Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Mar 2013 23:16 UTC
Google This. This is what we need. These are the kind of steps from which we all benefit. Google has just announced the Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge: the company promises not to sue any users, distributors, or developers of open source products based on the patents it owns (unless first attacked).
Permalink for comment 557137
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Hyperbole
by galvanash on Fri 29th Mar 2013 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hyperbole"
Member since:

Total legal fees for for Apple and Samsung in one of the biggest cases last year is estimated to have been a maximum $20 million each (probably smaller). That would represent one hundredth of one percent of Apple's revenues in a year. Get a sense of proportion.

Ill take those figures at your word, since I have never seen them. So lets just speculate that since it costs Samsung $20 million to defend in such a case it probably costs a smaller company faced by a lawsuit at least what, a quarter to half a million in legal fees (being generous)?

When 50% of the cases that go to trial are being defended by companies with a mean annual revenue of $12 million dollars (see my first post), you don't thing 5%-10% of their annual revenue is substantial?

And that is JUST legal fees. It ignores the far larger problem - out of court settlements. No one really knows what that number amounts to, but it is vastly larger that what is spent on legal fees - all research I have seen shows that less than 1% of patent lawsuit threats end up in court, about half of the other 99% are just paid outright and the other half are ignored and never followed through.

If less than 1% of cases end up with actual court filings, and of those that do it costs the economy $29 billion a year - how much do you think that other 49% that are settled before filing costs?

Disrupting some small player does not constitute 'tearing the very fabric of this industry apart'. Like I have said IP litigation may be an irritating problem but it's not a very big problem.

Almost ALL of the REAL innovation in technology comes from small players... Siri? Apple bought it. OSX? Apple bought it from NeXT. Apple's ARM design? Bought from PA Semi. The new Apple maps? Bought.

All of these were acquired from relatively small players... Apple, Google, Microsoft - true innovation from them is fairly rare. They BUY it from the kinds of companies you don't seem to give a sh*t about...

The system was built to protect the small players from the big ones. Suits like Apple vs Samsung do not matter in the grand scheme of things.

Who gives a shit about protecting Apple or Samsung? They don't need protection - they have more money than most countries do... The point is protecting all those thousands of smaller companies that are doing all the REAL innovation in technology. They are the ones getting kicked in the teeth regularly by the patent system.

99% of the features on any OS or device or platform are present on all others. Nothing of substance appears to have been blocked by IP litigation. Product bans arising from IP litigation appear to be short lived, small in number and transitory in effect. They are fluff in the system. This whole thing is just a storm in a teacup.

To you, that may be evidence that the system isn't working the way you think it should. Thats fine - I don't look at it that way but whatever. It is ignoring the real problem though... The real problem is that the system is extremely expensive and no one really benefits from it other than lawyers.

Again. That is the problem. If it actually did work they way you seem to think it should, it would be even more of a problem - because on top of costing everyone tons of money it would ALSO be stifling real competition.

The patent system is a giant leech on the technology sector - at least it isn't killing the patient...

Reply Parent Score: 5