5 ms·

The only difference between Lodsys and large software/hardware companies like Microsoft and Oracle is the size of their litigation targets. I'm beyond convince

by dstein 15y ago

The only difference between Lodsys and large software/hardware companies like Microsoft and Oracle is the size of their litigation targets. I'm beyond convinced that the entire software patent systems needs to be abolished.

lambersley 15y ago
It seems companies (large or small) are all afraid that someone may take their once 'decent' idea, perfect it and make a better product. Can you imagine the anarchy that would ensue if companies were forced to be innovative? They'd run the risk of losing customers who are frustrated with their stale solutions/products. We just can't have that. Ludicrous, this idea you suggest!
powertower 15y ago
My understanding is that Microsoft hates software patents (at least when BillG was CEO), has only registered them out of necessity, has historically only sued relatively few other companies, and only done so with either real patents (non-obvious, read beyond the patent title) or as a retaliation of being sued itself. I’m sure there are a few exceptions here as there are always.
- dstein 15y ago
  They aren't suing every Android OEM out of necessity. Microsoft has converted to patent troll in lieu of innovating in the mobile space.
  - tzs 15y ago
    By the very definition of "patent troll", Microsoft is not a patent troll.
    - dstein 15y ago
      According to Wikipedia: The term "patent troll" was used as early as 1993 to describe companies that file aggressive patent lawsuits.
  - ssebro 15y ago
    That's not exactly true- they are innovating, but they're also a patent troll. There's no reason why they can't be both.
    - cube13 15y ago
      You can't be a patent troll if you're actually making a product. The entire "business model" of a patent troll is to make money off of lawsuits, not from actually selling things.
      - eru 15y ago
        Yes. Though of course, if a big company that was actually making things, bought a patent troll and just let the get on with their business, I'd still be inclined to call the new subsidiary a patent troll.
        cube13 15y ago
        This is true. I probably should have said "companies that make products related to their patents cannot be patent trolls".
      - stcredzero 15y ago
        A friend of mine was working in the Hustler store in Cincinnati in the late 90's/early 2000. You know how Larry Flynt opened a store in Cincinnati, despite the legislation passed specifically to exclude his businesses? They had boxes of butterfly, rainbow, and unicorn stickers in the basement. Every single sticker was inventoried separately, so legally, the Hustler store didn't have a majority inventory of adult items. There's nothing preventing a sufficiently large company from being some fraction X and another fraction Y. All systems have bugs, which is why simpler systems are easier to manage in the long run.
    - ZeSmith 15y ago
      They're using their patents to crush their competitors. It's not patent trolling, it's anti-competitive behavior.
- mikeryan 15y ago
  I find this hard to believe. It may have been their MO in the very early days but they later started building one of the largest patent portfolios in the world and their CTO went on to become one of the largest patent trolls in the world.
- meow 15y ago
  Their outlook on using their patent portfolio has changed in these past few years. As their reputation for innovation goes down, their reputation for trolling is going up.I guess trolling is inversely proportional to innovation after all.
- yuhong 15y ago
  Amazon is a famous example of this. Search for "Amazon patent" on Slashdot for some history.
cube13 15y ago
>The only difference between Lodsys and large software/hardware companies like Microsoft and Oracle is the size of their litigation targets. And the fact that MS and Oracle actually make products.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  And the fact that so far Lodsys's patents seem to be things which are very obvious and therefore very questionable which isn't true of all patents.
smokeyj 15y ago
I wonder what would happen if government became a result oriented organization. If the point of patents is to increase innovation, shouldn't you be able to measure innovation? And if you can't measure the impact of patents on innovation, what evidence is their to justify monopolizing ideas? If you can't measure and observe, then what's the evidence? I would say there is none, it's entirely subjective. Unconditional support for actions regardless of consequence is a bit religious to me, and there used to be separation of church and state.. but I guess that can't really be measured, can it?
- aristus 15y ago
  It's not religion. You are using a different (and objectively better) standard of proof. But it's literally a billion times easier to measure things like that than it was 240 years ago, when all math was done by hand and the fastest communication was by horse. You, as a citizen, can demand results and proof. That's how any human institution evolves. Grumping on the internet about how stupid everyone is because things aren't done the way you want will not produce measurable results.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    Grumping on the internet about how stupid everyone is because things aren't done the way you want will not produce measurable results. I know this is a common thing to say, but speaking one's mind is an effective way of producing results. The more people are aware of and share an opinion, the more likely one of those people will have the necessary motivation and influence to "do something" about it.
- pmr_ 15y ago
  More patents means more innovation, right? Because more innovative ideas have been protected, right? So, I bet they actually do measure. Just not the way any sane person would expect. But this is what always happens if a happens if you try to run something, that is hard or impossible to measure, "economically". You revert to one of the things you can trivially count and claim that more (or less) is better. If you are one of the smart ones you dabble with relative and not absolute numbers. This is especially true for political or public institutions without any goal above "accounting of men and things" because it just doesn't matter any more to them.

by dstein 15y ago

lambersley 15y ago

It seems companies (large or small) are all afraid that someone may take their once 'decent' idea, perfect it and make a better product. Can you imagine the anarchy that would ensue if companies were forced to be innovative? They'd run the risk of losing customers who are frustrated with their stale solutions/products. We just can't have that. Ludicrous, this idea you suggest!

powertower 15y ago

My understanding is that Microsoft hates software patents (at least when BillG was CEO), has only registered them out of necessity, has historically only sued relatively few other companies, and only done so with either real patents (non-obvious, read beyond the patent title) or as a retaliation of being sued itself. I’m sure there are a few exceptions here as there are always.

dstein 15y ago
They aren't suing every Android OEM out of necessity. Microsoft has converted to patent troll in lieu of innovating in the mobile space.
- tzs 15y ago
  By the very definition of "patent troll", Microsoft is not a patent troll.
  - dstein 15y ago
    According to Wikipedia: The term "patent troll" was used as early as 1993 to describe companies that file aggressive patent lawsuits.
- ssebro 15y ago
  That's not exactly true- they are innovating, but they're also a patent troll. There's no reason why they can't be both.
  - cube13 15y ago
    You can't be a patent troll if you're actually making a product. The entire "business model" of a patent troll is to make money off of lawsuits, not from actually selling things.
    - eru 15y ago
      Yes. Though of course, if a big company that was actually making things, bought a patent troll and just let the get on with their business, I'd still be inclined to call the new subsidiary a patent troll.
      - cube13 15y ago
        This is true. I probably should have said "companies that make products related to their patents cannot be patent trolls".
    - stcredzero 15y ago
      A friend of mine was working in the Hustler store in Cincinnati in the late 90's/early 2000. You know how Larry Flynt opened a store in Cincinnati, despite the legislation passed specifically to exclude his businesses? They had boxes of butterfly, rainbow, and unicorn stickers in the basement. Every single sticker was inventoried separately, so legally, the Hustler store didn't have a majority inventory of adult items. There's nothing preventing a sufficiently large company from being some fraction X and another fraction Y. All systems have bugs, which is why simpler systems are easier to manage in the long run.
  - ZeSmith 15y ago
    They're using their patents to crush their competitors. It's not patent trolling, it's anti-competitive behavior.
mikeryan 15y ago
I find this hard to believe. It may have been their MO in the very early days but they later started building one of the largest patent portfolios in the world and their CTO went on to become one of the largest patent trolls in the world.
meow 15y ago
Their outlook on using their patent portfolio has changed in these past few years. As their reputation for innovation goes down, their reputation for trolling is going up.I guess trolling is inversely proportional to innovation after all.
yuhong 15y ago
Amazon is a famous example of this. Search for "Amazon patent" on Slashdot for some history.

cube13 15y ago

>The only difference between Lodsys and large software/hardware companies like Microsoft and Oracle is the size of their litigation targets. And the fact that MS and Oracle actually make products.

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
And the fact that so far Lodsys's patents seem to be things which are very obvious and therefore very questionable which isn't true of all patents.

smokeyj 15y ago

I wonder what would happen if government became a result oriented organization. If the point of patents is to increase innovation, shouldn't you be able to measure innovation? And if you can't measure the impact of patents on innovation, what evidence is their to justify monopolizing ideas? If you can't measure and observe, then what's the evidence? I would say there is none, it's entirely subjective. Unconditional support for actions regardless of consequence is a bit religious to me, and there used to be separation of church and state.. but I guess that can't really be measured, can it?

aristus 15y ago
It's not religion. You are using a different (and objectively better) standard of proof. But it's literally a billion times easier to measure things like that than it was 240 years ago, when all math was done by hand and the fastest communication was by horse. You, as a citizen, can demand results and proof. That's how any human institution evolves. Grumping on the internet about how stupid everyone is because things aren't done the way you want will not produce measurable results.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  Grumping on the internet about how stupid everyone is because things aren't done the way you want will not produce measurable results. I know this is a common thing to say, but speaking one's mind is an effective way of producing results. The more people are aware of and share an opinion, the more likely one of those people will have the necessary motivation and influence to "do something" about it.
pmr_ 15y ago
More patents means more innovation, right? Because more innovative ideas have been protected, right? So, I bet they actually do measure. Just not the way any sane person would expect. But this is what always happens if a happens if you try to run something, that is hard or impossible to measure, "economically". You revert to one of the things you can trivially count and claim that more (or less) is better. If you are one of the smart ones you dabble with relative and not absolute numbers. This is especially true for political or public institutions without any goal above "accounting of men and things" because it just doesn't matter any more to them.