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 557105
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Hyperbole
by novad on Fri 29th Mar 2013 14:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hyperbole"
novad
Member since:
2010-06-10

'hate of Google' really?


Yes really... If you take only your posts in this thread out of the general context there could be a doubt. But your history on OSnews speaks by itself

There is nothing factually wrong about the statement that Google is engaged in several legal actions in which it has deployed FRAND standard based patents.


You're right but... Where did I state something else, or where did I say Google is a philantropic company? I appreaciate THIS move. I think it's positive START and should be extended to show a real advance with the IP "problem"

It's conceivable that IP litigation has done all sorts of hidden damage to the tech industry just as it's conceivable that Elvis is alive and well and in hiding somewhere. But there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support either proposition.


I hope this is part of your "cynicism" or you just lost any credibility.


There is however the evidence of many large tech companies making mobile devices and several different mobile operating platforms in play in the market, and I cannot for the life of me see any significant feature or technical aspect of any of those devices or operating systems that is present on one but not the others as a result of IP litigation.


Each of these not so many companies is engaged in numerous legal actions which cost insane amouts of money that are taken from R&D and our own pockets when we pay the "legal tax" on each device. How many smaller companies without an army of lawyers were sued to hell??? Not being able to name them doesn't mean the didn't exist.

it's just that it is so often discussed in a such an overblown, hysterical and doom laden way that rational discourse becomes impossible.


You must admit that your "style" is not exactly the best example for non overblown or hysterical discussion.


IP litigation is a bit of problem, but not a very big one and certainly not one that will decide the fate or direction of the industry or of any remotely major aspect of technical innovation.


Google vs Oracle / Samsung vs Apple / VP8 / Preventive sell Ban of devices in Germany and many many others...

Well... I would say this is a major problem and that it touches major aspects of technical innovation.

This patent initiative by Google ... is utterly trivial...


I don't think it is but what if??? It doesn't hurt; nobody gets sued; nobody must pay anything for it; maybe some can even use these few patents.

With a bit of luck it "could" evolve to something really usefull for innovation

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: Hyperbole
by Tony Swash on Fri 29th Mar 2013 19:13 in reply to "RE[5]: Hyperbole"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Each of these not so many companies is engaged in numerous legal actions which cost insane amouts of money that are taken from R&D and our own pockets when we pay the "legal tax" on each device.


No they don't. The total cost of all legal costs associated with IP litigation is a tiny, tiny fraction of the costs of the big tech players and contributes almost nothing to the final costs of the products in the market place. 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.

How many smaller companies without an army of lawyers were sued to hell??? Not being able to name them doesn't mean the didn't exist.


No but not being able to point to any real world examples or any real actual evidence does not help build a convincing counter argument to mine. I say I can see very little evidence of any real innovation being significantly slowed or blocked by IP litigation but I may not have looked in the right place for that evidence, perhaps someone who does think IP litigation is disrupting the industry could offer up some links to evidence supporting that proposition

I am sure that smaller firms find legal threats more intimidating than larger companies but remember the thesis I am arguing against was the proposition that 'patents are busy tearing the very fabric of this industry apart'. 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.

I would just ask people to step back and look at the operating systems and platforms that are available, and look at all the various devices that are available, and notice how there are almost no features of any significance that are only present on one platform, one OS or one devices.

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Hyperbole
by galvanash on Fri 29th Mar 2013 22:29 in reply to "RE[6]: Hyperbole"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

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

RE[7]: Hyperbole
by novad on Fri 29th Mar 2013 23:08 in reply to "RE[6]: Hyperbole"
novad Member since:
2010-06-10

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.


Don't forget to add the fine(s) to the legal fees... That makes (taking your own numbers) 0.5% of Apple's revenues in a Year... This for one and only case in one country compared to a company with one of the highest revenue in the US. Well yes... This IS a lot. I don't even speak about all the time that is lost during these trials. I'm not sure it's me who should get a sense of proportion.

I say I can see very little evidence of any real innovation being significantly slowed or blocked by IP litigation but I may not have looked in the right place for that evidence, perhaps someone who does think IP litigation is disrupting the industry could offer up some links to evidence supporting that proposition


I don't see what is so complicated to understand in what I already said. But OK... Once again.

I can't point a precise product that has been blocked because, by definition, this product doesn't exist.

You want examples??? You can simply re-read the other posts in this thread and there are 2 examples.

And please don't take me wrong, but I won't lose my time searching Google to prove something that is an evidence but that is hard to "demonstrate".

Or let's make a little exercise... I want the proof from you that this planet would have been a better place if Stalin hasn't existed. An absolute, irrevocable proof of that. Good luck.

Like I have said IP litigation may be an irritating problem but it's not a very big problem.


Well. You have a personal opinion as I have. I think we will have to agree that we disagree. It's maybe not a very big problem, but certainly not as trivial as you say.

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.


You are really locked on that... It is not possible to tell what is absent of a system because of IP simply because you can't list by name products that haven’t been developed, have been blocked in an early stage or have been developed by a small company and then blocked by fear of IP. But hey. I understand that without this argument you're screwed. Feel free to continue with it.

For my part I'm done with this subject

Edited 2013-03-29 23:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3