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


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing View Post
                      If you invent something, then you deserve to have a micro-monopoly on your invention.
                      Why?

                      If you invent something, presumably you plan to sell it, so you'll make money by selling it ahead of the competition.

                      I could almost agree with patents for things that are truly not obvious, but they're so rare that most patent office employees would spend most of the day playing Minesweeper while waiting for one to turn up.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BlueJayofEvil View Post
                        A patent is also a micro-monopoly that goes against the very concept of a free enterprise market.
                        Not really, in theory a patent allows the hypothetical little guy to make money from his or her invention which is the foundation of capital, not in and of itself a bad thing.

                        The fact that people, these days, tend to sell patents to companies that collect them and turn a profit by licensing those patents to others is again, another building block in capital, not really a bad thing.

                        People have a right to make money from their inventions and they have a right to sell that right to others, usually making both a profit.

                        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.)
                        No, there is no irony, we learned a long time ago, and continually have it proven that a market that is unregulated by an external power, is a bad thing. Or did you make a bundle in the market crash of 2008?

                        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.
                        That hypothetical will be a very lengthy and politically poisoned legal battle involving everyone from the Christian Right to the Far Left to overturn the current policy. It won't happen any time soon.

                        I do look forward to the company that tries to sue someone for having a cancer gene, though.

                        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.
                        Scaling back what can be patented to the late 80's level, before those damned mice were patented, can only be a good thing. The time limit is debatable.

                        I do not agree that abolishing patents should not be considered, though.
                        Good luck with getting people to listen to an argument that includes that. It'd be an argument louder and more vitriolic than the Single Payer Health Care argument.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                          People have a right to make money from their inventions and they have a right to sell that right to others, usually making both a profit.
                          Why?

                          No, there is no irony, we learned a long time ago, and continually have it proven that a market that is unregulated by an external power, is a bad thing. Or did you make a bundle in the market crash of 2008?
                          Calling financial markets 'unregulated' is bizarre. The crash was due to the credit bubble of the 90s and 00s, which was primarily due to government central banks holding interest rates at artificially low levels to create an artificial boom so the politicians would get reelected.

                          In a free market you would not have seen banks lending hundreds of thousands of dollars to anyone with a pulse to buy an overpriced house, because anyone who saw their bank doing such a thing would have pulled their money out immediately.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by movieman View Post
                            Why?
                            Because I said so.



                            Calling financial markets 'unregulated' is bizarre. The crash was due to the credit bubble of the 90s and 00s, which was primarily due to government central banks holding interest rates at artificially low levels to create an artificial boom so the politicians would get reelected.
                            I'll take former regulator Bill Black's word over yours on the causes of the banking collapse any day.

                            In a free market you would not have seen banks lending hundreds of thousands of dollars to anyone with a pulse to buy an overpriced house, because anyone who saw their bank doing such a thing would have pulled their money out immediately.
                            Unless they could turn a profit doing so, which they did. If you really believe that markets can be self regulating, you are fooling yourself.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                              Not really, in theory a patent allows the hypothetical little guy to make money from his or her invention which is the foundation of capital, not in and of itself a bad thing.
                              Patents are not required to make money off an invention. Patents were originally supposed to be used to "promote progress" by disclosing useful ideas in exchange for a temporary restriction on others using that idea.
                              Too many people seem to think that patents are the *only* way to make money off of something or that that is their sole purpose.
                              Patents have only been around a few hundred years, and people made money in business long before that.

                              The fact that people, these days, tend to sell patents to companies that collect them and turn a profit by licensing those patents to others is again, another building block in capital, not really a bad thing.
                              Agreed, but that does not address the larger problems patents cause.

                              People have a right to make money from their inventions and they have a right to sell that right to others, usually making both a profit.
                              And patents are not required to do that. Coca-Cola's formula, for example, is a trade secret. They made their money building a brand name (trademarked) and selling their products.

                              No, there is no irony, we learned a long time ago, and continually have it proven that a market that is unregulated by an external power, is a bad thing. Or did you make a bundle in the market crash of 2008?
                              And what does that have to do with patents? Patents are tools that enable monopolies, and as such need to be seriously re-examined.

                              That hypothetical will be a very lengthy and politically poisoned legal battle involving everyone from the Christian Right to the Far Left to overturn the current policy. It won't happen any time soon.
                              When ACTA and the TPP are accepted, they will definitely force a serious discussion involving the abolition of all forms of patents, copyrights, and other restrictive concepts.

                              I do look forward to the company that tries to sue someone for having a cancer gene, though.
                              Already happening.

                              Scaling back what can be patented to the late 80's level, before those damned mice were patented, can only be a good thing. The time limit is debatable.
                              Agreed.

                              Good luck with getting people to listen to an argument that includes that. It'd be an argument louder and more vitriolic than the Single Payer Health Care argument.
                              You should read Techdirt.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X