Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 5th Jul 2011 22:12 UTC
Microsoft "One of Microsoft's hottest new profit centers is a smartphone platform you've definitely heard of: Android. Google's Linux-based mobile operating system is a favorite target for Microsoft's patent attorneys, who are suing numerous Android vendors and just today announced that another manufacturer has agreed to write checks to Microsoft every time it ships an Android device. Microsoft's latest target is Wistron Corp., which has signed a patent agreement 'that provides broad coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio for Wistron's tablets, mobile phones, e-readers and other consumer devices running the Android or Chrome platform', Microsoft announced." That's the reality we live in, folks. This is at least as criminal - if not more so - than Microsoft's monopoly abuse late last century. After the Nortel crap, it's completely left the black helicopter camp for me: Microsoft, Apple, and several others are working together to fight Android the only way they know how: with underhand mafia tactics. Absolutely sickening. Hey Anonymous, are you listening? YES I WENT THERE.
Thread beginning with comment 479694
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Patents are patents
by vivainio on Wed 6th Jul 2011 01:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Patents are patents"
Member since:

Except I'm not going to spend the money to *think* of the idea if I know someone else can just come along and steal it from me.

Ok, don't. It's your choice how you decide to make money, take risks etc.

Ideas are dime a dozen, implementation is king. If you can't compete with implementation, do something else.

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[6]: Patents are patents
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 13:23 in reply to "RE[5]: Patents are patents"
pantheraleo Member since:

Ok, don't. It's your choice how you decide to make money, take risks etc.

I can compete with implementation. And I can do it for cheaper than you can because I didn't have to spend the money on R&D to come up with the idea.

Ideas are dime a dozen, implementation is king. If you can't compete with implementation, do something else.

Actually, I'd disagree with that. Coming up with an innovative idea and figuring out whether it is viable or not is probably the hardest part of software development these days. Most ideas fail. And failed ideas end up costing companies a lot of money. That's why if there are no patents, I wait until another company comes up with a good idea that seems to be getting some traction, and then I pounce on it, copy it, and undercut their prices because my R&D costs were much lower.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Patents are patents
by bnolsen on Wed 6th Jul 2011 14:09 in reply to "RE[6]: Patents are patents"
bnolsen Member since:

the reality TODAY is that companies now purely exist to generate patents and sell their patent portfolio to the big guys to enable them to crush those innovative players who want to change the market.

The problem is that it costs lots of money to file, requires a lawyer to draft and file...more than 100k in our experience. Being a small business we can't afford this, and in addition we don't believe what we do should be patentable.

I'm amazed at the stupid stuff I've been seeing patented. The problem is that it costs $$ to defend if someone threatens you and that's a death kiss for a small business who typically does about break even.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Patents are patents
by JAlexoid on Wed 6th Jul 2011 16:29 in reply to "RE[6]: Patents are patents"
JAlexoid Member since:

Real life example - Apple's iOS touch algorithms.
So far nobody has been able to copy them. That is the reason Android has this reaction delay to input.

Apple may not have been granted a patent on it yet, but I couldn't find if they even patented.

You seem to really hate all those mathematicians and physicists that come up and came up with most mathematics and physics behind all the innovation. Why aren't you giving them any credit? Because they spend years and years in research labs, yet their work and their ideas are not patentable.
However a schmuck surfaces that has spent as little as 6 months on selecting the most obvious* mathematical formula, gets a patent on a "new" algorithm and rips the rewards of the years that mathematician spent proving his formula...

* - to a mathematician, not the schmuck

I already said it once and I'll say it again - R&D costs do not reflect the effort required for R&D. Specially in software. R&D costs reflect how much a company poured into the development of the software.

Reply Parent Score: 3