Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Patent war goes nuclear: Microsoft, Apple-owned “Rockstar” sues Google

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 554 posts

Re: Patent war goes nuclear: Microsoft, Apple-owned “Rockstar” sues Google

#461

Post by waqf »

pg wrote: post #439
cs702 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm unhappy with Apple and Microsoft too, but the real enemy is a broken patent system that creates the perverse incentives that motivate companies to launch lawsuits like this one, to the detriment of society. Regardless of who wins, we have already lost, because we have a patent system that discourages innovation and competition in software! Maybe the prospect of patent Armageddon will finally force lawmakers to ad…

It's certainly true that the patent system is broken. But the fact you can get away with doing something due to broken laws doesn't make it ok to do it.

If nothing else, wouldn't you be open to shareholder lawsuits if you didn't engage in an action which was obviously legal and obviously profitable?

Re: Patent war goes nuclear: Microsoft, Apple-owned “Rockstar” sues Google

#462

Post by tempestn »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #390
Perseids wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a point and I was a bit polemic. Nonetheless those conflicts do reach the consumer in a significant manner, for example last year, when I updated my smartphone firmware for stability reasons, all the rubber band menus vanished and were replaced by glowing edges because of the ongoing dispute. And those patents weren't even applicable in my country. Also remember all the cases where one side was trying to pro…

I don't dispute that there is an impact but your example shows the real scale of it. Is rubber banding really such a great loss? Yes it's nice but what's the actual impact on the quality of your experience been? Frankly most of the patents that have been enforced seem to me at least to have been pretty minor and relatively easy to workaround with little real impact on the user.

To take the counter-argument, do these things really need the protection of patents then? Wouldn't the situation be better for the user if minor innovations of this sort could be borrowed, and companies instead needed to continue innovating in order to differentiate their products?

I could see a short protection period for things like this, but the magnitude of current protections seems extreme.

Re: Patent war goes nuclear: Microsoft, Apple-owned “Rockstar” sues Google

#463

Post by stock_toaster »

ajross wrote: post #454
masklinn wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The operative word in cs705's comment is incentive . The patent system is broken in such a way that not only does it makes possible to get away with this behavior, it encourages and rewards it. That's very different than merely "making it possible".

And the operative word in pg's reply is " ok ". That Apple, MS, et. al. are acting in their objective self interest (and to the detriment of all of ours!) is an important point. But it doesn't speak to the moral issue which is that such behavior needs to be condemned and not excused.

If the system incentivizes this behavior, can a publicly traded corporation even choose to ignore it? Would shareholders be able to claim breach of fiduciary duties if they did?

Note: I am certainly not arguing that this is a good thing for anyone by any means at all.

Re: Patent war goes nuclear: Microsoft, Apple-owned “Rockstar” sues Google

#464

Post by mgkimsal »

gamblor956 wrote: post #434
dd36 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may not be statutes but there absolutely is case law. In fact, I'm sure there are indirect statutes. There's just no way that the purpose of a for profit company is not to maximize profits to the owners of that company. There may be reasonable debate about where best to deploy capital but those decisions should be justified.

The company's duty is to maximize the value of its shareholder's holdings in the company (i.e., stock). This can be done by maximizing profitability (see, e.g., Caterpillar, most publicly traded companies), but it can also be done through growth (i.e., Amazon, most startups) at the expense of maximized profitability. It's easier to maximize profitability than it is to maximize growth. This is why more companies pursu…

"Maximum profitability" still needs a timeframe to judge against. Maximum in the next quarter? Next year? Next decade? Maximizing in short term may harm or prohibit maximizing profits in long term, which would be just as bad (or worse) for shareholders.

Re: Patent war goes nuclear: Microsoft, Apple-owned “Rockstar” sues Google

#465

Post by overgryphon »

samspenc wrote: post #447
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They chose to take advantage of it. What would they do, just let Google acquire even more mobile-related patents? You think Google would never sue them? Let's not be naive, the only reason Google is a good citizen with patents today is because a retaliation would make a dent on them, and they know it. The parent is right, the problem is the patent system, which gives a disproportional power to the holder and create…

That's not quite true. The newer generation of tech companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter) have taken to using patents very very defensively, at least so far. Google has gone as far doing an "open patent non-assertion pledge" which is far beyond just not using patents: http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/ Twitter has an Innovator Patent agreement: https://blog.twitter.com/2012/introducing-innovators-patent-...

That's because the newer tech companies haven't had enough time to build a catalog of patents to rival older Microsoft, Apple, and so forth.

Do you really think Google won't do the same to younger tech companies a decade from now?

Re: Patent war goes nuclear: Microsoft, Apple-owned “Rockstar” sues Google

#466

Post by gamblor956 »

mgkimsal wrote: post #464
gamblor956 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company's duty is to maximize the value of its shareholder's holdings in the company (i.e., stock). This can be done by maximizing profitability (see, e.g., Caterpillar, most publicly traded companies), but it can also be done through growth (i.e., Amazon, most startups) at the expense of maximized profitability. It's easier to maximize profitability than it is to maximize growth. This is why more companies pursu…

"Maximum profitability" still needs a timeframe to judge against. Maximum in the next quarter? Next year? Next decade? Maximizing in short term may harm or prohibit maximizing profits in long term, which would be just as bad (or worse) for shareholders.

Profit in the reporting context refers to the annual measure of net income, so maximum profitability generally refers to the profit generated in a single tax year.

Re: Patent war goes nuclear: Microsoft, Apple-owned “Rockstar” sues Google

#467

Post by mark-r »

chc wrote: post #458
VikingCoder wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shareholders can and have replaced the Board of Directors of public companies, based on their lack of faith in the company's ability to maximize profits. The Board of Directors is in charge of hiring and firing for the senior executives. The Board of Directors and Senior Executives know this, and aren't stupid. All that has to happen is that shareholders (which are often other corporations) need to act RESPONSIBLY, a…

If you are seriously suggesting that Tim Cook would have been ousted had Apple not gone down this road, I think you and the rest of the world are just going to have to agree to disagree.

You misunderstand. Tim Cook wouldn't have gotten the job in the first place if the board had thought he would shy away from such a decision.

Re: Patent war goes nuclear: Microsoft, Apple-owned “Rockstar” sues Google

#468

Post by mythz »

jmodp wrote: post #427
mythz wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly which part of investing billions of dollars acquiring and developing a technology and giving it away for free, lowering the price of consumer devices, needs to be prevented? If they've discovered a business model that enables them to invest, develop and freely distribute their own tech to end-users benefits, they should encouraged, not a victim of established cartels using their cash war-chest to buy B.S. pat…

>> Exactly which part of investing billions of dollars acquiring and developing a technology and giving it away for free, lowering the price of consumer devices, needs to be prevented? The part where it ends up eliminating competition and results in a mono culture?

It only results in a Mono culture if others are unable to compete.

Regardless, the world is better off with a mono culture around an OSS project than a walled-garden keeping everyone hostage to their whims.

Re: Patent war goes nuclear: Microsoft, Apple-owned “Rockstar” sues Google

#469

Post by robotcookies »

debian69 wrote: post #380
pg wrote: post #61

It's a little early to say for sure, but I predict this will do more to hurt Apple's reputation in the tech community than anything they've done before. And that is not a good community to alienate. I would not be surprised if they look back on this move one day and feel that they ended up net worse off as a result. Apple used to be careful not to alienate hackers. And Microsoft has been gradually digging itself out…

I love the way it was a group of 6 or 7 tech companies who bought the patents but you choose to single out apple. Was there a reason for this in particular ?

I love how people are so defensive about this patent suit because Apple is behind it. Any other tech company doing this without Apple would have been mercilessly attacked.

Re: Patent war goes nuclear: Microsoft, Apple-owned “Rockstar” sues Google

#470

Post by 37prime »

6thSigma wrote: post #438
37prime wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any quotes on that? Apple sued Motorola (2012) http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-sues-motorola-over-... Motorola Sued Apple (2011) http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/12/motorola-wins-injunctio...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20090552-17/apple-sues-mot...

Apparently you didn't get the timeline correctly. Motorola sued Apple over some FRAND SEP back in 2010. The judgement came down in 2011 in favor of Motorola. http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/06/motorola-suing-apple-for-...

In addition to that, you're quoting Don Reisinger?

Post reply on HN