4 ms·

Google can be ideologically pure about patents being evil and subsequently get sued to oblivion, or they can acknowledged the current reality and fight it while

Google can be ideologically pure about patents being evil and subsequently get sued to oblivion, or they can acknowledged the current reality and fight it while staying safe themselves. I'd know one I would pick. For example, I disagree with marijuana laws, but I am not about to light up in front of a cop.

dexen 16y ago
And who's there to stop Google from abusing the patent pool in 4 years from now? Yes, they have been pretty considerate business up to now. But future is not merely a direct projection of past. A portfolio of patents is as much an obligation as an asset. You cannot arbitrarily enforce patents only against certain competitors, lest you risk the patent in question being shot down in arbitration or court case.
- nolok 16y ago
  And who's there to stop whoever buy these patents from abusing the patent pool in 4 years from now? In that situation, I would much rather have google own them on the risk that they might do something evil with it (but probably not if we believe their history), than any of the other companies who already proved they would.
- bad_user 16y ago
  A portfolio of patents becomes a liability sooner or later, no matter who owns it. The only one who can stop that is you -- by voting, lobbying or donating money to the EFF or similar organizations that are fighting against software patents. If enough people did this, we wouldn't have this conversation -- but the truth is, most people accepted the status-quo and/or have other priorities, so after a little bit of hand-waving, life goes back to normal and it's business as usual. And companies have the obligation to defend themselves -- they can't afford to just bitch-and-moan about this issue. And even companies acting in good-faith (if such a thing exists for companies) -- will choose the path of least resistance (i.e. building a patents portfolio). Otherwise, to make a (bad) analogy, it would be like going to war with "make love" signs. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

dexen 16y ago

And who's there to stop Google from abusing the patent pool in 4 years from now? Yes, they have been pretty considerate business up to now. But future is not merely a direct projection of past. A portfolio of patents is as much an obligation as an asset. You cannot arbitrarily enforce patents only against certain competitors, lest you risk the patent in question being shot down in arbitration or court case.

nolok 16y ago
And who's there to stop whoever buy these patents from abusing the patent pool in 4 years from now? In that situation, I would much rather have google own them on the risk that they might do something evil with it (but probably not if we believe their history), than any of the other companies who already proved they would.
bad_user 16y ago
A portfolio of patents becomes a liability sooner or later, no matter who owns it. The only one who can stop that is you -- by voting, lobbying or donating money to the EFF or similar organizations that are fighting against software patents. If enough people did this, we wouldn't have this conversation -- but the truth is, most people accepted the status-quo and/or have other priorities, so after a little bit of hand-waving, life goes back to normal and it's business as usual. And companies have the obligation to defend themselves -- they can't afford to just bitch-and-moan about this issue. And even companies acting in good-faith (if such a thing exists for companies) -- will choose the path of least resistance (i.e. building a patents portfolio). Otherwise, to make a (bad) analogy, it would be like going to war with "make love" signs. Don't hate the player, hate the game.