3 ms·
> Even if the startup had the patent, it is unlikely they would have the millions it would take to enforce it against Facebook They wouldn't have to, it's much
by zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
> Even if the startup had the patent, it is unlikely they would have the millions it would take to enforce it against Facebook
They wouldn't have to, it's much cheaper and faster for Facebook to just acquire them.
Make no mistakes: whenever you read in the news that Big Company just acquired Small Company, a lot of this is justified by the patents that Small Company filed. It is much faster and cheaper for Big Company to acquire that company, its patents, its team and its products than spending years in court suing them.
- shmerl 12y ago> a lot of this is justified by the patents that Small Company filed. That's bunk. It can happen that companies are acquired for patents. But the above was the case when it's acquired for technology. That's a very different thing.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago> It is much faster and cheaper for Big Company to acquire that company, its patents, its team and its products than spending years in court suing them. Which is why software patents are so useless! Big Company needs a team and code, and it gets the product to market faster to buy the team who has already written and tested the code than to pay a new team the same money to write it again. Meanwhile the patent is useless because the cost of ligating a patent claim is an inconvenience for Big Company but a mortal danger for the startup.
- noonespecial 12y agoYes, it usually goes something like "take our excellent acquisition offer of be sued to bankruptcy for this fine collection of patents you've infringed". (Decent offer / 10)