I find it odd that people sell the rights to ideas explicitly. It makes sense that someone can take ownership of an implementation or design and subsequently license it but to bundle it off to someone else so that they can do that seems wrong. All the money-grabbing and bickering that ensues could be avoided if when the owner of a patent can no longer sustain their ideas, they move into the public domain for anyone and everyone to use freely. A lot of money and resources could then actually go into something useful, it discourages patent trolls/NPEs and encourages constant innovation as well as making those innovations useful.
I would ordinarily agree with you. And I am totally with you on the whole patent broker/troll thing. I think there should be (but don't know what that would be exactly) a life-limit on patent ownership, and then as you say -it goes into public ownership. These days though, technology moves so fast that the lion's share of patents are aged out of relevance well before such a threshold becomes practical. However I still think competition is better supported under aspects of the current model, and those whose ideas are relevant and effectively good IP should be able to somehow benefit from it - even if they themselves could not leverage it directly.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Romney may not even be the nominee, with the Balkanization of the current GOP field. Whoever wins the nomination will have a tough battle against the President, especially if the government defaults on its debt. If there's a default, I believe Republicans will be blamed, just like they were for the 1995 shutdown. I especially believe Republicans will be blamed, because during the last budget battle in Congress, I saw this report of two scientific polls, which showed that Republicans would be blamed for any shutdown during that budget battle. So I believe that Obama has a much stronger chance of being re-elected than many believe.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Romney may not even be the nominee, with the Balkanization of the current GOP field. Whoever wins the nomination will have a tough battle against the President, especially if the government defaults on its debt. If there's a default, I believe Republicans will be blamed, just like they were for the 1995 shutdown. I especially believe Republicans will be blamed, because during the last budget battle in Congress, I saw this report of two scientific polls, which showed that Republicans would be blamed for any shutdown during that budget battle. So I believe that Obama has a much stronger chance of being re-elected than many believe.
Last time around, we were told for months that the race was between Romney and Hillary. Nobody else had a chance. But things didn't work out that way. It is now way too early to make any predictions whatsoever.
These patents have value, but it's not going to be a game changer either way.
Virtually all of the patents will be licensed. So if Apple doesn't get the patents, they simply pay the license fee (which may end up being cheaper).
The odds are very slim that anyone will actually use the patents to block a competitor.
Again, someone misses the entire point.
Say for instance Oracle wants to use technology covered by one of these patents. If Google buys the patents they now have leverage in the Java case.
The value brought to the table to a company like Google has nothing to do with the underlying technologies rather the leverage they provide in patent disputes.
That's a terrible idea for more reasons than I can even begin to count. I'll just give you one, if a patent can't be sold then business with large IP can't be sold either, because in selling the business you're inevitably going to end up assigning the patent - and if you can assign it you can sell it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic
Cloudgazer is right. Patent rights can make up a large portion of a company's value. Marvin's logis would mean the creditors would lose another billion or so dollars. Imagine how much less RIMM, who is struggling a bit, stock would be worth if patents had no transfer value.
The patent would become public like GPL software for example so the company could be sold but the intellectual property could not be limited to whatever company puts up the most money. It doesn't have to be free of course, it can even be held by a non-profit government body who continues to collect licensing fees for the individuals listed on the patent until they are no longer around to collect it and then it becomes free.
It's mainly a way to prevent the rich getting richer by buying up IP from companies who can't afford to stay in business. IP ownership stifles startups who don't have the legal power to defend themselves but need to use/improve upon certain technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph L
I said IF he wins the patents. IF Steve gets those patents, he will use them to crush Google.
They can do that already with the multi-touch patent. Android used to be this:
Apple came up with the entire multi-touch gesture library for mobile devices. I reckon it's their ace in the hole.
I don't think they should use it against Google but they should use it against Microsoft just to piss off Paul Allen. His lawsuit against Google, Apple and others was commented on by Google:
"This lawsuit against some of America's most innovative companies reflects an unfortunate trend of people trying to compete in the courtroom instead of the marketplace."
Apple came up with the entire multi-touch gesture library for mobile devices. I reckon it's their ace in the hole.
From what I've read, Apple didn't "invent" the gestures themselves, but were simply the first to use them on a mobile device. So personally I don't think that makes that specific use of the gestures an "ace in the hole", but I'm no arbiter of justice either.
Apple patted themselves on the back a bit too heavily if they claimed they invented multi-touch technology. Nor were they even the first to use multi-touch and specific gestures to control a device. They were simply the first to popularize it. If not them, someone else would have by now IMHO.
But they have appeared to be carrying a big stick lately, more than willing to beat anyone about the head and shoulders if they disagree with their inventiveness. That's why Apple buying up patent collections is worrisome to me. They're already the second largest corporation in the world (by value) and look way too willing to use that size and influence to bully any and all competitors out of mobile. I'm not convinced they view Nortel patents as a shield, but instead a sword.
So I' don't feel that Apple's purchase of the collection would be good for consumers, or for future creativity and development of the mobile space. Unless you have an investment in Apple, I don't see an upside. But at the same time, if Google or perhaps better yet RPX Corporation, ends up with the portfolio, the industry-wide risk of lawsuits rather than product determining the market just went down.
Comments
You have to play mind-games at things like this. Steve himself should go to the auction. Who would really want to bid against Steve Jobs directly?
It's an auction. Does the reality distortion field work there too?
Google won't survive unless Steve lets them, if he wins the patents. Same thing with RIM and Nokia. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of fellas...
How does Steve Jobs control Google's destiny?
I find it odd that people sell the rights to ideas explicitly. It makes sense that someone can take ownership of an implementation or design and subsequently license it but to bundle it off to someone else so that they can do that seems wrong. All the money-grabbing and bickering that ensues could be avoided if when the owner of a patent can no longer sustain their ideas, they move into the public domain for anyone and everyone to use freely. A lot of money and resources could then actually go into something useful, it discourages patent trolls/NPEs and encourages constant innovation as well as making those innovations useful.
I would ordinarily agree with you. And I am totally with you on the whole patent broker/troll thing. I think there should be (but don't know what that would be exactly) a life-limit on patent ownership, and then as you say -it goes into public ownership. These days though, technology moves so fast that the lion's share of patents are aged out of relevance well before such a threshold becomes practical. However I still think competition is better supported under aspects of the current model, and those whose ideas are relevant and effectively good IP should be able to somehow benefit from it - even if they themselves could not leverage it directly.
SEVENTY BIIIILION DOLLARZ !!!
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Romney may not even be the nominee, with the Balkanization of the current GOP field. Whoever wins the nomination will have a tough battle against the President, especially if the government defaults on its debt. If there's a default, I believe Republicans will be blamed, just like they were for the 1995 shutdown. I especially believe Republicans will be blamed, because during the last budget battle in Congress, I saw this report of two scientific polls, which showed that Republicans would be blamed for any shutdown during that budget battle. So I believe that Obama has a much stronger chance of being re-elected than many believe.
I hope you're right, but I'm worried.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Romney may not even be the nominee, with the Balkanization of the current GOP field. Whoever wins the nomination will have a tough battle against the President, especially if the government defaults on its debt. If there's a default, I believe Republicans will be blamed, just like they were for the 1995 shutdown. I especially believe Republicans will be blamed, because during the last budget battle in Congress, I saw this report of two scientific polls, which showed that Republicans would be blamed for any shutdown during that budget battle. So I believe that Obama has a much stronger chance of being re-elected than many believe.
Last time around, we were told for months that the race was between Romney and Hillary. Nobody else had a chance. But things didn't work out that way. It is now way too early to make any predictions whatsoever.
How does Steve Jobs control Google's destiny?
I said IF he wins the patents. IF Steve gets those patents, he will use them to crush Google.
These patents have value, but it's not going to be a game changer either way.
Virtually all of the patents will be licensed. So if Apple doesn't get the patents, they simply pay the license fee (which may end up being cheaper).
The odds are very slim that anyone will actually use the patents to block a competitor.
Again, someone misses the entire point.
Say for instance Oracle wants to use technology covered by one of these patents. If Google buys the patents they now have leverage in the Java case.
The value brought to the table to a company like Google has nothing to do with the underlying technologies rather the leverage they provide in patent disputes.
I said IF he wins the patents. IF Steve gets those patents, he will use them to crush Google.
I'm quite confident, that the EU courts will not allow a 2nd Microsoft to rise.
That's a terrible idea for more reasons than I can even begin to count. I'll just give you one, if a patent can't be sold then business with large IP can't be sold either, because in selling the business you're inevitably going to end up assigning the patent - and if you can assign it you can sell it.
Cloudgazer is right. Patent rights can make up a large portion of a company's value. Marvin's logis would mean the creditors would lose another billion or so dollars. Imagine how much less RIMM, who is struggling a bit, stock would be worth if patents had no transfer value.
The patent would become public like GPL software for example so the company could be sold but the intellectual property could not be limited to whatever company puts up the most money. It doesn't have to be free of course, it can even be held by a non-profit government body who continues to collect licensing fees for the individuals listed on the patent until they are no longer around to collect it and then it becomes free.
It's mainly a way to prevent the rich getting richer by buying up IP from companies who can't afford to stay in business. IP ownership stifles startups who don't have the legal power to defend themselves but need to use/improve upon certain technology.
I said IF he wins the patents. IF Steve gets those patents, he will use them to crush Google.
They can do that already with the multi-touch patent. Android used to be this:
http://www.engadget.com/photos/a-vis...ids-ui/#484250
Apple came up with the entire multi-touch gesture library for mobile devices. I reckon it's their ace in the hole.
I don't think they should use it against Google but they should use it against Microsoft just to piss off Paul Allen. His lawsuit against Google, Apple and others was commented on by Google:
"This lawsuit against some of America's most innovative companies reflects an unfortunate trend of people trying to compete in the courtroom instead of the marketplace."
Apple came up with the entire multi-touch gesture library for mobile devices. I reckon it's their ace in the hole.
From what I've read, Apple didn't "invent" the gestures themselves, but were simply the first to use them on a mobile device. So personally I don't think that makes that specific use of the gestures an "ace in the hole", but I'm no arbiter of justice either.
Apple patted themselves on the back a bit too heavily if they claimed they invented multi-touch technology. Nor were they even the first to use multi-touch and specific gestures to control a device. They were simply the first to popularize it. If not them, someone else would have by now IMHO.
http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
But they have appeared to be carrying a big stick lately, more than willing to beat anyone about the head and shoulders if they disagree with their inventiveness. That's why Apple buying up patent collections is worrisome to me. They're already the second largest corporation in the world (by value) and look way too willing to use that size and influence to bully any and all competitors out of mobile. I'm not convinced they view Nortel patents as a shield, but instead a sword.
So I' don't feel that Apple's purchase of the collection would be good for consumers, or for future creativity and development of the mobile space. Unless you have an investment in Apple, I don't see an upside. But at the same time, if Google or perhaps better yet RPX Corporation, ends up with the portfolio, the industry-wide risk of lawsuits rather than product determining the market just went down.