3 ms·
> The scenario you are proposing is unrealistic because that's not how the system works. Otherwise, we would never have had the iPhone, Android nor the BlackBer
by mattlutze 11y ago
> The scenario you are proposing is unrealistic because that's not how the system works. Otherwise, we would never have had the iPhone, Android nor the BlackBerry.
Those companies built their phones then spent tens/hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits fighting each other's basic patents and infringements thereof. That would appear to be option b in the parent's scenario.
Big companies can afford to take that risk. Small companies end up having to sell to bigger companies or close down when core tech is threatened by patent challenges.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoWell-said. That's exactly what I'm arguing. The patent suits, the cost, and the results work against innovation. This is provable by looking at patent-holders' behavior then what resulted from it. The combo of market forces, legal threats, and silo-ing led the industry to be an oligopoly among a handful of companies with two, large OS's. Apple's patents and position led them to make insane profits close to $100 billion. Yet, their innovation isn't significantly greater than the more open alternative. The money goes goes into their pocket, mostly, plus some R&D and lots of lawsuits. The true result of the U.S. patent system: making owners money.