Say what you want about Twitter - pointless, annoying, noise, useless - at least the company has its heart in the right place. Twitter just announced the Innovator's Patent Agreement, a promise not use their or their employees' patents offensively. In a world where yesterday's innovators are today's patent trolls - Apple, Microsoft, Oracle - this is a big deal.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-11-13
The companies that are currently being 'sue happy' with their patents might change their tune if they get seriously p0wned by a patent lawsuit or two. If they end up having to pay millions for violating somebody's finger gesture patent (or something equally a stupid), perhaps they'll come to the realization that the patent profit margin isn't worth all of the bullshit.
Member since:2006-02-01
You mean, like Microsoft:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/10/microsoft-canada-i... (290milions$)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eolas (~30milions$)
...
Those are considered collateral damages, the big companies still gain more from patents than the occasional loss, either by licensing or by locking the market.
Member since:
2007-02-18
Member since:
2007-07-27
I hope they dont break their promises, just as IBM does:
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/04/ibm-breaks-oss-pate...
IBM first released 511 patents to open source, but what happened? Read the article.
Member since:
2009-01-22
Member since:2005-06-29
I would be interested to know what definition of "patent troll" you use to consider any of these companies as one of them.
"Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who buys and enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered by the target or observers as unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to further develop, manufacture or market the patented invention."
Wikipedia.
Member since:2009-01-22
Member since:2005-06-29
It seems you forgot the key point which make the difference between an actual patent troll and a company such as the one you mentioned:
"with no intention to further develop, manufacture or market the patented invention"
And you miss the key word:
"often with no intention".
It fascinates me how hard some people try not to have to accept reality. Quite entertaining.
Edited 2012-04-18 08:09 UTC
Member since:2007-02-18
Does it matter how often the intention is, though? Patent troll is hardly a legal term with precise legal definitions. It's more like a meme and those aren't well defined.
I think the more important feature of genuine patent trolls is their core business model. Apple et al's core business model isn't patent litigation. They may be "evil" companies, evil meaning "anticompetitive", but patent troll is a very specific subset of anticompetitive.
Member since:2005-06-29
That's definitely true, but there's no denying that once you use patents JUST to stifle competition (like these companies are doing), the term troll applies just fine.
You wouldn't hear me if Apple was, say, suing makers of the Aeppl yPhone, those 1:1 copies that run some Flash-based OS with the same icons and all that.
Member since:2011-05-12
Still, "often" means often.
You can't claim Apple/Microsoft often don't want to do anything with their patents. When they sue it's always regarding patented stuff already in use. So in their cases it's "never".
We have been over this before. You regard anyone who sues over patents to be a troll, unless they're on your good guys list. You degrade the term offering no differences between for example a real company like Microsoft or a shady one that produces nothing and just buys patents to sue.
How would you qualify those? Mega trolls or trolls++?
Member since:2006-09-02
...
You degrade the term offering no differences between for example a real company like Microsoft or a shady one that produces nothing and just buys patents to sue.
Because the way Microsoft gets royalties after Android phones sold by other companies is completely different from "produces nothing and just buys patents to sue", right?
Member since:2011-05-12
Microsoft hasn't sued those companies, they threaten to sue unless they license patented technology. These patents may be disputed, but most "targets" tend to license. Even so, these patents, valid or not, belong to Microsoft, are/were in use by Microsoft and Microsoft does a whole lot more than collecting patent money.
Compare this to companies that run from a small office and do nothing else but buying patents with the SOLE intent to sue. Their whole business is focussed on this, it's their only business, all employees, both of them, do nothing else but patent related stuff.
Besides, if Microsoft doesn't make those companies license their patents or sue they risk invalidating their patents.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2007-02-18
The mafia hasn't broken my knee caps. They only threaten to break my knee caps if I don't pay them protection money. The fairness of the relationship may be disputed, but I tend to choose the "intact knee caps" option.
Member since:2006-12-15
Indeed.
It seems you forgot the key point which make the difference between an actual patent troll and a company such as the one you mentioned:
"with no intention to further develop, manufacture or market the patented invention"
And you miss the key word:
"often with no intention".
It fascinates me how hard some people try not to have to accept reality. Quite entertaining.
I think you missed the key phrase
"who buys and enforces patents"
Most of the companies listed didn't buy the the patents they are enforcing. They were granted/given the patents.They are the original patent holders.
Tolls buy up other people's patents then enforce them.
Edited 2012-04-21 07:47 UTC
Member since:
2005-09-08
Member since:
2011-10-12
While Twitter's efforts are welcome it seems like this IPA is pretty vague and some of the key elements are very open to interpretation.
This initiative gives Twitter some useful positive press but in reality it doesn't change much .
I also find your views of certain companies as "patent trolls", while leaving others out of the picture, pretty naive.
Member since:
2011-08-08
Member since:
2006-07-04