proposals public on international trade agreements. Hopefully, we'll see those proposals turn up elsewhere.

Filed Under: acta, jobs act, ron wyden, sarbanes oxley, silicon valley, tpp

Chris Dodd Extends SOPA 'Olive Branch' To Silicon Valley... And Proceeds To Bash Them Over The Head With It

from the there-is-only-one-answer-and-it-is-sopa dept

Not this again. Ever since SOPA/PIPA were shelved, we've been hearing from MPAA and RIAA officials about how important it is that they "sit down and meet" with "the opposition." Part of the problem is that they still can't figure out who the opposition really was. They usually blame Google. And sometimes Wikipedia. We keep hearing these requests to work together, but when people take them up on the offer and agree to meet... they seem to chicken out. Another big part of the problem is assuming that the only answer to the challenges they're facing is more legislation... but that's clearly not true.

Either way, a news report making the rounds says that Chris Dodd has "extended an olive branch" to the tech community with a speech he just gave. Already, that's framing this discussion incorrectly. Folks in Silicon Valley have been plenty happy to meet for many, many months. No "olive branch" needed. The MPAA and RIAA done everything to keep the tech industry from the table for nearly all of the SOPA debate. Even after everything happened, folks in Silicon Valley have made it clear that they're happy to meet and discuss stuff with Hollywood. It's just that many of them would like it to be "open." I've heard from a few different folks where "feelers were put out" to see if they wanted to take part in some secretive backroom "negotiations" -- but when they requested more open proceedings, the MPAA/RIAA guys insisted that was a deal breaker.

But really, what you see in this report isn't an olive branch, it's a baseball bat, where Chris Dodd talks up all the opportunities there are, and then starts wacking away at evil pirates destroying all.

MPAA Chief Chris Dodd made a peace overture to Silicon Valley Wednesday, telling an audience that "Hollywood is pro-technology and pro-Internet."

But he also made clear the legislative battle against piracy wasn't over, maintaining that "a strong system of copyright protection for online content is critical to the continued success of the flourishing Internet marketplace."

Except, that's not clear at all. A strong system of content protection has had nothing to do with the current success of the "flourishing internet marketplace." And putting even more protectionism in place only seems likely to make things worse, and drive more people underground. To say that it's critical to the success of the internet seems really preposterous considering how little evidence there is that copyright really plays a major issue here.

The real problem here is that Dodd still continues to refuse to define the problem correctly. He still assumes (or publicly proclaims) that the answer is content protection. A truly open conversation wouldn't start with such assumptions, but would do more to establish a framework and details. And then you get things like this:

Speaking to the Atlanta Press Club on Wednesday, Dodd said that "nearly one-quarter of all global Internet traffic is copyright theft. And at the heart of the problem is the proliferation of parasitic foreign rogue sites whose sole purpose is to facilitate, and profit from, the theft of international property."

Of course, as has also been pointed out, this "one-quarter of all global Internet traffic" bit is misleading, because it's counting all sorts of things that might not be infringing. But, more to the point, Netflix alone appears to use up about approximately the same amount of bandwidth. And what that suggests is that the problem isn't that big. If you converted everyone who he's talking about to Netflix... you'd just have another Netflix. That's a decent-sized company, but nothing miraculous. It just looks big because everyone's focused on the wrong numbers -- such as the byte size of traffic, rather than what's actually being shared and why.

"We cannot draw up a business model that accounts for the wholesale theft of our product," he said. "It's true for pharmacies. It's true for the automobile industry. It's true for software developers. And it's true for us."

Of course, once again, he's misusing the term "theft," which is pretty disappointing and again suggests the lack of a real "olive branch" here. But, furthermore, this statement is also plainly wrong. What he's arguing is that companies can't compete with free. But, er... plenty of "copyright" businesses do exactly that. One need look no further than the open source community. There, Dodd would discover that there have been some very large companies that built on top of products that the company can't lock down, and that versions of those products will be available for free. And many open source companies have done well -- even as they have to compete with free versions of identical products. They've built great business models. To say that Dodd himself (or the studios) "cannot draw up a business model" that deals with the market situation is a statement on Dodd and the industry -- not on the possibility of such business models. Of course, there are more and more people discovering business models that work... but rather than let that happen, Dodd is demanding a law?

And, really, it comes back to this again: this isn't an olive branch. Dodd isn't seeking input from those who understand these issues. He's pretending to offer an olive branch to get some "negotiations" started, where they won't listen or take the time to understand the real issue. Instead, they'll just beat everyone over the head with the branch and insist that their ridiculously bad plans to expand copyright enforcement are the only way to go.

He said that "copyright legislation helped to create the Internet of today -- not to mention providing companies like Apple with the incentive to -- as they say -- think different, and to think big."

This part is just intellectually dishonest. Very little of the success of the internet today had anything to do with copyright law. In fact, large parts of the success of the internet were due to exceptions to copyright law, such as those from the open source community.

"The coalition supporting a crackdown on ... criminal sites includes companies large and small who produce movies, TV shows, music, software, photography, prescription drugs, consumer electronics -- everyone from Gibson Guitars to the Ultimate Fighting Championship."

Um, sounds like Dodd's talking points need a refresh. Gibson Guitar dropped its support of SOPA...

"If you believe that freedom of speech does not imply, and the ability to innovate does not require, a license to steal, if you believe that the men and women who work hard to make films and TV shows deserve to be fairly compensated ... I invite you to join this coalition and help us move towards a solution to this problem."

See, that's not an olive branch at all. That's just flat out misrepresenting the position of those who opposed SOPA. No one says that there's a "license to steal" or that people should be allowed to break the law willy nilly. Nor is anyone saying that those who "work hard" shouldn't be compensated. There are tons of laws on the books already -- many of which are already being overaggressively enforced. We're saying that there are existing ways to deal with these issues that don't have the collateral damage that a SOPA or PIPA would have -- by not involving legislation at all, but letting the market figure things out, as it's already been doing.

Again, if Dodd wants to meet and put forth a real olive branch, he should try not attacking those he's supposedly reaching out to or misrepresenting their position. Otherwise it's tough to see much sincerity there...

Filed Under: chris dodd, copyright, olive branch, silicon valley, sopa
Companies: mpaa

Once More, With Feeling: It Wasn't Silicon Valley Or Google That Stopped SOPA/PIPA, It Was The Internet

from the wake-up-folks dept

Over the last week, after SOPA and PIPA were put on life support, we've noticed an incredibly tone deaf response from the supporters of these bills, lashing out at the wrong parties and trying to figure out where to place the blame. The usual target has been "the tech industry," by which they usually mean "Google." That's why the MPAA's Chris Dodd wants to sit down with "tech companies" at the White House to discuss this. It's why the head of the movie theaters' lobbying group, NATO, brushes this whole thing off as Google "flexing" its muscles. As we've said all along, that not only misses the point, and is totally tone deaf to what happened, but it pretty much guarantees the wrong response from supporters of the bill.

Larry Downes has a great piece over at Forbes making this point and tracing back who really "stopped" SOPA and PIPA (full disclaimer: Downes gives me unnecessarily nice billing in the piece, providing too much credit for my early coverage of the bills). The key point that he makes is that this wasn't about "tech companies" or "Google" rising up -- but about internet users. And until the bills' supporters understand this, they're going to make the same mistakes over and over again:

The sponsors of SOPA and PIPA don’t even know who stopped them cold. But supporters of the proposed laws are retrenching anyway, preparing to launch a new assault on an enemy it hasn’t identified.

Given both their arrogance and ignorance, it goes without saying that the content industries are unlikely to avoid similar catastrophes in the future, let alone find a way to work collaboratively with a political force they don’t know—or believe–exists.

This is the message that many people are trying to get out there, and which keeps getting dismissed. Perhaps an even stronger point was made by the many, many people "in Hollywood" who came out against the bill as well. Take a look at what the Future of Music Coalition had to say on the matter, highlighting that anyone who thinks this is "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley" is missing the point in a big bad way.

Unfortunately, some folks seem to be missing that point entirely, and are clinging to the idea that the SOPA/PIPA kerfluffle was simply Big Content vs. Silicon Valley.

We beg to differ.

Among the millions of people who voiced concerns about the scope and application of these bills were many copyright owners. We’re talking tens of thousands of arts and culture reps and even individual artists like MGMT, Trent Reznor, Amanda Palmer, Jason Mraz, Zoe Keating and more. What does this tell us? That a lot of folks with skin in the game are uncomfortable with Washington trade groups like the MPAA and RIAA claiming to represent their interests.

This isn't about "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley." This is about "the internet" vs. the old way that things were done (artificial scarcity, backrooms and gatekeepers). Misunderstanding that key point will lead to the same mistakes again and again. Understanding this presents a clear path forward.

Filed Under: internet, pipa, silicon valley, sopa
Companies: google, mpaa

The Tech Industry Has Already Given Hollywood The Answer To Piracy; If Only It Would Listen

from the stop-shooting-yourself-in-the-foot dept

While many in the press have really enjoyed claiming that the SOPA/PIPA fight has been about Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley, we've been pointing out for a while just how silly that is. Months ago, we pointed out that it's a strange "fight" when one side (Silicon Valley) appears to give the other side all the weapons it needs to succeed (only to watch Hollywood then aim those weapons at its own feet). It's been pointed out time and time again that Hollywood has a habit of looking a gift horse in the mouth... and accusing it of piracy, when it later turns out to be the answer to Hollywood's prayers.

When the White House came out against the general approach in SOPA and PIPA, it still said that a legislative response was necessary... and asked for the "best ideas" from the tech community and people online:

Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge.

But, here's the thing: as many of us have been saying for quite some time, the "best ideas" have nothing to do with legislation, because legislation is tackling the wrong problem. No amount of legislation or enforcement stops piracy. That's been shown over and over again. What does help deal with infringement is offering a better service that gives consumers more of what they want in a reasonable and convenient manner.

And thus, I can't recommend enough Nat Torkington's brilliant response to "the President's challenge" above by likening it to this old joke:

Heavy rains start and a neighbour pulls up in his truck. "Hey Bob, I'm leaving for high ground. Want a lift?" Bob says, "No, I'm putting my faith in God." Well, waters rise and pretty soon the bottom floor of his house is under water. Bob looks out the second story window as a boat comes by and offers him a lift. "No, I'm putting my faith in God." The rain intensifies and floodwaters rise and Bob's forced onto the roof. A helicopter comes, lowers a line, and Bob yells "No, I'm putting my faith in God."

Well, Bob drowns. He goes to Heaven and finally gets to meet God. "God, what was that about? I prayed and put my faith in you, and I drowned!"

God says, "I sent you a truck, a boat, and a helicopter! What the hell more did you want from me?"

How does that apply to this situation? Same thing. The tech industry keeps sending Hollywood the tools it needs to save itself... and Hollywood keeps "waiting" for some miraculous savior, while missing all of the tools it's been offered to save itself:

All I can think is: we gave you the Internet. We gave you the Web. We gave you MP3 and MP4. We gave you e-commerce, micropayments, PayPal, Netflix, iTunes, Amazon, the iPad, the iPhone, the laptop, 3G, wifi--hell, you can even get online while you're on an AIRPLANE. What the hell more do you want from us?

Take the truck, the boat, the helicopter, that we've sent you. Don't wait for the time machine, because we're never going to invent something that returns you to 1965 when copying was hard and you could treat the customer's convenience with contempt.

Filed Under: best ideas, business models, hollywood, innovation, pipa, protect ip, silicon valley, sopa, technology

To Pols Trying To Raise Money From Silicon Valley: Supporting SOPA/PIPA Probably Isn't Wise

from the well,-look-at-that dept

A brief, little report from Politico notes that various Democrats are ramping up their efforts to raise money from Silicon Valley for the 2012 election. What struck me as interesting was the first two names on the list:

As the election season is ramping up, so too are pols’ trips to Silicon Valley. That includes Vice President Joe Biden, who’s heading to San Francisco on Jan. 18 for a lunch reception. Tickets cost $2,500 per person, with $7,500 for lunch and a photo for two. Sen. Robert Menendez will also be in the area on the same day, starting with a dinner in Menlo Park, Calif., followed by a breakfast in San Francisco.

Biden, of course, has been the leading voice in the administration for worse and worse copyright enforcement efforts, and almost certainly supports SOPA/PIPA. Sen. Menendez is a PIPA co-sponsor. Given how widespread the outrage in the tech community is against these bills, it seems like an odd choice for them to try to raise money while supporting legislation that will make innovation in tech a lot harder...

Filed Under: democrats, fundraising, joe biden, pipa, robert menendez, senators, silicon valley, sopa

Senator Dianne Feinstein: So Out Of Touch, She Doesn't Realize Tech Companies Are Vehemently Against PROTECT IP

from the wake-up dept

In the debates over SOPA and PROTECT IP (PIPA), one thing that has been clear is that neither California Senator has been any help at all. When asked about this, I've been told, multiple times, that despite both being from Northern California, as long-term politicians they're completely ignorant of technology issues, and "follow the money" down to Southern California. We've already written about Zach Carter's excellent behind the scenes report on the politicking behind SOPA and PROTECT IP, but there's one ridiculous tidbit that was worth highlighting to show just how incredibly out of touch Senator Dianne Feinstein is. When asked about this issue, Feinstein appeared totally clueless, believing that the tech industry was fine with the bills:

When HuffPost asked Feinstein, a Protect IP co-sponsor, if it was difficult for her to navigate the bill with Silicon Valley and Hollywood on opposite sides, she responded: "I don't believe that they are. I thought we had reconciled the issues. The bill's been passed out of committee." The response seems incredible given the outcry from Silicon Valley, and Google in particular, but the complexity of the legislation has left many lawmakers vulnerable to K Street spin.

Apparently Feinstein is completely blind to the very vocal outrage from some of the largest tech companies around, including Google, Yahoo, eBay, Twitter, Facebook, Mozilla, Wikipedia and more. This is not someone listening to the people. It's someone following the money.

Filed Under: california, clueless, copyright, dianne feinstein, protect ip, silicon valley, sopa