2011/8/16 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]>: > That much is clear, but that's not what we were discussing. I was objecting > to the characterization that this acquisition will kill innovation. Let's > have this discussion in a few years, at least there will be some data then, > although it will probably be hard to interpret.
Right, the topic was specifically the 12.5 BILLION dollars that was just spent on a failing company. One that so far with their resources was currently losing the game badly. Their patent portfolio was not helping them at all in the innovation game. So, now that one company, instead of spending billions of dollars coming up with new products is going to prop up another company for the alleged purpose of getting "defensive patents." The point is this is BILLIONS of dollars that allegedly did not go in any shape form or fashion towards innovation. In a few years, this point will still be valid, because it isn't like they will not spend money in those few years. Any innovation that happens --- ESPECIALLY if they keep the company "at arms length" --- will be more directly attributed to the operational costs of the next few years. Again, the claim was not that this killed innovation. It is again an example of how patents directed money AWAY from innovation. Now, if you think all of the current analysis is wrong and they did buy up the company for the talent and product road map, by all means make the case. So far none of the pundits (including you) have indicated this is likely at all. -- 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.
