• Patent war goes nuclear: Microsoft, Apple-owned “Rockstar” sues Google
    57 replies, posted
We need serious patent reforms, patents are supposed to be shields; Not swords.
[QUOTE]The complaint tries to use the fact that Google bid for the patents as an extra point against the search giant. "Google subsequently increased its bid multiple times, ultimately bidding as high as $4.4 billion," wrote Rockstar's lawyers. "That price was insufficient to win the auction, as a group led by the current shareholders of Rockstar purchased the portfolio for $4.5 billion. Despite losing in its attempt to acquire the patents-in-suit at auction, Google has infringed and continues to infringe the patents-in-suit."[/QUOTE] What the hell is all this shit? First they're like "BUT BUT Google tried to buy the patents toooo!" and then they switch to "HAHA but they lost and we got them!" and then suddenly they're back to "NYAAAH THEY'RE BULLIES NOT FAIR."
[QUOTE=Splarg!;42722803]What the hell is all this shit? First they're like "BUT BUT Google tried to buy the patents toooo!" and then they switch to "HAHA but they lost and we got them!" and then suddenly they're back to "NYAAAH THEY'RE BULLIES NOT FAIR."[/QUOTE] Because they're corporate shills, duh.
[QUOTE=adnzzzzZ;42722558]You can have an opinion, but if your opinion is that it's a shitty practice and that you don't support it, yet you use the products those companies put out (therefore you are actually supporting them) then you are contradicting yourself. I don't tend to take the opinion of people who contradict themselves on a subject, about that subject, seriously. Do you?[/QUOTE] I don't even know what to call this method of argument but I'm trying to smash "7 degrees of separation" and "auto-erotic asphyxiation" into a single word being so black-and-white is an awful way to form your view on things. This is like saying "You're not allowed to say shit about the smell of the sewage plant down the street because you drink the local tap water"
[QUOTE=daijitsu;42722454]As much as you guys complain about how harmful patents are, can you imagine what things would be like if america had the same lack of regulation on intellectual property and quality control that china is experiencing right now [/QUOTE] You say that as though having a broken patent system abused by large corporations or no patent system abused by corporations are the only options.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;42723591]You say that as though having a broken patent system abused by large corporations or no patent system abused by corporations are the only options.[/QUOTE] I'm saying that this level is objectively better than no level, in response to the weird argument that basically paints the current system as a tool [i]only[/i] useful for corporate strong-arming and letting patent troll destroy small startups for things with genuine potential
People trusted our wonderful Nortel with some of the most powerful technology in the world. We have fallen and failed....
[QUOTE=daijitsu;42723072]I don't even know what to call this method of argument but I'm trying to smash "7 degrees of separation" and "auto-erotic asphyxiation" into a single word being so black-and-white is an awful way to form your view on things. This is like saying "You're not allowed to say shit about the smell of the sewage plant down the street because you drink the local tap water"[/QUOTE] Did you even read my next response, where I posted this ([URL]http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm[/URL]), which pretty much reasons against black and whiteness? But yea, your analogy isn't incorrect either. If you don't know anything about how the sewage works and why the smell is there, and you're contributing to the smell very indirectly (but you are), then what good does your complaint do? In the case of this particular analogy you get to complain because you're paying for it and it's a public good, but in the case of thread at hand you don't, because even though you paid for the products the companies sold you they don't have any obligation at all to listen to what you have to say regarding their patent trolling policies. Everyone has opinions on subjects they know next to nothing about (you demonstrated that by asking what the world would be like without such patent systems, without acknowledging that there are countries that have no software patent laws and their world hasn't ended (and software patent laws are what matters here, not general patents)), but they feel like they get to be outraged and that they have to share their very uninformed opinions like if it mattered. I, as an informed individual, need to cut the line somewhere as to who I'm going to take seriously and who I'm not going to take seriously. If you've ever discussed any subject that you have in depth knowledge about with a number of people who are ignorant about it, you'd know that you need to do that sometimes. Just because the world feels like a democracy and because you can share your views on subjects with other people it doesn't mean your opinions are automatically at the same level as the opinion of someone who has more information on it.
[QUOTE=thisispain;42721392]isnt that the capitalist ideal?[/QUOTE] As much as I dislike capitalism, particularly in it's libertarian or anarcho forms, no it isn't, since in true capitalism there wouldn't be any regulation.
[QUOTE=thisispain;42721392]isnt that the capitalist ideal?[/QUOTE] the capitalist ideal is that everyone will be successful purely based on merits i.e. you work hard, you become rich and successful
This is actually a good thing for a couple of reasons. The first is just that the best way to fight patent trolls is to actually fight them in court and get their shit invalidated. They only exist because people don't have the funds to fight them, Google does. Besides that, Rockstar is on shaky grounds as it is- if you'll recall, they're only allowed to exist because: [QUOTE]After a thorough review of the proposed transactions, the Antitrust Division has determined that each acquisition is unlikely to substantially lessen competition and has closed these three investigations... [B]The division’s investigations focused on whether the acquiring firms could use these patents to raise rivals’ costs or foreclose competition.[/B] The division concluded that the specific transactions at issue are not likely to significantly change existing market dynamics. During the course of the division’s investigation, several of the principal competitors, including Google, Apple and Microsoft, made commitments concerning their SEP licensing policies. [B]The division’s concerns about the potential anticompetitive use of SEPs was lessened by the clear commitments by Apple and Microsoft to license SEPs on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms[/B], as well as their commitments not to seek injunctions in disputes involving SEPs. Google’s commitments were more ambiguous and do not provide the same direct confirmation of its SEP licensing policies.[/QUOTE] And as the article notes, John Veschi said something pretty fucking idiotic last year. [QUOTE]Rockstar Consortium — isn’t bound by the promises that its member companies made, according to Veschi. “We are separate,” he says. “That does not apply to us.”[/QUOTE] I'm very curious how this asshole's "I changed names so the rules don't apply anymore" style of legalizin' gels with the government. I get the feeling it won't.
Patents should be non transferable after a certain period of time. if a company goes belly up they get released.
[QUOTE=ac/14;42725512]Patents should be non transferable after a certain period of time. if a company goes belly up they get released.[/QUOTE] Uh, what? Intellectual property is still an asset. If I spent hours inventing x method of doing something, I still want money for it. If my company goes bankrupt, it shouldn't just be transferred into the public domain, leaving me stranded. I feel like this would just welcome dirty tactics from bigger companies trying to bankrupt smaller ones in order to gain free use of their patents. Or alternatively, investors trying their hardest to save a failing company, when in reality it deserves to go under.
Should have some kind of legaleese to prevent this kind of thing from happening
I'm interested to see how this plays out as Motorola has patents on cellphone networking going back to the mid 80s, with probably hundreds of prior work that can be brought to bare on this case, probably though it'll end up with a butthurt apple sympathetic jury who wants to punish the evil Google for trying to use the 4gees to make phones better, even though since Google got involved in smart phones, they have quadroopled in power, expanded in numbers and are cheaper and more ubitiquous than ever, because people had a choice between the unaffordable, ridiculous iPhone (remember those hundred page cellphone bills? my aunt showed me one from when she got an iPhone) and a phone that works just like an iPhone in the sense that it's a palm pilot with a cellphone built in [editline]2nd November 2013[/editline] there should be a clause so that these patent trolls must pay the legal fees, and must be actively researching or providing funds for research. currently they are just fucking leaches, taking resources, poisoning systems, and growing bigger than ever before
They should deem the purchase illegal and reverse it. They used methods that circumvent monopoly regulations. If they didn't, create some that say they did because this is bullshit. You shouldnt be able to just come together with all of a companies competition and make one big group to squeeze an individual company out. That's bullshit.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;42722454]As much as you guys complain about how harmful patents are, can you imagine what things would be like if america had the same lack of regulation on intellectual property and quality control that china is experiencing right now [/QUOTE] The world should just follow the EU's way of dealing with patents, quite a lot of effort has gone into the patentability rules. Patents are good when they cover actual inventions, a lot of the things that people sue over are by no stretch of the imagination an invention. Protecting IP is important, but a patent isn't needed for that purpose IMO. There are enough IP laws to cover that sort of thing. Then again I guess it depends what people class as intellectual property, but in my mind (and I guess a lot of people) an implementation is someone's IP, not the concept behind it. [editline]2nd November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;42730074]I'm interested to see how this plays out as Motorola has patents on cellphone networking going back to the mid 80s..[/QUOTE] As far as I know, Motorola (isn't it actually part of Google now? I’ve lost track) are forced to licence those patents under [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing]FRAND[/url] licenses because they are standards and Motorola are members of the standards organisations that set them. So they couldn't be used in a malicious way (such as them being refused to certain companies so they can be sued), which is probably for the best. [editline]2nd November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=frozensoda;42730123]They should deem the purchase illegal and reverse it. They used methods that circumvent monopoly regulations. If they didn't, create some that say they did because this is bullshit. You shouldnt be able to just come together with all of a companies competition and make one big group to squeeze an individual company out. That's bullshit.[/QUOTE] This is actually quite common, my understanding is that is just a patent pool. All of the companies involved use the patents so its in their interest to own them and licence them to themselves. Mind you, a lot of people refer to patent pools (like MPEG LA) as cartels, so take that as you wish.
Yes, Google bought Motorola for 12 billion dollars. [URL="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111903392904576509953821437960"]http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...09953821437960[/URL] And you're right about FRAND: [URL="http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/05/judge-slaps-motorola-with-145m-payout-to-microsoft-for-frand-abuse"]http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/...or-frand-abuse[/URL], although I'm pretty sure most lawsuits (like that one) were happening before Google bought them. Also, guy uses Linux, is informed on the subject and his opinions bring value. sup haters
[QUOTE=adnzzzzZ;42731292]Yes, Google bought Motorola for 12 billion dollars. [URL="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111903392904576509953821437960"]http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...09953821437960[/URL] And you're right about FRAND: [URL="http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/05/judge-slaps-motorola-with-145m-payout-to-microsoft-for-frand-abuse"]http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/...or-frand-abuse[/URL], although I'm pretty sure most lawsuits (like that one) were happening before Google bought them. Also, guy uses Linux, is informed on the subject and his opinions bring value. sup haters[/QUOTE] Except he being informed on the subject and inherently bringing up 'valued' opinions is in no way linked to his use of Linux. Someone who uses Windows could have been as equally informed and offered an equally valued opinion. Discrediting someone's argument or opinion simply because they us a specific OS is ridiculous.
I'm very aware of that, but I've already explained my reasoning in a previous post. It's just that usually when it comes to these issues, the people who really care about the subject (and therefore tend to be the most informed about it) also happen to use Linux, since it is a free platform that probably more correctly aligns with their ideals. There's some correlation there that can't be completely ignored (although I have no reason to assume that someone uses Linux for THAT particular reason). And as expected, in this thread he was the person so far with the most valuable input, compared to all others who said a lot of things but clearly had no idea what they were talking about.
[QUOTE=supersnail11;42725368]the capitalist ideal is that everyone will be successful purely based on merits i.e. you work hard, you become rich and successful[/QUOTE] Too bad it doesn't prevent cheating or underhand manoeuvres.
I've never understood how patents can be bought - it'd make more sense the original author retaining the rights until their death
[QUOTE=adnzzzzZ;42731353]I'm very aware of that, but I've already explained my reasoning in a previous post. It's just that usually when it comes to these issues, the people who really care about the subject (and therefore tend to be the most informed about it) also happen to use Linux, since it is a free platform that probably more correctly aligns with their ideals. There's some correlation there that can't be completely ignored (although I have no reason to assume that someone uses Linux for THAT particular reason). And as expected, in this thread he was the person so far with the most valuable input, compared to all others who said a lot of things but clearly had no idea what they were talking about.[/QUOTE] No I use Linux because its faster on my laptop when I want to just browse the internet. Nothing to do with ideals, I strongly dislike a lot of opinions held about free software anyway.
[QUOTE=adnzzzzZ;42731353]I'm very aware of that, but I've already explained my reasoning in a previous post. It's just that usually when it comes to these issues, the people who really care about the subject (and therefore tend to be the most informed about it) also happen to use Linux, since it is a free platform that probably more correctly aligns with their ideals. There's some correlation there that can't be completely ignored (although I have no reason to assume that someone uses Linux for THAT particular reason). And as expected, in this thread he was the person so far with the most valuable input, compared to all others who said a lot of things but clearly had no idea what they were talking about.[/QUOTE] if you're using an OS because of ideals, you're probably richard stallman levels of crazy and nobody will listen to you anyway. there are plenty of uses for linux, especially in situations where use of windows/mac is not economical
[QUOTE=Trumple;42721427]Fixed that for you [editline]1st November 2013[/editline] How a "district" of a state is more accepting of this is disgusting, why is this allowed to happen? So backwards[/QUOTE] Simple - supreme courts haven't given contrary iudicature yet.
[QUOTE=FFStudios;42736713]if you're using an OS because of ideals, you're probably richard stallman levels of crazy and nobody will listen to you anyway. there are plenty of uses for linux, especially in situations where use of windows/mac is not economical[/QUOTE] Are you actually seriously saying Richard Stallman is crazy? The man was right about everything back when everyone thought he was crazy, and anyone calling him crazy now is actually crazy, given the information we have been provided in the last few months. I agree with what you said other than that, though.
[QUOTE=ashrobhoy;42721631]if i ever get the chance i would buy apple and remove it from existance[/QUOTE] [quote]Microsoft, Apple, RIM, Ericsson, and Sony[/quote] :tinfoil:
Honestly this removing companies from existence is really contradictory from one of the many reason why you hate them, because they try to remove competition from that market area. I don't think we'd be where we are without Microsoft and Apple, sure they take some dodgy business but they're both big companies that shaped technology as we see it today.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.