On Monday 17 Aug 2009 12:15:20 geoffrey mendelson wrote:
On Aug 17, 2009, at 11:11 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Thanks for trimming my message and probably not answering to the
point. I
will try to address your claims, however.
That's a matter of opinion. I thought I hit your point exactly.
Hi Geoffrey!
Thanks for trimming my message and probably not answering to the point. I
will try to address your claims, however.
On Saturday 15 August 2009 20:50:10 geoffrey mendelson wrote:
On Aug 13, 2009, at 6:03 PM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
I'm all for making money out of good ideas, but I
On Aug 17, 2009, at 11:11 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Thanks for trimming my message and probably not answering to the
point. I
will try to address your claims, however.
That's a matter of opinion. I thought I hit your point exactly.
Software is a mathematical abstraction and talented
Geoff
Good point -but a tactical one.
A provisional patent can be a deterrent to competitors and copiers.
1. relatively cheap
2. the spec remains secret
3. delays legal and filing fees
4. relatively easy to write
5. enables the product to be marked patent pending
6. Gives a startup a
On Aug 16, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Danny Lieberman wrote:
Geoff
Good point -but a tactical one.
A provisional patent can be a deterrent to competitors and copiers.
1. relatively cheap
2. the spec remains secret
3. delays legal and filing fees
4. relatively easy to write
5. enables the product
Geoff
The Microsoft example is central to the discussion. The empirical data is
that more innovation is done by big companies (IBM, Microsoft, Intel,
Google) than by small independent inventors - they have the money to hire
smarter people, the synergy, the infrastructure and legal to protect
On Aug 16, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Danny Lieberman wrote:
I challenge you to bring one example of an Israeli startup that was
able to profitably monetize their idea with software patent
licensing. Patent trolls like Aerotel and NTP don't count.
I can't because I am not a native Hebrew
Geoff
Actually - companies often develop IP with the intent to monetize their work
via licensing deals - it's good business if you don't have the mfg and
distribution capability.
For example - patent licensing is huge business in pharma and
semiconductors. Take the biological drug - Remicade
On Aug 16, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Danny Lieberman wrote:
Actually - companies often develop IP with the intent to monetize
their work via licensing deals - it's good business if you don't
have the mfg and distribution capability.
In the software space you have companies like IBM, Novell,
On Aug 13, 2009, at 6:03 PM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
I'm all for making money out of good ideas, but I still think that
people need
to take the necessary effort in taking these ideas forward, instead
of just
issuing vague, generic and/or trivial software patents that prevent
people
from
My dearest fellow list members,
Can someone explain to me what the i4i-MS tiff is about? Do i4i's patent
claims regarding their XML technology affect other uses of XML besides MS
Office? That is, on this issue should we be backing MS?
Many thanks,
- yba
--
EE 77 7F 30 4A 64 2E C5 83 5F
Jonathan Ben Avraham wrote:
My dearest fellow list members,
Can someone explain to me what the i4i-MS tiff is about? Do i4i's
patent claims regarding their XML technology affect other uses of XML
besides MS Office? That is, on this issue should we be backing MS?
I have not gone into the
Yonatan
It appeared to me at first that i4i was a patent troll so I promptly ignored
the fracas.
but they appear to be a legit software house.
OTOH -
Their injunction came shortly after Microsoft was awarded a patent related
to using XML in Word - which suggests to me that they are trying to
Danny Lieberman wrote:
the judge wants to forbid MSFT from selling Word in the US on grounds
of a patent-infringement that cannot be proved to protect a company
that relies on Word to sell it's product.
I think the injunction is really ludicrous. The rule of late was that
preventing a
On Aug 13, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
And yet, we cannot seem to draft Microsoft to the anti-software
patents camp. Despite the fact that their loses to silly patents
over the years far outweight their gains from them.
Amazing
With all due respect what amazes me is that
geoffrey mendelson wrote:
On Aug 13, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
And yet, we cannot seem to draft Microsoft to the anti-software
patents camp. Despite the fact that their loses to silly patents over
the years far outweight their gains from them.
Amazing
With all due
Shachar
Read Patent Failure by Besson and Meuer - software patents are a net
economic negative - ie the cost to write, issue and enforce is greater than
the economic benefit.
This is in comparison with pharma and chemical industries where patents have
a net economic positive balance - ie profit
On Aug 13, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Where has Microsoft's junk patents given them any money? Unless they
are using extortion (possible) to quietly threaten potential FOSS
defecties away, that is. They are not selling those, and they have
never sued anyone (well, one). It
Geoff
Let's not mix the FOSS movement, politics, emotion or opinion with
economics.
The simple economics are that for the entire software industry - the cost of
software patents far outweighs the economic benefit unlike the
pharmaceutical industry.
The cost == cost of writing, issuing,
On Aug 13, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Danny Lieberman wrote:
Shachar
Read Patent Failure by Besson and Meuer - software patents are a net
economic negative - ie the cost to write, issue and enforce is
greater than the economic benefit.
This is in comparison with pharma and chemical industries
On Aug 13, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Danny Lieberman wrote:
The simple economics are that for the entire software industry - the
cost of software patents far outweighs the economic benefit unlike
the pharmaceutical industry.
The cost == cost of writing, issuing, enforcing
The benefit ==
Geoff
I'm sorry. Did you actually read Besson and Meurer?
I did and I think they did an excellent job of making their case that
software patents do not have economic benefit for the industry
d
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:53 PM, geoffrey mendelson
geoffreymendel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug
Danny Lieberman wrote:
Geoff
Let's not mix the FOSS movement, politics, emotion or opinion with
economics.
The simple economics are that for the entire software industry - the
cost of software patents far outweighs the economic benefit unlike the
pharmaceutical industry.
The cost ==
On Aug 13, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Danny Lieberman wrote:
Geoff
I'm sorry. Did you actually read Besson and Meurer?
I did and I think they did an excellent job of making their case
that software patents do not have economic benefit for the industry
I did. You can download the paper from
The cost == cost of writing, issuing, enforcing
and licensing! Don't forget that one.
The benefit == increased revenue to the company
Shachar, licensing is a cost, but it's also a benefit. If you happen
to be the person using someone else's work for profit it's a cost. If
you happen
Geoff
Indeed the paper from Groklaw talks about the problems with the US Federal
Circuit court.
They later wrote a full length 323 page book - which I got after reading the
paper (which was a teaser I guess...)
The book deals with fundamental problems of patents - fuzzy, unpredictable
On Aug 13, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Danny Lieberman wrote:
They later wrote a full length 323 page book - which I got after
reading the paper (which was a teaser I guess...)
Ok, the GROKLAW article said they were in the process of writing. I'd
love to see that book.
The book deals with
Geoff
IBM lumping project/custom development revenue with patent licensing revenue
is misrepresentation of patent value by 2.5 orders of magnitude.
Buy the book on Amazon.
d
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:06 PM, geoffrey mendelson
geoffreymendel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 13, 2009, at 2:49 PM,
On Aug 13, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Danny Lieberman wrote:
For example - IBM began listing IP and licensing royalties in their
annual financial reports beginning in 2000 - about $1.5billion +/-
per year. The majority of the $1.5BN is value of IP sold off by IBM
including IP held by divisions
On Aug 13, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Danny Lieberman wrote:
IBM lumping project/custom development revenue with patent licensing
revenue is misrepresentation of patent value by 2.5 orders of
magnitude.
So you say, I'll bet their auditors, the IRS and the SEC say
differently.
If you
Geoff
IBM booked(s) custom software development as patent and IP revenue.By
that definition Ness would have about 1BN revenue of revenue from IP but as
we both know - Ness doesn't have any IP
Buy the book on Amazon. Re your IBM friend, look up post-hoc error on
Wikipedia
d
On Thu,
On Aug 13, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Danny Lieberman wrote:
Geoff
IBM booked(s) custom software development as patent and IP
revenue.By that definition Ness would have about 1BN revenue of
revenue from IP but as we both know - Ness doesn't have any IP
Now you are confusing US
On Thursday 13 August 2009 14:35:43 geoffrey mendelson wrote:
The cost == cost of writing, issuing, enforcing
and licensing! Don't forget that one.
The benefit == increased revenue to the company
Shachar, licensing is a cost, but it's also a benefit. If you happen
to be the person
33 matches
Mail list logo
