"To defend Android, Google must attack software patents"
But then Google jeopardizes its own search patents.
To defend Android, Google must attack software patents
51–57 of 57 posts
Re: To defend Android, Google must attack software patents
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
$10 to MS, $10 to Apple, $10 to Nokia, $10 to RIM, $10 to Qualcomm, $10 to Oracle, $10 to nvidia, $10 to IBM, etc...
?? I'm sorry. I don't understand your point. Could you explain it for me.
I mean that paying off $10 to Microsoft doesn't scale because very soon you'll be paying several others with similarly slightly-relevant patents and who are all already either in court, threatening to take their cases to court, or have a history of not being shy about doing that.
Re: To defend Android, Google must attack software patents
#53"To defend Android, Google must attack software patents" But then Google jeopardizes its own search patents.
More than any other software company, I think that Google's patents are purely defensive. I don't think Google wants to sue anyone.
I think that's largely true for Microsoft and Apple as well. Although Apple does get a little snippy when people copy too closely. And Oracle seems to relish a good lawsuit.
Re: To defend Android, Google must attack software patents
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that your last sentence is uncontroversial is really depressing. Everyone accepts that 'lobbying' is a polite word for 'bribery' and should be unacceptable in a modern democracy. We should all be on the damn streets about this.
Though I agree with your stance, the Citizens United supreme court case basically made it law that "money is speech". Some folks knew the Roberts supreme court would essentially sell the US to corporate interests back in 2005 when he was confirmed.
Yes, I look back fondly on the innocent days of 2009 when corporations couldn't influence politics.
Citizens United was a nonprofit organization specifically formed to express the views of its members. You can't stop that without trampling all over the 1st Amendment. And you really wouldn't like the negation of "money is speech". Sure, you can support candidate Smith: just don't spend any money in the process, including but not limited to campaign supplies, web hosting, and the imputed value of your labor.
Re: To defend Android, Google must attack software patents
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
?? I'm sorry. I don't understand your point. Could you explain it for me.
I mean that paying off $10 to Microsoft doesn't scale because very soon you'll be paying several others with similarly slightly-relevant patents and who are all already either in court, threatening to take their cases to court, or have a history of not being shy about doing that.
For major players I think it is likely to scale precisely because of the pervasiveness of patents in the area. Those companies with substantial patent portfolios (many of them as you pointed out) gain nothing by suing each other and so most of the time they don't. The case that would indeed be a concern would be if there were a company with no patent portfolio that the others could all pile onto and freeze out. This is possible but it does raise the question of how Apple was able to enter a market with such heavy existing IP holdings. A point worth remembering is that patents don't have to stop you innovating but rather oblige you to redirect your innovation. So if you want to build another 'me too' product there may well be IP issues to navigate but if you do want to truly innovate it is unlikely to be a major concern of the kind you describe with everyone else holding patents in the area.
Re: To defend Android, Google must attack software patents
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course you can draw meaningful conclusions. Given that all popular smartphone OS market players are in cross-licensing deals or lawsuits related to patents, and that a single licensing deal can cost $10 or more per handset, you can conclude that it's too expensive for small players to enter that market (since they will have no patent portfolio to negotiate with). This means that the smartphone OS market is effecti…
"This means that the smartphone OS market is effectively closed." So how did Apple enter it? Or Google? When 75% of the market is an exception to your rule it's time to give the rule a second look. "too expensive for small players" This is dreamland. Patents aside, making a competitive mobile phone is a huge capital intensive endeavor. Patents don't scare people off half as much as the world of contract manufacturing…
Apple and Google are excellent examples of how the market is closed. They can lose billions of dollars and still turn a profit. They can enter any market they want, even completely closed ones.
If it's dreamland, why are there small desktop linux competitors? You confuse engineering effort with business effort. You can't launch a smartphone OS business, but you can launch a desktop OS business. The only reasons that this is the case are patents.
Re: To defend Android, Google must attack software patents
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
"This means that the smartphone OS market is effectively closed." So how did Apple enter it? Or Google? When 75% of the market is an exception to your rule it's time to give the rule a second look. "too expensive for small players" This is dreamland. Patents aside, making a competitive mobile phone is a huge capital intensive endeavor. Patents don't scare people off half as much as the world of contract manufacturing…
Apple and Google are excellent examples of how the market is closed. They can lose billions of dollars and still turn a profit. They can enter any market they want, even completely closed ones. If it's dreamland, why are there small desktop linux competitors? You confuse engineering effort with business effort. You can't launch a smartphone OS business, but you can launch a desktop OS business. The only reasons that…
"why are there small desktop linux competitors?"
How are they different from the Android forks showing up around the world?
How do they make money? How much would they make if Google gave away the same services for free?
If milk (read: Smartphone OS) was free it's seems pretty clear that you and I would not want to enter the milk selling business.
Caveat: unless we were able to deliver a superior quality milk that people would pay for and had some assurance (read: patents) that our innovation(s) would not be immediately copied and given away by the free milkers (read: Google/KIRF pirates).