4 ms·

The writer, who has indeed attacked software patents on previous occasions, omits a key step in his argument. para 3 "Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean

The writer, who has indeed attacked software patents on previous occasions, omits a key step in his argument. para 3 "Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that Android infringes on anyone's patents.:" This is absolutely correct. But it doesn't mean that it doesn't either. And without examining the facts (a matter requiring a significant effort of time and effort and no small familiarity with patent law) it is impossible to know a priori whether the patents have been infringed upon. "It simply indicates that the companies in question have done the sums and decided that it is probably cheaper in the long run to pay licensing fees now rather than risk losing a long and expensive patent infringement suit and end up paying much more later. " True. But without evidence and argument we still don't know if they settled because they (a) although they sincerely believed they were not infringing they didn't want to risk the legal process, or (b) they did believe they were infringing and whilst they would much rather not pay it was pointless to resist. All we can be confident of therefore is that (a) in either case their assessment of the risk has certainly been expertly evaluated by the best IP attorneys money can buy, and (b) those attorneys advised them to settle so they are unlikely to have been crystal clear it was blindingly obvious there was no infringement. "In other words, these deals are mostly about the skewed incentives of the US patent system" This is a false conclusion. This statement is not a reasonable consequence of anything that proceeded it. It is rather a statement of the writer's opinion of the patent system. He has twisted the argument, with no supporting evidence, to support his cause. The fact is that from the material he presents (practically nothing) we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions about the state of the patent system. He and/or we may have prior opinions about the subject but this paragraph is just another opinion masquerading as an argument.

Joeri 15y ago
Of course you can draw meaningful conclusions. Given that all popular smartphone OS market players are in cross-licensing deals or lawsuits related to patents, and that a single licensing deal can cost $10 or more per handset, you can conclude that it's too expensive for small players to enter that market (since they will have no patent portfolio to negotiate with). This means that the smartphone OS market is effectively closed. That's harmful, no matter how you twist the argument.
- petegrif 15y ago
  So if I understand you correctly, even if someone has a meaningful valid patent and infringers on reviewing the patent agree that it is a valid patent, and even if the licensing terms are agreed to be reasonable by both parties, even in such a case you would still consider this to be in some sense wrong because the $10 handset license (which incidentally is still ridiculously cheaper than developing your own smartphone OS) is a competitive disadvantage to smaller would be handset manufacturers or network operators, even though that wouldn't seem to be the case because everyone else supplying android phones is paying the same fee? In fact, ironically having Android available for $10 a phone is a great deal for small suppliers. You are, however, quite happy to accept trashing someone's intellectual property rights, even if they are valid, because of some imagined competitive disadvantage? That doesn't seem to me to be a coherent position or a meaningful conclusion.
- Steko 15y ago
  "This means that the smartphone OS market is effectively closed." So how did Apple enter it? Or Google? When 75% of the market is an exception to your rule it's time to give the rule a second look. "too expensive for small players" This is dreamland. Patents aside, making a competitive mobile phone is a huge capital intensive endeavor. Patents don't scare people off half as much as the world of contract manufacturing does. There's no 17 year old wunderkind in Topeka being stopped from billionaire status here.
  - Joeri 15y ago
    Apple and Google are excellent examples of how the market is closed. They can lose billions of dollars and still turn a profit. They can enter any market they want, even completely closed ones. If it's dreamland, why are there small desktop linux competitors? You confuse engineering effort with business effort. You can't launch a smartphone OS business, but you can launch a desktop OS business. The only reasons that this is the case are patents.
    - Steko 15y ago
      "why are there small desktop linux competitors?" How are they different from the Android forks showing up around the world? How do they make money? How much would they make if Google gave away the same services for free? If milk (read: Smartphone OS) was free it's seems pretty clear that you and I would not want to enter the milk selling business. Caveat: unless we were able to deliver a superior quality milk that people would pay for and had some assurance (read: patents) that our innovation(s) would not be immediately copied and given away by the free milkers (read: Google/KIRF pirates).

Joeri 15y ago

Of course you can draw meaningful conclusions. Given that all popular smartphone OS market players are in cross-licensing deals or lawsuits related to patents, and that a single licensing deal can cost $10 or more per handset, you can conclude that it's too expensive for small players to enter that market (since they will have no patent portfolio to negotiate with). This means that the smartphone OS market is effectively closed. That's harmful, no matter how you twist the argument.

petegrif 15y ago
So if I understand you correctly, even if someone has a meaningful valid patent and infringers on reviewing the patent agree that it is a valid patent, and even if the licensing terms are agreed to be reasonable by both parties, even in such a case you would still consider this to be in some sense wrong because the $10 handset license (which incidentally is still ridiculously cheaper than developing your own smartphone OS) is a competitive disadvantage to smaller would be handset manufacturers or network operators, even though that wouldn't seem to be the case because everyone else supplying android phones is paying the same fee? In fact, ironically having Android available for $10 a phone is a great deal for small suppliers. You are, however, quite happy to accept trashing someone's intellectual property rights, even if they are valid, because of some imagined competitive disadvantage? That doesn't seem to me to be a coherent position or a meaningful conclusion.
Steko 15y ago
"This means that the smartphone OS market is effectively closed." So how did Apple enter it? Or Google? When 75% of the market is an exception to your rule it's time to give the rule a second look. "too expensive for small players" This is dreamland. Patents aside, making a competitive mobile phone is a huge capital intensive endeavor. Patents don't scare people off half as much as the world of contract manufacturing does. There's no 17 year old wunderkind in Topeka being stopped from billionaire status here.
- Joeri 15y ago
  Apple and Google are excellent examples of how the market is closed. They can lose billions of dollars and still turn a profit. They can enter any market they want, even completely closed ones. If it's dreamland, why are there small desktop linux competitors? You confuse engineering effort with business effort. You can't launch a smartphone OS business, but you can launch a desktop OS business. The only reasons that this is the case are patents.
  - Steko 15y ago
    "why are there small desktop linux competitors?" How are they different from the Android forks showing up around the world? How do they make money? How much would they make if Google gave away the same services for free? If milk (read: Smartphone OS) was free it's seems pretty clear that you and I would not want to enter the milk selling business. Caveat: unless we were able to deliver a superior quality milk that people would pay for and had some assurance (read: patents) that our innovation(s) would not be immediately copied and given away by the free milkers (read: Google/KIRF pirates).