3 ms·

First of all, I think it might be good if the FTC sue Motorola to explicitly nail down how FRAND patents can be used. Secondly, I'm happy to see Motorola (Goog

by naner 14y ago

First of all, I think it might be good if the FTC sue Motorola to explicitly nail down how FRAND patents can be used. Secondly, I'm happy to see Motorola (Google) going after Apple and Microsoft with these patents. They are the two greatest perpetrators of unreasonable software patent abuse and they also both helped shape the system as it currently exists. To be clear: If Motorola were going after other companies, I would have a problem with that type of behavior. Apple and Microsoft, however, deserve every kind of patent abuse they are getting (and then some).

czhiddy 14y ago
Just prior to their acquisition by Google, Motorola was planning on suing other Android manufacturers to collect patent royalties [1][2]. Some of the commentary I've read speculated that the Motorola purchase was done partly to avoid civil war among the Android licensees. Interestingly enough, Sanjay Jha left the company right after the merger was finalized (with a healthy golden parachute to boot!). [1] http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/08/11/motorolas-sanjay-jha-openly-admits-they-plan-to-collect-ip-royalties-from-other-android-makers/ http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/08/11/motorolas-sanjay-jha-o... [2] http://www.phonearena.com/news/Motorola-wants-a-piece-of-that-Android-patent-infringement-pie-too_id21145 http://www.phonearena.com/news/Motorola-wants-a-piece-of-tha...
rayiner 14y ago
> To be clear: If Motorola were going after other companies, I would have a problem with that type of behavior. Apple and Microsoft, however, deserve every kind of patent abuse they are getting (and then some). This isn't patent abuse at all. The patents in question involve sophisticated, complex technologies (Wi-Fi and video compression). It's not the type of thing you accidentally stumble upon--these were technologies created by a consortium, including Motorola, at substantial cost. Licensing the underlying patents, and litigating if those patents are infringed, is how the members of the consortium recoup those costs. The situation presents the classical case of applicability for patents--you want the technology to be openly disseminated, so it can be used as a standard, but don't want people to be able to use it without paying. As much as people kvetch about standards patents, they're an example of the patent system working well. You have an industry consortium (of specialists in a specific area) which develops complicated technology then standardizes it for everyone to use. Companies who want to be compatible with the standard then license the patents underlying the technology. The patents are just the legal glue that facilitate that transaction. Patent litigation is the mechanism by which the terms of that transaction are enforced--just like litigation is always the mechanism by which the terms of transactions are enforced.
- jivatmanx 14y ago
  I agree with this - A similar example of patents working in a reasonable manner is the pharmaceutical industry, where the time and money investment of developing a new drug is astronomical, and it can be reasonably argued that this justifies the 20-year monopoly that a patent entails. The above cannot be said for design patents. Because there are essentially no barriers to entry in getting a design patent, yet they last the same 20 years as the development of a new drug, it's easy to see this getting stupid and destructive for the tech industry.

by naner 14y ago

czhiddy 14y ago

Just prior to their acquisition by Google, Motorola was planning on suing other Android manufacturers to collect patent royalties [1][2]. Some of the commentary I've read speculated that the Motorola purchase was done partly to avoid civil war among the Android licensees. Interestingly enough, Sanjay Jha left the company right after the merger was finalized (with a healthy golden parachute to boot!). [1] http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/08/11/motorolas-sanjay-jha-openly-admits-they-plan-to-collect-ip-royalties-from-other-android-makers/ http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/08/11/motorolas-sanjay-jha-o... [2] http://www.phonearena.com/news/Motorola-wants-a-piece-of-that-Android-patent-infringement-pie-too_id21145 http://www.phonearena.com/news/Motorola-wants-a-piece-of-tha...

rayiner 14y ago

> To be clear: If Motorola were going after other companies, I would have a problem with that type of behavior. Apple and Microsoft, however, deserve every kind of patent abuse they are getting (and then some). This isn't patent abuse at all. The patents in question involve sophisticated, complex technologies (Wi-Fi and video compression). It's not the type of thing you accidentally stumble upon--these were technologies created by a consortium, including Motorola, at substantial cost. Licensing the underlying patents, and litigating if those patents are infringed, is how the members of the consortium recoup those costs. The situation presents the classical case of applicability for patents--you want the technology to be openly disseminated, so it can be used as a standard, but don't want people to be able to use it without paying. As much as people kvetch about standards patents, they're an example of the patent system working well. You have an industry consortium (of specialists in a specific area) which develops complicated technology then standardizes it for everyone to use. Companies who want to be compatible with the standard then license the patents underlying the technology. The patents are just the legal glue that facilitate that transaction. Patent litigation is the mechanism by which the terms of that transaction are enforced--just like litigation is always the mechanism by which the terms of transactions are enforced.

jivatmanx 14y ago
I agree with this - A similar example of patents working in a reasonable manner is the pharmaceutical industry, where the time and money investment of developing a new drug is astronomical, and it can be reasonably argued that this justifies the 20-year monopoly that a patent entails. The above cannot be said for design patents. Because there are essentially no barriers to entry in getting a design patent, yet they last the same 20 years as the development of a new drug, it's easy to see this getting stupid and destructive for the tech industry.