3 ms·

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,

by 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).

by Joeri 15y ago

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).