Motorola To Collect Royalties For Android 176
tlhIngan writes "It looks like Motorola wants to join in on the Android patent licensing fun enjoyed by Microsoft and others. (Yes, the same Motorola that makes Android phones.) Motorola CEO Sanjay Jha has stated they plan to collect licensing royalties from other Android manufacturers. Given Motorola's involvement in the mobile industry, they certainly do have the portfolio to go with it. It's interesting times ahead for Android."
Open Source but Patent Encumbered (Score:4, Insightful)
Android has a strong future, but its no longer "free beer!"
Re: (Score:2)
China is in economic danger because of the threat of social unrest. While they have kept things tight so far, unrest has only been minor. They can't allow hundreds of millions to rise up in protest, and yet the only way to prevent that from happening is to keep giving them more and more of the things they want.
The people demand a better quality of life so the government cannot "simp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Our wonderful omniscient current production model already has moved manufacturing jobs to South East Asia. Following this strategy of software patents will very soon also move design and innovation abroad. Once it is done all there is left is ownership and royalties. The situation will eclipse as China has grown to be the most powerful nation, which is in 5-10 years.
This is like watching a bacteria culture in a bottle... from inside. Reminds me of the Einstein quote "I know not with what weapons world war 3 will be fought but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones".
Particularly as it's now Chinese companies that annually apply for the most patents - and mostly they're manufacturing patents not stupidity like "device for transferring voice" "idea for word processor". Ten years ago Nokia and Microsoft shares were a good investment. Not anymore. There's a good reason for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn you AC, now I need a new keyboard. That will become my sig...
Re: (Score:2)
Every time you touch your droid, god kills a kitten.
So stop using it to reply to slashdot articles.
Exthort money, you mean. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let us use more appropriate words for the definitions.
OK ;-p
First Microsoft, now Motorola, there's only so much milk you can can squeeze from that potato....
Did you mean "extort money"? (Score:2)
Sure, then how about spelling them appropriately too?
This might be a good thing... maybe (Score:3)
All of what I think is based on huge amounts of speculation. But I don't yet see Motorola as an evil company.
The Motorola patents aren't likely to be software patents and I have to wonder if any of them will be. Motorola and mobile phones go way back after all. I think if Motorola strikes deals with other android mobile phone makers which is reasonable and affordable, then it's just fine. It could also prove to be highly defensive of the Android community once they strike deals early on with Android phone namers, they will naturally expand to other phone makers.
(This is where my speculations turn to hopes)
Once Motorola turn to other mobile phone makers, I hope the deals with makers such as Apple include deals which prohibit their actions against Android makers.
As others have pointed out, Apple does NOT want to mess with Motorola. Motorola has been patenting mobile technologies for a LOT longer than Apple has which gives Motorola the upper hand in these kinds of situations.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't yet see Motorola as an evil company.
Is 'erroneous' a vanity name and I'm missing the joke? There is nothing Motorola that says "power to the people." Their tablets are locked down, their phones are ticking time bombs, their cable set-top boxes are crippled; all in the name of "for your protection."
I still have hope you are kidding, and I'm the butt of this joke...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I don't own anything motorola unless it is the occasional chip within something else. I once owned a Motorola Startac phone long, long ago... but that's about it. I'm not a Moto-fan, I just don't see them as evil -- could be my lack of experience with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I don't own anything motorola unless it is the occasional chip within something else. I once owned a Motorola Startac phone long, long ago... but that's about it. I'm not a Moto-fan, I just don't see them as evil -- could be my lack of experience with them.
Evil and incompetent are two entirely different things, but let me assure you that Motorola handily manages to be both.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is what this is all really about. The ability to force the whole market to locked down devices via patents, all applications and all content locked down and device specific with licence fees to the software or product manufacturers.
Nothing to do with Android, apart from Android offering an open system no locked down and people not forced to pay licence fees.
Certain companies are attempting to force computers from a more open competitive landscape to a closed, and broken up license fee for all con
Android is a piece of software (Score:4, Informative)
If Motorola is targeting Android manufacturers that implies that it is something about Android that is infringing Motorola's patents. Since Android only consists of software, the patents it is infringing by definition must be software patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Android is software. But to make use of Android, especially on a mobile phone, some hardware requirements must be met.
Re: (Score:2)
Android is software. But to make use of Android, especially on a mobile phone, some hardware requirements must be met.
Fine, but what is there that is common to all Android devices that distinguishes them from, say, IOS devices%3
Re: (Score:3)
Although Apple has been known to buy things out, it's mainly small companies centering on very specific, underrated technology that they see as being able to leverage. Instead of whipping up their own copycat version and risk an established (even if very small) company suing and winning, they just buy them. Many technologies in Apple's hardware and software were purchased, to save on R&D as well as patent lawsuits.
It also gives them a head start on that idea - people watch Apple with a microscope, and
Re: (Score:2)
Apple are using the courts to shut down competitors, which means that they do not back their own capacity to compete.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm...Apple has recently moved past Exxon Mobil on the list of most valuable companies in the world. In the mobile arena they've been able to kill off Windows Mobile, Palm and even RIM is suffering lately. Apple knows they can compete in the mobile marketplace.
Apple also knows that they need to defend their patents when issues arise or risk losing the ability to defend them later on. Look at
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the shitload of Apple technologies that Microsoft stole/copied in the earlier days of Windows and ask yourself why Apple might be a bit aggressive when defending their patents.
Out of interest, what were they?
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who's job it is to watch the tablet market, I doubt Android has "taken away" market share. I believe anyone who bought an Android tablet would not have purchased an iPad. Anti-Apple, Anti-culture, whatever. Or, for some reason, they couldn't buy one.
As such, I hope you're not using your numbers as "proof" that Android's numbers will -- as in phones -- rise in the same fashion. Especially since Dell just cancelled the Streak 5 today. Motorola, IIRC, cut sales projections and manufacturing orders f
Motorola did not invent the mobile phone! (Score:4, Informative)
By no definition of what constitutes a mobile phone, did Motorola invent the mobile phone as is claimed by the article. They haven't even provided much refinements of pre-existing technology. They introduced the mobile phone to the US market, that's pretty much it. Next somebody claims that Bill Gates invented computers or operating systems.
The early history of mobile phone technology is shrouded in clouds. The Swedish military had mobile/portable phones in the 1930's, but they were likely not alone.
The development and introduction of a mobile phones for non-military use was almost exclusively done by Scandinavian actors. Beginning with the Swedish phones for use in cars and (more important) the technology for city wide mobile phone networks in the late 1940's, and culminating in the NMT system in 1981, that unified the different Scandinavian national network technologies into one, most of it already old and proven technology (the most important inovation of the NMT system, was the idea to dial the phone number and then connect to the phone net, not connect to the phone net and then dial the phone number, as had been done since the first automatic phone systems (also Scandinavian inventions, by the way, the first phones was invented and made by Italians, not Graham Bell (he copied the mechanism of his phone from an article in a paper) or any other US-American, just to set things straight)).
All mobile phone technology that have been invented after that, is just small refinements.
Re: (Score:3)
by the way, the first phones was invented and made by Italians, not Graham Bell (he copied the mechanism of his phone from an article in a paper)
Bell demonstrated his phone at the Centennial Expo in Philadelphia in 1876. The first Bell telephone exhange opened in New Haven, Connecticut in January 1878.
In 1871 Meucci filed a caveat at the US Patent Office. His caveat describes his invention, but does not mention a diaphragm, electromagnet, conversion of sound into electrical waves, conversion of electrical waves into sound, or other essential features of an electromagnetic telephone.
Meucci's 1871 caveat did not mention any of the telephone features later credited to him by his lawyer, and which were published in [a] Scientific American Supplement [in 1885] , a major reason for the loss of the 'Bell v. Globe and Meucci' patent infringement court case.
Invention of the telephone [wikipedia.org]
In 1885 there were 50 telephones per 1,000 population in Atlanta, 30 in Honolulu, 22 in Buffalo.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hardware patents not software patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is it's incredibly easy to get a patent for something stupid. This patent of course makes that obvious [google.com], and it happens with hardware just like with software.
This isn't the end of Android though; what will most likely happen is the same that happened with GSM, where tons of different companies/groups have relevant patents. It became a bit more expensive to
Speculative Ramblings (Score:5, Insightful)
This one of several blogs I've seen make this claim the past two days, and I'm honestly still at a loss to explain their assumption. There is nothing in Jha's quote to indicate they are going after other Android makers. The blog linked from the summary says during its Q2 earnings conference call Motorola hinted that it is ready to join Android patent racket, and start demanding licensing fees for its IP from other Android manufacturers.
He based that claim on these comments:
With new entrants in the mobile space, resulting from the convergence of mobility, media, computing and the internet, our patent portfolio is increasingly important...Probably a little less well known is our strength in patent portfolio in non-essential patents, which are capabilities that are important to have in delivering competitive products in the marketplace...As we go forward, I think that the introduction of number of players with large revenues, which have come into the marketplace as a result of the convergence of the mobility, computing, internet and other segments, I think that that creates an opportunity for us to monetize and maximize the shareholder value in a number of different ways and we evaluate all of them all the time.
From that, the blogger now knows that Motorola plans to collect $60 per handset from HTC and Samsung. Or so he says. Now, he's made a new post, using a new quote from Jha to cement his position. He claims that this week Motorola’s CEO Sanjay Jha reiterated this message, and made it even more clear – they do indeed have plans to start collecting IP royalties from other Android makers. What did Jha say that so clearly showed Motorola's plans to sue their Android brethren?
I would bring up IP as a very important for differentiation (among Android vendors). We have a very large IP portfolio, and I think in the long term, as things settle down, you will see a meaningful difference in positions of many different Android players. Both, in terms of avoidance of royalties, as well as potentially being able to collect royalties. And that will make a big difference to people who have very strong IP positions.
That seems more likely (to me) to say that Motorola is not HTC and will not be paying Microsoft blackmail money. In fact, they may be able to extract their own pound of flesh from Microsoft and Apple. What in that passage gives any hint that Motorola will be pursuing other Android manufacturers? I'm at a loss.
What if this is just an Accounting trick? (Score:2)
What if Motorola charge Google $0.02 per android to cover licence infringement.
Google then charge Motorola $0.02 for every mobile with android sold
on paper Both are getting large royalties from each other but in reality it zero's out.
(*note* figures are examples only and not representative of any financial calculations, but you get the idea.)
Re: (Score:2)
p.s.
The above also works if multiple companies charge each other for for infringing patents.
You get lots of $$££€€'s moving around but it all zero's out in the balances...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, though more likely, Google changes the android license agreement for the next release, adding "...and you cannot sue us".
Perhaps now, Google may reconsider GPLv3....
Yeah because adding a 'you cannot sue us' clause in the license just automatically frees from the encumbrances of the law.
Can't compete (Score:2)
Unlike most "can't compete, litigate", assertions made here, this one is pretty true. Motorola can't make a phone that doesn't fall to pieces after six months, so they're obviously trying to make money off everyone's successes. At the start of 2010, they were without a hope in the world, and were looking at leaving the cellphone market entirely, or going under; their massive hit Android phones, the Dext/Cliq, Backflip, Droid/Milestone, basically let them claw their way back up from the depths. I didn't s
Re:They were played (Score:5, Insightful)
Android is based on Linux and other open-source software. Google also open-sourced most of their own contributions under an Apache license. I don't see that as evil. Now the patent trolls are going after them with overly broad patents (yet another indication of the broken patent system), primarily due to the success of Android. The patent infringement allegations have not been proven. Android is just simply better but the established players can't deal with that.
Google's biggest mistake was using the Java language. That has always been a legal time bomb, since it was never made an open standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Google's biggest mistake was using the Java language. That has always been a legal time bomb, since it was never made an open standard.
True, since Oracle is the only company targeting Google specifically
Now the patent trolls are going after them with overly broad patents (yet another indication of the broken patent system), primarily due to the success of Android.
I don't think they're targeting Android so much as other phone manufacturers. I think we'll see that most of Motorola's patents relate to phone hardware - they really haven't done much in the phone software space. They're talking about doing more of this to help make their phones stand out compared to other Android phones - either by driving up competitor's prices or forcing them to drop features. This is actually a fairly reasonable use of
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they're targeting Android so much as other phone manufacturers. I think we'll see that most of Motorola's patents relate to phone hardware - they really haven't done much in the phone software space. They're talking about doing more of this to help make their phones stand out compared to other Android phones - either by driving up competitor's prices or forcing them to drop features. This is actually a fairly reasonable use of the patent system since Motorola actually makes phones using their patents - it isn't "trolling" as we usually discuss it here.
No - it's just double dipping. The US military paid Motorola's initial hardware development costs, at absolutely no risk to Motorola. Motorola now sells the same components on the civilian market (as the restriction period has expired). They made a profit the first time around, the second time around they had zero development costs and they charged less for the hardware - on which they made a profit, now they're charging again. Shitting in the water supply.
Try using the same argument to defend Northrop if y
Re: (Score:2)
The US military paid Motorola's initial hardware development costs, at absolutely no risk to Motorola.
That's a pretty unusual idea. Care to cite where you got it? Motorola sold its government business back in 2001 [wikipedia.org]. What ten-year-old phone hardware components are being used today?
Re: (Score:2)
The US military paid Motorola's initial hardware development costs, at absolutely no risk to Motorola.
Motorola sold its government business back in 2001 [wikipedia.org].
You are correct - and most of there defence contracts expired in the early nineties. If you get to meet some of the Motorola engineers that worked on the original backpack phones you can ask them, don't expect an answer (hint: for Cooper and his team development was 2 parts inspiration and 10 parts "acquired" from Europe). Would you like a link to an undisputed source the "proves" the original work was that of duplicating the work of Philips and Nokia? It's in the same filing cabinet as the one showing who
Re: (Score:2)
Are you being obtuse? Did I say it was hardware components?
Yes, you did [slashdot.org]:
The US military paid Motorola's initial hardware development costs, at absolutely no risk to Motorola. Motorola now sells the same components on the civilian market (as the restriction period has expired). They made a profit the first time around, the second time around they had zero development costs and they charged less for the hardware - on which they made a profit, now they're charging again. (Emphasis added.)
So I ask you again: What ten-year-old phone hardware components are being used today?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you being obtuse? Did I say it was hardware components?
Yes, you did [slashdot.org]:
Indeed! :-(. Certainly not my intention. My apologies for the bum steer.
What I should of written (if it wasn't 3am at the end of 18 day) was:- "the hardware - on which they made a profit, now they're charging again for the "ideas"..
I'd be surprised if anyone uses any of the hardware they developed - but it hasn't been my field for a decade. It's my belief based on reading that none of the patents for which they claim ownership are based on hardware they developed OR concepts first used by them. Here's a few
Re: (Score:2)
Android is based on Linux and other open-source software. Google also open-sourced most of their own contributions under an Apache license. I don't see that as evil.
If i give you something for free and know that you would be breaking the law if you actually used then that is a pretty immoral thing to do.
Now the patent trolls are going after them with overly broad patents (yet another indication of the broken patent system), primarily due to the success of Android.
Patent trolls? You mean competitors that hold patents on things that have been copied by Android (speaking in terms of the reality of the industry, not the way i really see it as i think pretty much all of these so-called 'inventions' are nothing of the sort). I agree the patent system is ridiculous and that many of the patents that Android allegedly infringes upon shou
Re: (Score:2)
In as much as infringing on patents is "breaking the law"
Well it is, in the current legal system if you infringe on patents then you are breaking patent laws.
So every tech company is immoral in this respect, and very nearly equally so.
You're missing the point, it's google's product that is infringing but they aren't taking any responsibility for that infringement.
Since the other person also knows about patents, he is expected to do a research and accept the free gift only if they have patents in their portfolios to counter-sue the litigators if they pop up. Nothing immoral here in this respect.
Of course it's immoral, it's google's product, they have the patent portfolio to back their product and defend their product but they choose not to.
Do you really think Motorola, HTC, Samsung and friends do not have the ability to research for patents? That they didn't know Android could be a patent minefield?
Of course they do, that doesn't mean Google shouldn't stand behind and defend its product. Do you really think the only companies ta
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely false. In the context in which this story appeared (Google had not bought Motorola by then), Google is extremely patent poor by its own admission. It has a totality of 1000 patents, many internet, ads and search related.
Where do they have a total of only 1000 patents? And in any case number is irrelevant, it's what the patent is that matters. They have the resources to acquire patents to protect their product but they don't and they leave their own customers to fend for themselves with a product that infringes on patents in most markets.
Yes. Though, there is another category of companies which can afford to use Android - those which operate outside the software patent world. E.g. Chinese companies using Asia as the major market.
Actually i think you'll find the regulations on computer software protection as an extension to copyright cover many aspects of patents in China.
EU countries as a market on a case by case basis could be evaluated, but EU too, is much less affected than US and highly US influenced countries.
Rubbish, look at the way a Korean company (S
Re: (Score:2)
Where do they have a total of only 1000 patents?
They might have the patent certificates in some offices / warehouses. But patent itself is intangible, so exists nowhere in particular.
No, where is this figure presented, what are these patents?
They have the resources to acquire patents to protect their product but they don't
Who told you they don't? That is exactly what they are doing the Motorola deal for.
I don't to be told they don't, im not ignorant, i can see masses of lawsuits over Android and Google doing nothing to protect its customers from lawsuits brought against them because of its product.
Rubbish, look at the way a Korean company (Samsung) has been pummeled by Apple IP lawsuits in those very markets.
"Case by case basis"
Thanks captain obvious, all IP cases are done on a case by case basis.
Just look at how counterfeit Apple stores were taken down in China - one of the most lax regions for IP laws.
When are you planning to learn the difference between patents and trademarks?
Are you incapable of reading what was written? I said 'IP' laws (you even quoted it and still failed to comprehend it), which is what all of this falls under.
The simple irrefutable fac
Re: (Score:2)
In your last post, you were so confident Google has all the patents necessary to "defend" Android and its hardware partners. Now you don't know what Google patents are ?
You just said they have only have 1000 patents, however given that you can't even tell me where you came up with that from it seems you made it up. We all know they have many very valuable patents in search and analytics and that the number is irrelevant, it's the content that matters. But you seem to be fixated on this number of 1000 that you seem to think isn't enough but don't seem to actually know what they are or where that number comes from.
I don't to be told they don't, im not ignorant,
Congratulations for don'ting to be told (whatever it means). As for you ignorance , whether you don't to be told or you don'tn't, :-
Oh because it's so hard to figure out: I don't need to be tol
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the value of a Google branded Android phone comes from it being connected to the Internet, just like any PC, only smaller. The actual phone part they don't even make (and it runs in a separate, isolated CPU). Most of what Android is is an application stack that is not very different from desktop applications. I really don't see how some old phone related patents can apply to that. Now the GSM, CDMA, 3G, 4G, etc. implementations do have patents associated with them, but those would rightly be paid b
Re:They were played (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe that if someone spent money developing an idea, they should get to say what people do with it.
The patent system was not designed to stop people copying ideas, it was to stop people copying implementations of ideas.
In software, copyright law already provides that.
There are too many people in the world to give a monopoly to a single person on an idea. There is likely not a single idea you will ever have that someone, somewhere has not thought of before you.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the fact
Citation needed.
that Apple developed many of the technologies used in Android. For instance, I recall "data detectors" being discussed at WWDC in the mid 1990s.
*cough* just after Apple's ex-Nokia staff built the PenMac *cough*
Given the state of development at the time, I would guestimate that they spent millions developing it.
Does Apple pay Xerox a royalty for a GUI? No. Did Apple invent touch screens?? Do you know why Apple's legal department canned the PenMac?
When finally introduced in the iPhone they represented a tremendous advance in usability terms.
Ah those famous wikipedia "opinion" standards - "tremendous" advance in "usability". Do you mean they made doing "things" cooler? Perhaps you meant more efficiently? No? Did the iPhone make using mobile phones simpler - or quicker?
Google simply copied this UI for Android. I don't blame them, as Apple set a bar they had to meet. But as Apple already had a patent and was using it in a shipping product, they must have known they were in violation.
That is your "belief" - it's certainly not a fact.
I believe that if someone spent money developing an idea, they should get to say what people do with it.
Some peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, in every particular - which I think is the first time that's ever happened to me on slashdot!
Kudos.
Z.
Re: (Score:2)
If you wish to make a mobile product you have two choices, you can either pay licenses for all the broad and obvious ideas that are patented in this field thus making it impossible to make a profit or you can ignore the patents and fight in court against them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately if you boycot the bad guys they'll just waive their falling sales numbers as proof that their 'intellectual property' is being stolen. This will be followed by more lawsuits to 'redress the balance' and lobbying for greater protectionism in law. It is regrettable that the lawmakers across most of the 1st world seem to be far too self serving to work out what is really best for the population as a whole and come up with a balanced approach to IP.
Re: (Score:2)
on the Wikipedia
that you could search for on the google [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a distinction between patents for hardware and methodology and patents for software. IMHO the software patents should all be invalidated and the tech sector would almost immediately improve. Much of software could still be protected under the copyright and trade secret systems, but this constant legal maneuvering between the major players and their attorneys would be ended. Think of the money saved from that alone.
Re:They were played (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, mobile phone patents are one area where the patents indeed are very specific. Most of the oldest companies in the industry (Nokia especially) had to do significant amount of R&D to get the whole industry to where it's now. It's far from the likes of software patents - mobile phone patents are deserved and the companies that have them have spend billions to develop the technology. It's only fair that someone who wants to profit from that research pays some of the costs via patent licenses.
Patents for manufacturing processes are one thing (and I support them), patents for use of language (and ideas) are the tools of bandits. If Nokia wants to double dip and charge people who use their phone and charge people who don't use *their* phones or *their* components - then I'll call thuggery. But we're not talking about manufacturing processes with Nokia or Motorola - it's "idea" patents - which is banditry practised by big players over small players (bullying) - and ultimately bad for Business (shitting in the water supply). When Nokia's patents are for software that pays a royalty to the people and companies that wrote the code libraries, or compiler they where build with - and a royalty to every language they were based on - including the English language (why doesn't anyone think of Shakespeare's children?) then I 'll indulge you in your bullshit justifications. Until then I'll call them what they are - bullshit.
Your justifications smack of the sort of servile paganism that believes if they worship and pay tribute with words to the powers that be - then they too will share in those powers. It doesn't work with worshipping football teams or "stars" either. Of course you may hold large blocks of shares with one of those companies in which case you are protecting your interests and I unreservedly retract the accusation that you are no better than the cock-sucking thieving liars, thugs and bullies you defend.
P.S. Welcome to Slashdot. Today you're the new guy.
if man is still alive ... if woman can survive (Score:2)
Not really.
1980 patent: do something
1990 patent: do something via the internet.
2000 patent: do something on a mobile device.
[...]
2525 patent: do something on a different planet
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The funny thing about technology is that it's hard to get it working, but it's easy to copy. That's why patents exist and it's why they should exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What tells you Microsoft has all the patents? Doesn't even look like Apple can protect app developers who use their APIs. Sorry but HTC/Motorola/Samsung/LG knew full well that patents could be levied. It's just the name of the game and they are good at it, Motorola can try to assert it's patent but I'm pretty sure others have patents they infringe. Who looses? Anyone else trying to build a Android device that doesn't have a gazillion patents. Little tablet companies are a good example.
Business was more efficient under Communism! (Score:4, Insightful)
I had the great misfortune of spending a large portion of my life living and doing business under a Communist dictatorship. There was a reason Communism failed; those of us subjected to it hated it! But after reading more and more about how "intellectual property" impacts American businesses, in many ways it makes the Communist system sound better. While we had a lot of bullshit bureaucracy to deal with, it was nevertheless much more efficient than this American nonsense.
When developing a product, we didn't have a larger proportion of the development cost going towards lawyers and IP legalities than we had going to the engineers and manufacturers who actually created the product!
We didn't have products forced out of the marketplace due to licensing problems, depriving consumers of devices that are otherwise safe, useful, and valuable.
We didn't have businesses whose sole purpose was to leech off of the hard work of others by requiring licensing of their "intellectual property". Even the committees and other bureaucratic bullshitters we had to deal with, which in many ways were leeches as well, provided some minimalistic amount of beneficial coordination and consensus-building.
It's no wonder so many Asian countries are wiping the floor with America these days, economically speaking. You Americans have built yourself a "free market" that's extremely stupidly regulated in all of the wrong ways, and extremely inefficient, as well!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't find this argument very convincing. If indeed, as you say, you can't just copy everything, then I guess the corporations will just have to research and innovate, patents or no. They will just have to get used to the idea of not having the sugar daddy patent system. They will still have trade secrets. The good thing from a policy point of view about trade secrets is that they don't stifle parallel invention or independent invention the way patents do.
The worst of the patent system is the seamy ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least East Germany (which was under Communist rule) had a patent system. So your premises need some adjustment.
Re: (Score:2)
"In contrast with capitalist West Germany, GDR patents were available for use by all of the country's socialist firms, and while inventors received a premium, they could not benefit from any profits garnered due to their creation, according to Leipzig historian Matthias Wießner."
Re: (Score:2)
No. My father owned his own patents. Patents were owned by their respective inventors, as everywhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... here is another good counter example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_von_Ardenne [wikipedia.org]
(I've been at the von Ardenne institute only once during school, they were showing us some cool stuff with titanium they were currently working on.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you think, write, say and do is a copy of some other action or thought that developed from other interactions with other people and was adapted to your own interpretation of it. Removing the patent and copyright systems (as they CURRENTLY STAND, go back to original intent!) solved more problems than you can possibly imagine. Also, people have to actually do 'work' to earn a living instead of licensing ideas and words that cost next to nothing to reproduce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fascism? Look up your definition. And entirely free markets only exist in your head. They generally devolve into monopolies, see early U.S. economic history. There is a reason we have regulation, the lack of which allowed the Wall Street banks to make a bad bubble in housing expand to the point it threatens not only the U.S. economy but the entire world's.
Re: (Score:2)
I did look up the definition, some time ago, of fascist economics. For a non-technical, close enough, look, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism [wikipedia.org]
As far as entirely free markets, they have existed, but are rare. Some regulation of markets is usually needed, at least to the extent necessary to provide remedies for fraud and prevention of compulsion. So for example, MMORPG operators eventually generally step in to control what start out as free markets within their games, because other
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. Now it might be theoretically possible for an upstart competitor to produce a product that's better or cheaper (and this could well be true, if the monopolist is milking his advantage excessively).
However that doesn't imply that a competitor can automatically break into the market. The new producer will have economie
Re: (Score:2)
There is one free market, it's called politics. Every state is a free agent, and there is no world order or supergovernmental entity that regulates all states. Yes, there are contracts where most of the states of the world agreed to, but still every state is able to leave the contract at will.
And still in that market monopolies existed, and often existed for a very long time. The roman empire existed for 1000 years and was a monopoly of power around the Mediterran. China exists since 2500 years and was a mo
Re: (Score:2)
There never was a time when money was not fiat money. The value of gold is just that of agreement. There is no reason to prefer gold over any other rare material. Platinum is about as abundant as gold in the crust of the earth (both clock in at 0,005 ppm), and yet the price of platin and gold have very different curves. So was the price of platinum at more than US$2000 in 2008, and is now down to US$1700, while the price for gold was less than US$1000 in 2008 and is now also at US$1700.
So why is it that pro
Nothing special about Android (Score:4, Insightful)
It starts with a few companies who "only" want to collect $5, or $10, or $35 per Android device. I suppose we can all nod our heads and agree that the mighty should be able to throw their weight around. It feels right. Who cares about the details - we're sure Linux must have stolen something. Otherwise how could it be so great? And so cheap?
But nothing stops the flow of new complaints. Do you know how many software patents there are? How many new applications per day? How many are obvious, trivial, or overly broad? Soon it will be a dozen companies collecting a Linux tax - forget merely on Android - and then it will be 30. A gold rush will ensue - get on the list of people who have to be paid off. Name your own price - the world's high tech giants will have to pay up! But, oh dear. iOS will suddenly have the exact same problem. Do you know how many patents they violate? So will Windows Phone. So will Blackberry. So will those little "learn to read" kiddie computers they sell in Toys R Us. So will everyone.
When it finally becomes more than just a few pariahs and evil actors in the tech industry who try to enforce their patents, it ends with every product having dozens and then hundreds of lawyers showing up to tax them. The only question is, how much economic damage will we do to ourselves before we finally take the obvious step and abolish software patents - which were never even allowed in the first place in Europe, India, and China. This economically pernicious barratry is so obviously stupid that it makes the US an object ridicule abroad.
The tacit policy of allowing software to be patentable reduces competition, stifles innovation, breaks healthy markets, and diverts money to billion-dollar portfolio buys instead of jobs. The only thing it reliably accomplishes is enriching lawyers - the least economically productive activity imaginable.
Re: (Score:3)
Usually, the way it works is that where company A sues company B for violating their patents, company B digs around to see if that violation works both ways. More often than not it does, so company B says "Look, you're violating our patents as well - so why don't we cross-license these patents and put this lawsuit to bed?".
Where it's been awkward with Android is that Oracle don't make phones, and phone manufacturers don't usually make databases or operating systems. So the likelihood of patent infringement
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds rather familiar, except it was countries instead of companies and nukes instead of patents.
Re: (Score:3)
Does all that mean that cell phones will be litigated and taxed into obscurity? No more yapping at the movie theater. No more texting down the freeway. No more having to rip the earbuds off a sullen teenager to get their attention?
Bring it on!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Google knew fully well what will happen. That's why they don't provide any shield against patents or license them. They took the wise (if slightly evil) route of just giving out as "free" and not mentioning that other companies have patents that affects anyone using Android. Companies stupidly believed the whole free hype and are only now starting to realize that they would actually need to pay something for Android. When you license a mobile OS from other provides, for example from Nokia or Microsoft, all the relevant patents to the OS are included within the deal, the costs are known upfront and it's just simpler. They can only blame themself for not seeing thru the Google marketing.
Thank you for freeing me from corporate oppression - I now realise Microsoft (and Facebook) are the bastions of democracy, and proponents for a new and better world. Until now I'd laboured under the delusion that the world was a complex place of many shades, where the young eat the old and that's how it should be - I now see the error of my way, and understand that the "old school" rules, and all issues are either black or white. No longer am I a turd in the herd blinded by marketing and obsequiously suckin
Re: (Score:2)
So Google should provide a free OS and take the liability costs of defending all patent trolls? That seems like a losing proposition. Of course, like Florian the Troll, the real suggestion is that Google should close source Android, charge licensing fee to manufacturers, and provide legal indemnity with it. This is a scene from Ballmer's nastiest wet dream, not a realistic proposal.
Re: (Score:2)
So Google should provide a free OS and take the liability costs of defending all patent trolls?
They should either play the game by defending their product against patent suits or actively work towards eliminating those patents and fixing the patent system. At this point they are doing neither of those things.
Re: (Score:3)
That you, Florian?
Re: (Score:2)
They took the wise (if slightly evil) route of just giving out as "free" and not mentioning that other companies have patents that affects anyone using Android.
Yes, brilliantly evil plan:
1. Make something, give it out for free
2. Other companies use it, then get hit with costs
3. ???
4. PROFIT!
Google is surely laughing all the way to the unbank with all of that not-money they've made from not selling android.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a win for Asian manufacturers to me, as if US based companies don't want to be successful.
They do - it's geographic location and patriotism that blinds people to the truth - business goes where the money is, when it's not in the US, then they (sic) cease to be American companies. Or they base themselves in Washington to avoid US tax, and spend money on killing off profitable mobile phone manufactures just to strip them of patents as a means of avoiding paying US tax on all their European earnings.
Re: (Score:2)
Using parentheses (or "round brackets" as you call them) does not change the fact that you used "sic" incorrectly.
Re: (Score:2)
Using parentheses (or "round brackets" as you call them) does not change the fact that you used "sic" incorrectly.
Care to share the source of the authority to back your opinion? Or is it a secret between you and your college English lit teacher? I'll stick with the Oxford Shorter and Macquarie definitions until I then.
Re: (Score:2)
How about every source on the internet I could find? I checked Wikipedia, the free dictionaries, various grammar sites, Chicago Manual of Style, Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style and so forth. I couldn't find a single reference, nor have I ever seen one, that has "sic" meaning, well, whatever the hell you intended it to mean (it's not at all clear).
Re: (Score:2)
How about every source on the internet I could find? I checked Wikipedia, the free dictionaries, various grammar sites, Chicago Manual of Style,
"quiet copyediting" - (unless where inappropriate or uncertain) instead of inserting a bracketed sic, such as by substituting in brackets the correct word (if known) in place of the incorrect word - that's your Wikipedia quote, attributed to the "American unofficial style guide". Which bears little resemblance to what the "Interpolations and Clarifications" 13.5.9 (16th edition) actually says - but you've read that... right?
Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style
"Usage of sic greatly increased in the mid-twentieth century." A classic 1998 work o
Re: (Score:2)
No, I didn't selectively scan the Wikipedia article. I read the entire damn thing and Googled for usage rules for sic and could not find a single page that said anything other than that "[sic]" in brackets means the previous word in a quote, though incorrect, is retained from the original source and that "(sic)" could be used after a longer piece indicating that there are a number of errors, but they are either obvious or too numerous to be represented with a single "[sic]". Certainly, if your definition
Re: (Score:2)
Self-siccing: While chiefly used in text that is not one's own, occasionally, a sic is included by a writer after his or her own word(s) to note that the language has been chosen deliberately, especially where a reader may naturally doubt the writer's intentions.[30] Bryan A. Garner dubbed this kind of siccing as the "ironic use," ...
Nonetheless, a writer's siccing of his or her own words may lead readers to confuse the source of the sic as being the book's editor and is often considered strange even when t
Re: (Score:2)
Self-siccing: While chiefly used in text that is not one's own, occasionally, a sic is included by a writer after his or her own word(s) to note that the language has been chosen deliberately, especially where a reader may naturally doubt the writer's intentions.[30] Bryan A. Garner dubbed this kind of siccing as the "ironic use," ...
Nonetheless, a writer's siccing of his or her own words may lead readers to confuse the source of the sic as being the book's editor and is often considered strange even when the sic's source is understood.
West's Encyclopaedia of Law ain't Oxford Shorter
Welcome to Slashdot - were some people check facts, especially selectively quoted ones.
Re: (Score:2)
My droid is the last moto phone I will purchase.
If you're avoiding products from manufacturers who try to enforce their patents, you're going to be living in a cave real soon now.
Re: (Score:2)
Soon it won't be profitable to sell any Android handsets cheaper than an iPhone.
What are they (Motorola) thinking of? Do you ever want to sell another handset or are you transitioning into a patent Troll?
Actually, I think most of the mobile phone industry is in a similar position.
They're trying desperately to avoid phone handsets becoming a commodity. Historically, this has been fairly easy because every manufacturer had their strengths and their weaknesses. Software was often a weakness, hence why they frequently bring it in from outside (cf. Android, Windows Mobile, Symbian).
The problem with Android is that it's a game changer. Already we see companies that produce mobile phones have stepped up their deve
Patents suck, until they're yours (Score:2)
Since you haven't actually invented anything, it's easy for you to say that patents are crap.
However, for the people involved, they may have actually put a lot of hard work, thought, and know-how into what the patent covers. Things that are obvious today aren't obvious when you're the first mover in the space.
Mechanical patents can seem just as ridiculous as software patents, if you bother to read them. Does the patent regime make sense?
Let's put it this way: if you were going to spend a few hundred million
Re: (Score:3)
Let's put it this way: if you were going to spend a few hundred million of your own dollars, wouldn't you want some protection against some yahoo coming along, copying your work, and selling it for less?
But there is no shortage of some protection. Trade secrets, first mover advantage, and government subsidies are very effective in rewarding people and companies that innovate. Subsidizing research out of taxes, in particular, should be several times more effective. In drug research, for example, we end up paying a patent "tax" which covers research and testing, but also marketing (which is often more expensive), and then some more to fill the upper management pockets. The alternative is to pay for the resea
Re: (Score:3)
Let's put it this way: if you were going to spend a few hundred million of your own dollars, wouldn't you want some protection against some yahoo coming along, copying your work, and selling it for less?
If you're looking for protection, several other mechanisms exist. The purpose of patents is to expand public knowledge of inventions.
Since you haven't actually invented anything, it's easy for you to say that patents are crap...Mechanical patents can seem just as ridiculous as software patents, if you bother to read them. Does the patent regime make sense?
If, by ridiculous, you mean an unreadable and useless template for the public to recreate the invention (several software patents are deliberately vague), then it directly contradicts the purpose of a patent in the first place, and it only hurts the public to file one.