Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Jun 2014 08:32 UTC
Microsoft

A list of hundreds of patents that Microsoft believes entitle it to royalties over Android phones, and perhaps smartphones in general, has been published on a Chinese language website.

The patents Microsoft plans to wield against Android describe a range of technologies. They include lots of technologies developed at Microsoft, as well as patents that Microsoft acquired by participating in the Rockstar Consortium, which spent $4.5 billion on patents that were auctioned off after the Nortel bankruptcy.

These are the secret patents Microsoft's patent mafia uses as a club to beat other companies into paying protection money.

Thread beginning with comment 590784
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Well...
by pgeorgi on Mon 16th Jun 2014 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Well..."
pgeorgi
Member since:
2010-02-18

I found your ideas interesting, but this part i cannot agree. If a employee was paid to work with research and development, developed his idea in his work time as a integral part of his job, that patent must belong to the corporation.

I understand that reasoning for patents, but in a patent-free environment, the original employer gets to keep the idea (and a head-start at using it), it's just no exclusive.

As is, you have an idea at company X, years later move to company Y and even if that idea is now well-known (which is the purpose of patents), you have to work around your own work. That's just stupid.

After all, it was his job using the company infrastructure/labs in his work time.

Not necessarily. There are enough legal frameworks where patents go to the employer, no matter when the idea sprang into existence. While the work environment certainly fosters those ideas, few people live _only_ at work.

Even with sane laws it's hard to prove that the employer has nothing to do with an invention.

Which is exactly why I claim that employees get the shaft in the current patent regime.

If it is to replace the patent system with something new, we must do with a system that stimulate the sharing of ideas and inventions, not the otherwise.

This isn't the 1830s anymore, we have better means to reverse engineer developments.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: Well...
by CapEnt on Mon 16th Jun 2014 15:10 in reply to "RE[5]: Well..."
CapEnt Member since:
2005-12-18

As is, you have an idea at company X, years later move to company Y and even if that idea is now well-known (which is the purpose of patents), you have to work around your own work. That's just stupid.


Why is stupid? You was paid to give up your idea.

Not necessarily. There are enough legal frameworks where patents go to the employer, no matter when the idea sprang into existence. While the work environment certainly fosters those ideas, few people live _only_ at work.


The problem here is the legal framework in that said country, not the patent system per see.

This isn't the 1830s anymore, we have better means to reverse engineer developments.


Head-start is a huge aspect of selling a product. If your competitor has to waste time reverse engineering your product, he is at disadvantage. It's far different from the hypothesis of a competitor recruiting several members of your staff and simple put up a product in the market even before you if he has the resources. Or even simple looking at it in a business fair after is done, but still not in the market, and saying "i can make a copy", and force you to compete against a huge industrial conglomerate overnight.

Industrial espionage, leakages and unauthorized copies is already a huge problem, if you put a system that makes it all legal, you will wipe out all start-ups out of existence instead of fostering them. The only companies that could survive in this "everything allowed" jungle would be huge mega-corps in the likes of Samsung, Foxconn...

Don't be naive, there must be some sort of protection and compensation system to allow sharing of inventions without damaging the innovator, otherwise you will end up empowering even more the big corps to crush small companies.

It may looks unbelievable at first, but simple abolishing the patent system would make the market even more concentrated at the hands of large corporations instead of weakening their grip, simple because they have the financial resources and manufacturing edge to out-compete you if you do not hold some "secret". And by doing so, you effectively break up the whole idea sharing chain, decreasing innovation instead of fostering it.

Reply Parent Score: 2