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

541–550 of 554 posts

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

#541

Post by cromwellian »

sbuk wrote: post #513
sbuk wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not getting away with that. It's not OK to say one thing and do another. It called hypocracy and it's low and one thing that Google seem to be doing a lot of late. Here's the thing; Microsoft and Apple aren't abusing the system. They are playing exactly by its rules. Lodsys are a good example of an actor abusing the system. Is the system a bad one? That's a different debate.

Furthermore the "they started" it argument is ridiculous. It doesn't matter who started it! It's also factually incorrect.

In an Iterated Prison's Dilemma, Tit-for-Tat and Win-Stay-Lose-Change are both viable winning strategies from a game theory point of view. If your competitor is playing one of those strategies, and you aren't, then not responding to an attack merely guarantees continued loses.

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

#542

Post by sbuk »

cromwellian wrote: post #541
sbuk wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthermore the "they started" it argument is ridiculous. It doesn't matter who started it! It's also factually incorrect.

In an Iterated Prison's Dilemma, Tit-for-Tat and Win-Stay-Lose-Change are both viable winning strategies from a game theory point of view. If your competitor is playing one of those strategies, and you aren't, then not responding to an attack merely guarantees continued loses.

In plain English, you are willing to forgive Google their transgressions because you feel that they are being attacked and you like/work for them, but not Apple/Microsoft for spurious reasons; this being the cognitive dissonance I alluded to earlier. When it is pointed out that this is not the actual case, you claim that that they are in fact being attacked and it's not fair, so they have to resort to the same tactics, which is forgivable because you like/work for Google. Google are as bad as Apple and/or Microsoft.

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

#543

Post by code_duck »

chris_wot wrote: post #286
x0x0 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but say I want a smartphone, what is my alternative? google, who works harder and harder to sell everything I do to advertisers (now you can't even rate apps w/o a google+ account), and who just shut off transmitting search data so they can screw site owners for more $? microsoft, who is a party to this and actively worked to make the internet worse (and succeeded!) for the better part of a decade? or apple, who at l…

How did Microsoft make the Internet worse?

By strongly pushing a browser that was rarely updated meaningfully and featured very slow JavaScript and buggy, incomplete CSS support. This held back the viability of web apps for years after they would have otherwise been viable.

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

#544

Post by code_duck »

axman6 wrote: post #114
6thSigma wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google didn't bid on these patents because they were infringing - they bid on the patents so they wouldn't get patent trolled.

... if they're not infringing, then they have nothing to worry about. Are you kidding me?

You seriously are unaware of how the legal world around patents works, but come on here and decry how HN is supposedly so ignorant about patents?

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

#545

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

tempestn wrote: post #462
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree - my personal preference is for reform of the patent system to provide a higher bar for what can be patented (actively used by the owner in a current product, evidence of significant investment to get there, significantly non-obvious and so on) and a shorter period (three to five years except in exceptional circumstances).

But that's a somewhat different argument - the original point was that consumers were being significantly impacted and I don't think this shows that.

To my mind the biggest impact may be coming from FRAND patents, the terms of which don't have to be particularly fair or reasonable and as such can easily be used to block new entrants. To my mind FRAND patents should have transparent licensing terms which are common to every licensee whether you be a major multinational or a two man start up.

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

#546

Post by pyre »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #526
pyre wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a possible disincentive, but it doesn't currently exist. Calling public outrage against patent abuse a disincentive is the same as calling changes to the current patent system a disincentive: they don't currently exist.

I'm not sure what you mean by "don't currently exist" -- there is a general consensus that some form of patent reform bill is going to pass in the not too distant future: https://www.eff.org/issues/current-legislative-proposals-pat... By launching the mother of all trolls to the disgust of the industry at large, they're adding fuel to the fire and making it more likely that stronger anti-troll legislation will pass.…

> By launching the mother of all trolls to the disgust of the industry at large, they're adding fuel to the fire and making it more likely that stronger anti-troll legislation will pass.

As I understand it, this company was formed during the purchase of the Nortel patents, which happened a couple of years ago. Not just right now. The company which was formed from investment of Apple, Microsoft, etc, is not under their direct control anymore. They basically paid a bunch of money to grant themselves immunity from these patents while creating a hazard / barrier to others.

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

#547

Post by roblev »

gamblor956 wrote: post #466
mgkimsal wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Most corporations try to be profitable over a long term, and there is no requirement to be "maximally profitable" in a single year or over any time period. For every corporation there are judgements over the value of investing in product pipeline, sales, marketing etc. or the value of increasing short-term profits at the expense of long-term, the value of taking a risky action that may pay-off or may bring customer anger and lost sales etc.

The vast majority of single actions that a corporation takes are not mandated under some simplistic view of "maximising shareholder value".

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

#548

Post by AnthonyMouse »

pyre wrote: post #546
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "don't currently exist" -- there is a general consensus that some form of patent reform bill is going to pass in the not too distant future: https://www.eff.org/issues/current-legislative-proposals-pat... By launching the mother of all trolls to the disgust of the industry at large, they're adding fuel to the fire and making it more likely that stronger anti-troll legislation will pass.…

> By launching the mother of all trolls to the disgust of the industry at large, they're adding fuel to the fire and making it more likely that stronger anti-troll legislation will pass. As I understand it, this company was formed during the purchase of the Nortel patents, which happened a couple of years ago. Not just right now. The company which was formed from investment of Apple, Microsoft, etc, is not under thei…

They intentionally put the patents in the hands of a troll. Moreover, since the trolls generally don't have the capital to buy the patents up front, the transfer deals generally involve the selling party getting a large cut of the shakedown money the troll collects from its victims, so it's quite likely that they haven't recovered what they paid for the patents.

The fact that the timing of this happening at the same time as patent reform is on the table wasn't predictable some years ago is just part of the point -- you can't always predict blowback. The risk is part of the cost.

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

#549

Post by gibwell »

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #502
gibwell wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. Google uses parents aggressively through its wholly owned subsidiary, Motorola.

Wrong on all accounts. They use patents defensively against those that are suing to shut down Android.

By that definition, Apple uses patents defensively against those who are using to shut down iOS.

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

#550

Post by TheMagicHorsey »

gibwell wrote: post #549
TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong on all accounts. They use patents defensively against those that are suing to shut down Android.

By that definition, Apple uses patents defensively against those who are using to shut down iOS.

Wrong. Apple initiated patent lawsuits against Android. Android did not initiate the lawsuits. Do you follow this space?

Look at the history of when the lawsuits are filed, and who filed them.

There is no equivalence.

Post reply on HN