Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 3rd Mar 2013 13:48 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless At TechCrunch, Jolla's CEO Marc Dillon explains why his company will focus on China, Finland, and the rest of Europe first, ignoring the US. "The US market is not on the radar as yet, as he says the patent landscape there 'raises a barrier' of entry to newcomers (he's especially critical of overly aggressive use of design patents)." Considering the patent mess in the US is only getting worse, expect to see more of this in the future. Jolla is making a wise decision by ignoring the US - as a young technology company, you're far better off focusing your attention elsewhere.
Thread beginning with comment 554209
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Translation
by bentoo on Tue 5th Mar 2013 02:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Translation"
bentoo
Member since:
2012-09-21

If any of your answers to the questions above is "yes", kindly pass whatever you're smoking.


Then how do small start-ups like Google, Ouya, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. succeed without having pre-existing patent portfolios?

Conversely why are companies with said "multi-billion dollar" patent portfolios (HP, etc.) failing at the same time?

While I agree that the patent system is broken it doesn't keep people from trying (and succeeding in some cases). In this case it's just an excuse. Puff. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Translation
by Alfman on Tue 5th Mar 2013 16:09 in reply to "RE[2]: Translation"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

bentoo,

"Then how do small start-ups like Google, Ouya, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. succeed without having pre-existing patent portfolios?"

"Conversely why are companies with said 'multi-billion dollar' patent portfolios (HP, etc.) failing at the same time?"

There are clearly many factors other than patents at work when it comes to success. There's timing, market saturation, leadership, public image, investors, technical capabilities, legal capabilities, just to name a few. As convenient as it is to look at them in general isolation, it's really the aggregation of all factors which decides a company's fate.

If we really do want to take a look at isolated factors in any meaningful way, we need to be taking representative samples and not just assuming those at the very top are the only ones that matter.


To answer your first question a bit more directly, my own opinion is that they hit good timing. Their respective markets were young with little competition and enormous growth opportunities. Hypothetically, I think every one of them would be harder pressed to succeed under a mature market which is already well entrenched.

BTW Cuil is a very interesting case study on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuil


In theory, nascent markets will paint the patent system in the most favorable light because everyone gets to start anew and startups are much less likely to find themselves embroiled in turf wars with established players. Now let's turn your question around and ask if any of these companies needed patents to reach success? If not, then maybe we need to rethink the patent system's role as a driver for innovation.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Translation
by bentoo on Wed 6th Mar 2013 02:20 in reply to "RE[3]: Translation"
bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

@alfman

Agreed. But these and many others have succeeded despite the patent system which the previous post inferred was impossible. Again, in Jolla's case, blaming the patent system is just an excuse for not having a marketable product.

Reply Parent Score: 1