5 ms·

Acquisition of patent is one of the top priority of Xiaomi at this stage when it's trying to expand itself globally. I believe Hugo Barra is doing an excellent

Acquisition of patent is one of the top priority of Xiaomi at this stage when it's trying to expand itself globally. I believe Hugo Barra is doing an excellent work here. The acquisition of Microsoft patent gonna open the door of the US smartphone market for Xiaomi. As per this report -- http://www.greyb.com/patent-portfolio-analysis-of-xiaomi-global-expansion-plan/ http://www.greyb.com/patent-portfolio-analysis-of-xiaomi-glo... -- one of the biggest hurdle is Xaiomi's miniscule patent portfolio in the US. In the past they acquired patents from Broadcom in the US. Still they had only 220 patents there and now with these 1500, they are going to have like 1700.

ptaipale 10y ago
It is kind of sad that the power of innovation is not really in making something that is new and customers want to buy; even entering the market means you need to possess a portfolio where you count the patents by hundreds or thousands, and then you hire lawyers to negotiate a balance scale where each side throws a portfolio in the cup.
- bkor 10y ago
  It is telling two things: 1) The ability to compete and cost associated to compete is worse in US and Europe. 2) Further, patents are mostly used as anti competitive behaviour; it is not related to "innovation", nor is it related to research and development.
  - jb613 10y ago
    > patents are mostly used as anti competitive behaviour; it is not related to "innovation", nor is it related to research and development. Generally, patents are derived from R&D which is where innovation directly comes from so it is "related". At the very least this is true in Microsoft's case. Regarding anti-competitive - it's only anti-competitive if someone else attempts to COPY the innovation. They are free to innovate and come up with an ALTERNATIVE. The more alternatives, the more choices for consumers. If you want to copy then sure - patents block, but if you want to innovate then patents can provide incentivizes to carry that out.
    - dagw 10y ago
      They are free to innovate and come up with an ALTERNATIVE. Except in practice you aren't. Most pantens are so vaguely worded that any independent solution to a problem can be claimed to infringe on a patent. And even if you don't actually infringe on the patent, you better have a couple of years and a few $100k-$millions to dedicate to the court battle to prove that.
      - jb613 10y ago
        > Most pantens are so vaguely worded that any independent solution to a problem can be claimed to infringe on a patent. No longer true, over the past ~decade, quality of patents issued has dramatically improved. Most patents are actually very narrow. Just look at the sheer quantity that are issuing (in software in particular) - everyone is coming up with something different. > And even if you don't actually infringe on the patent, you better have a couple of years and a few $100k-$millions to dedicate to the court battle to prove that. Or before recklessly entering a market, evaluate the landscape. Do you have something new to offer, can you yourself protect your innovations, narrow down your product scope to minimize encroachment on others property, etc... Think less about building the whole kitchen sink and more on being the best at some tiny improvement (texture of the handles, connectors to the pipe to minimize leakage, etc...). Think writing the perfect 50 LOC that others would want to use rather than building 50k LOC. The less code you ship, the more you've minimized your patent infringement risk (along with proper evaluation of competitors protect at the outset). Additionally, if you've found that 50 LOC that nobody does yet and others want to use, then you've likely also found something valuable to patent yourself. BECOME the innovator rather than sued by the innovator. Business requires managing risks, patents are but a small factor if properly handled.
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        There's allegedly over 200,000 patents that can cover smartphones in some way. They each have multiple claims. What you suggest is impossible. It's why both large players and startups just do whatever they want, attempt to pile up patents, and then let lawyers fight it out. Unfortunately, that works better for the bigger players. Plus, the number of vague or obvious patents in enforcement has not declined in any serious way. We have a recent example with Virnetx pulling hundreds of millions out of Apple et al for using end-to-end crypto. Something that was invented before their patents. Their others say mix crypto with (service here), which isn't original either. People mixed crypto with all sorts of things. Adding it to something is a feature of crypto, not an invention. Specific mechanism maybe, but not concept. Stuff like that is still normal in the patent suits. The suits are too expensive. So, most companies settle to loose good chunk of money. There's quite a few businesses with good products that refused to do business in U.S. specifically because of this. They operate in Asia. That Xiamoi's lawyers told management to not enter America with common products unless they had a pile of patents is telling.
- nitin_flanker 10y ago
  See, patents can be used as a barrier to entry in any market. This is what happening with Xaiomi. In the past, when it entered into South Korea, it was sued withing 2 days.

ptaipale 10y ago

It is kind of sad that the power of innovation is not really in making something that is new and customers want to buy; even entering the market means you need to possess a portfolio where you count the patents by hundreds or thousands, and then you hire lawyers to negotiate a balance scale where each side throws a portfolio in the cup.

bkor 10y ago
It is telling two things: 1) The ability to compete and cost associated to compete is worse in US and Europe. 2) Further, patents are mostly used as anti competitive behaviour; it is not related to "innovation", nor is it related to research and development.
- jb613 10y ago
  > patents are mostly used as anti competitive behaviour; it is not related to "innovation", nor is it related to research and development. Generally, patents are derived from R&D which is where innovation directly comes from so it is "related". At the very least this is true in Microsoft's case. Regarding anti-competitive - it's only anti-competitive if someone else attempts to COPY the innovation. They are free to innovate and come up with an ALTERNATIVE. The more alternatives, the more choices for consumers. If you want to copy then sure - patents block, but if you want to innovate then patents can provide incentivizes to carry that out.
  - dagw 10y ago
    They are free to innovate and come up with an ALTERNATIVE. Except in practice you aren't. Most pantens are so vaguely worded that any independent solution to a problem can be claimed to infringe on a patent. And even if you don't actually infringe on the patent, you better have a couple of years and a few $100k-$millions to dedicate to the court battle to prove that.
    - jb613 10y ago
      > Most pantens are so vaguely worded that any independent solution to a problem can be claimed to infringe on a patent. No longer true, over the past ~decade, quality of patents issued has dramatically improved. Most patents are actually very narrow. Just look at the sheer quantity that are issuing (in software in particular) - everyone is coming up with something different. > And even if you don't actually infringe on the patent, you better have a couple of years and a few $100k-$millions to dedicate to the court battle to prove that. Or before recklessly entering a market, evaluate the landscape. Do you have something new to offer, can you yourself protect your innovations, narrow down your product scope to minimize encroachment on others property, etc... Think less about building the whole kitchen sink and more on being the best at some tiny improvement (texture of the handles, connectors to the pipe to minimize leakage, etc...). Think writing the perfect 50 LOC that others would want to use rather than building 50k LOC. The less code you ship, the more you've minimized your patent infringement risk (along with proper evaluation of competitors protect at the outset). Additionally, if you've found that 50 LOC that nobody does yet and others want to use, then you've likely also found something valuable to patent yourself. BECOME the innovator rather than sued by the innovator. Business requires managing risks, patents are but a small factor if properly handled.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        There's allegedly over 200,000 patents that can cover smartphones in some way. They each have multiple claims. What you suggest is impossible. It's why both large players and startups just do whatever they want, attempt to pile up patents, and then let lawyers fight it out. Unfortunately, that works better for the bigger players. Plus, the number of vague or obvious patents in enforcement has not declined in any serious way. We have a recent example with Virnetx pulling hundreds of millions out of Apple et al for using end-to-end crypto. Something that was invented before their patents. Their others say mix crypto with (service here), which isn't original either. People mixed crypto with all sorts of things. Adding it to something is a feature of crypto, not an invention. Specific mechanism maybe, but not concept. Stuff like that is still normal in the patent suits. The suits are too expensive. So, most companies settle to loose good chunk of money. There's quite a few businesses with good products that refused to do business in U.S. specifically because of this. They operate in Asia. That Xiamoi's lawyers told management to not enter America with common products unless they had a pile of patents is telling.
nitin_flanker 10y ago
See, patents can be used as a barrier to entry in any market. This is what happening with Xaiomi. In the past, when it entered into South Korea, it was sued withing 2 days.