About 15 years ago I was in a position to apply for a patent on the 'streaming webcam', live video over the internet. I found a way to stream video to netscapes new browser ('Navigator'), without using plug-ins.

I expressly did not do that because to me it was an obvious extension of being able to do 'stills'. After all, simply making it move does not require much ingenuity, merely a couple of nights of hard work.

Looking back I'm happy I didn't do that. I refused to 'play the game', even if it could have made me a boatload of money I still stand by that decision.

Whether google is a multinational or a one man shop, to apply for a patent simply because of scaling an existing algorithm up to 'cluster size' in my opinion is not the nicest thing. For them to 'grant' licenses like these and then to receive the kind of groveling gratitude present in that email in return is really disgusting.

It was good of you, but you have less of a risk of being sued than Google does. They need a war chest to negotiate with.

> you have less of a risk of being sued than Google does.

In fact, a company called Acacia tried just that. When they found out the parent company was European they lost interest.

So you have less of a risk than Google does?

I think so. European courts are generally (for the moment, at least) not too impressed by software patents, you'd have to have an iron clad one to make it stnad up in court here.

We don't have the equivalent of an 'eastern Texas district', where the courts are favorably impressed by anything that carries a patent office stamp.

At a certain point one needs to refuse to play an unethical game. Until then, everyone blames everyone else for their own unethical behavior.

Unfortunately this is only a strategy you can play before you float. Once the company ultimately relies on market value your primary strategy has to be to compete and you can only do that by making the playing field you chose to play on as level as possible.

I agree, to a point. This is the world we live in, and we all have to survive, preferably thrive.

Going along with wrongdoing, just because that's the way you make it in this world, is a reasonable strategy, sure. But when things are bad enough there is a time for ethical players to sacrifice for a greater purpose.

Each person, including board members and executives, is responsible for the ethics of their own actions and inaction. The "everyone was doing it" argument doesn't hold all that much water when it comes down to it. Everyone is doing a lot of things that I still must make a sacrifice of some sort to choose not to do due to ethics. My decisions are about who I am, not about who they are.

In this particular case, I believe "everyone is doing it" is a legitimate argument for participating in the patent system as-is. It's not the role of the patentee to decide what is patentable (or what should be patentable), it's the role of the legislative and judicial branch. Given a certain set of patentable concepts, it is the right and almost duty of those who come up with inventions by those definitions to participate in the patent process.

The most appropriate, ethical, behavior is to pursue patents within the current system while simultaneously working towards a better system whereby those patents would be deemed invalid. After all, this puts you in the position to give away the patents you've been granted for free, as Google has, if you truly feel they should not have been given to you in the first place.

Not really. Pinch & Zoom is a very basic gesture that any multitouch screen devices need. Then Apple came & just destroyed the game...