Welcome to enterprise software, you must be new here.
The big ERP vendors have armies of lawyers and patents that can stymie and delay any IP claims from smaller firms. At the same time, SAP has active relationships with all the customers who matter, and the SAP brand still carries weight, so their version of the product will almost always win a big chunk of market share, despite being inferior.
The only reason there were consequences for SAP in this case is because they stole from Oracle; who invented this playbook.
Distribution trumps all in the enterprise space. If you have the distribution you can sell complete garbage for the price of gold, while sucker upstarts make quality products and live off crumbs.
100% the amount of garbage product I have seen corporations buy is astounding cough Informatica cough.
I have also never seen a piece of enterprise software that does half of what a VP was promised it would do.
DeepL translation [0] of the submitted article [1]:
Software company SAP - With data theft to the top of the world?
12.11.2021 11:00 a.m., by Tim Bartz and Christian Bergmann, MDR
According to research by Fakt and "Der Spiegel," the theft of intellectual property by SAP could have a long tradition. As early as 1997 to 2008, the company allegedly misused competitors' developments in cooperation with universities.
Newly surfaced internal documents cast a dark shadow over the software company SAP, its management and supervisory board. According to research by the ARD magazine Fakt and "Der Spiegel," the picture of a company that apparently also tricked its way to the top of the world with unfair methods, especially theft of intellectual property, is emerging.
The events date back to the 1990s and are recorded in an expert report by the law firm Linklaters from 2010. The report was commissioned by SAP itself.
The background to this was the legal dispute with Oracle at the time. The U.S. archrival had sued SAP in 2007 because the Germans had gained access to copyrighted files from Oracle servers through the acquisition of the software service provider TomorrowNow. In a settlement, SAP later had to pay Oracle $357 million in damages.
The Linklaters expert opinion was intended to clarify whether liability claims exist against the then executive board member Gerhard Oswald - Oswald was responsible for the TomorrowNow acquisition. The document contains numerous indications that Oswald and one of his employees knew about copyright infringements. In addition, the SAP Executive Board under CEO Henning Kagermann at the time allegedly approved everything.
However, the company's top management did not draw any conclusions from the report. Oswald was even promoted, although the Linklaters lawyers had recommended that he be parted with "without making any noise". Oswald, a confidant of SAP founder and major shareholder Dietmar Hopp, remained on the executive board until 2016 and has been on the supervisory board since 2019.
Dubious cooperation between University of Mannheim and SAP
Fakt and "Spiegel" also report on a dubious cooperation between SAP and the University of Mannheim starting in 1997, in which Oswald again played a central role. This is also the subject of the report. Officially, the purpose of the cooperation was to have competing software examined by an independent institute, in this case the Business Informatics Research Group at the University of Mannheim. In fact, SAP employees spied on the competition under the guise of the cooperation. Even interventions by the legal department, the compliance team and the auditing department were largely ignored.
According to information from Fakt and "Spiegel," SAP went all the way to the German Constitutional Court to prevent the Mannheim public prosecutor's office from using the report as evidence in an investigation against SAP executives for copyright infringement. Officials had come across the document in 2011 during a raid on the company's headquarters.
Germany's highest court did not accept the constitutional complaint at the time. The criminal proceedings against the board members were dropped at the end of 2017, but SAP had to pay 250,000 euros to the state treasury.
SAP said on request that the copyright infringements by TomorrowNow had been the subject of the proceedings with Oracle, which were settled amicably and had been concluded. The events surrounding the University of Mannheim had been comprehensively processed internally. The protection of intellectual property is the foundation of all SAP solutions.
German media seem to have a peculiar relationship with companies in their own country. Wirecard was hyped up by everyone, even when well-founded doubts were raised abroad. And now they are sawing SAP's leg. What are we to believe now?
That argument may work in a first-year philosophy essay or—equivalently—a post on medium, but something tells me it's not going to hold up in a court, regardless of jurisdiction.
In this context we can exclude `trademark`. Also `copyright` is quite unlikely, too.
So it's probably mostly patent impingement.
And I think we all know how:
- large cooperation infringe on patents of
smaller ones without relevant consequences
all the time
- there is an endless number of complete absurd
patents wrt. software. The patent system in
context of software is fundamentally broken.
- due to the US patent system being even more broken
then the German one (was at the time the article
refers to) the infringed patent might not even have
been a valid patent.
But what of this points apply to this specific case I don't know.
The only thing that really bothers me about this case is that disregarding IP law is a privilege that you can buy by hiring an army of lawyers. I wish that problematic laws could be ignored equally by all players.
but the substance which is owned (the property) is not material; yet here we are pretending like it is so that people can 'earn a living' for selling the work done by computers.
The term was coined by people who benefit when people confuse the two. It's like the "resin identification code" symbol which was crafted to be easily confused with the "recyclable" symbol--disinformation.
Fewer examples of malicious design are as succinct as the resin identification code. It fooled almost everybody for a while.
I wish there were a charity I could donate to that finds companies that engaging in that sort of behavior and sabotages their bottom line in nonviolent ways. If you can convince me that you'll hurt 'em to the tune of $10 for every $1 of mine, I'll have a couple hundred for you.
If you spent a few years of your life coming up with a new way of doing something, and a company saw the details of your idea and got to market before you and never acknowledged you or your work, leaving you with no way to earn a living from your idea, what would you call that? Should that be illegal?
"If you spent a few years of your life ... got to market before you and never acknowledged you or your work, leaving you with no way to earn a living from your idea, what would you call that? "
Being a scientist. Or working in academia. Net worth of greatest scientific minds in history, like Einstein or Heisenberg was less than that of average software dev, let alone bankers/businessmen.
At most you can hope to get a Noble Prize, but your discoveries of nuclear physics or quantum mechanics are unpatentable. Fist the journals make money by selling your work, then the companies do, you generally get nothing.
but this is where the Western ideas of an individual really start to show their limits.. Those careers are (were?) also surrounded physically by social and literal safety. It is an unsafe world! The benefits of being committed and embedded are undeniable, yet many prefer adventure and risk. In good times, the safety seems "boring"; when economics or social circumstances change a lot, safety takes on new importance.
I think you're onto something there. As a practical matter, the cynical "IP is only for big corporations" is probably right. But that's just an extension of, "the courts are only for the rich". At least here in the US, aside from the occasional (OK, more than occasional) personal injury case undertaken by lawyers on contingency, getting "justice" through the courts is prohibitively expensive for at least 4/5ths of the public. Only the very top of that upper quintile has anything like the resources necessary to go up against anyone wealthier like SAP, Oracle or Google. So yeah, it is an unsafe world and most of us go out into it completely vulnerable. No how rugged an individual you are, you're going to get crushed. That's why extreme individualism is ultimately a dead end for all but the wealthiest (which is to say, the luckiest), few.
If you spent a few years of your life coming up with a plan to rob a bank, and someone just happens to have a look at your plan and rob the bank at your place and never acknowledged you or your work, leaving you with no way to earn a living from your plan to rob a bank, what would you call that ? Should that be illegal ?
So SAP as a "big cooperate" software concern isn't better then the other "big cooperate" software concerns.
I know that is a bit sarcastic, but not only is IP theft of big software concerns pretty common (the article makes it look like a sensation, a bit (bad) surprise).
But at the same time IP law is often so broken that you could say probably every larger software out there does somehow infringe on some IP.
So without having details is naught impossible to say if it's IP theft which should be IP theft, or IP theft which is only IP theft due to broken laws, and might also not be judged as IP theft after going through a expensive many year law-suite.
And the article fails to lay down why it's the former (ethical questionable IP theft) instead of the later (ethical questionable IP claims).
Through I wouldn't be surprising if it is ethical questionable IP theft.
But I would even be less surprised if it a mixture of both.
(roughly ~ Investigate the software of the competition.)
is in the article made to sound bad, dodgy borderline illegal (and maybe was).
But then investigating the marked and your competition is one of the most fundamental practices when it comes to competing on the marked as a large cooperation...
The word "Untersuchen" doesn't contain any notation about into how much detail you go into. It can be used in pretty much any context where you "look into something" from marked research to reverse engineering.
Which brings us to the point that the article is missing details relevant for doing a judgement yourself, instead it does a judgement for you and then expect you to adapt that judgement without questioning it.
For example the article could have stated that the students investigated the inner workings of the competitors software, it doesn't. It just states that the uni did some research into the competitors software, without stating the depth of the research and kind of research they did into it. (E.g. they could have research usability of "xxx software solutions" across the marked (including SAP) with SAP using that to gain a upper hand (== marked research), or they could have researched how "subset of xxx software solutions" handle case Y internally (== not-just marked research).)
I guess. Seems like a pretty big hole in one’s industry knowledge. SAP is the largest non-US software company and one of the largest in ERP software and services.
Alle Unternehmen stehlen Ideen von jungen Studenten voller Hoffnungen und Träume. Sehr heuchlerisch aber auch sehr lustig, dass diese Nachrichten gerade jetzt herauskommen...
The possibility of losing and having to pay for all of those corporate lawyers in addition to one's own lawyers seems like an even bigger disincentive to me. What am I missing?
Unfortunately, <MegaCorp> has the ability to send dozens of lawyers at the case, billing them into the millions. You are a small company that happens to have your idea stolen. Even if you are sure that you would win, would you still do it ? If you lose, not only is your idea theirs, but your company is now millions in debts. Why could they win ? Most likely because of the dozens of lawyers they have, that are very likely extremely used to whatever tribunal you may have picked, and can find the smallest flaw in your suit.
Yes, you only take action once you're sure you're right and you'll win--that's the beauty.
Currently, if you're up against megacorp, you're almost literally betting the farm and you're almost guaranteed to go bankrupt because big Corp will try to make you go bankrupt before you win anything.
Loser-pays, you actually have a chance to not go bankrupt, because the big Corp will be paying. The lawyers on your side will know this and if they're able to do economic + probabilistic reasoning, they realize that even though you're out of money, big corp is their real payer and thus they can keep fighting.
Each lawyer is constantly evaluating the probability that the loser can pay and thus driving toward quick settlement.
Exactly, but if your lawyers believe your case, they'll keep fighting for you because the big corp will be footing the bill. As it currently stands, legal actions need to be taken to seek recompense from losing parties and frequently only some of the expenses may be recovered.
The game theory calculus changes dramatically. You only enter lawsuits where you're pretty sure you'd win and you convince the lawyers on your side too. If the lawyers know they're getting paid, they don't care how big your pockets are, they only care how big the probable loser's pockets are. This also discourages trying to bankrupt your opponent when you know you're going lose, because you're digging your own hole. No point going to trial and racking up expense, if every action is really digging your own grave, so encourages settling when the facts are fully known.
Ultimately, it seems to align incentives with actual justice, rather than punitive legal action. I imagine it would drastically change how litigious America is.
Intellectual Property is a dumb idea, a legacy of thousands of years of exclusive (physically unique) markets of goods (i.e. making copies is expensive).
Digital artifacts require a new non-exclusive property market scheme (to be determined; it's a difficult problem). Enforcing the older paradigm with laws and coercion is not a long term solution.
Agreed. I would add that 'Intellectual property' is mostly postmodern nonsense. No different than calling our bits 'Digital Gold' and proceeding to construct legislation based on the proton configuration of said bits.
I think that the problem is that patent law allows for broad software concepts that have never been implemented. And it ignores differences in implementation.
Can you imagine if copyright law allowed for things as broad as: “A novel or series of novels where a boy is educated at a school for wizards”. That’s what amazons 1-click patent was like. It was more or less: we will allow a client device to send both a product id and a user id by clicking a button, that will then cause a purchase to be made for that product and client. That patent caused something as trivial as “buy now” to be locked up by Amazon for years.
This isn't a commentary on patent law or I.P. which I find mostly absurd, but did the 1-click patent actually have any impact on reality? I remember the internet lighting up with rage about how stupid and obvious it was.
I don't recall e-commerce being hamstrung by it. Do you have any more information on some cases where the patent was actually leveraged?
This problem has already been "solved". In drug companies, making new a drug is extremely expensive, but once you have the formula, it is (usually) very cheap to produce. So the government gives the maker of a new drug a patent for some number of years. Enough to milk the formula for cash, while still forcing innovation once it expires and rest of the companies start making it. These patents also prevent derivative works.
The problem with intellectual property (I might be mixing copyright and intellectual property here, if I am, my apologies) is that by preventing derivative works while also having a near infinite lifespan, it absolutely crushes any kind of creative innovation. IMO the lifespan of intellectual property should be 40-50 years, reduced when going to market, similar to how drug patents work. This lets smaller creators who don't have the vast war chests of literal drug companies to make a good living off of it, while still allowing for innovation for the next (or next next) generation.
The REAL problem is that Disney and such have been lobbying for extending copyright and IP protections. I think we're up to nearly 100 years now.
I think of "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" as the oldest set of franchise characters and I'm amazed at how many movies have been made from Les Liases Dangereuses.
Without the "only we can make it" factor, studios with the budget to market them would be less compelled to make and market them. Sure, anyone could make another Spiderman movie, but at least I wouldn't have to hear about it.
Could you explain more? I was mainly thinking of the small creator who might bang out one or two great works over a lifetime when I was considering the 40-50 year lifespan, reduced when going to market. Wouldn't 10 years be too short?
It's well established that patents work for drugs in the sense that drug companies make a tremendous investment in developing drugs.
For other things the case is less clear.
For instance fighting between Curtis Aircraft and the Wright Brothers held back the U.S. Aircraft industry for a decade until the Government saw it being a crisis in WWI.
Most countries you could think off operate within PCT laws.
While I had heard about the Mickey Mouse treaty I never dug into it too much, there are different patent for different stuff I think the personal protection characters that are the face of something (like Mickey Mouse) are some of the most outrageous long term patent.
But for technology most patent only last 20 years and while I won't get into the nitty gritty of how patent protection works its mostly done to protect big companies from spending alot of money on RnD and then having there competitors steal the done invention and profit from it.
Big techs are in general lenient when a pop a mom shop infringes on an ip within the 20 years period.
Just wanted to clear things up, most inventions that you guys could think up that would be patentable are only for 20 years not 100.
> So the government gives the maker of a new drug a patent for some number of years.
Noob question:
Why aren't patents treated like govt issued licenses, leases?
Want exclusive use of airwaves, water, mining, catchy song, clever idea, whatever? Terrific. Pay up.
Set the price at just over reasonable. To prevent people from frivolously camping on stuff to exclude others from using it.
Economists are smart about setting price. Auctions for stuff that's hard to price (airwaves). Boilerplate for bog standard stuff (trademarks, songs). Whatever works. With some clever veto points to thwart regulatory capture.
40-50 years in software is an eternity, it should be MUCH lower than that like 10-15. There is zero reason that Windows 3.1, Windows 95, and Windows 98 should be protected by any copyright/patent at this point. All of those should be in the public domain by now.
Drugs are a bad example. There exists no free market for drugs. When the choices are buy a patented drug or die, then the price becomes unethical very quickly.
You have this backwards. Making copies is cheap, especially in the digital realm; that's why copyright law restricts the market for copies. If anything, copyright law is forward thinking and anticipated copying getting cheaper over time.
There's really no need for a "non-exclusive property market scheme"[0] either. The whole point of restricting copying is to make money move out of your wallet and to publishers and creators. The problem we have is that the copyright monopoly lasts far longer than what's needed to pay for the production of new creative works, so we're rewarding ownership of existing ones which is contrary to the point of the law.
[0] I'm assuming this is code for something akin to, but not exactly like, NFTs.
That's what the flagged GP said, in transliterated Hindi, which Google translate gave to me, and which I liked so much that's I started it here, and the circle closes itself, except the GP gut flagged... Oh my...
At the same time, I'm pretty familiar with the case of patent troll (OK, maybe not a full patent troll in the complete sense in that they did have a selling product at one time, but a troll in the sense that the patent was complete bullshit) where SAP lost a $400 million dollar patent lawsuit (surprise surprise, in Eastern Texas jurisdiction), appealed it all the way to the SCOTUS who declined to hear it, settled with Versata, the patent troll, and then the original patent was declared invalid [1]. Must be nice to have collected major coin on a patent that's not even valid.
Point is that at this level there is tons of corporate IP bullshit going around, it's basically a required part of playing the game.
The entire patent system is ridiculous. Every new idea is a tiny little increment on the vast mountain of human knowledge. No one should own it and prevent others from building further structures on top of that.
Everyone here on HN knows that ideas are worthless and execution is everything.
Don't patent drive innovation though? Companies must find alternatives to compete instead of copying everything from the industry leader. Other than that I agree that patents are ridiculous.
I'm pretty sure there are multiples of movies made about Apple's journey that you may be interested in. As for Google, do you recall from the last 20 years any of the complaints about SEO fairness, AMP drama, Chrome monopoly, etc?
This feels like a bait question because the answers are so obvious.
I don't think any of those obviously match any of the categories that the parent comment mentioned. It's even less clear that any of them were central to the success.
well, you are outing yourself as one who doesn’t recognize reality. now, if you are getting a paycheck from google, fine, feed yourself and your family. otherwise you’re a shill dude. live it, love it, waste the only life you have. your choice good for you. like heroin, but more profitable and not as fun.
What do you mean? Search generates more money than the rest of Google together. Through ads, yes, but Google search could run ads even without the rest of Google. Nothing else Google does generates nearly as much ROI as search, just that they can't invest more into search since they already got the entire market there so they do other things like putting countless hours into optimizing those search ads.
How is Chrome a monopoly? Google made a good browser and customers chose it over other alternatives. Now you can argue that chrome isn't a god browser. But that's your opinion. People are voting with their feet. Does google have an obligation to make their browser suck?
I think it was declared legal time and time again? I'm familiar with at least a couple image-related lawsuits where they came out on top.
The bigger issue is that website owners have become increasingly hostile to crawling, and that's effectively closed the door behind Google, because that's when it starts getting more legally contentious. Which is why I think they should be forced to open up their crawl to everyone, so that we can have meaningful competition in the indexing/search space.
I’m simplifying things greatly here, but TSMC was founded by a man who took his US semiconductor experience to Taiwan and got his initial fab partially bankrolled by the Taiwanese government to get it off the ground. Personally, I’d say that counts as unfair advantage.
He took knowledge he gained as part of his employment to Taiwan. Was there any allegation of IP theft or are you saying everything you learn when working for an employer stays with the employer..that you can never use that knowledge at your next job. Figured out how to build a CI/CD pipeline for BIGCO1? Can't use that knowledge at BIGCO2..
I did not say that at all and I'm disappointed you would jump straight into a straw man argument. The parent comment and mine are about unfair advantage, not about IP theft. If you take your years of industry insider experience and start a company that directly competes with your previous employer, under the patronage of an entity that other people don't have access to, you have an unfair advantage in comparison to your would-be startup competitors. And that's the whole point of this particular comment thread - many successful companies had some kind of unfair advantage they were able to leverage to gain market position.
Also, as a side note, knowing how to build basic software tools is not even remotely comparable to having the extremely specialized knowledge required to build a microchip fab.
Taiwan was, and is to a lesser degree these days, also highly patronistic in terms of you needing to know people to get that kind of government support. That kind of corruption was why the locals were protesting and organizing against the KMT in 1947 and still echoes today in a wide investment gap between northern and southern Taiwan.
Morris Chang may be a great guy but he was directly recruited by an authoritarian government that was still operating under martial law, and that absolutely was not an option available to most Taiwanese.
You could easily argue they both did and do. Raw materials (see Cobalt mining in DRC as example) for semiconductors are tracible to mines throughout central Africa and South America that use child slave labor. Visa/Mastercard uses computers, which have semiconductors, which use slave labor as seen above, so they too use slave labor. It just depends how far you want to set the scope of the argument but you could easily trace all companies in all developed countries to slave labor arguments similar to the above.
There are many winner-take-all markets where dominance by a single firm makes complete economic sense ('natural monopolies'). In such a scenario it doesn't really matter which firm takes the lead: one of them will end up on top and it doesn't have to be through foul means - the self-reinforcing dynamics of the market are enough.
This is the point that has definitely become super apparent to me in the last decade or so. It's not that companies have to be evil or fraudulent, but usually the companies that "win" end up being the most aggressive, and then there are just a ton of positive feedback loops that make the company with the slight lead even stronger. All people (potential employees, potential execs, VC firms) want to go with the winner, so as soon as one firm starts to pull away from the pack it becomes much easier for the firm to attract the best talent and funding.
And convincing countries to give you monopoly on various things, and to wielding power over countries to make them pressure other countries to do the same.
SAP is also a big conglomerate full of aquisitions that shouldn't be tainted with this...
In the 90's I worked at Seagate Software in Vancouver, BC, which made Crystal Reports (A million readers just either felt a wave of nostalgia or a shudder of disgust).
Seagate Software became Crystal Decisions, got acquired by Business Objects, which got acquired by SAP.
I wonder how much of the SAP work in Vancouver today is still on something related to Crystal Reports...
There is nothing wrong with "intellectual property" "theft", it overwhelmingly benefits everyone BUT the western multinational megacorporations, so I wholeheartedly support "intellectual property" appropriation.
125 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 177 ms ] threadThe big ERP vendors have armies of lawyers and patents that can stymie and delay any IP claims from smaller firms. At the same time, SAP has active relationships with all the customers who matter, and the SAP brand still carries weight, so their version of the product will almost always win a big chunk of market share, despite being inferior.
The only reason there were consequences for SAP in this case is because they stole from Oracle; who invented this playbook.
Software company SAP - With data theft to the top of the world?
12.11.2021 11:00 a.m., by Tim Bartz and Christian Bergmann, MDR
According to research by Fakt and "Der Spiegel," the theft of intellectual property by SAP could have a long tradition. As early as 1997 to 2008, the company allegedly misused competitors' developments in cooperation with universities.
Newly surfaced internal documents cast a dark shadow over the software company SAP, its management and supervisory board. According to research by the ARD magazine Fakt and "Der Spiegel," the picture of a company that apparently also tricked its way to the top of the world with unfair methods, especially theft of intellectual property, is emerging.
The events date back to the 1990s and are recorded in an expert report by the law firm Linklaters from 2010. The report was commissioned by SAP itself.
The background to this was the legal dispute with Oracle at the time. The U.S. archrival had sued SAP in 2007 because the Germans had gained access to copyrighted files from Oracle servers through the acquisition of the software service provider TomorrowNow. In a settlement, SAP later had to pay Oracle $357 million in damages.
The Linklaters expert opinion was intended to clarify whether liability claims exist against the then executive board member Gerhard Oswald - Oswald was responsible for the TomorrowNow acquisition. The document contains numerous indications that Oswald and one of his employees knew about copyright infringements. In addition, the SAP Executive Board under CEO Henning Kagermann at the time allegedly approved everything.
However, the company's top management did not draw any conclusions from the report. Oswald was even promoted, although the Linklaters lawyers had recommended that he be parted with "without making any noise". Oswald, a confidant of SAP founder and major shareholder Dietmar Hopp, remained on the executive board until 2016 and has been on the supervisory board since 2019.
Dubious cooperation between University of Mannheim and SAP
Fakt and "Spiegel" also report on a dubious cooperation between SAP and the University of Mannheim starting in 1997, in which Oswald again played a central role. This is also the subject of the report. Officially, the purpose of the cooperation was to have competing software examined by an independent institute, in this case the Business Informatics Research Group at the University of Mannheim. In fact, SAP employees spied on the competition under the guise of the cooperation. Even interventions by the legal department, the compliance team and the auditing department were largely ignored.
According to information from Fakt and "Spiegel," SAP went all the way to the German Constitutional Court to prevent the Mannheim public prosecutor's office from using the report as evidence in an investigation against SAP executives for copyright infringement. Officials had come across the document in 2011 during a raid on the company's headquarters.
Germany's highest court did not accept the constitutional complaint at the time. The criminal proceedings against the board members were dropped at the end of 2017, but SAP had to pay 250,000 euros to the state treasury.
SAP said on request that the copyright infringements by TomorrowNow had been the subject of the proceedings with Oracle, which were settled amicably and had been concluded. The events surrounding the University of Mannheim had been comprehensively processed internally. The protection of intellectual property is the foundation of all SAP solutions.
[0] https://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
[1] https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/mdr/sap-geistiges-eig...
- copyright
- trademark
- patent
Which are legitimate legal constructs in their own right, but they're not property. In this case, I think we're talking about patent infringement.
So long as both jurisdictions have agreed to recognize each other's patent laws, it may still be just as illegal as theft.
Whether it's as immoral as theft is a different sort of thing (I say it isn't, which is why I nitpick like this).
So it's probably mostly patent impingement.
And I think we all know how:
- large cooperation infringe on patents of smaller ones without relevant consequences all the time
- there is an endless number of complete absurd patents wrt. software. The patent system in context of software is fundamentally broken.
- due to the US patent system being even more broken then the German one (was at the time the article refers to) the infringed patent might not even have been a valid patent.
But what of this points apply to this specific case I don't know.
The only thing that really bothers me about this case is that disregarding IP law is a privilege that you can buy by hiring an army of lawyers. I wish that problematic laws could be ignored equally by all players.
I wish there were a charity I could donate to that finds companies that engaging in that sort of behavior and sabotages their bottom line in nonviolent ways. If you can convince me that you'll hurt 'em to the tune of $10 for every $1 of mine, I'll have a couple hundred for you.
Being a scientist. Or working in academia. Net worth of greatest scientific minds in history, like Einstein or Heisenberg was less than that of average software dev, let alone bankers/businessmen.
At most you can hope to get a Noble Prize, but your discoveries of nuclear physics or quantum mechanics are unpatentable. Fist the journals make money by selling your work, then the companies do, you generally get nothing.
I know that is a bit sarcastic, but not only is IP theft of big software concerns pretty common (the article makes it look like a sensation, a bit (bad) surprise).
But at the same time IP law is often so broken that you could say probably every larger software out there does somehow infringe on some IP.
So without having details is naught impossible to say if it's IP theft which should be IP theft, or IP theft which is only IP theft due to broken laws, and might also not be judged as IP theft after going through a expensive many year law-suite.
And the article fails to lay down why it's the former (ethical questionable IP theft) instead of the later (ethical questionable IP claims).
Through I wouldn't be surprising if it is ethical questionable IP theft.
But I would even be less surprised if it a mixture of both.
> konkurrenzsoftware [..] untersuchen zu lassen
(roughly ~ Investigate the software of the competition.)
is in the article made to sound bad, dodgy borderline illegal (and maybe was).
But then investigating the marked and your competition is one of the most fundamental practices when it comes to competing on the marked as a large cooperation...
Which brings us to the point that the article is missing details relevant for doing a judgement yourself, instead it does a judgement for you and then expect you to adapt that judgement without questioning it.
For example the article could have stated that the students investigated the inner workings of the competitors software, it doesn't. It just states that the uni did some research into the competitors software, without stating the depth of the research and kind of research they did into it. (E.g. they could have research usability of "xxx software solutions" across the marked (including SAP) with SAP using that to gain a upper hand (== marked research), or they could have researched how "subset of xxx software solutions" handle case Y internally (== not-just marked research).)
Reverse-engineering is not illegal (at least in Germany, to my knowledge).
Up until like 2 years ago or something reverse engineering was only legal for interoperability purposes AFAIK.
I still remember a few years ago half of HN have never heard of SAP.
Aka, big companies are full of c*p!
Currently, if you're up against megacorp, you're almost literally betting the farm and you're almost guaranteed to go bankrupt because big Corp will try to make you go bankrupt before you win anything.
Loser-pays, you actually have a chance to not go bankrupt, because the big Corp will be paying. The lawyers on your side will know this and if they're able to do economic + probabilistic reasoning, they realize that even though you're out of money, big corp is their real payer and thus they can keep fighting.
Each lawyer is constantly evaluating the probability that the loser can pay and thus driving toward quick settlement.
Ultimately, it seems to align incentives with actual justice, rather than punitive legal action. I imagine it would drastically change how litigious America is.
Digital artifacts require a new non-exclusive property market scheme (to be determined; it's a difficult problem). Enforcing the older paradigm with laws and coercion is not a long term solution.
Unrestricted copying would discourage quite a few projects being started due to not having any chance to recoup investment.
While IP may be a flawed tool at times, it still is a useful tool.
https://cepr.net/report/the-artistic-freedom-voucher-interne...
Can you imagine if copyright law allowed for things as broad as: “A novel or series of novels where a boy is educated at a school for wizards”. That’s what amazons 1-click patent was like. It was more or less: we will allow a client device to send both a product id and a user id by clicking a button, that will then cause a purchase to be made for that product and client. That patent caused something as trivial as “buy now” to be locked up by Amazon for years.
I don't recall e-commerce being hamstrung by it. Do you have any more information on some cases where the patent was actually leveraged?
The problem with intellectual property (I might be mixing copyright and intellectual property here, if I am, my apologies) is that by preventing derivative works while also having a near infinite lifespan, it absolutely crushes any kind of creative innovation. IMO the lifespan of intellectual property should be 40-50 years, reduced when going to market, similar to how drug patents work. This lets smaller creators who don't have the vast war chests of literal drug companies to make a good living off of it, while still allowing for innovation for the next (or next next) generation.
The REAL problem is that Disney and such have been lobbying for extending copyright and IP protections. I think we're up to nearly 100 years now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
We might get more cross overs too (x men vs teen titans)
For the most part Disney has done a good job with Marvel films, and one can easily find many "arthouse" films which are just awful.
Yet, for an author, the real money is in the film rights. If they are commercially motivated, the books themselves are an afterthought.
For other things the case is less clear.
For instance fighting between Curtis Aircraft and the Wright Brothers held back the U.S. Aircraft industry for a decade until the Government saw it being a crisis in WWI.
Patents in tech from what I know are valid for 20 years and that includes all countries that operate with PCT (patent cooperation treaty)
https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/
Most countries you could think off operate within PCT laws.
While I had heard about the Mickey Mouse treaty I never dug into it too much, there are different patent for different stuff I think the personal protection characters that are the face of something (like Mickey Mouse) are some of the most outrageous long term patent.
But for technology most patent only last 20 years and while I won't get into the nitty gritty of how patent protection works its mostly done to protect big companies from spending alot of money on RnD and then having there competitors steal the done invention and profit from it.
Big techs are in general lenient when a pop a mom shop infringes on an ip within the 20 years period.
Just wanted to clear things up, most inventions that you guys could think up that would be patentable are only for 20 years not 100.
Noob question:
Why aren't patents treated like govt issued licenses, leases?
Want exclusive use of airwaves, water, mining, catchy song, clever idea, whatever? Terrific. Pay up.
Set the price at just over reasonable. To prevent people from frivolously camping on stuff to exclude others from using it.
Economists are smart about setting price. Auctions for stuff that's hard to price (airwaves). Boilerplate for bog standard stuff (trademarks, songs). Whatever works. With some clever veto points to thwart regulatory capture.
There's really no need for a "non-exclusive property market scheme"[0] either. The whole point of restricting copying is to make money move out of your wallet and to publishers and creators. The problem we have is that the copyright monopoly lasts far longer than what's needed to pay for the production of new creative works, so we're rewarding ownership of existing ones which is contrary to the point of the law.
[0] I'm assuming this is code for something akin to, but not exactly like, NFTs.
In German.
"कोनसे भाषा में लिखे है ये आर्टिकल?"
Point is that at this level there is tons of corporate IP bullshit going around, it's basically a required part of playing the game.
1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sap-se-versata-patent-idU...
Everyone here on HN knows that ideas are worthless and execution is everything.
None of them are there on merit.
This feels like a bait question because the answers are so obvious.
How is Chrome a monopoly? Google made a good browser and customers chose it over other alternatives. Now you can argue that chrome isn't a god browser. But that's your opinion. People are voting with their feet. Does google have an obligation to make their browser suck?
The bigger issue is that website owners have become increasingly hostile to crawling, and that's effectively closed the door behind Google, because that's when it starts getting more legally contentious. Which is why I think they should be forced to open up their crawl to everyone, so that we can have meaningful competition in the indexing/search space.
Visa/Mastercard are the world leaders in payment processing. Were they "breaking laws, fraud, stealing technology or slave labour"?
He took knowledge he gained as part of his employment to Taiwan. Was there any allegation of IP theft or are you saying everything you learn when working for an employer stays with the employer..that you can never use that knowledge at your next job. Figured out how to build a CI/CD pipeline for BIGCO1? Can't use that knowledge at BIGCO2..
Also, as a side note, knowing how to build basic software tools is not even remotely comparable to having the extremely specialized knowledge required to build a microchip fab.
Morris Chang may be a great guy but he was directly recruited by an authoritarian government that was still operating under martial law, and that absolutely was not an option available to most Taiwanese.
In the 90's I worked at Seagate Software in Vancouver, BC, which made Crystal Reports (A million readers just either felt a wave of nostalgia or a shudder of disgust).
Seagate Software became Crystal Decisions, got acquired by Business Objects, which got acquired by SAP.
I wonder how much of the SAP work in Vancouver today is still on something related to Crystal Reports...