4 ms·
and why would they? It's not that they vowed to do no evil or something.
by Mythbusters 14y ago
and why would they? It's not that they vowed to do no evil or something.
- ok_craig 14y ago"Don't be evil" doesn't mean sit back and get sued to oblivion by your competitors like a selfless martyr.
- barista 14y agoDon't be evil means use your patents as a defense not to sue others. It means amass a big enough trove that others feel that suing you is going to be futile. Evil is attacking the opponent with the new patents you just "bought" not even developed in-house
- mdwrigh2 14y ago> Don't be evil means use your patents as a defense not to sue others. It means amass a big enough trove that others feel that suing you is going to be futile. Well, when a company is suing all of the companies that use your software over your software, but don't come after you, what are you supposed to do to protect them? Because obviously the "trove" wasn't "big enough". > Evil is attacking the opponent with the new patents you just "bought" not even developed in-house So now companies aren't allowed to use the patents of the companies they've purchased? Should patents be invalidated once the original company is acquired? I'm against software patents in general, but to argue, under the existing system, that one of your subsidiary's shouldn't be allowed to use the patents they developed because you acquired them seems absurd.
- jemfinch 14y agoThe reason having a large trove of patents makes it futile for others to sue you is precisely because you can respond to their suits with countersuits of your own.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- vitriolix 14y agoYou clearly have no clue how the legal system works. You use patents defensively by countersuing
- taligent 14y ago"Don't be evil" does mean that you should't abuse FRAND obligations. Hence why Google is being investigated for anti-competitive behaviour by ITC/EU. Given the important of FRAND in the standards process this is very much being evil.
- mdwrigh2 14y agoNote that none of the patents they are suing over this time are FRAND patents.
- eridius 14y ago"this time".
- myko 14y agoThe previous time Motorola Mobility wasn't owned by Google, which was the point of the comment.
- taligent 14y agoI know. My point is that Google left the "don't be evil" mantra behind a long time ago.
- neya 14y agoYou are contradicting yourself. Whatever you say makes no sense - First you claim Google abused FRAND patents, and when your claim was proved invalid, you make a fool of yourself? Nice strategy. Lulz.
- mdwrigh2 14y agoI can no longer respond to the people replying to me, so I'm putting this here. Motorola, not Google, sued Apple and Microsoft over FRAND patents in April of 2011. It wasn't until August 2011 that Google even announced their intent to acquire Motorola Mobility, and it took until May 22nd, 2012 for the deal to actually close. If you were referring to a different FRAND case, I apologize, this is the only one I'm aware of.
- Zigurd 14y agoCan't have a settlement without at least the threat of a suit, and "Let's just talk it over." probably did not get Apple's attention.