3 ms·

The system is broken and we've seen that already, even if initially it had the best of intentions. I am of the opinion that you should only be able to license c

The system is broken and we've seen that already, even if initially it had the best of intentions. I am of the opinion that you should only be able to license complete products or services that just work. For example if you make Super AMOLED panels, then you can license the technology to LG so they can also make Super AMOLED panels, or you can directly sell them the panels, if they don't want to build them themselves. The difference between this and what Microsoft is doing, is that those patents are worthless to the licensees. They can't build any product out of them. So they are paying a license to not get sued, not because they want the technology. Doesn't anyone find something wrong with this? The incentives are all wrong here, and it's focused too much on rent seeking. You shouldn't be able to license a "technology" unless it's a marketable product. This is how we got into this mess, where thousands and thousands of trivial patents can be licensed. But say you really do invent some awesome technology, and it's not a complete product. Then you should only be allowed to sell that technology (with you not being able to use it anymore), but never to license it. There are reportedly 250,000 patents in a smartphone. Microsoft themselves have less than 10% of that amount in total, probably much less considering not all their patents are mobile related. So how does technology get to evolve even if you go out of your way to create a phone that is as unique as possible, you still probably infringe about 200,000 of them. This is why the "patent system" is so screwed up, and doesn't really reflect how technology really evolves in the real world.

dpark 15y ago
>You shouldn't be able to license a "technology" unless it's a marketable product. You just gave this long explanation of why it's reasonable to charge LG for Super AMOLED licensing. AMOLEDs are not marketable products. No one buys an LCD randomly to keep in their pocket. They buy a phone that happens to use an AMOLED display. Regardless of whether the patents in question are valid, your argument makes no sense. Basically no one ever licenses entire products except for end-user licenses. When it comes to licensing for other companies' production, they generally license various technologies which are not by themselves marketable products.
- jdc 15y ago
  No one buys an LCD randomly to keep in their pocket. Straw-man. A phone maker buys an LCD to make a phone. Or an AMOLED display to build a more desirable phone. Marketable doesn't mean "marketable to end-users". It means marketable to anyone, including other businesses.
  - Tloewald 15y ago
    This definition of marketable is Circular. If I can sell you a license it's marketable.
  - dpark 15y ago
    As Tloewald said, this is begging the question. If I can sell you a license to a patent so that you can build a more desirable phone, how is that different from selling you a display for the same reason? If there's a market, then it's marketable. Software patents are often attacked with silly arguments that don't hold up to scrutiny. Software patents should be fought with reasoned arguments, not invalid logic.

dpark 15y ago

>You shouldn't be able to license a "technology" unless it's a marketable product. You just gave this long explanation of why it's reasonable to charge LG for Super AMOLED licensing. AMOLEDs are not marketable products. No one buys an LCD randomly to keep in their pocket. They buy a phone that happens to use an AMOLED display. Regardless of whether the patents in question are valid, your argument makes no sense. Basically no one ever licenses entire products except for end-user licenses. When it comes to licensing for other companies' production, they generally license various technologies which are not by themselves marketable products.

jdc 15y ago
No one buys an LCD randomly to keep in their pocket. Straw-man. A phone maker buys an LCD to make a phone. Or an AMOLED display to build a more desirable phone. Marketable doesn't mean "marketable to end-users". It means marketable to anyone, including other businesses.
- Tloewald 15y ago
  This definition of marketable is Circular. If I can sell you a license it's marketable.
- dpark 15y ago
  As Tloewald said, this is begging the question. If I can sell you a license to a patent so that you can build a more desirable phone, how is that different from selling you a display for the same reason? If there's a market, then it's marketable. Software patents are often attacked with silly arguments that don't hold up to scrutiny. Software patents should be fought with reasoned arguments, not invalid logic.