SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
For more than three years now, Microsoft has held to the line that it has loads of patents that are infringed by Google's Android operating system. "Licensing is the solution," wrote the company's head IP honcho in 2011, explaining Microsoft's decision to sue Barnes & Noble's Android-powered Nook reader.
Microsoft has revealed a few of those patents since as it has unleashed litigation against Android device makers. But for the most part, they've remained secret. That's led to a kind of parlor game where industry observers have speculated about what patents Microsoft might be holding over Android.
That long guessing game is now over. A list of hundreds of patents that Microsoft believes entitle it to royalties over Android phones, and perhaps smartphones in general, has been published on a Chinese language website.
More details are in the story, but too much to include in this summary.
(Score: 1) by cafebabe on Wednesday June 18 2014, @03:17AM
I'm honored that you provided such an extensive reply to my comment and I feel obliged to respond; possibly in multiple messages.
From the outset, patents were a problematic covenant between state and enterprise. However, they exist and they are widely recognized. The absurdity of the situation, though, is that no-one can ever be sure that they are patent compliant. There is no service which takes a file and returns a list of patent infringements. This isn't even possible for copyright, so we're a long way from solving the problem (copyright infringement) or the meta-problem (patent infringement). Many would say neither is necessary and some cite emerging economies as examples where such regulation doesn't exist or is widely ignored. But how do we incentivize people in a balanced manner? I don't know.
Regardless, I believe the problem with patents being written in legalese is an unavoidable symptom of a mixed economy. (Without the state allowing private enterprise, there is no need to grant patent rights. Likewise for private enterprise in absence of the state.)
A personal observation of mixed economy activity across law, patents and driving examination is that junior agents are on one side and senior agents are on the other. In the case of law and driving examination, junior agents work privately and the best (as determined by their career trajectory) are recruited by the state. However, in the case of patents, I've noticed that patent examiners employed by the state tend to be young turks. Meanwhile, people filing patents tend to be wily old foxes. As an example, the most famous patent examiner, Albert Einstein, left the Swiss patent office when he was 30 but successfully filed patents after this.
I don't believe that it is a case of letting obtuse patents through because they are written in the usual doggerel. Anomalous patents are written by nutjobs while the majority of patents are filed by experienced agents who are funded by enterprises with deep pockets. If a typical patent fails, the claims can be weakened and it can be submitted again. This can be done repeatedly. So what is the consequence for a civil servant if it is allowed through first time? Indeed, when patent offices are part of an international pissing match, where is the incentive to block any patent?
Evn when we ignore a race to the bottom, a central registry in its current form doesn't work. The language in patent claims is defined in the body of each patent. Therefore, even if people use terminology in an honest manner, it is possible for patents to make an identically worded claims and cover different inventions.
My suggestions to fix the mess may be unworkable but should start with increasing the level of novelty and making applications into a one-shot proposition. I would also suggest compulsory purchase in which useful patents are purchased by the state for the good of a nation. In the case of a nation with socialized medicine, purchase paid in annual installments may increase patient privacy while also reducing cost.
1702845791×2