On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. We're all pissed off by e.g. the Oracle-vs-Google suit (and the others, > but let's focus on an example). Potentially, it is destructive because it > could stop Android. But so far did it stop Android? It doesn't seem so. I've > seen major Android releases going on, and sales going on. If it is arranged > as most of people things, it will just end up in money exchanged between > Google and Oracle. What really hurts me is that at the end of the process > lawyers are making lots of money basically out of void. But this is a wider > argument; for instance, I'm pissed off by excessive money made by actors, > singers, soccer players, etc. It's just another problem.
I don't think it is too hard to say it is slowing it down some. If I'm a manufacturer, I better have some really broad patents in my portfolio with some pricey lawyers to use them aggressively against the likes of Apple if I want to try and release an Android. And note, this is not just a US problem. I seem to recall there is an injunction to not sell the Galaxy in some country. > 2. Things, of course, are very different when the sued subject is a small > corporate or a single developer that can't afford expensive lawyer and > basically it is forced to shut down. I really sympathize with him, because > he's a techie. But from the economy point of view, he just counts nothing. > Economy, remember it? It's all about money. Of course, as Apple, Google, IBM, etc get bigger and bigger, pretty much the only thing left is the small guy. If you believe in competition, you would think the best thing that has happened to these companies is that they have had really stiff competition. Winning a race doesn't mean you then get to call the race. > 3. Nobody seems to have pointed out a simple, but really meaningful fact. > AFAIK, none, and I repeat NONE, of the > techies-that-managed-to-turn-into-big-business-men have ever spent a word > against patents (I mean, patents in general, not those specifical patents > that are hurting their own corporate). I mean, take Brin and Page as an > example. They are techie grown up, right? So, wouldn't you expect that a > techie that "gets the power" will immediately use it against patents? > Instead, no way. I bet that if something here ever becomes a big business > man, he'll immediately change his mind. Aren't you wondering why? Huh? What does this even have to do with anything. I mean, few people when they get super rich directly help the poor, either. I guess that means it is misguided to do so. > My point is simple. Software is not that different than other "patentable" > things. There are two problems: one, the USPTO is crazy, two, above all > software patents must expire quickly. How many times must it be pointed out that software is different? In fact, it is so different that for the majority of the time that we have had computers, you could not patent software. It was only when the courts thought if it was somehow "linked to process" that you could start patenting it. Again, do you really think Nortel and Novell are the first major companies to have a lot of technology to sell? None of the giants of the 90s came up with something that might have been patentable? Of course, this is also working under the assumption that patents are a good idea in all industries. That is actually a fairly debatable point. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
