Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 20:04 UTC
Legal "As was widely expected, the Federal Trade Commission announced this morning that it has reached a settlement agreement with Google, bringing the commission's antitrust investigations into the search giant to a close. Two different areas of Google's business were being explored: the way it prioritized search results, and the way that Google had sought injunctions against devices that were thought to have infringed upon standards-essential patents from Motorola." Would have loved to see the FRAND system crumble, though. Let the patent mess explode - to change the system, we need disruption, not appeasement.
Permalink for comment 547173
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I find the potential for patent abuse potentially problematic. (When it is large, financially-rich non-practing entities against smaller organizations less able to defend themselves.) Otherwise, no, I don't find the current Samsung-Apple battle problematic. For the most part, for all its flaws, the patent system "works." (That is, there have not been unfair, significant removals of products from the marketplace for significant time periods for invalid or trivial patents. Awards and punishments have been reasonable, etc. There are more failures for all involved than wins, etc. Yes, stupid patents get issued, needless lawsuits happen, people and companies get nervous for awhile -- but this is true of all legal matters... The reality is there has not been significant disruption of business nor failure of innovation to carry on.) It seems like there is a massive, needless expenditure of resources, but the same can be said of HR benefits, insurance, financial auditing, etc... It seems like a time and money sink but each have their reasons.

No I find nothing unfair about giving greater leeway to non-standard, non-SE patents -- that seems like a perfectly logical tautology. You seem to be stuck in willfully deluding yourself that somehow "standards essential" equals mighty sword to wield against any and all competition rather than it's true meaning: "not denied to anyone because it is deemed essential."

If anything, I sometimes think there is too little protection afforded against the complete, wholesale theft, copying, or riding on the coattails of others.

Edited 2013-01-04 00:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2