As I was browsing the web this week, as I often do, I was linked to the official website of X-Plane, one of the most advances flight simulators on the market. Here is the link:
http://www.x-plane.com/desktop/home/
If you click it, you may notice that you are greeted with a popup asking you to sign a petition to help them fight off "patent trolls" filing "frivolous lawsuits". Curious, I clicked to learn more.
It turns out that X-Plane's Android app is being sued along with a handful of other Android developers for using copy-protected patented technology owned by Uniloc corporation, who they claim didn't actually develop anything. As the website explains, "Holding a patent does not mean that you actually did anything, it onlyl means that you claim that you thought of something that you can sue other people for actually doing." They are right of course, but although it's easy to feel bad for them, one must ask oneself, "If X-Plane really thought of it first, why didn't THEY patent it?" or "why didn't they ask the patent owner for permission?"
Either way, it seems that situations like this surely "squash" innovation, as worded by a CBS news story about patent trolls. I don't want to blindly believe one side of this lawsuit without learning more about the other side as well, but it's interesting that there could be a dark underbelly to these situations.
You can learn more about the Uniloc lawsuit here: http://www.x-plane.com/x-world/lawsuit/
The irony of this situation is that neither company is a clear and definitive leader in flight simulation. There are a myriad of other companies coming out with virtual reality flight simulation that are worming their way into the playing field. Currently, Boeing, NASA, and a few of the other OEM's are battling over which software will reign supreme.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is always intuitive to check if someone else has a patent on an idea. I personally have had a few creative ideas and before taking this class I would not have considered if the idea would have already been patented. I guess I need to be a little more wary.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a great example of why patents in the software world are inhibiting innovation. I imagine that the opposition to this argument would be that patent "trolls" are actually championing the original function of patents. Also, another interesting question is how the patent system can be changed or modified for fast-paced industries.
ReplyDeleteIf Uniloc really didn't make anything, and just had a patent on the idea, then they shouldn't even be allowed to sue. They're just using the patent system to make money by suing legitimate developers, which is not the intended purpose of patents. In my opinion, the only way patents should be used is if you have an idea and a product using that idea, and someone copies your idea to make a competing product. Then and only then should you be able to sue someone for infringing upon your patent. Also, to prevent things like this from happening in the future, patent holders should be required to show a product that they've created that utilizes the patent, otherwise they'd have no basis for a lawsuit and shouldn't be allowed to sue.
ReplyDeleteWhile I try to think patents and enforcement of them exist to create challenges to today's inventors and promote further creativity drive, recently they are becoming rather pernickety. Especially when in comes to software, since once put on the internet can be accessed by everyone in the world, a lot of detail and attention are necessary, and one needs to be careful of what defines something "new" and different from others.
ReplyDelete