Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Aug 2011 21:38 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y The Google-Microsoft patent war of words is continuing. Yesterday, Google (rightfully so, in my book) accused Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle partaking in an organised patent attack against Android, instead of competing on merit, claiming that they bought up Novell's and Nortel's patents solely to attack Android and its device makers. Microsoft struck back, claiming Google was offered to join in on the bids for the Novell patents, but rejected the offer. Google has now responded to this accusation - and to make matters even more confusing, Microsoft responded back. A public shouting match between two powerful parties? Count me in!
Thread beginning with comment 483816
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
deppbv78
Member since:
2008-06-29

Then the question would be, why should any company or person invest millions of $$$ on R&D to innovate something so that others can just copy them?

Everybody will wait for other to innovate so that they can copy. Thereby resulting in a condition where nobody innovates due to the fear of copy.

People are not altruists. It hurts when somebody steals something of yours. It is common human behavior and there is nothing wrong in it.

Patent provides an incentive for innovation and creates another channel for sharing without fear of stealing. Hence, it is needed.

However, there should be restrictions on patents such as max. 5yrs-life, no patent selling/buying, etc which I've already stated in my other post. Such restrictions would surely help in eliminating patent trolls.

Reply Parent Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Then the question would be, why should any company or person invest millions of $$$ on R&D to innovate something so that others can just copy them?

Everybody will wait for other to innovate so that they can copy. Thereby resulting in a condition where nobody innovates due to the fear of copy.


History disagrees with you. The software industry has done without software patents for most of its existence - and during this period without software patents, technological development was just as fast-paced - if not more so - than today.

Another example is the steam locomotive. Before Watt received a patent on certain parts of the steam engine, steam engines increased their power and efficiency very rapidly. Then, when Watt got his patent, development came to a screeching halt for the entire duration of his patent. When the patent expired, development went back to its regular, crazy-fast pace.

For most of the history of mankind, we have done without patents - which are not an inalienable human right, but a legal construct - and we did just fine.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18


History disagrees with you. The software industry has done without software patents for most of its existence - and during this period without software patents, technological development was just as fast-paced - if not more so - than today.


"On 21 May 1962, a British patent application entitled "A Computer Arranged for the Automatic Solution of Linear Programming Problems" was filed. The invention was concerned with efficient memory management for the simplex algorithm, and could be implemented by purely software means. The patent was granted on August 17, 1966 and seems to be one of the first software patents." -Wikipedia

Reply Parent Score: 2

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Then the question would be, why should any company or person invest millions of $$$ on R&D to innovate something so that others can just copy them?

Everybody will wait for other to innovate so that they can copy. Thereby resulting in a condition where nobody innovates due to the fear of copy.

Wrong. Why would they innovate? To be the first to develop the technology. If they are the first, then they have a head start in the market. Everybody else that copied would be one step behind. Especially in the software industry what is liable is not the final product but minuscule aspects of the product that couldn't be worked around because nobody knows what implementations the patents apply to.


People are not altruists. It hurts when somebody steals something of yours. It is common human behavior and there is nothing wrong in it.

Stop using the term steal. To steal implies that you dispossess the thing the other person had.


Patent provides an incentive for innovation and creates another channel for sharing without fear of stealing. Hence, it is needed.

It also allows the creation of a patent sausage factory, like (reportedly) MS. They patent every and anything they come up with and have the massive legal and bureaucratic infrastructure to churn out this stuff even when not using it. How does this help the little guy?


However, there should be restrictions on patents such as max. 5yrs-life, no patent selling/buying, etc which I've already stated in my other post. Such restrictions would surely help in eliminating patent trolls.


But not large enterprises from trolling each other, or blocking out smaller competitors.

Edited 2011-08-05 11:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5