Hi, I agree with everything Maarten just said.
The majority of listeners will either be cynical about software patents or on the fence. Very few would be "Apple is doing it so it must be right". I am surprised however, that the debate came up at all with Joe present since I was under the impression that the posse was avoiding too much Apple debate because of similar biased arguments when Joe has been around in the past. I seem to remember over a year ago that some people here in the UK complained to the Advertising Standards Agency about the iPhone advert where they implied you could surf the web everywhere. This is not true since the iPhone does not support Java and Flash. The two sides gave a reasoned debate ( http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Adjudications/2008/8/Apple-%28UK%29-Ltd/TF_ADJ_44891.aspx) but in the end the complaint was upheld. Joe's response? "These people should get a life". I understand fully that the posse members are not proper journalists but some objectivity would be nice when discussing news. If Joe can't be objective about Apple then he should keep his opinion out of the podcast (and let rip in his own podcast/blog). Cheers R On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Maarten <[email protected]> wrote: > I was pretty disappointed by Joe's line of arguing in the whole patent > discussion. It's become painfully obvious over several episodes that > when a discussion involves Apple, his judgment is pretty severely > hampered by his feelings towards that company. Saying that Apple has a > right to enforce patents is one thing, but implying that criticizing > Steve Job's patent trolling is "communist", and that people who don't > agree with him on the patent system are naive about business and don't > "support capitalism" is just ridiculous. > > The irony of it all is that it's Joe who shows himself to be pretty > naive about the whole patent thing. All this talk of the lone inventor > who has "double-mortgaged his house" or the company that has invested > millions of dollars to get a patent makes me wonder if he's been > paying attention at all to the reality and debate regarding patents as > it's been evolving in the past 10+ years. One need only consider the > case of Marshall, Texas (http://overlawyered.com/2005/01/marshall- > texas-patent-central/<http://overlawyered.com/2005/01/marshall-%0Atexas-patent-central/>) > to realize that the patent system, where it > concerns software or IT in general, is severely broken and hampers > innovation. > > I don't think anyone would dispute the intention of patents: to > protect inventors and offer them a chance to profit from their own, > original ideas. However, two important criteria for granting a patent > are that it's new (no prior art) and that it's non-obvious. And over > the past couple of years it's been pretty clear that the USPTO has > failed spectacularly in applying these criteria. Examples of > ridiculous patents that were granted by the USPTO are, unfortunately, > many. Some are even in the Apple vs. HTC case (the one for voltage > regulation, for instance, granted in 2008(!): > http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=tEaqAAAAEBAJ&dq=7,383,453). The > situation now is that the patent goes to the first person/company that > applies for it, regardless of whether or not they were actually > responsible for the patented invention, and seemingly regardless of > whether the patent actually makes any sense. To challenge that patent > then takes a lot of lawyers and a lot of money. This "grant first, ask > questions later" severely disadvantages smaller companies who don't > have the budget for lengthy legal proceedings. Hearing Joe talk was > like listening to someone who believes that the US patent system > actually works as intended, which is very hard to maintain. Yes, the > *idea* is good, but the execution is atrocious. > > The simple fact is that although companies still patent things they > actually invent, more often they simply apply for as many patents as > they can in the hopes that they will be granted. This has nothing to > do with stimulating innovation (the original intention of the patent > system), but with building a patent portfolio to use defensively > ("don't sue use, 'cause we'll sue you back"). That's fine, as long as > you don't actively sue other companies. Once you use ridiculously > broad patents, with lots of prior art, to sue other companies (as > Apple has done), then, in my opinion, you become a patent troll. You > are then basically practicing a legal form of extortion. > And yes, I realize it's all legal. But "legal" and "right" (in the > moral sense) are completely different things. I would defer to the > Dude in The Big Lebowski with his statement "you're not wrong Walter, > you're just an asshole". > > I would suggest that Joe read up on the patent debate before making > any more comments (try this for starters > http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7810.html). > Also, it'd be good is he wasn't so obviously biased towards Apple. > And I too would love to hear the posse interview a patent attorney. I > think it definitely falls within the scope of the podcast, as many > Java developers produce code that is eventually patented, either by > themselves or their companies. > > Regards, > Maarten > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
