Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Sep 2012 21:45 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Microsoft and RIM have announced that RIM has licensed Redmond's exFAT patents. The press release contains a ridiculous amount of hyperbole nonsense, and if you translate it into regular people speak, it basically comes down to RIM paying Microsoft protection money for stupid nonsensical software patents. Ridiculous articles like like this make it seem as if we're talking about patents on major technological breakthroughs, but don't be fooled: this is because for some inexplicable reason, we're using crappy FAT for SD cards.
Permalink for comment 535869
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: How silly Thom!
by Alfman on Thu 20th Sep 2012 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: How silly Thom!"
Member since:


"Did you read my comment I linked?"

Oh lucas, I was hoping the meaning of my response would be self evident, since it was also addressed to your original comment.

"Most businesses medium and larger businesses decide whether it is worth going into the deal."

It's true, deciding whether to pay for patents is a cost-benefit analysis. Ie: What are the royalties being asked for versus what is the risk and projected cost of litigation? But the mere fact that they get to make this choice does not automatically make it acceptable. Consider that companies paying mofia bribes also get to make a choice as well. Of course a principal difference is that they resort to physical threats, whereas patent holders resort to economic ones. But never the less both payments are a kind of insurance against the corresponding threats. This is surely what Thom was referring to by the term "protection money".

"Recently I recommended we buy a font-deck subscription... Management agreed it was worth the extra money."

There's nothing wrong with that, however you shouldn't be using a copyright example when we're talking about patents because they're not at all the same thing. Your company paid money for the right to use a 3rd party copyrighted font in it's own products, this saved your company the effort of creating it's own fonts. With patents, your paying for the right even to use your own private implementation.

"A deal was done, and there was no court room dramatics or any other sillyness and there was simply an announcement that Microsoft made a deal with RIM."

If the cost-benefit analysis pointed in microsoft's favor, this is what we'd expect.

"Sorry whether you agree with software patents or not, nothing illegal nor immoral happened."

I'm not disagreeing with you on the fact that software patents are currently our reality. But in reading your comments I get the impression that you think acknowledging our situation implies condoning it. Let me highlight why that's not the case:

Person A: acknowledge software patents and consider them morally acceptable.

Person B: acknowledge software patents, and consider them morally wrong.

Person C: won't acknowledge software patents at all.

The difference between (A-B) and C is a matter of facts. However the difference between A and B is a matter of opinion. In far fewer words, this is what was meant in my earlier post, and it applies to your original comment as well.

Reply Parent Score: 2