On Friday, August 12, 2011 4:14:54 AM UTC+2, rcasto wrote: > > Perhaps patents are only required by the investors? They want some kind of > protection on their investment and thus are trolls in the making if things > go awry.
>From personal experience I can tell you that investors luuuuuurve themselves a long list of patents filed by their potential investments. However, the same people are so legally idiotic that they put those page-long email disclaimers below every mail they send out. The most basic understanding of law should be enough to realize this is ridiculously stupid in that it protects nothing, only increases your own legal risk, and actively makes you look dumb, especially if that auto-include disclaimer ends up at the bottom of a press release, which investors do tend to send out quite a bit. The reason they do it is purely to confirm to social etiquette. Those who are asked to think about the meaning of that disclaimer almost invariably come to the same conclusion (ridiculously stupid practice, completely nonsensical), and yet they _KEEP DOING IT_ because it's what everybody else does. My theory is that their relative obsession with patents by small startups is similar in nature. They know it won't make much of a difference*, but all the other investors ask for it, so they will keep doing it too. *) It slightly improves the odds of a sudden buyout out of nowhere because some bigcorp has a hunch that particular patent could be crucial in some upcoming bigcorp v. bigcorp patent tussle. So there is that, it's not completely pointless. Fairly sure that's not the kind of 'help for lone inventors' that the patent system should be going for, though. > Google was a research project when it started. Other companies in startup > mode are similar. They only go after patents when it is important and that > happens when someone starts putting money down on their idea. > > Just speculating. No hard facts or other input. Just shooting from the hip. > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:00 PM, mP <[email protected]> wrote: > >> @Cedric >> >> That article has a lot of interesting points about patents and related >> material but arent you plucking at straws trying to show how they >> (patents). >> >> >> >> The value of software patents >> >> Let me start with a personal example. As I've mentioned before, I'm >> working on a startup. When we brief people on what we're doing, one >> of the first questions we get is, "how will you prevent [Google / >> Apple / Microsoft / insert hot web company here] from copying you?" >> >> A big part of the answer is, "we've filed for a patent." >> << >> >> This summary is simple not true, as Reinier mentioned previously >> patents have not protected Facebook from Google+. What i find >> particular astounding is the lack of real life examples whenever make >> these statements. Perhaps that a sympton of the fact there are almost >> none. Until someone provides an example where patents have been >> helpful in protecting perahsp a little guy to expand abd become >> successful, i guess we will have to rationally conclude its all bogus >> >> >> Why is it so hard to refute Google, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr and the >> countless other big names in software and similar made it big without >> patents. If your case was so obviously true then examples should be >> prevelant and obvious knowledge. Yet from my observations and watching >> the net, i believe i can confidently say G, F, T, Fr and so on were >> not assisted by patents. The case of patents help defend some >> technology is rather small when compared the true case why these >> companies suceeded. The suceeded because of innovation, mindshare and >> excellence not because patents defended their position. >> >> Please Cedric provide an example of where patents have helped the >> investment and enterprise of a small or large comporation to build >> into something that is a leader in that field. It does not even have >> to be software. >> >> On Aug 12, 1:43 am, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On a related note, here is a very interesting article called "A case for >> > patents"< >> http://mobileopportunity.blogspot.com/2011/08/case-for-software-paten.. >> .>where >> > the author (who doesn't seem to be working for a NPE) says a lot of >> > the same things I've been saying. He covers pretty much everything: >> what's >> > right with patents, what's wrong with them (NPE's and patent warfare), >> some >> > theorizing trying to imagine a world without patents and finally, >> > interviewing one of the original inventors of software patents (the >> > concept). >> > >> > Select quote: "Without the patent, I think it could be open season on >> us >> > the moment we announce our product.". Sounds familiar? >> > >> > Read until the end, very interesting. >> > >> > -- >> > Cédric >> > >> > 2011/8/7 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Ricky Clarkson <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> > >> > >> Only Cedric Beust that I know of. >> > >> > > <nods> >> > >> > > Amazing to see so many people wrong :-) >> > >> > > -- >> > > Cédric >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> > > > -- > Robert Casto > www.robertcasto.com > www.sellerstoolbox.com > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/YNH9JGP9sCoJ. 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.
