$4.5 B. Nortel Bid Shows the Disastrous State of Software Patents • Hacker News Board

Re: $4.5 B. Nortel Bid Shows the Disastrous State of Software Patents

#11

Post by monochromatic » Fri, Jul 01, 2011, 3:59 PM UTC

Produce wrote: post #9

larrik wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if these patents were say, automotive in nature, and a coalition of automotive companies bought them for 4.5 billion, would we immediately jump to the conclusion that automotive patents are bad? I wouldn't (necessarily). I have to agree with the parent comment.

>if these patents were say, automotive in nature, and a coalition of automotive companies bought them for 4.5 billion, would we immediately jump to the conclusion that automotive patents are bad? Without going too deep into a philosophical discussion, I think that the competitive nature of our society is hindering progress more than anything else. When people learn to build social structures based on cooperation (I c…

Exactly. Look at all the productivity increases that the USSR saw. No bread lines there. Nope.

Re: $4.5 B. Nortel Bid Shows the Disastrous State of Software Patents

#12

Post by monochromatic » Fri, Jul 01, 2011, 4:04 PM UTC

inkaudio wrote: post #5

monochromatic wrote: post #2

This article is awfully thin. It doesn't give any argument whatsoever for why software patents are not a good thing. Here's a summary: 1. Google, Microsoft, Apple, RIM, and Sony are willing to pay a lot of money for a bundle of patents, including both software and hardware. 2. Therefore, software patents are evil and a tax on innovation, rabble rabble rabble. It's not much of a syllogism.

The argument is simple, not thin. Instead of spending billions on new R&D, new innovation, these companies have to spend money on the shenanigans of the current software patent system.

The money spent on these patents creates a market for innovation by monetizing patents. If Google et al. thought these patents were invalid, obvious extensions of the prior art, would they be willing to spend this much money?

Re: $4.5 B. Nortel Bid Shows the Disastrous State of Software Patents

#13

Post by scubzero » Fri, Jul 01, 2011, 4:05 PM UTC

GHFigs wrote: post #6

I don't understand. For one thing, Google wasn't "the early front runner", they were the stalking horse bid--essentially the minimum. There seems to be this retroactive meme going around to the effect that Google was expected to win with that bid or that they somehow deserved to. It's an auction, folks. It's not clear to me that that was their final bid, either. Maybe it was, but I can't imagine Google letting someth…

I think the patent law being broken arguement that the article is trying to make is as follows:

the consortium that bought nortel's patents didn't do so for the patents themselves, they did so to prevent google from having the patents. And they didn't want google to not have the patents not because they were afraid of google bringing products to market based on those patents, but because they didn't want google to be able to shield themselves from patent lawsuits.

Re: $4.5 B. Nortel Bid Shows the Disastrous State of Software Patents

#14

Post by jbooth » Fri, Jul 01, 2011, 4:06 PM UTC

monochromatic wrote: post #12

inkaudio wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is simple, not thin. Instead of spending billions on new R&D, new innovation, these companies have to spend money on the shenanigans of the current software patent system.

The money spent on these patents creates a market for innovation by monetizing patents. If Google et al. thought these patents were invalid, obvious extensions of the prior art, would they be willing to spend this much money?

No, it creates a market for filing patents by monetizing patents. Innovation means coming up with an idea, implementing it, and bringing it to market in a way that's cost-sustainable. Filing a patent just requires a lawyer.

The evidence that things are broken is that a bunch of otherwise productive companies just paid a boatload of money for a grab-bag of IP, primarily to immunize themselves from lawsuits from companies with less productive revenue sources.

Re: $4.5 B. Nortel Bid Shows the Disastrous State of Software Patents

#15

Post by monochromatic » Fri, Jul 01, 2011, 4:08 PM UTC

jbooth wrote: post #14

monochromatic wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money spent on these patents creates a market for innovation by monetizing patents. If Google et al. thought these patents were invalid, obvious extensions of the prior art, would they be willing to spend this much money?

No, it creates a market for filing patents by monetizing patents. Innovation means coming up with an idea, implementing it, and bringing it to market in a way that's cost-sustainable. Filing a patent just requires a lawyer. The evidence that things are broken is that a bunch of otherwise productive companies just paid a boatload of money for a grab-bag of IP, primarily to immunize themselves from lawsuits from compan…

There are plenty of instances where someone comes up with a good idea, and the only way he is able to monetize it is through patent protection.

Re: $4.5 B. Nortel Bid Shows the Disastrous State of Software Patents

#16

Post by cube13 » Fri, Jul 01, 2011, 4:12 PM UTC

Produce wrote: post #9

larrik wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if these patents were say, automotive in nature, and a coalition of automotive companies bought them for 4.5 billion, would we immediately jump to the conclusion that automotive patents are bad? I wouldn't (necessarily). I have to agree with the parent comment.

>if these patents were say, automotive in nature, and a coalition of automotive companies bought them for 4.5 billion, would we immediately jump to the conclusion that automotive patents are bad? Without going too deep into a philosophical discussion, I think that the competitive nature of our society is hindering progress more than anything else. When people learn to build social structures based on cooperation (I c…

>In concrete terms, imagine if, just as individuals in a company cooperate, companies cooperated with each other. Everyone would be better off. At it's root, this is the difference between seeing life as a non-zero-sum game as opposed to a zero-sum one.

So... it's exactly what MS, Apple, RIM, etc. did. They cooperated, combined their resources, and outbid Google for the pool. There's no indication that these patents aren't going to be used. Since RIM is in the group, it seems that the hardware patents are definitely going to be used, and who knows what Apple and MS want from the pot.

I still don't see how this is an argument specifically against software patents.

Re: $4.5 B. Nortel Bid Shows the Disastrous State of Software Patents

#17

Post by GHFigs » Fri, Jul 01, 2011, 4:14 PM UTC

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #8

GHFigs wrote: post #6

I don't understand. For one thing, Google wasn't "the early front runner", they were the stalking horse bid--essentially the minimum. There seems to be this retroactive meme going around to the effect that Google was expected to win with that bid or that they somehow deserved to. It's an auction, folks. It's not clear to me that that was their final bid, either. Maybe it was, but I can't imagine Google letting someth…

The complaining was around companies needing to spend $4.5B in pre-emptive legal defense. The $4.5B being pre-emptive is extrapolated by me (and I'm assuming the author) from Google stating their $900M was. Nowhere in the article did it even imply any of the players in this transaction were trolls.

What was the point of saying that the size of the winning bid "echoes the sentiment" of a rant about Lodsys?

Re: $4.5 B. Nortel Bid Shows the Disastrous State of Software Patents

#18

Post by cube13 » Fri, Jul 01, 2011, 4:20 PM UTC

scubzero wrote: post #13

GHFigs wrote: post #6

I don't understand. For one thing, Google wasn't "the early front runner", they were the stalking horse bid--essentially the minimum. There seems to be this retroactive meme going around to the effect that Google was expected to win with that bid or that they somehow deserved to. It's an auction, folks. It's not clear to me that that was their final bid, either. Maybe it was, but I can't imagine Google letting someth…

I think the patent law being broken arguement that the article is trying to make is as follows: the consortium that bought nortel's patents didn't do so for the patents themselves, they did so to prevent google from having the patents. And they didn't want google to not have the patents not because they were afraid of google bringing products to market based on those patents, but because they didn't want google to be…

Nortel has several 4G LTE-related patents in the pool(http://mobile.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/RIM-Not-Goog...). Those are HUGELY valuable to Apple, RIM, Sony Ericsson and Nokia. I would be very surprised if none of those companies came out with 4G phones in the next year or so. Getting control of the patents can save them a pretty tremendous amount of money on licensing fees.

These were probably the ones that those companies wanted, and the entire reason that the price is so high. They simply could not let Google be the sole owner of the patents, because that would give Google way too much power in the mobile space.

Out of all the companies, MS is probably the only one that did it specifically to hurt Google. However, this also could signal that MS is going to make their own WM7 phone.

Re: $4.5 B. Nortel Bid Shows the Disastrous State of Software Patents

#19

Post by yalogin » Fri, Jul 01, 2011, 4:49 PM UTC

Isn't it better that a coalition won instead of Google? Now at least these companies will not sue each other. Its much better that way. Google should have joined the group rather than going itself.

Also Nortel was a really huge company and a really good one at their peak. So its not surprising it amassed that many patents or that they fetch that much value.

Re: $4.5 B. Nortel Bid Shows the Disastrous State of Software Patents

#20

Post by sorbus » Fri, Jul 01, 2011, 4:56 PM UTC

yalogin wrote: post #19

Isn't it better that a coalition won instead of Google? Now at least these companies will not sue each other. Its much better that way. Google should have joined the group rather than going itself. Also Nortel was a really huge company and a really good one at their peak. So its not surprising it amassed that many patents or that they fetch that much value.

Google expressed an interest in using the patents defensively, and implied that it would share them with the open source community. If the coalition intends to use the patents offensively, which is very plausible considering the companies involved, then it is not better that it won.