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 557139
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Hyperbole
by novad on Fri 29th Mar 2013 23:08 UTC 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

RE[8]: Hyperbole
by Tony Swash on Sat 30th Mar 2013 12:08 in reply to "RE[7]: Hyperbole"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22


"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
"


I don't want to extend this thread too far but I do want to respond to this point.

What you seem to be implying is that various significant technologies or innovations have been blocked by IP laws from ever appearing in the market and moreover that the existence and blocking of those technologies has in itself also been kept secret.

I find that to be a deeply implausible scenario.

First of all why would companies that had such a lock over the IP of a significant innovation that it could block others deploying not deploy it themselves in their own products in order to gain an advantage in the market?

Secondly if companies had been blocked from using a significant particular technology by another company, which was keeping said technology secret and not themselves deploying it, why would the companies that had been blocked not announce it to the world, if only to embarrass their competitors?

Finally I find that arguments based on saying that something must be happening, or is almost certainly happening, even though there is no actual evidence to even suggest it is happening, is a profoundly weak argument. Using such a logic it is possible to argue anything, 9/11 was a US plot, the Lunar landings were faked, whatever. The fact that such silly reasoning can be deployed in discussion of IP law and not immediately mocked into oblivion just shows how hyperbolic and absurdly overblown discussions of this topic have become. I repeat IP litigation is a problem for the tech industry but only a small one. It just not that important.

Reply Parent Score: 1