4 ms·
If you thinking this is a "kumbaya" moment, think again. They've merely determined that the best they can do is litigate each other into a stalemate, or that th
by nutjob2 12y ago
If you thinking this is a "kumbaya" moment, think again. They've merely determined that the best they can do is litigate each other into a stalemate, or that they don't have a enough of a competitive overlap to warrant a war. This might be more of an "oligopoly" moment.
You have to wonder though: what would Steve Jobs have done?
- wutbrodo 12y ago> If you thinking this is a "kumbaya" moment, think again. They've merely determined that the best they can do is litigate each other into a stalemate, or that they don't have a enough of a competitive overlap to warrant a war. This might be more of an "oligopoly" moment. I don't think anyone thinks that mutually assured destruction as applied to patent lawsuits are based on a desire for world peace or anything like that. Patent stalemates always work this way because it's (unfortunately) the best way to work around the broken system[1]. Jobs was just a lunatic and this is a reversion to a more normal state of affairs for non-patent-troll companies. [1]other than sticking to a pledge to not use patents offensively, but that's something of a prisoner's dilemma that a lot of companies understandably can't resist, Apple included.