3 ms·

Interesting times. There is no doubt that the legal punches thrown at Android have been anti-competitive and kills innovation instead of what there were meant t

Interesting times. There is no doubt that the legal punches thrown at Android have been anti-competitive and kills innovation instead of what there were meant to protect. For example reportedly Microsoft earns more from Android than selling Windows phone: http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-is-making-2bn-a-year-on-android-licensing-five-times-more-than-windows-phone-7000022936/ http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-is-making-2bn-a-year-on-andro.... If the patents were that useful for innovation, Microsoft would have been ahead of Google by miles.

X-Istence 13y ago
Except that Microsoft innovated, got there first and clearly has something valuable if other companies are using it's IP (self evident since companies are paying them licensing fees).
- codygman 13y ago
  The reason for paying licensing fees doesn't have to be that Micro$oft has something valuable, it could very well be they are afraid of legal repercussions.
  - clarky07 13y ago
    If they weren't infringing, the companies wouldn't be paying. It's not like we are talking about some mom and pop that is going to go out of business from legal fees. We are talking major handset manufacturers.
    - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
      It's not about going out of business, it's about cost/benefit. What good does it do you to avoid paying a million dollars in license fees if it costs you two million dollars in lawyers fees to do it? (The answer is that it keeps you from being painted as a mark by other trolls. But it still doesn't change the math -- it costs more to fight than to pay.)
- pyre 13y ago
  > self evident since companies are paying them licensing fees Not necessarily. Companies could be paying them licensing fees because it's less costly then a protracted court battle with an unknown outcome.
mikhailt 13y ago
A serious question, what was the patent system created for? > ... gives Congress the power "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8). From what I read based on what some legal experts simplified but again, "it's the Internet" but basically, they considered patents as legal rights to monopolize on such innovations. So, based on that, exactly how is it anti-competitive to disallow other companies to use the said patents unless they agree to pay for the rights?
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  One could easily make the argument in this context by this part: "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." The argument here is that the only ones that should benefit from this are the authors and inventors, and they and only they are granted "exclusive" rights. No one else. In fact, I'd find that fair. The implication being you can't sell or transfer those rights to someone, and those rights are only granted to the authors and inventors. Which leads us to this question: "exactly how is it anti-competitive to disallow other companies to use the said patents unless they agree to pay for the rights?" It's not, as long as the one doing the license is the author or inventor. One should not be able to transfer those rights to a third party, as it's explicitly an exclusive right.
- stormbrew 13y ago
  It's by definition anti-competitive. Its entire purpose is to reduce competition so that the inventor can profit from it. Even if inventors were required to license their inventions to other people for a truly fair rate it would still be anti-competitive since it would increase the costs (and thus barrier to entry) of competition. The inventor still enjoys a significant advantage in the market (not having to pay the license fees). It's fair to ask if it's bad for there to be an official form of anti-competition, but call a spade a spade.
rajeevk 13y ago
What kind of innovation do you see in Android? It has been almost being copy-pasted. Google copied everything, from kernel (Linux) to UI design and trying to make lot of money from it and expecting others not to sue. EDIT: The replies of this comment say that the others (Apple etc) are too copying and copying kernel in not wrong. Well, I did not say that copying is wrong. What I mean is that copying is NOT innovation.
- gtaylor 13y ago
  To be fair, Apple has done its fair share of copying the last few years, too. They all do it now. Singling out one is pretty silly these days. Also, Android didn't copy the kernel. They adopted it, modified it, and abide by the license (and have even started contributing changes upstream).
- Datsundere 13y ago
  I think the correct term you're looking for is 'forked'. Which inevitably brings forth the discussion of dongling the fork, or is it forking the dongle? BTW, widgets were original to android in regards to apple, were they not?
- namespace 13y ago
  There is nothing wrong with "copying" kernel. This is what the open source is aimed at: Infectious growth. In fact that was the right and smart thing to do.
  - rajeevk 13y ago
    I did not say the copying is wrong. I said copying is not innovation
    - nevi-me 13y ago
      I think you might be unfamiliar with 'open source' and its licensing. Android is a Linux-based distribution, which means that it uses a Linux kernel. 'Copy': make a similar or identical version of; reproduce: [1] Google forked and contribute to the kernel. They did not create their own identical version of, or reproduce, the kernel. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/copy http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/copy
nivla 13y ago
>have been anti-competitive. Although it seems so now, keep in mind Google bid for these patents themselves and lost. They were also offered to join the Rockstar consortium, which they declined. Unfair definitely, but not enough to qualify as anti-competitive under a black & white banner.

X-Istence 13y ago

Except that Microsoft innovated, got there first and clearly has something valuable if other companies are using it's IP (self evident since companies are paying them licensing fees).

codygman 13y ago
The reason for paying licensing fees doesn't have to be that Micro$oft has something valuable, it could very well be they are afraid of legal repercussions.
- clarky07 13y ago
  If they weren't infringing, the companies wouldn't be paying. It's not like we are talking about some mom and pop that is going to go out of business from legal fees. We are talking major handset manufacturers.
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    It's not about going out of business, it's about cost/benefit. What good does it do you to avoid paying a million dollars in license fees if it costs you two million dollars in lawyers fees to do it? (The answer is that it keeps you from being painted as a mark by other trolls. But it still doesn't change the math -- it costs more to fight than to pay.)
pyre 13y ago
> self evident since companies are paying them licensing fees Not necessarily. Companies could be paying them licensing fees because it's less costly then a protracted court battle with an unknown outcome.

mikhailt 13y ago

A serious question, what was the patent system created for? > ... gives Congress the power "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8). From what I read based on what some legal experts simplified but again, "it's the Internet" but basically, they considered patents as legal rights to monopolize on such innovations. So, based on that, exactly how is it anti-competitive to disallow other companies to use the said patents unless they agree to pay for the rights?

jasonlotito 13y ago
One could easily make the argument in this context by this part: "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." The argument here is that the only ones that should benefit from this are the authors and inventors, and they and only they are granted "exclusive" rights. No one else. In fact, I'd find that fair. The implication being you can't sell or transfer those rights to someone, and those rights are only granted to the authors and inventors. Which leads us to this question: "exactly how is it anti-competitive to disallow other companies to use the said patents unless they agree to pay for the rights?" It's not, as long as the one doing the license is the author or inventor. One should not be able to transfer those rights to a third party, as it's explicitly an exclusive right.
stormbrew 13y ago
It's by definition anti-competitive. Its entire purpose is to reduce competition so that the inventor can profit from it. Even if inventors were required to license their inventions to other people for a truly fair rate it would still be anti-competitive since it would increase the costs (and thus barrier to entry) of competition. The inventor still enjoys a significant advantage in the market (not having to pay the license fees). It's fair to ask if it's bad for there to be an official form of anti-competition, but call a spade a spade.

rajeevk 13y ago

What kind of innovation do you see in Android? It has been almost being copy-pasted. Google copied everything, from kernel (Linux) to UI design and trying to make lot of money from it and expecting others not to sue. EDIT: The replies of this comment say that the others (Apple etc) are too copying and copying kernel in not wrong. Well, I did not say that copying is wrong. What I mean is that copying is NOT innovation.

gtaylor 13y ago
To be fair, Apple has done its fair share of copying the last few years, too. They all do it now. Singling out one is pretty silly these days. Also, Android didn't copy the kernel. They adopted it, modified it, and abide by the license (and have even started contributing changes upstream).
Datsundere 13y ago
I think the correct term you're looking for is 'forked'. Which inevitably brings forth the discussion of dongling the fork, or is it forking the dongle? BTW, widgets were original to android in regards to apple, were they not?
namespace 13y ago
There is nothing wrong with "copying" kernel. This is what the open source is aimed at: Infectious growth. In fact that was the right and smart thing to do.
- rajeevk 13y ago
  I did not say the copying is wrong. I said copying is not innovation
  - nevi-me 13y ago
    I think you might be unfamiliar with 'open source' and its licensing. Android is a Linux-based distribution, which means that it uses a Linux kernel. 'Copy': make a similar or identical version of; reproduce: [1] Google forked and contribute to the kernel. They did not create their own identical version of, or reproduce, the kernel. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/copy http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/copy

nivla 13y ago

>have been anti-competitive. Although it seems so now, keep in mind Google bid for these patents themselves and lost. They were also offered to join the Rockstar consortium, which they declined. Unfair definitely, but not enough to qualify as anti-competitive under a black & white banner.