

Eolas sues Apple, Google - abraham
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/company-that-won-585m-from-microsoft-sues-apple-google.ars

======
ujjwalg
USPTO reversed the position and upheld the patent 3 times. I cannot believe
this. This seems to be in the same line as podcast patent, URL suggestion
patent, registration key patent.

The eligibility criterion for being a patent examiner/judge needs to be
revisited.

~~~
jhancock
The reason so many patents are issued isn't, for the most part, due to dumb
examiners and judges. Its part of a political/economic agenda to enrich U.S.
interests in global free market warfare. As other markets grow and adopt
technology, they are beholden to IP owners, which are lead by the U.S. Or so
the thinking goes. It turns out, there are lots of problems with this
strategy. But there it is, the U.S. wants to rubber stamp as many patents are
they can before China, India, Japan can.

~~~
hristov
There is one problem with this theory and it is that the US only issues
patents that are valid for the US. China issues patents for China, Japan for
Japan, etc. Thus, the Chinese are not really beholden to American IP owners in
their own country unless they give those American IP owners Chinese patents.

So I am not sure how the US will benefit from issuing more patents.

(disclosure -- I am a real life patent attorney but nothing I write on hn is
legal advice).

~~~
frig
Question for you: I am a Chinese manufacturer of some product whose
manufacture would in the USA require some patent licenses. If I would like to
export my product for sale in the USA, is it the case that:

\- (1) patents, schmatents! It's not under patent in China, so I can export to
USA whilst scoffing at the USA patents?

\- (2) if not necessarily _me_ then _someone_ in the distribution chain will
have to obtain proper patent licenses before putting the goods up for sale in
the USA

You're a real life patent attorney so you should know this.

~~~
hristov
Yes, I do know the answer to that but I am not sure how it goes along with the
theory of US global dominance trough patents.

If a US company wants to export something to China it needs a Chinese patent.
US companies can get patents in China and Chinese companies can get them in
the US. So I am not sure how a supposedly easy patent system in the US
translates to plans for global dominance.

It could be argued that an easy patent system can be used for protectionism
(i.e., like hidden tariffs) but I am not sure I buy this either because the US
patent systems should be just as accessible to foreign companies as US ones.

I think the US is generally pro-patent and pro-IP because we know that one of
the few areas we hold some kind of competitive advantage is in RD, design,
arts, etc. We have to keep our hands on these intangible goods because if it
comes down to making things we are really, really behind.

~~~
frig
You're being cute. There's this:

 _There is one problem with this theory and it is that the US only issues
patents that are valid for the US. China issues patents for China, Japan for
Japan, etc. Thus, the Chinese are not really beholden to American IP owners in
their own country unless they give those American IP owners Chinese patents._

...but then you say this:

 _I think the US is generally pro-patent and pro-IP because we know that one
of the few areas we hold some kind of competitive advantage is in RD, design,
arts, etc. We have to keep our hands on these intangible goods because if it
comes down to making things we are really, really behind._

...which is cute in that the more you espouse to the outlook implied in the
first quote the less the opinion in the second quote makes sense: how would
being pro-patent and pro-IP help our competitive advantage with other
countries unless there were were some mechanisms by which domestic IP
influenced foreign operations?

You've also basically backed your way into the smart version of the theory in
question:

\- the USA currently has few strong competitive advantages short of producing
IP

\- the USA is thus pro-IP (domestically + in its international negotiations)
as a way of preserving or strengthening its global position vis-a-vis its
trading partners

...which makes it unclear what we're arguing about.

As I've heard the argument (and it's been around since the 90s) the argument
comes in two versions (the 'lite' and the 'sinister' versions).

The 'lite' version is a balance-of-payments issue: _since_ we're offshoring
actually making stuff we will have a substantial trade deficit; having a lot
of obligatory patent licenses can mitigate the imbalance. EG:

\- (low-patents): original manufacturer builds dvd player with about $20 in
parts and labor and sells it to an import/export type for $25 and then best
buy gets it @ $45/unit in bulk and it sells for $70 or so; so ~$45/unit is
flowing out of the country

\- (high-patents): same as before, but now obligatory patent licenses tack on
another $5-10 or so per unit; as the people espousing the theory would have it
the effect is _less_ net money runs it (they don't get into trying to
calculate which parts of the chain have more negotiating ability, and stick
with 'less' rather than make more precise estimates)

It's not enough to neutralize a trade deficit but it can knock it down
substantially; key to the strategy succeeding is legislative support that
helps promote sufficient patent coverage in as many product categories as
possible, then letting the market sort out which actually get licensed and for
how much.

The issue of patents to foreign holders -- whether USA patents or overseas --
is essentially moot from the balance-of-payments outlook: they mainly impact
the internal distribution of money sent to the trading partner but don't have
a substantial effect on the total amount sent over.

The 'sinister' version takes the above and throws in some assumption as to how
you produce patent-worthy R+D and so forth.

Basically it assumes you can't jump to the forefront of technology immediately
(reasonable) and thus even though the USA patent system is equal opportunity
in some sense as a practical matter there aren't going to be Chinese-
originated patents worth licensing anytime soon; as a large chunk of
industrial r+d is funded out of retained earnings the reduced earnings under
the high-patent regime (reduced b/c they've been "taxed away" via licensing
fees) will retard the technological progress of your trading partners; this
lets you keep the upper hand for longer, even if they will close the gap
eventually.

------
noonespecial
"Feeding the trolls" in real life sure does make a mess of things...

------
jacquesm
That's why you shouldn't be able to patent ideas, which is all that software
patents really are. For everything else we have copyright law.

------
kiba
I wonder why the "abolishment of patent" meme has not spread yet.

Could it simply be that people have not heard of this book:
[http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht...](http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm)

I have seen the anti-patent sentinment spread very widely in libertarians
circle enough so that major libertarian think-tanks like the Ludwig von Mises
insitute publishes quite a few anti-patent and anti-copyright articles.

------
andybak
With the Bilski case still hovering around the upper echelons of the judicial
system, now would be an excellent time for someone with deep pockets to take
on Software Patents in general.

Please let this be the straw that breaks the camels back.

------
volida
Hopefully this time, someone will stop this madness.

How can someone patent something so abstract? And embeddable objects (OLE 1.0
anyone?!) have been in existence since 1990. How come it defers if they were
embedded through an interpreted or a compiled application? Visual Basic was
interpreted anyhow long before JavaScript or ActionScript.

~~~
robryan
Very dumb patent to give, Maybe at the time this was a fairly unique idea, but
now it's common place for many many websites.

Hopefully taking action against so many companies will indicate to the courts
how broad and obvious this idea they have patented is.

~~~
scotty79
> Maybe at the time this was a fairly unique idea, but now it's common place
> for many many websites.

It would not be if Eolas could help it!

------
bayareaguy
It's crazy that Pei Wei's original Viola Tcl/Tk web browser[1] wasn't good
enough prior art for the USPTO.

1-
[http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~wei/viola/aboutEolasMicrosoft.h...](http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~wei/viola/aboutEolasMicrosoft.html)

------
brianobush
Patents are a double edged sword: I see the business case and am told to
patent whatever I can find, but then I see cases like this and I shudder at
what we have done to our abilities to share and collectively gain from our
ideas.

------
pmorici
""All we want is what’s fair," Eolas chairman Michael Doyle added."

Ironic.

------
jister
it's not about patent. it's about easy money. imagine if Eolas can make at
least 200M for each company they mentioned

