Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures
#2a company with no business model outside collecting patents
Every time stories like this come up, there's a line like the above. And every time, I wonder: Why is this relevant? I could say equally well that Stripe is a company with no business model outside of taking money from credit cards; it doesn't mean that they're bad people.
The fact is, companies out-source all the time; why is out-sourcing patent infringement lawsuits any worse than out-sourcing credit card processing, overdue account collections, or web design?
Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures
#3a company with no business model outside collecting patents Every time stories like this come up, there's a line like the above. And every time, I wonder: Why is this relevant? I could say equally well that Stripe is a company with no business model outside of taking money from credit cards; it doesn't mean that they're bad people. The fact is, companies out-source all the time; why is out-sourcing patent infringemen…
the reason that's important is because the company has no products, there is nothing it can be infringing on and so there is no mutually assured destruction to reign in the madness.
Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures
#4a company with no business model outside collecting patents Every time stories like this come up, there's a line like the above. And every time, I wonder: Why is this relevant? I could say equally well that Stripe is a company with no business model outside of taking money from credit cards; it doesn't mean that they're bad people. The fact is, companies out-source all the time; why is out-sourcing patent infringemen…
the reason that's important is because the company has no products, there is nothing it can be infringing on and so there is no mutually assured destruction to reign in the madness.
And, unlike other service businesses, a patent troll company generally provides no meaningful service to its clients -- its only product is typically "we won't sue you".
Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures
#5a company with no business model outside collecting patents Every time stories like this come up, there's a line like the above. And every time, I wonder: Why is this relevant? I could say equally well that Stripe is a company with no business model outside of taking money from credit cards; it doesn't mean that they're bad people. The fact is, companies out-source all the time; why is out-sourcing patent infringemen…
The purported purpose of patents is to increase the amount of useful stuff produced by the economy. The purpose of patent trolling is the opposite: the product stops getting produced, and the amount of useful stuff decreases. That makes patent trolling more harmful to consumers than normal patent lawsuits.
Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
the reason that's important is because the company has no products, there is nothing it can be infringing on and so there is no mutually assured destruction to reign in the madness.
And, unlike other service businesses, a patent troll company generally provides no meaningful service to its clients -- its only product is typically "we won't sue you".
the service is ideas. if patents are, indeed, on non-obvious concepts, they can provide the spark for new inventions, and -- if you sign a licensing agreement with the patent troll -- you are paying them for the right to build, market, and sell something they invented.
the question is whether the patent review process is working or not.
Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures
#7a company with no business model outside collecting patents Every time stories like this come up, there's a line like the above. And every time, I wonder: Why is this relevant? I could say equally well that Stripe is a company with no business model outside of taking money from credit cards; it doesn't mean that they're bad people. The fact is, companies out-source all the time; why is out-sourcing patent infringemen…
Sometimes the smartest people say the...
Why is outsourcing torture any worse than outsourcing web design with WebGL? Extraordinary rendition vs. extraordinary rendering!
Hmm, maybe it has something to do with the nature of the thing being outsourced.
Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures
#8When the deal is complete, MMI will probably enjoy immunity under Google's protection-racket-fees. So IV has to race to collect from not-paid-up MMI before the deal closes.
Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures
#9a company with no business model outside collecting patents Every time stories like this come up, there's a line like the above. And every time, I wonder: Why is this relevant? I could say equally well that Stripe is a company with no business model outside of taking money from credit cards; it doesn't mean that they're bad people. The fact is, companies out-source all the time; why is out-sourcing patent infringemen…
... overdue account collections ...
This is actually an interesting point. Both collection agents and patent trolls go about asking people to pony up the payment for goods (to put it colloquially) and they both do it on behalf of a third party, for whom doing it by themselves will involve a lot more of a hassles.
The distinction comes in the fact that in the case of collection agents, the payments owed to the goods are seemingly legitimate or at least socially accepted (perhaps collection agencies that come about collecting payments after those subscription-renewal or hidden-monthly-fee scams might be construed as as much a nuisance as patent trolls). I guess socially, asking payments for ideas only seems reasonable if the persons going about asking for the payments themselves come up with the idea.
It is a little weird and subtle. Can someone come up with a better distinction?
Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
And, unlike other service businesses, a patent troll company generally provides no meaningful service to its clients -- its only product is typically "we won't sue you".
the service is ideas. if patents are, indeed, on non-obvious concepts, they can provide the spark for new inventions, and -- if you sign a licensing agreement with the patent troll -- you are paying them for the right to build, market, and sell something they invented. the question is whether the patent review process is working or not.
Ideas don't have a dollar value. I'm guessing that not one company who signs a licensing agreement with the patent troll does so because they want access to a library of ideas. They do it because they're working to build a real product, and the patent troll comes along and says "sign this and pay us or we'll make your life miserable and it will cost more"