4 ms·
I won't understate this: I want Google to eviscerate IV's entire reason for existence.
by zeruch 13y ago
I won't understate this: I want Google to eviscerate IV's entire reason for existence.
- IBM 13y agoI want Google to win if they don't infringe on their patents.
- bertil 13y agoI fully appreciate your intention to moderate the belligerent tone with reason and a Kantian admiration for applying the law as it is. However, I believe that the contention with Intellectual Ventures is that they hold patents that many say were awarded in spite of what was considered at the time (and far more so now) common concepts. It seems that voiding those patents is unreasonably hard with the law as it stands. Therefore, I hope that the judge considers not just the case, but also the industry-wide consequences, and accepts that what is commonly accepted in tech, for the greater good, are close imitation of previous designs. If I could influence the decision, I would gladly point at Haute-cuisine and their original idea-defending mechanisms.
- freehunter 13y agoAs IV is a patent troll, I want Google to win regardless of if they infringe or not, with the judgement being that IV's patents are unenforceable.
- kazagistar 13y agoI don't want software patents at all. Every single patent claim that wins is a tragedy. Infringing on a software patent should not be possible.
- bertil 13y agoI fully understand the sentiment, but let me try to hack your comment, and play the devil’s advocate: * Law works in mysterious ways: a victory for blatant reasons might be expressed with a rationale from the judge that triggers worst outcome. I hate the laws because of that (or rather, lawyers for being so clueless about economic assumptions behind recommendations) but that makes every nuanced decision so much more enjoyable. * A victory from the big, profitable company against a new business model (OK, I might have forgotten a moral decrepitude from one party in that description; thing is: law often does, too) means that jurisprudence might end up appearing a lot more in favor of winners, i.e. against competition and for established monopolies. Might: let's see what gives, but please remember that having a vivid tech scene does rely on a handful of counter-intuitive decisions that were made against allowing Standard Oil to offer cheap gas, against Microsoft for offering a simple, working solution, against Google simplifying their privacy statements. Competition law is counter-intuitive and unsatisfying.
- judk 13y agoOf Microsoft's simple solution was "working" (something like the original Chrome before Google made it into IE:The Next Generation with their proprietary pile-ons, the gnashing and wailing would not have happened. It was their proprietary crap defacto monopoly browser that led to the complaints.
- joehillen 13y ago)
- bertil 13y agoTechnically, the quality of the browser was immaterial to the EU Competition authority investigation, and a good browser (as it was at the time the investigation was suggested, an eon ego by tech standards) might have made things worst. The political support for the investigation came later, wasn't neutral to the outcome and was then triggered by the quality of the software. Administration works in mysterious ways, and the European Commission’s are strangers than Cthulhu's.
- seanysean 13y agoI must say that I find it revolting that you would invoke "competition law" to defend a patent monopoly. I understand what you're trying to say but you should keep your economic theorizing in check, seeing as you're very libertarian in your attitude towards IV and in the same model going all Keynesian on Google (and via courts no less) your facts are also off, seeing as 'non-practicing entities' or 'patent assertion entities' are hardly "new business models" in fact they've been at this racket for so long they are now called "trolls" for short, or the "Mafia" if you're an originalist.