Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: "Google loses 5 million dollars over a Linux patent"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default "Google loses 5 million dollars over a Linux patent"

    http://us.generation-nt.com/google-p...s-2872021.html

    i hope google will stand hart in this lawsuit

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Google got away cheap, that amounts to their Friday night bar tab.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Google got away cheap, that amounts to their Friday night bar tab.
    right... but in general its not so good.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    right... but in general its not so good.
    Any type of patent isn't good in some views. Too many people look at the "patent-trolls" being the problem when the actual problem is the whole concept of a patent.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5

    Default

    It is really a sad news for Google and it is really an informative news.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Although I do not like the implications I'd rather have a definitive ruling then 20+ years of "sword rattling".

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Any type of patent isn't good in some views. Too many people look at the "patent-trolls" being the problem when the actual problem is the whole concept of a patent.
    Yes, how dare someone attempt to make money from their inventions. Those capitalist swine bastards...

    The problem is not the concept of a patent, but what they can be granted for. In a system where anything short of a human being can be patented, the solution is to change what can and can not be patented, not abolish patents altogether.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Owatonna, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    The problem is not the concept of a patent,
    I disagree. Dating back to days of Watt and the steam engine, patents were (and still are) used primarily to limit competition and increase wealth through licensing deals and/or litigation. It was because of Watt and his lobbying efforts that patents got extended to last 20 years.
    A patent is also a micro-monopoly that goes against the very concept of a free enterprise market. It's ironic we have a patent system as well as anti-trust laws here in the US. Innovation occurs from competition, not from monopolistic stagnation (which patents often induce.)

    but what they can be granted for.
    Scaling back what is patentable would be a good start in the right direction.

    In a system where anything short of a human being can be patented, the solution is to change what can and can not be patented, not abolish patents altogether.
    You'd be surprised. Much of the human genome is patented, so patenting a genetically-modified human being could be a problem in the no-too-distant future.
    I do agree with the idea of scaling back what can be patented. It would also be much more sane to limit any given patent to a 5-year maximum. I do not agree that abolishing patents should not be considered, though.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    Yes, how dare someone attempt to make money from their inventions. Those capitalist swine bastards...
    I used to work for a company that was big into patents. The primary reason was that no-one in the industry could operate without cross-licensing all the competition's patents, so we had to have patents to cross-license with everyone else so we could license theirs.

    The only real effect was to keep new competition out of the market who could have produced better products or at a lower cost. And to keep a lot of patent lawyers employed while wasting a lot of our time that could have been spent on developing new stuff rather than writing patent applications.

    This is why patent trolls are so effective: they don't actually make anything so they have no need to cross-license their patents.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueJayofEvil View Post
    A patent is also a micro-monopoly that goes against the very concept of a free enterprise market. It's ironic we have a patent system as well as anti-trust laws here in the US. Innovation occurs from competition, not from monopolistic stagnation (which patents often induce.)


    If you invent something, then you deserve to have a micro-monopoly on your invention. You invented it. Especially when you throw your family into the mix. Inventors work very hard some times, often times I'd suppose. How is an inventor going to support their own families if they can't get paid for their work, because as soon as they invent it it gets copied by someone else?

    It does not go against a free enterprise market for an inventor to freely invent and then patent his work so that he can be properly compensated for his work. That's the very definition of free enterprise.

    I know I'm not going to go through all the work of inventing if I'm not getting paid for it. My family can't afford it. How about yours?

    Scaling back what is patentable would be a good start in the right direction.
    That's a fair argument. Also, the length of patent could be revisited. We certainly don't need people dictating from their graves, for example.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •