decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
It is not about profits. | 400 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
It's simple.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 11:46 PM EDT
Big corps used to like software patents, because they were an easy weapon to squish their smaller competitors with (or extort license fees out of them with). Big corps have huge patent portfolios, and whenever they locked horns with each other, the usual result was they would cross-license their portfolios in some way (giving each other licenses). So the bigger their patent portfolio, the stronger their bargaining position is during this cross-licensing.

Lately, some big corps don't like them as much, because they've been on the receiving end of a bunch of troll lawsuits. (Remember when NTP extorted a $500 million settlement out of RIM, and then the patents at issue were invalidated after re-examination?) And the cell phone manufacturers have always been lawsuit-happy, but lately things are starting to get out of control in that sphere. But the status quo is hard to change.

It doesn't help that there's thousands of patent lawyers who find the status quo beneficial, and nobody besides programmers who truly understands how much damage software patents have already done and will continue to do to U.S. innovation, through chilling effects and unnecessary patent expenditures (for self-defense, or to please venture capitalists, it matters not... its all wasted activity). If you could put a dollar figure on it, I'm sure it would be large (like billions of dollars per year.)

Software patents have been a thorn in the industry's side for two decades now, but the problem has been growing steadily worse and is now bad enough that even non-programmers are starting to take notice.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

This software patents nonsense has to stop, it's killing the industry
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 01:06 PM EDT
And getting worse. The recent patent "reform" will empower the large
companies even more: first to file combined with much higher fees will
eliminate individuals, and the not-so-rich open software developers.

The concept is not new: remember MS and Stacker (~1990). They stole the disk
compression code and lost the court case, but escaped any real penalties and
litigated Stac Electronics into oblivion.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It is not about profits.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 07:14 PM EDT
Modern corporations don't act in the interest of profit. Their primary goal is
crushing competition at any cost. They would rather go bankrupt themselves than
see a competitor make $1 for every $1000 dollars they make.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )