3 ms·

I was reading the other day about how companies use patents like countries use nuclear weapons: As a deterrent. Palm probably has a few patents on mobile inter

I was reading the other day about how companies use patents like countries use nuclear weapons: As a deterrent. Palm probably has a few patents on mobile internet-enabled devices or some such, which it could then use as a bargaining chip against Apple if need be. They all carry around these patent portfolios and agree to play nice. At least thats the way I see it working out.

LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
The real loser in this scenario is the small disruptive company which wants to break into the big leagues. They don't have the nukes so they don't get to play.
- dominik 18y ago
  Unless they happen to get a patent on their small, disruptive idea... Caveat: And don't infringe on any of the nuclear arsenal the big leagues have. And don't get bogged down in litigation to defend against infringement. Fortunately it's usually much cheaper for the big leagues to license a patent or buy a start-up outright than it is to try to bury them through litigation.
electromagnetic 18y ago
It does make sense, so long as Palm (or any other company for that matter) holds enough patents against its lead competitor it can blatantly rip their opponent off, so long as their counter-suit has a higher value than the initial lawsuit. It's precisely the kind of MAD theory that worked throughout the cold war. It works extremely well when things don't happen instantaneously. Missile launches between the USA and USSR were so delayed by physics that you could shoot your opponent back before they'd even killed you, it was like a masochistic Mexican standoff. Because lawsuits can take on the order of years it's effect is more profound, especially as any delay tactic in court can make the end result even more devastating. I mean I've heard of judges suspending patent use to try and hurry the case through court; I'm guessing his justification was he didn't want to die before it was resolved. I mean imagine how fast Apple would settle a patent case if a judge said "Until this case is resolved, both parties have to suspend the sale of their products using a touch screen."

LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago

The real loser in this scenario is the small disruptive company which wants to break into the big leagues. They don't have the nukes so they don't get to play.

dominik 18y ago
Unless they happen to get a patent on their small, disruptive idea... Caveat: And don't infringe on any of the nuclear arsenal the big leagues have. And don't get bogged down in litigation to defend against infringement. Fortunately it's usually much cheaper for the big leagues to license a patent or buy a start-up outright than it is to try to bury them through litigation.

electromagnetic 18y ago

It does make sense, so long as Palm (or any other company for that matter) holds enough patents against its lead competitor it can blatantly rip their opponent off, so long as their counter-suit has a higher value than the initial lawsuit. It's precisely the kind of MAD theory that worked throughout the cold war. It works extremely well when things don't happen instantaneously. Missile launches between the USA and USSR were so delayed by physics that you could shoot your opponent back before they'd even killed you, it was like a masochistic Mexican standoff. Because lawsuits can take on the order of years it's effect is more profound, especially as any delay tactic in court can make the end result even more devastating. I mean I've heard of judges suspending patent use to try and hurry the case through court; I'm guessing his justification was he didn't want to die before it was resolved. I mean imagine how fast Apple would settle a patent case if a judge said "Until this case is resolved, both parties have to suspend the sale of their products using a touch screen."