4 ms·
IIRC, big companies used to claim they were gathering these patents to _prevent_ this situation from happening, using a similar logic to that of hoarding nuclea
by larsberg 14y ago
IIRC, big companies used to claim they were gathering these patents to _prevent_ this situation from happening, using a similar logic to that of hoarding nuclear weapons to mutually assured destruction.
But it appears that something in the balance has changed, and I'm not really sure what. Are the lawyers just doing a bad job of agreeing on the licensing fees (i.e. penalty for having less cross-targeted bombs for a given opponent)? It's hard to know what to make of it all, putting myself in the shoes of an exec at one of these large companies. At least when I was at MSFT, we used to worry about this thing called "bad press" around lawsuits of this kind...
- Lewisham 14y agoWhat changed was that Nokia was on the rocks, so they launched their missiles. And, as is the way with mutually assured destruction scenarios, Apple responded, and everyone else got dragged in one way or another.
- tsotha 14y agoYep, MAD only works until the first guy pulls the trigger.
- niels_olson 14y agoRef: World War One
- rmc 14y agoBut it appears that something in the balance has changed, and I'm not really sure what. Google are trying to stop software patents by actually using the ones they have? Force a meltdown?
- dspeyer 14y agoI think the destabilizing thing was how long Google _didn't_ play the MAD game. So Apple went on the warpath feeling safe. But Google militarized really fast.