Here is what two economists at the St Louis Federal Reserve have to say about patents (tl;dr they are bad)
Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue
131–140 of 193 posts
Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue
#132Good. There are few things which can effect change better than billionaires in fear of losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year. When it happens to small fry you lament because they can't do anything to change and end up settling to save themselves or losing and losing everything. When it happens to the 55th largest company you rejoice because they have the power and motivation to change the rules.
> When it happens to the 55th largest company you rejoice because they have the power and motivation to change the rules.
Or they just settle next time.
Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue
#133With a market cap of less than $350 million, shouldn't Google just buy them? I realize that they'd pay more than that, and that there might not be enough stock available to get a controlling share, but it would be an interesting strategy if they could pull it off.
Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue
#134We need a numbers based study that shows patent trolls retard innovation and consequently weaken national security. Regulators, senators, and Presidents (in the US) prioritize that stuff.
How can I, as a small start up, produce a new mobile phone? Every concept from the hardware to the software is layered in patents. What other things are small companies not bothering to produce because of the patent minefield? At every turn and corner you may be stepping on another patent troll waiting to take a percentage of your earnings as well as drain your bank account on legal fees.
Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I don't see how it is a Win for MS when their ad revenue is ~3% that of Google. In a sense, aren't they paying more ?
> Well I don't see how it is a Win for MS when their ad revenue is ~3% that of Google. In a sense, aren't they paying more ? How do you figure? Microsoft earned $3.2 billion in the Online Services division in fiscal year 2013. According to Microsoft's annual report, advertising accounted for "nearly all of" that division's revenues. $3.2 billion is about 5.6% of Google's trailing 12 months revenues of $57 billion. Su…
I was using these(http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Microsoft-Takes-Small-Share...) numbers for reference. More specifically the second table.
Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue
#136Earlier 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. 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 never get that. Why do you make this distinction. Either patents is a good system for all goods or it isn't. What does it make a good system for everything else execpt pharmacy and software? Dont't get me wrong, I am for abolishing all patents. Even if, say 80% of the patent were unimbigiously justified, the bureaucracy and costs it introduces are tremendous. I would loved to know the percentage to the total budget…
One cannot assume that a system that works for one industry is good for all of them. I'll provide some examples: "six sigma" is useful in manufacturing, but its statistical defect analysis methods are awkward at best when applied to software. Cinnamon works well for flavoring apple cider, but not so much beef gravy.
Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cigarette companies don't get those kind of super-sized judgements against them, gun manufacturers don't. Why the hell should Google? My favourite part is just how good the Microsoft lawyers are - "we will pay 5% of whatever Google pays" is an incredibly good deal and shafts Google quite nicely at the same time. And anyway, isn't this really obvious - to anyone? I have scanned the patents referenced and frankly I don…
Cigarette companies do - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agree... "the original participating manufacturers (OPM) agreed to pay a minimum of $206 billion over the first twenty-five years of the agreement" - 4 companies, 25 years, works out at $2.1bn a year each. 10x more than the article thinks Google will pay out...
Standing, corrected, thanks :-)
Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming this goes through with no successful appeal Google will have to pay 1.36% of their revenue related to a particular infringing product to Vringo for a period for which they were well aware of this patent until it expires in 2016. This example gives nothing to indicate that any business you start will be crippled by patent issues. Now legal costs and/or Lodsys like trolls might be a real threat to a fledgling…
Good point. It's no indication, but it would generate fear and doubt when I code. What if the code I'm writing right now is patented by some company taking advantage of a system, with resources searching everywhere just to sue? I probably wouldn't, but I could become paranoiac because of this, looking on the internet to find if I am infringing patents, instead of being productive. It's true 1.36% seems like nothing,…
I really wouldn't let it worry you, there are many more things likely to make you fail than patents unless you are going into an especially patent heavy field (such as video codecs).
Patent holders generally need to target big players to get worthwhile payoffs so unless you are big (in which case you have already won) then it is only the Lodsys type scum you need to worry about trying to extort you (in which case your paranoia and research won't have helped because the accusation doesn't have to be valid to cause you problems). Lodsys and their ilk seem to have gone quiet (I don't know why) but I suspect that if you don't look like an easy target they may ignore you.
You also fear your emotions, try to look logically at the situation. Making $1M and having to pay out $13K to someone you feel is unworthy is annoying not heartbreaking. Making much less and you are hardly worth targeting.
I'm not saying that you have to like the current situation but that it isn't bad enough that it should be a major driver of your life. There are many reasons not to do a startup but I wouldn't let this be one if I were you.
Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue
#139As long as clueless fucking judges allow this shit to keep happening, America is going to keep losing its tech edge. These patent trolls make creating anything in the US risky for businesses.
Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue
#140With a market cap of less than $350 million, shouldn't Google just buy them? I realize that they'd pay more than that, and that there might not be enough stock available to get a controlling share, but it would be an interesting strategy if they could pull it off.
It's about $425m as I write this. Yes, Google should probably try to buy them if they can. The people that control VRNG might consider that they'd rather have a billion in cash from the payouts, that they can then push into more patent gains, than to sell right now for, say, $800m.
I think people in that type of position frequently tend to get over-confident after winning, and rather than take one big payday, they keep rolling the dice.