The Rise of Android and why it could be about to Crumble

As a consumer, I understand people don’t like the prices of things being higher because of patent fees, but seems like the crux of this story is that Microsoft and Apple ( and others ) invested in the mobile phone market early and developed something innovative. Isn’t that the point of the patent system and, if Microsoft if making money off those innovations, isn’t that fair. If some “little” guy out there had developed the same thing, I think people would be pulling for them.

Perhaps the real unfairness in the system is that there is some “little” guy out there that had the same ideas ( and maybe even patents ), but not the resources to play the patent litigation game (often called the sport of kings in the legal world because it is so expensive )

ipwatchdog wrote an interesting article outlining what congress ought to do in 2011 ( http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/16/patent-legislative-agenda-what-congress-should-do-in-2011/id=14381/ ) Their proposed agenda is probably too much, but doing something to make the process speed up seems like it would help everyone ( except maybe us patent attorneys that charge by the hour )

Found this excellent analysis of what may come at in this Commentary by John A. Squires and Duane R. Valz

I think most assume the machine or transformation test at least will stick around, but you never know. Seems like some see the patent system as a thing of the past and want to limit it out of existence. I, for one , wish they could reorient the system to fit more with modern technology, but think we need a system to reward the innovators. This is especially true in the technology field where information flows so freely that trade secrets just don’t suffice.

“Given the realities that software source code is human readable, and object code can be reverse engineered, it is difficult for software developers to resort to secrecy. Thus, without patent protection, the incentives to innovate in the field of software are significantly reduced. Patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code on a patentee’s terms – which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development.”

IBM is a patent machine, so their opinion is always interesting to watch. I know many think the argument is weak, but in a world without patents, everything becomes about secrecy because the only protection you have is to keep it secret. Certainly the open source movement suffers in a world of secrecy.

Although I found reading the comments the more fascinating part.

First, one of the big complaints is about the time frames in the process. I think people on both sides agree the time frames don’t match the reality of the computer world. It takes 5 years to get a patent ( in which case it is obsolete ) and then you get it for 20 years ( in which case it is of little value after that ). Seems like people should get together and work on that.

Secondly, why is it that everyone has no problem with other innovative industries having patents but rail against software. Ultimately, an innovator will be more motivated to innovate if they will benefit from the innovation. I do a lot of cutting edge software development and I like the idea of personally benefiting from that effort. See Are Software Patents Evil? in my guide on software patents for a more eloquent version of this.

Seems like real problems are the technicalities of the system as applied to software and not the idea of rewarding innovation in and of itself.

See attached Zakta Guides for some more resources