2011/8/16 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> > > I can think of a lot of different outcomes, but here is one example: Google > doesn't buy Motorola Mobility, then gets sued year after year by various > vendors, wins some suits, loses some others, and all this money spent on > litigation could have been used to innovate. > > Another scenario: because they acquired Motorola Mobility and its 20,000+ > patents, competitors are more hesitant to sue Google. It doesn't matter how > good these 20,000 patents are, it's just that there are so many that suing > Google is pretty much guaranteed to cause collateral damage. Bottom line: > Google and its competitors go back to innovating instead of suing each > other. > > So patents are good, and help innovation, because they stop people from suing the pants off of you in lawsuits that were *only made possible by patents in the first place*
Isn't prevention better than cure? Especially when the cure and the illness are one and the same... -- 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.
