Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Google loses 5 million dollars over a Linux patent"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Google loses 5 million dollars over a Linux patent"

    http://us.generation-nt.com/google-p...s-2872021.html

    i hope google will stand hart in this lawsuit

  • #2
    Google got away cheap, that amounts to their Friday night bar tab.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
      Google got away cheap, that amounts to their Friday night bar tab.
      right... but in general its not so good.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
        right... but in general its not so good.
        Any type of patent isn't good in some views. Too many people look at the "patent-trolls" being the problem when the actual problem is the whole concept of a patent.

        Comment


        • #5
          It is really a sad news for Google and it is really an informative news.

          Comment


          • #6
            Although I do not like the implications I'd rather have a definitive ruling then 20+ years of "sword rattling".

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
              Any type of patent isn't good in some views. Too many people look at the "patent-trolls" being the problem when the actual problem is the whole concept of a patent.
              Yes, how dare someone attempt to make money from their inventions. Those capitalist swine bastards...

              The problem is not the concept of a patent, but what they can be granted for. In a system where anything short of a human being can be patented, the solution is to change what can and can not be patented, not abolish patents altogether.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                The problem is not the concept of a patent,
                I disagree. Dating back to days of Watt and the steam engine, patents were (and still are) used primarily to limit competition and increase wealth through licensing deals and/or litigation. It was because of Watt and his lobbying efforts that patents got extended to last 20 years.
                A patent is also a micro-monopoly that goes against the very concept of a free enterprise market. It's ironic we have a patent system as well as anti-trust laws here in the US. Innovation occurs from competition, not from monopolistic stagnation (which patents often induce.)

                but what they can be granted for.
                Scaling back what is patentable would be a good start in the right direction.

                In a system where anything short of a human being can be patented, the solution is to change what can and can not be patented, not abolish patents altogether.
                You'd be surprised. Much of the human genome is patented, so patenting a genetically-modified human being could be a problem in the no-too-distant future.
                I do agree with the idea of scaling back what can be patented. It would also be much more sane to limit any given patent to a 5-year maximum. I do not agree that abolishing patents should not be considered, though.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                  Yes, how dare someone attempt to make money from their inventions. Those capitalist swine bastards...
                  I used to work for a company that was big into patents. The primary reason was that no-one in the industry could operate without cross-licensing all the competition's patents, so we had to have patents to cross-license with everyone else so we could license theirs.

                  The only real effect was to keep new competition out of the market who could have produced better products or at a lower cost. And to keep a lot of patent lawyers employed while wasting a lot of our time that could have been spent on developing new stuff rather than writing patent applications.

                  This is why patent trolls are so effective: they don't actually make anything so they have no need to cross-license their patents.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BlueJayofEvil View Post
                    A patent is also a micro-monopoly that goes against the very concept of a free enterprise market. It's ironic we have a patent system as well as anti-trust laws here in the US. Innovation occurs from competition, not from monopolistic stagnation (which patents often induce.)


                    If you invent something, then you deserve to have a micro-monopoly on your invention. You invented it. Especially when you throw your family into the mix. Inventors work very hard some times, often times I'd suppose. How is an inventor going to support their own families if they can't get paid for their work, because as soon as they invent it it gets copied by someone else?

                    It does not go against a free enterprise market for an inventor to freely invent and then patent his work so that he can be properly compensated for his work. That's the very definition of free enterprise.

                    I know I'm not going to go through all the work of inventing if I'm not getting paid for it. My family can't afford it. How about yours?

                    Scaling back what is patentable would be a good start in the right direction.
                    That's a fair argument. Also, the length of patent could be revisited. We certainly don't need people dictating from their graves, for example.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X