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).
Thread beginning with comment 557091
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Hyperbole
by tidux on Fri 29th Mar 2013 13:58 UTC in reply to "Hyperbole"
tidux
Member since:
2011-08-13

> what hasn't happened that would have if there were no patents?

Red Hat products can't ship ECDSA or MP3 or H.264 because of patents, which makes things like embedded or security much more likely to use another distribution, or another OS entirely.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Hyperbole
by Tony Swash on Fri 29th Mar 2013 14:24 in reply to "RE: Hyperbole"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Red Hat products can't ship ECDSA or MP3 or H.264 because of patents, which makes things like embedded or security much more likely to use another distribution, or another OS entirely.


Yes they can ship those things they just have to pay for them like any other company. If the products they are shipping are operating at such a marginal cost/price ratio that they cannot afford the license fees then the problem is in their business not in the IP system. And anyway Red Hat and it's products are marginal and tiny players in the tech markets and not because they are limited by IP but because their products are low volume marginal products. The limitations of Red Hat as a business and the imitations of the tech they sell has nothing to do with IP. Using Red Hat as an example does not support the thesis that the tech industry is in any way significantly impacted by IP litigation because with or without IP litigation and restrictions Red Hat would remain a small bit player.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: Hyperbole
by WereCatf on Fri 29th Mar 2013 14:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Hyperbole"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

And anyway Red Hat and it's products are marginal and tiny players in the tech markets and not because they are limited by IP but because their products are low volume marginal products.


I won't bother to start to argue with you as you've multiple times in the past already shown how much you're pro-patents and whatnot, but I'll just point out that you're saying that Red Hat's products are low-volume, marginal products because they're low-volume, marginal products. You might have to re-think the argument here.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Hyperbole
by Soulbender on Fri 29th Mar 2013 15:51 in reply to "RE[2]: Hyperbole"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

And anyway Red Hat and it's products are marginal and tiny players in the tech markets


Yes, RH is a real marginal player in the server space. Fo' sure!
I don't particularly like their product but saying they are a marginal player shows a certain lack of knowledge.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Hyperbole
by Alfman on Sat 30th Mar 2013 03:50 in reply to "RE[2]: Hyperbole"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Tony Swash,

"And anyway Red Hat and it's products are marginal and tiny players in the tech markets and not because they are limited by IP but because their products are low volume marginal products."

This is astonishingly ignorant of the magnitudes of small businesses in the market. Red Hat, as small as they are still have 1500 employees, which is still above the top 0.3 percentile of all companies in the US. If you disregard redhat's interests in the patent system due to their "tiny" size, you'd also have to disregard 99.7+% of other companies in existence as well. Of course, none of that matters to you right?

The numbers can be broken down by specific industries as well, for instance: software publishers, where Red Hat is above the top 4 percentile. So this implies that 96+% of software publishers don't matter in your argument because they're "marginal".



Don't let the RDF make you oblivious to the fact that the patent system affects many more people & technology companies than exist in your mind.


http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/
http://www.computerworld.com/spring/bp/detail/794

I made up a graph to put it into perspective.
http://i.imgur.com/7gQjA4D.png

Edit: Not all companies are negatively affected by patents, but by snobbishly brushing aside the needs of companies that are more representative of the industry, you'll end up with policy that is terribly skewed and harmful to the majority of the industry. I guess I'm naive to suppose you'd care.

Edited 2013-03-30 04:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7