

Apple And Microsoft Behind Patent Troll Armed With Thousands Of Nortel Patents - pooriaazimi
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120521/13194719006/apple-microsoft-behind-patent-troll-armed-with-thousands-nortel-patents.shtml

======
culturestate
"Once again, we see that these two large companies are using the patent system
not to innovate, but to stop up and coming competitors from innovating."

Apple and Microsoft aren't the only "large companies" involved here - Sony,
Ericsson, and RIM shouldn't get a free pass just because they don't look as
good in a title.

~~~
brudgers
With Google pursuing Microsoft's Xbox via Motorola Mobility, all the cool kids
are doing it.

For all the hand ringing, the technology industry has been doing this since
the days of Mr. Bell (and as a footnote, helping startups file patents was one
of the original marketing points of YC just a few years ago).

~~~
stanleydrew
Do you have a reference for the Google/Xbox claim? Just curious because I
haven't heard anything about that.

~~~
option_greek
It was being pursued by Motorola even before Google bought it. Its part of
defense against Microsoft's shakeup of android manufacturers.

<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2404810,00.asp>

------
stanleydrew
This is really annoying. I lost track of what was happening with the
government investigation into the Nortel bidding but apparently they silently
let it slide. And now we have this.

Is there realistically any chance of the DoJ or FTC stepping in here again to
make the parent consortium (i.e. MS, Apple, RIM, etc. not Rockstar) answer for
this?

~~~
luriel
Patents are government granted monopolies, to expect the government to then go
back and untangle the ensuing cartels might sound fair, but I suspect it is
naive or over optimistic at best.

------
pg
I could see why Microsoft would do something like this, but why Apple? Does
anyone know?

~~~
coderdude
This seems more like an Apple move than a Microsoft move. It's a pretty common
opinion nowadays that Apple is the worst in the bunch; beating the pants off
any unethical stuff Microsoft might be up to -- or was up to even back in the
day. I'd imagine Microsoft just needed to be on board so that they didn't get
left out and screwed over by this down the line.

I am completely mystified by how these companies get together and work with
each other on things like this.

~~~
astrodust
> It's a pretty common opinion nowadays...

Apple is not the worst of the bunch. You have nothing to qualify that
statement other than a hand-waving gesture.

The undisputed #1 king of patent trolls is former Microsoft CTO Nathan
Myhrvold's company Intellectual Ventures and its various holding companies
that sue anyone and _everyone_ with patents that contain no technology but do
contain lots of language that's very lawsuit friendly as the claims are
sweepingly broad. Recently they tried to sue a large number of small
developers that were using "in app purchasing" technology.

Number two is Microsoft who is extorting upwards of $15 per Android phone sold
from a number of vendors as part of their "fair licensing" program even though
zero Microsoft code is used in those phones.

Number three would be Oracle if only they could get better lawyers and a more
agreeable jury.

Apple has been fighting to push back at the tide of _design_ violations put
forward by companies like Samsung and others. If you can name even one
instance of where Apple has directly sued a small company over a technology
patent I would be surprised.

You seem to have absolutely no idea what Microsoft was up to "even back in the
day" because it was far worse than anything Apple has ever done. Remember the
bait-and-switch with OS/2? The pricing scheme where DOS was $60 and the very
same DOS + Windows was $30? Where companies like Dell had to pay a license fee
on _every_ machine sold regardless of if it was sold with Windows or not? The
way they would switch up Windows to "break" other competing applications like
WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3?

You seem to have forgotten that it was an arms-length Microsoft deal that
enabled SCO to turn zombie and threatening hundreds if not thousands of
companies that were simply _using_ Linux, not even developing their own
software.

The reason you're completely mystified is because you haven't done any
research.

~~~
yuhong
"Remember the bait-and-switch with OS/2? "

Ah, one of my favorite topics. Why did it take ten years after Intel released
the 386 before 32-bit protected mode apps become common? Yea, the MS/IBM JDA
was not particularly good, but the alternative MS took was much worse.

~~~
astrodust
There was Windows 386 but that hardly counts as it was for multi-tasking DOS
applications, something Desqview had already done for years.

What was shocking, as you hint at, was how Microsoft, which had been
encouraging OS/2 as their "serious" OS for years, dumped that and somehow
managed to convince people that Windows 3.1 was better.

It was like going from a space ship to a party full of clowns. Wasn't it
possible to write Windows apps in 16 bit mode then?

------
shenberg
One odd thought crossed my mind - most proprietary software you use has a
clause prohibiting reverse engineering in the license agreement, and here they
are admitting to the world that they routinely ignore said license agreements.
Are they making themselves liable for copyright infringement here since
they're using the software without a license? How enforceable are those "no
reverse engineering" clauses anyway?

------
nextparadigms
Didn't they make a deal with DoJ and the judges from Canada that they won't do
something like this, if they get the Nortel patents?

~~~
mthoms
They seem to have found a loophole by creating a new company to own the
patents.

------
18pfsmt
I submitted a story midweek about this same topic and was wondering why nobody
else seemed to be concerned. I'm happy to see that is not the case because I
don't think anyone in our industry is helped by protectionist maneuvers like
this.

People wonder why there are fewer hardware startups, but I can tell you the
hardware guys I know have expressed concerns over patent issues for not
helping me work on a low-power server (and I need their help because I'm too
dumb to do board layout on my own).

~~~
scott_s
What makes it to, and stays on, the front page has a large random component.

------
junto
I'm quite happy for these trolls to go crazy on this one. Patents need to get
so insane that eventually we might stop and say WTF are we playing at. Bed
made lying in it. Software patents don't work, they never have.

------
mindjiver
I doubt there are many software patents in this portfolio. Most of these
patents most likely cover the L1/L2 protocols for LTE and other wireless
standards. These are normally available through FRAND agreements.

Disclaimer: I work for one of the companies that bought the patents.

~~~
andrewem
I'm totally serious about this question: how do you feel about the company you
work for doing this?

~~~
mindjiver
Personally I don't approve of _software_ patents but these ones don't bother
me that much. I don't really see this different from all the other patent
licensing deals we have with the rest of the (wireless) industry. These are
part of the way these standards are developed (available under FRAND licenses)
and licensed.

If you want to bring in a moral perspective I personally feel that a bigger
problem is what to do about "legal intercept" features. Especially when
selling equipment to countries with regimes that want to misuse them.

But lets say this included some trivial (or non-trivial) software patent and
this jointly owned company started trolling a lot of individual developers
and/or smaller companies. Then I would feel different about this.

~~~
pooriaazimi
> _bigger problem is what to do about "legal intercept" features. Especially
> when selling equipment to countries with regimes that want to misuse them._

As an Iranian (whose government routinely and 'legally' intercepts everything
and everyone), I can't agree more with this sentiment :)

------
Tycho
What evidence would it take to convince naysayers that patents are generally a
force for good?

~~~
orangecat
Necessary but not sufficient: technology that wouldn't have been developed if
not for the ability to patent it. There are plenty of examples for drugs, and
approximately zero for software as far as I'm aware.

~~~
Tycho
How do you go about proving that (either way) ?

~~~
jlgreco
Stating the null hypothesis tends to greatly simplify questions like this.

In this case, the null hypothesis is: _"Software patents do not allow the
development of technology that would otherwise not be developed."_ (In other
words, "they are not good")

It is important to note that null hypothesis's are never proven, only
disproven. That means you won't prove that software patents do not help
(failure to show otherwise could mean nothing more than you did not look hard
enough), _however_ you can trivially falsify the null hypothesis if you find a
single case where software patents helped.

Of course in the event that you falsify the null hypothesis you haven't proved
"software patents _are_ good", but rather "software patents _can_ be good".
(If you want to go with "they _are_ good", then that becomes your null
hypothesis and to disprove it we nearly need to find a single case where they
are not. If you want to roll with the 'generally' thing, then you should first
start by defining exactly what generally means in this context then go from
there.)

As for judging data points to determine what exactly they show? That's rather
up in the air. Pick a case, state the facts, and argue why you think those
facts indicate what you assert they do. This is really more of a soft science.

~~~
Tycho
I'm not sure how valuable the bias from developer anecdotes is. Naturally
patents are going to be annoying for the business that covets the technology
they cover. If you have patents at all, you will have friction. Bit like how
you can't have parking tickets without having people complain about parking
tickets. The majority of users and developers the majority of the time have no
trouble with patents. At which point you can argue that it's a hidden cost,
something that affects all of us without being immediately obvious. And that's
precisely my point... if it's a hidden cost, it could equally be a hidden
benefit.

I just don't see much worthwhile dialogue going on in the patent debate, just
shouting in both directions. For instance in this article, it's not clear to
me what people are objecting to. Are people annoyed because someone is trying
to enforce a patent? Or is it just because a group of large companies have
acquired the patents? Does that imply that we're happy for small companies to
have patents, because they'll probably never enforce them anyway, but unhappy
for large companies to have them, because they'll actually put them to use? Or
is it the nature of the patents (I don't see much analysis of what the patents
really cover... they could conceivably be things which took a lot of R&D)? Or,
indeed, is it the concept of patents in general? The article did mention
stifling innovation, but that's a bit vague - it stifles business activity but
that energy could arguably be used on alternative that would be more
innovative.

~~~
jlgreco
> _"I'm not sure how valuable the bias from developer anecdotes is..."_

This is a legitimate concern, and something you have to contend with when
you're engaging in the softer sciences. Someone with experience in something
like sociology may be in a better position than most of the HN crowd to
effectively study this topic in a rigorous fashion.

Anyway, (the way I see it) people are objecting, particularly in this article,
because they view patents in software as something that can only do one of two
things: nothing (read: sit in a companies portfolio never to be read or cared
about, only padding the companies patent wallet), or harm the industry by
stifling innovation and feeding the lawyers. Put briefly, they, unlike you it
seems, do not accept the idea that patents in the software industry can
actually do good.

It's not the concept of patents, it's not that large companies are using them,
it's not that people are enforcing them, it's not any of that nonsense. It is
more that none of these things have anything to do with improving the industry
we have invested our lives in. I think you had a grasp on this concept
earlier, but lost sight of it when you tried to analyse it too closely.

~~~
Tycho
Patents in the software industry cannot actually do good - why? Because
patents are wrong to start with and the conditions of the software industry
(fast-moving, high volume of research/invention) magnify the problem? Because
the patent office isn't sufficiently equipped to grant reasonable patents on
software (judging 'obviousness' etc.)? Because all these HNers have personal
experience of being constrained by patent issues? Because coming up with ideas
for new software methodologies/techniques is not comparable with the R&D of
other industries?

 _It's not the concept of patents, it's not that large companies are using
them, it's not that people are enforcing them, it's not any of that
nonsense...I think you had a grasp on this concept earlier, but lost sight of
it when you tried to analyse it too closely._

This sounds a bit supercilious.

~~~
jlgreco
I'm going to be honest with you. You have me at something of a loss for words.

I think I have given you all the tools you need to understand this issue at
this point. Remember that thing I wrote about the null hypothesis? Well people
who disagree with you do so because they have yet to see that null hypothesis
convincingly falsified.

If you want to disagree with that, then knock yourself out. It requires
absolutely zero expended effort on your part to disagree; I disagree with
uncountable things in this world every day for a grand total of zero calories
burned.

If you want to disagree _and convince others_ of your point of view, then you
are going to need to put some back into it. Rationally and methodically state
your case for the falsification of the null hypothesis. Write it up on your
blog and post it to HN _. If the community considers it worthy of discussion,
they will address it.

You seem to be attempting some sort of 'know thy enemy' nonsense. Stop. You
are clearly unable to or unwilling to wrap your head around concepts you
disagree with, so stop wasting your time. Understanding why people think what
they do is unimportant, just state your case. I've already told you how.

_ And do make an effort to post it as a new discussion when you do so, instead
of attempting to hijack another discussion looking for a flamewar.

tl;dr: Our case: the null hypothesis has not been falsified. Your case: ???

I eagerly await your blog posting; I think we are done discussing this in this
other person's article's comments.

~~~
Tycho
Contradicting the null hypothesis is easy: any time a potential investor has
asked a small company with a bright idea 'but what's to stop someone else just
copying your idea after i've paid you to develop it?' and the developer
replies 'well, we have patent protection' to reassure him/her, patents have
been useful and supportive of innovation.

The problem is that the argument will immediately move on to the _net_
benefit/detriment to the industry, at which point we need to establish the
_principles_ on which people object to software patents.

 _You are clearly unable to or unwilling to wrap your head around concepts you
disagree with, so stop wasting your time._

Less condescension maybe?

------
dain
Posted because of hypercritical.

~~~
pooriaazimi
Exactly! None of the previous submissions had made it to the front page, so I
googled for "rockstar apple patent troll" and submitted this link and totally
forgot about it afterwards. Now I woke up and saw it's on the front page and
I'm very happy that many are now familiar with the issue :-)

------
sad_panda
The nightmare never ends.

------
chmike
You have an idea ? There is a patent for it! Apple.

------
sevenstar
→Disgusting

------
moldbug
When I first heard about the setuid patent, I thought it was pretty cool. That
was, I don't know, 1989.

I think it was 1992 or so before it was really clear that patents were the
true and final nemesis of my chosen profession. By "clear," I mean "obvious to
anyone not in denial." Of course there's a lot of denial.

By 1999 I worked for a company that routinely filed what we called "linked
list... on a phone!" patents. Unwired Planet - the geniuses behind WAP. In
fact, I think there never would have been a WAP Forum if we hadn't muscled
Motorola, Nokia and Ericsson with our HDML patents. (These crap patents
probably provide most of the remaining market capitalization of UP's remnant,
Openwave.)

Across this continuum, I have heard a continuous strand of discourse denying
that there's a pit at the end of this tunnel. This discourse relies
existentially on the belief that just because people _could_ be evil, doesn't
mean they _will_ be evil. Which is true, but only in the short run. _Facilis
descensus Averni._

~~~
pyre

      I think it was 1992 or so before it was really clear
      that patents were the true and final nemesis of my
      chosen profession.
    

The real issue is that patents favor large players (even if they are
'branching out' and aren't an incumbent in a particular area) to the detriment
of smaller players.

~~~
beernutz
I think the REAL issue, is that they lock up IDEAS. Ideas by themselves are
inherently worthless. It's the EXECUTION that matters. Everyone has ideas.
Some are great, some suck. The idea by itself is really meaningless until
someone does something with it. Ideas, to me, are like knowledge. They should
never be locked up, and should be freely shared.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Patents aren't supposed to lock up abstract ideas, they are supposed to
_unlock_ concrete implementations of ideas (unlock by giving details of the
implementation to the public in exchange for a short-term monopoly).

There are good arguments either way for whether this is a good idea, but make
the ideas far more abstract (like software) and add incredibly short
technology cycles (like software), and there is no doubt it's a bad idea.

~~~
makomk
Patents have never actually worked that way though. For instance, take a look
at the history of the early US automobile industry sometime.

~~~
beernutz
That is an excellent point! The way they are used vs. the way they are MEANT
to be used, seem to be worlds apart.

------
h84ru3a
From the Wire article:

"It was run by friendly Canadians who did not want to antagonize partners and
customers by suing them."

Oh well, the patents have found their way into the right hands now so it's all
good. Let the American-style antagonism begin.

