3 ms·

What's wrong with that? They failed to monetize their innovation now the rest of the market should have a chance.

• polyfractal 14y ago
  It's their duty to shareholders and investors to return as much money as they can. No one would claim that they should give their factories and office furniture to the "Public Domain". They are going to liquidate that stuff. Why would patents be different?
  • angersock 14y ago
    Factories and chairs have intrinsic value, and perform their duties as well as can be expected irrespective of the user if operated properly. An idea or patent is utterly worthless without execution; a chair in the hands of a dullard or genius functions the same way.
    • polyfractal 14y ago
      This seems to be an arbitrary limitation you are applying. Most specialized machinery requires highly-skilled workers. They are effectively useless without the right person operating (executing) the machinery. Regardless, my original point still stands: it is their duty to return as much money as they can to shareholders/investors. Someone is willing to buy their patent portfolio, therefore they are selling it. Why are you trying to assign morals to something as simple as an exchange of assets in a market? (This isn't arguing for or against the idea of patenting these technologies...that's a different can of worms. But as it stands, they A) have patents and B) are capable of selling said patents.)
    • jgeralnik 14y ago
      An idea or patent is utterly worthless without execution No it's not. In this case it's worth $525m. Clearly other people assign value to them, even if you don't.
      • dbrian 14y ago
        Worthless to society, not worthless to lawyers who will sue people doing useful work.
    • jdechko 14y ago
      In a world where ideas weren't patentable, they'd be worthless. For better or worse, the current US system says that ideas don't have to be executed in order for patents to be granted. Patents are valuable only because the current system says they are.