51–60 of 193 posts
Sometimes I wonder if I am witnessing America's greatness in action, or the unraveling of it.
It is clearly America's downfall -- and America is pulling the world with itself.
Is there any push right now to enact legislation that makes patent litigation available only to entities that actively participate in the relevant marketplaces? It doesn't seem like there is, but maybe I'm not that informed in these affairs.
I personally don't care for patents, but even more unfair than what we have would be letting some, but not all, actors get and enforce these patents.
American voters stuck too much with personal values and elect a congress that does not do anything and gets 10% approval rate. Now we have to deal with this kind of stupidity. #thanksobama
Wow the Microsoft angle is pretty corrupt. They paid the plaintiff a million bucks plus 5% of the judgement they get against Google, effectively bankrolling their lawsuit and putting a patent troll on commission. There's near-endless bitching and whining about Google being evil these days, but even today nobody sinks as low as Microsoft.
Bing was infringing and Vringo had tens of millions in cash and big investors like Mark Cuban bankrolling it. They certainly didn't need a paltry million bucks to continue the lawsuit. Vringo already had the jury verdict against Google before the MS settlement. Also, maybe Bing has only 5% of Google's revenue/profit. Funny that you seem to be falling victim to what you accuse others of doing i.e kneejerk birching and…
1.36% of AdWords Revenue? That is a lot of money. I don't see how they are entitled to that amount in any way.
Also, why an ongoing 1.36% cut? What's the significance of that number? Might as well peel back the layers on this farce.
Why can't they simply incorporate outside US in some country where the patents are milder ? Or is it that they have to pay royalty even then...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bing was infringing and Vringo had tens of millions in cash and big investors like Mark Cuban bankrolling it. They certainly didn't need a paltry million bucks to continue the lawsuit. Vringo already had the jury verdict against Google before the MS settlement. Also, maybe Bing has only 5% of Google's revenue/profit. Funny that you seem to be falling victim to what you accuse others of doing i.e kneejerk birching and…
Mark Cuban is bankrolling a patent troll? From what I've heard from him, he absolutely detests patent trolls, I'd be surprised if he's backing one.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-heres-why-im-takin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mark Cuban is bankrolling a patent troll? From what I've heard from him, he absolutely detests patent trolls, I'd be surprised if he's backing one.
Yes, unfortunately http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-heres-why-im-takin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read it as Microsoft paid a million dollars and will pay 5% of what Google pays. I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy, but it seems like they believed the patent would win in court and wanted the cheapest way out.
This is it, not sure how you could read this another way. When reading the article it hit me that this was a great bit of business from Microsoft. A million dollars isn't much for MS to pay to make this go away... and then only paying 5% of Google will be forced to pay if they lose in court.. Microsoft's legal advisor must be happy with himself today
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to be pretty well established now that this system does not support innovation (at least not in the software business. If the benefit of society as a whole is the objective then inventions are only worth protecting if they would not have occurred without such protection. An idea clearly does not fall into that category, it's worth is in the execution and not in "having it".
> It seems to be pretty well established now that this system does not support innovation (at least not in the software business. Back when I was actively studying this stuff, it was noted that there are four specific industries where intellectual property just doesn't work as intended. Software was one, pharma was another, and I forget the other two but a quick Google ought to surface them with more credibility than…
I thought pharma relied on patents to offset the massive cost of regulatory control over the product. (FDA fees, cost of running patient trials, etc)