3 ms·
I don't know, I thought he cut right to the chase: > Google just spent $900mm buying a patent collection. Other big companies are spending the same way. That
by azakai 15y ago
I don't know, I thought he cut right to the chase:
> Google just spent $900mm buying a patent collection. Other big companies are spending the same way. That is money that for many companies would have gone to job creation.
That's exactly right. That money is going into the pockets of $500/hour lawyers instead of creating jobs for people that produce products. Just the public patent deals of the last few months amounted to billions. And there is a lot more we don't know about.
He could have explained more about how the vast majority of software patents are dubious at best, etc., but that takes more explaining, it's complicated. Focusing on the direct link to job creation is more straightforward.
- AgentConundrum 15y agoHe's arguing the impact of it, but I'm saying he failed to clarify why they shouldn't have to pay for the $500/hour lawyers and the multi-million dollar patent packages. > He could have explained more about how the vast majority of software patents are dubious at best, etc. That's all I'm saying. He needs to explain why he shouldn't have to defend himself against patents, rather than just complaining that it's too expensive. Defending yourself against any lawsuit is expensive, but if you've done something wrong then it has to be done. Cuban just didn't take the time to explain that his companies hadn't done anything objectively wrong. I wasn't disagreeing with him at all - I agree that there needs to be patent reform - but I just thought that he didn't adequately state his case. He complained about how expensive it was to have to deal with the lawsuits, but never made a compelling argument as to why those lawsuits were unjust.