4 ms·
Whilst this is purely speculation on my part, I have always assumed the reason they settle rather than go to court is because they don't actually want the paten
by Svip 3y ago
Whilst this is purely speculation on my part, I have always assumed the reason they settle rather than go to court is because they don't actually want the patents invalidated. The patents serve as a barrier to entry into the market. Had Microsoft - for instance - gone to court, and had the patents invalidated, Valve would not have been sued now.
This discourages competition from smaller outlets, and thus allows the big players fewer competitors. Though, again, pure speculation on my part.
- Ekaros 3y agoAlso, could someone like Microsoft or Sony point this company to sue the aftermarket manufactures for controllers for their products. Thus selling more first party stuff.
- SXX 3y agoBig players don't have to be malicious in this particular case. There are other financial incentives for big players not to go to court. For once because patent troll might block sales of particular device / service during litigation. Also because in a big companies such decisions are taken by their own legal departments that might have skewed interests and KPIs.
- tetrep 3y agoI think it also promotes a culture of "bullshit patents are good, just pay up and move on." Which aligns very well with large companies' large bullshit patent portfolios.
- troad 3y ago> Whilst this is purely speculation on my part, I have always assumed the reason they settle rather than go to court is because they don't actually want the patents invalidated. The patents serve as a barrier to entry into the market. Had Microsoft - for instance - gone to court, and had the patents invalidated, Valve would not have been sued now. And importantly, they don't want their own patents invalidated. They don't want legal precedents that weaken their own IP rights.