4 ms·
> The theory (since discarded) was that a heavy patent portfolio would give you a better negotiating position if you were sued. There was no thought of actually
by orangeoxidation 5y ago
> The theory (since discarded) was that a heavy patent portfolio would give you a better negotiating position if you were sued. There was no thought of actually asserting these patents against Microsoft, or anyone.
Doesn't it kind of prove part of the argument?
Google apparently felt threatened by patents, enough so to acquire "second strike capabilities" as deterrence.
Seems to me Google though patents aggressive tools with the purpose to hurt other companies or threatening to do so (though defensively in this case).
I am really interested in the "since discarded" part, if someone can recommend some reading.
- AlbertCory 5y agoIt only "prove[s] part of the argument" if you rephrase the argument to your liking. You are also conflating "defensive" and "aggressive." Kinda like saying Switzerland is "aggressive" because they have mandatory military service for all males.
- some_furry 5y ago> Kinda like saying Switzerland is "aggressive" because they have mandatory military service for all males. I'm curious: Have you heard of the state's "monopoly on violence" before? It comes up a lot in political theory discussions, and it applies to this attempted rebuttal by analogy.
- AlbertCory 5y agoI've certainly heard of that theory. How is that relevant to "defensive" vs. "aggressive"? You're saying Switzerland is aggressive because they have a military?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Snild 5y agoJust to offer a more benevolent interpretation: I read that "Google thought patents aggressive tools" sentence not necessarily as any implication of Google's intent, but rather an implication that Google were worried about patents being used as weapons against them.