Thanks for inserting a bit of sanity into this discussion. Perhaps when the rest of the TD community finishes asserting its faux-technological superiority to the State Department, they'll realize this has NOTHING to do with a lack of knowledge about the nature of the Internet.
I'm sure that I just missed it, but have you ever addressed the success of paywall sites like Baseball Prospectus and Baseballhq.com ?
In arenas like fantasy baseball (or stock trading), some information is actually valuable enough to pay for...and is made more valuable by the fact that others do NOT have it. Right?
While there is understandable concern about general news sites turning to paywalls to survive, it appears that some types of information sites can thrive under that business model.
The BBC piece is pure bollocks, however, so is the concept that paywalls are always a dumb idea (which seems to be the overwhelming view of the Techdirt community).
Bloomberg is the best example of an incredibly viable pay-for-content model. Subscribers are willing to pay a seemingly absurd amount of money and navigate a DRM system that would impress the CIA, for access to the kind of reporting/intelligence that can make them money, and that value is actually increased by the fact that they have access to it as early as possible. Incredibly, there are some types of information which are made MORE valuable by the fewer people that know them.
Both the free and pay-for business models are equally valid in the online world. I think the free model will continue to be the leading model, but for certain types of information and reporting the paywall or freemium concepts will be the right choice of business model.
How do you know we would be better off without them? Two facts pose a massive problem for your argument:
1. The US has one of the most liberal approach to software patenability in the world.
2. The US has the most robust and innovative IT industry in the world.
Clearly, those facts do NOT = QED/argument over. However, they do suggest that all doomsday talk about software patents is hyperbolic at best. In the end, we need to get beyond the convenient myths about large companies and patent trolls, and start having more honest discussions.
A couple more points on that topic:
By "costing hundreds of billions" are you referring to the money that inventors have gotten in royalties and our payments for infringement on their inventions? In some cases these are going to patent trolls, but just as often that money goes to fund new R&D projects in companies large and small.
And, you seem to ignore companies like i4i, Tivo, and Stamford University, who have gotten multi-billion dollar settlements from the likes of Microsoft and Comcast. If it weren't for its patents, the cable companies would have stolen all Tivo's ideas and driven them right out of business...
As for seeking investment, when VCs are assessing risk they are more importantly assessing the risk that a larger competitor can simply steal your idea. Therefore your ability to protect it, most effectively throught patents, is actually critical to small firms getting investment.
I'll have to respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the events. Like most grassroots campaigns, the FFII spread a lot overstatements and mistruths in an attempt to scare individuals into getting involved.
Software patents are and have been legal throughout most of Europe. The CII Directive would have done very little to change the patentability of software in Europe.
Sorry, the FFII got you all ramped up to fight something that wouldn't have done much to change the current situation...but that is the reality.
Yeah...personally, I think these purported "patent thicket" problems are more hyperbole than reality. For all the doomsday scenarios, I haven't seen any related slowdown in innovation and growth in the software/tech industry.
We can agree to disagree (and debate long into the future), whether software patents are good, evil, or somewhere in between. However, there are a few facts that you have wrong in this post:
1. HARMONIZATION NOT LEGALIZATION. The push 6 years ago was NOT to legalize software patents. It was to harmonize the rules by which the EPO and other European patent offices handle computer-implemented inventions. The CII directive would have done effectively NOTHING to expand the legality of software patents.
2. SOFTWARE PATENTS WERE ALREADY LEGAL IN EUROPE! Software patents were already legal in most European patent offices, but have been called funny names (computer-implemented-inventions) and/or sorta-limited by language like "controllable forces of nature", etc. Moody is wrong about these usually preventing software patents. The most obvious proof is that fact that Microsoft got a German patent for the FAT file system that was recently upheld by the courts there.
There are actually two different cybercrime proposals in the Senate. The cybercrime bill by Hatch and Gillibrand is a limited proposal that is focused on how the US government and State Dept. can help deal with international cases of cybercrime. It has the support of most of the tech industry.
The article you cite on tech companies RIGHTFULLY being worried about "unintended consequences" is talking about a completely different cybercrime bill that is cosponsored by Rockefeller and Snow.
I think the problem will be that the only way to do this "right" is to put human beings back into the loop to help mitigate any potential false positives in the system. I don't think Google can simply tweak the algorithms to fix it. But, therein lies the rub. Putting human beings back into the system is not in the Google DNA - you can't deliver all these cool free services if you're paying thousands of support staff to answer questions and fix false positives.
Will be interesting to see how or if they try to fix this issue.
I think you're analysis of the search market is pretty spot on. I don't know if the new models supplant search, but they certainly have the ability to become significant in the future.
But as I just wrote over at the ACT blog, this deal isn't really about search.
It's about Search Advertising, with a heavy emphasis on "advertising." From a business perspective, Search is little more than a vehicle for advertising. Search may not be the future of how people find information online, but it seems pretty clear that advertising will be a critical part of how the Internet funds itself for the foreseeable future.
Most of the first day analysis, however, has focused on what this deal means for the less relevant market for search. Yet, the real question is whether it gives both companies a foot in the door with large advertisers, to which they can provide integrated advertising solutions that span search, banner ads, and newer "human-seeking information projectile" platforms. If so, then the efficacy of this deal looks a lot different...doesn't it, Mike?
First, I don't think the commercial success is relevant to the point I'm trying to make at all. Kamen's FIRST competitions for robotics are designed to encourage cooperation in the pursuit of prizes. Designing competitions that incentivize cooperation is actually something he spends a lot of time doing. He does believe in 'ongoing processes' of invention and cooperation to achieve such goals, despite what you assert here.
Second, you are simply wrong about his commercial success being "mediocre." While the Segway has not revolutionized cities the way some suggested it would, he has built a fortune by inventing, producing, and licensing dozens of medical technologies that have not only been runaway commercial successes but have also won him humanitarian and technology awards around the world. You are right that his attempt to essentially go it alone on producing and marketing the Segway was a mistake, but that seems less because of a lack of innovation than a lack of understanding of the market.
@Lawrence
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I know that some argue that patents "take away rights" of the populace at large. The patent system is a bargain that is designed incentivize the exploration of useful arts and sciences. Whether that bargain is currently the topic of serious debate.
However, I do not believe there is any question that patents confer special rights and privileges onto those that hold them.
not sure this is really an argument against patents.
Yes, it is a reminder that 'flash of genius' moments are relatively rare and that most innovative products are the result of collaboration and teamwork. However, often the teamwork happens inside singular companies...leading to great leaps. Sometimes those leaps are not enough, and companies need to buy other firms (think iPod and Kindle) or work out collaborative development agreements or licensing deals with other firms. Nothing about patents prevent this kind of collaboration. In fact, they often make it EASIER not harder because rights are clearly defined during the negotiation for collaboration.
This NetFlix prize is a great story, but it makes a case against ignoring the possibility of collaboration with perceived competitors. It doesn't make a convincing case against patents. Just look at Dean Kamen. No one was put more emphasis on creative competitions that encourage collaboration/coopetition, yet he is one of the biggest backers of the patent system.
As Mike suggest, car manufacturers are abusing the DMCA (if they actually use it in these cases, a point that is not clear in the article) by attempting to use it in this way. The interoperability exemption in the DMCA creates a clear opening for anyone who wants to circumvent these ridiculous locks. Additionally, the locks need to be protecting copyrighted content in order to be protected by the DMCA. I don't see how that would be the case here at all.
Given all this, I don't see the need for this law. Unless I'm missing something, circumventing these locks are likely legal already.
I respect your opinion on this, but I am sorry to say that I don't know any better than that. They have a too l which can be used for many legal purposes, but they aren't promoting those legal purposes. Their choice of name and rhetoric suggests the only thing the ARE interested in is defending the ability of their users to pirate the content of others. The name of the site is not 'meaningless,' they chose it as part of their marketing and a representation of their ideology.
Again, they and their friends in the Pirate Party (one of whom my colleague debated on the BBC yesterday), don't believe that "sharing" of movies and music should be illegal. That's a perfectly fine belief to have, but the reality is that, even in Sweden, it is currently illegal.
The folks at Grokster and now Pirate Bay don't deserve to be protected under the Betamax ruling because they promoted their technologies as a way to break the "current law" and built their business models on lawbreaking and encouraging lawbreaking among their users.
I agree it's tough to draw a line here, but I also think it's very clear that Pirate Bay is on the wrong side of it.
There is a reason why so many of us turn to HBO for quality TV... because they are focused on producing content that viewers want to see, not content that will sell the most advertising. While those two things aren't mutually exclusive, they are often not the same either.
There is a lot of creativity flowing into free business models right now, and that is fantastic. But, it does not makes sense for us to effectively ban charging directly for content either. True artists are often not interested in merchandising...they want to make music, art, movies, etc. If we say they can' get paid directly to do that, we may only perpetuate and increase the power of Music Labels.
The Grokster case did not hinge on the question of whether the toolmaker was liable for the actions of its customers. The central legal question in that case was about whether the toolmaker can market its product as a way to commit crimes.
Think about it this way. The question is NOT whether Craftsman should be liable for creating the hammer that was used to smash your car window and steal your stereo. The question is whether Craftsman should be held liable for marketing its hammers as the best tool for Smash and Grab thieves.
Pirate Bay was never interested in creating technology to facilitate legal uses (one look at their name tells you as much). They simply do not deserve to be lumped together in the same category as the BitTorrent technology they use or other companies that are focused on creating technology with legitimate legal uses (but have the potential of being misused).
Hopefully we can soon bid good riddance to Pirate Bay. Not because the end of Pirate Bay will lead to the end of so-called file sharing or piracy (it won't), but because Pirate Bay is tarnishing the image of the entire P2P and distributed computing industry, and giving credence to cries of some in the content industry who want to ban all technologies that MAY be used for piracy.
That was not what I meant, and I apologize for not being more clear. You started off by suggesting the only thing important about what I said was the fact that Microsoft was one of my members. You questioned my integrity and my honesty from the first post forward, rather than focusing on the content of my ideas. My point was meant to be that we, including me, all TRUST that you are independent in your opinions and focus instead on quality of your ideas. Shouldn't you be willing to do the same? I should have stated that more clearly, rather than simply inferring it.
Again, I'm sorry for not being more clear and certainly didn't mean to slur your in any way. Between the flu and lack of sleep, I'm sure this is all a big misunderstanding on both sides.
With all due respect Mike, we don't know whether you're paid to push the opinions you write or not. It's not like you're publishing facts and research devoid of slant or advocacy and can say you're just being a "journalist." So, based on that logic, we just have to take your word for it that your opinions are yours and yours alone.
Yes, ACT advocates on behalf of free market principles that our 3000+ members companies, including Microsoft, support. However, isn't the content of my arguments more important than the members who support them?
So one more time, I will try to discuss what is important. I'm sure there are many IP lawyers that license bogus patents all the time. But, they?re probably talking about situations where their company has few if any patents and are being approached aggressively by someone looking to extract just enough $$ to make it cheaper than litigation. However, I guarantee you that those exact same lawyers would admit that discussions between two giant companies with massive patent war chests are a COMPLETELY different scenario. There isn?t the same incentive to just write a check for anything cheaper than litigation.
Unlike many commentators on this blog, I post using my real name and link back to our website that clearly lists Microsoft as one of our members. I'm not trying to hide anything here. That said, if you start announcing every time you write about a sponsor/advertiser/customer of Floor64/TechDirt, I will be sure to follow :-)
Now, back to substance. There are times when companies simply pay licensing fees because it's "cheaper." However, the companies I was listing off have SIGNIFICANT patent portfolios, so instead this is about negotiating cross licensing deals. It's a very different calculus.
In those scenarios, typically, the two companies sit down to figure out:
1. What patents each company has that potentially read on each other's products.
2. What patents the other company has that might be useful to future development strategies.
3. What those patents are worth.
Every part is negotiated heavily, because neither company wants to pay for patents they don't need or pay too much for the ones they do. Otherwise, they could be the ones writing a massive check at the end of the year. In this scenario, the question of litigation costs is rarely if ever the guiding principle.
So, while no patent lawyer would definitively state "this patent reads on this technology," the fact that mature companies with significant patent portfolios (including patents that probably read on Microsoft technologies) decided to license these patents suggest that they at least pass the "laugh test."
Finally, my point about Stallman et al is not meant to PROVE anything. It was meant to help correct some language in your post. It's a bit of personal pet peeve, because the Freetards spent years promoting fear about Microsoft's patents and the danger they posed to Linux, I'm sorry... "GNU/Linux." Heck, Moglen used to call the FAT patents a "Sword of Damocles" hanging over open source.
But, as soon as Microsoft said "Yes. There are 235 patents," they started complaining that Microsoft was simply throwing FUD. Not truly important, but one of those things that just bugs me after following this issue for years. I'm not asking you to give Microsoft a "pass," just not perpetuate the myth that Microsoft is that one who started the FUD about its patents re: Linux.
I'm just glad that we had one glorious moment of agreement on patents recently, because we're back to disagreeing. I know that you're just not a fan of patents, but I don't think your FUDing of the Micosoft patents really holds up to scrutiny.
In this particular case, large companies like Pioneer, Alpine, and Kenwood have all taken licenses for them. If they thought the patents were bogus, I'm sure their legal departments wouldn't have signed those deals.
As for the Linux patents you call "mythical," companies like BMW and Siemens, both with massive patent portfolios and powerful legal teams voluntarily took licenses for Microsoft's Linux related patents. If they were all specious, the Germans would have laughed Ballmer & Co. out of the country.
Additionally, as I've written before Microsoft was the very last one of join the supposed "Microsoft Patent FUD Party." Stallman, Moglen and Company started tossing that FUD all around the world years ago in their effort to create excuses for killing software and software-related patents.
Re: Re: Probably a legal loophole
Thanks for inserting a bit of sanity into this discussion. Perhaps when the rest of the TD community finishes asserting its faux-technological superiority to the State Department, they'll realize this has NOTHING to do with a lack of knowledge about the nature of the Internet.
Baseball Prospectus
Mike,
I didn't know you were a rotogeek too :-)
I'm sure that I just missed it, but have you ever addressed the success of paywall sites like Baseball Prospectus and Baseballhq.com ?
In arenas like fantasy baseball (or stock trading), some information is actually valuable enough to pay for...and is made more valuable by the fact that others do NOT have it. Right?
While there is understandable concern about general news sites turning to paywalls to survive, it appears that some types of information sites can thrive under that business model.
A better example...
The BBC piece is pure bollocks, however, so is the concept that paywalls are always a dumb idea (which seems to be the overwhelming view of the Techdirt community).
Bloomberg is the best example of an incredibly viable pay-for-content model. Subscribers are willing to pay a seemingly absurd amount of money and navigate a DRM system that would impress the CIA, for access to the kind of reporting/intelligence that can make them money, and that value is actually increased by the fact that they have access to it as early as possible. Incredibly, there are some types of information which are made MORE valuable by the fewer people that know them.
Both the free and pay-for business models are equally valid in the online world. I think the free model will continue to be the leading model, but for certain types of information and reporting the paywall or freemium concepts will be the right choice of business model.
Re: Re: Re:
How do you know we would be better off without them? Two facts pose a massive problem for your argument:
1. The US has one of the most liberal approach to software patenability in the world.
2. The US has the most robust and innovative IT industry in the world.
Clearly, those facts do NOT = QED/argument over. However, they do suggest that all doomsday talk about software patents is hyperbolic at best. In the end, we need to get beyond the convenient myths about large companies and patent trolls, and start having more honest discussions.
A couple more points on that topic:
By "costing hundreds of billions" are you referring to the money that inventors have gotten in royalties and our payments for infringement on their inventions? In some cases these are going to patent trolls, but just as often that money goes to fund new R&D projects in companies large and small.
And, you seem to ignore companies like i4i, Tivo, and Stamford University, who have gotten multi-billion dollar settlements from the likes of Microsoft and Comcast. If it weren't for its patents, the cable companies would have stolen all Tivo's ideas and driven them right out of business...
As for seeking investment, when VCs are assessing risk they are more importantly assessing the risk that a larger competitor can simply steal your idea. Therefore your ability to protect it, most effectively throught patents, is actually critical to small firms getting investment.
Re: Re: A few corrections
I'll have to respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the events. Like most grassroots campaigns, the FFII spread a lot overstatements and mistruths in an attempt to scare individuals into getting involved.
Software patents are and have been legal throughout most of Europe. The CII Directive would have done very little to change the patentability of software in Europe.
Sorry, the FFII got you all ramped up to fight something that wouldn't have done much to change the current situation...but that is the reality.
Re:
Yeah...personally, I think these purported "patent thicket" problems are more hyperbole than reality. For all the doomsday scenarios, I haven't seen any related slowdown in innovation and growth in the software/tech industry.
A few corrections
Mike,
We can agree to disagree (and debate long into the future), whether software patents are good, evil, or somewhere in between. However, there are a few facts that you have wrong in this post:
1. HARMONIZATION NOT LEGALIZATION. The push 6 years ago was NOT to legalize software patents. It was to harmonize the rules by which the EPO and other European patent offices handle computer-implemented inventions. The CII directive would have done effectively NOTHING to expand the legality of software patents.
2. SOFTWARE PATENTS WERE ALREADY LEGAL IN EUROPE! Software patents were already legal in most European patent offices, but have been called funny names (computer-implemented-inventions) and/or sorta-limited by language like "controllable forces of nature", etc. Moody is wrong about these usually preventing software patents. The most obvious proof is that fact that Microsoft got a German patent for the FAT file system that was recently upheld by the courts there.
A little mixup in your post
Mike,
There are actually two different cybercrime proposals in the Senate. The cybercrime bill by Hatch and Gillibrand is a limited proposal that is focused on how the US government and State Dept. can help deal with international cases of cybercrime. It has the support of most of the tech industry.
The article you cite on tech companies RIGHTFULLY being worried about "unintended consequences" is talking about a completely different cybercrime bill that is cosponsored by Rockefeller and Snow.
has the support of most major tech firms
Interesting Conundrum
I think the problem will be that the only way to do this "right" is to put human beings back into the loop to help mitigate any potential false positives in the system. I don't think Google can simply tweak the algorithms to fix it. But, therein lies the rub. Putting human beings back into the system is not in the Google DNA - you can't deliver all these cool free services if you're paying thousands of support staff to answer questions and fix false positives.
Will be interesting to see how or if they try to fix this issue.
You're Mostly Right About Search, But This Ain't About That...
I think you're analysis of the search market is pretty spot on. I don't know if the new models supplant search, but they certainly have the ability to become significant in the future.
But as I just wrote over at the ACT blog, this deal isn't really about search.
Most of the first day analysis, however, has focused on what this deal means for the less relevant market for search. Yet, the real question is whether it gives both companies a foot in the door with large advertisers, to which they can provide integrated advertising solutions that span search, banner ads, and newer "human-seeking information projectile" platforms. If so, then the efficacy of this deal looks a lot different...doesn't it, Mike?
Re: Re: Interesting but ...
@Mike
First, I don't think the commercial success is relevant to the point I'm trying to make at all. Kamen's FIRST competitions for robotics are designed to encourage cooperation in the pursuit of prizes. Designing competitions that incentivize cooperation is actually something he spends a lot of time doing. He does believe in 'ongoing processes' of invention and cooperation to achieve such goals, despite what you assert here.
Second, you are simply wrong about his commercial success being "mediocre." While the Segway has not revolutionized cities the way some suggested it would, he has built a fortune by inventing, producing, and licensing dozens of medical technologies that have not only been runaway commercial successes but have also won him humanitarian and technology awards around the world. You are right that his attempt to essentially go it alone on producing and marketing the Segway was a mistake, but that seems less because of a lack of innovation than a lack of understanding of the market.
@Lawrence
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I know that some argue that patents "take away rights" of the populace at large. The patent system is a bargain that is designed incentivize the exploration of useful arts and sciences. Whether that bargain is currently the topic of serious debate.
However, I do not believe there is any question that patents confer special rights and privileges onto those that hold them.
Interesting but ...
not sure this is really an argument against patents.
Yes, it is a reminder that 'flash of genius' moments are relatively rare and that most innovative products are the result of collaboration and teamwork. However, often the teamwork happens inside singular companies...leading to great leaps. Sometimes those leaps are not enough, and companies need to buy other firms (think iPod and Kindle) or work out collaborative development agreements or licensing deals with other firms. Nothing about patents prevent this kind of collaboration. In fact, they often make it EASIER not harder because rights are clearly defined during the negotiation for collaboration.
This NetFlix prize is a great story, but it makes a case against ignoring the possibility of collaboration with perceived competitors. It doesn't make a convincing case against patents. Just look at Dean Kamen. No one was put more emphasis on creative competitions that encourage collaboration/coopetition, yet he is one of the biggest backers of the patent system.
Actually, there isn't a need for a new law
As Mike suggest, car manufacturers are abusing the DMCA (if they actually use it in these cases, a point that is not clear in the article) by attempting to use it in this way. The interoperability exemption in the DMCA creates a clear opening for anyone who wants to circumvent these ridiculous locks. Additionally, the locks need to be protecting copyrighted content in order to be protected by the DMCA. I don't see how that would be the case here at all.
Given all this, I don't see the need for this law. Unless I'm missing something, circumventing these locks are likely legal already.
Re: Re: I don't Think Grokster Ruling Means What You Think It Means...
Mike,
I respect your opinion on this, but I am sorry to say that I don't know any better than that. They have a too l which can be used for many legal purposes, but they aren't promoting those legal purposes. Their choice of name and rhetoric suggests the only thing the ARE interested in is defending the ability of their users to pirate the content of others. The name of the site is not 'meaningless,' they chose it as part of their marketing and a representation of their ideology.
Again, they and their friends in the Pirate Party (one of whom my colleague debated on the BBC yesterday), don't believe that "sharing" of movies and music should be illegal. That's a perfectly fine belief to have, but the reality is that, even in Sweden, it is currently illegal.
The folks at Grokster and now Pirate Bay don't deserve to be protected under the Betamax ruling because they promoted their technologies as a way to break the "current law" and built their business models on lawbreaking and encouraging lawbreaking among their users.
I agree it's tough to draw a line here, but I also think it's very clear that Pirate Bay is on the wrong side of it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Love will pay the bills
You make a some really strong points here.
There is a reason why so many of us turn to HBO for quality TV... because they are focused on producing content that viewers want to see, not content that will sell the most advertising. While those two things aren't mutually exclusive, they are often not the same either.
There is a lot of creativity flowing into free business models right now, and that is fantastic. But, it does not makes sense for us to effectively ban charging directly for content either. True artists are often not interested in merchandising...they want to make music, art, movies, etc. If we say they can' get paid directly to do that, we may only perpetuate and increase the power of Music Labels.
I don't Think Grokster Ruling Means What You Think It Means...
Mike,
The Grokster case did not hinge on the question of whether the toolmaker was liable for the actions of its customers. The central legal question in that case was about whether the toolmaker can market its product as a way to commit crimes.
Think about it this way. The question is NOT whether Craftsman should be liable for creating the hammer that was used to smash your car window and steal your stereo. The question is whether Craftsman should be held liable for marketing its hammers as the best tool for Smash and Grab thieves.
Pirate Bay was never interested in creating technology to facilitate legal uses (one look at their name tells you as much). They simply do not deserve to be lumped together in the same category as the BitTorrent technology they use or other companies that are focused on creating technology with legitimate legal uses (but have the potential of being misused).
Hopefully we can soon bid good riddance to Pirate Bay. Not because the end of Pirate Bay will lead to the end of so-called file sharing or piracy (it won't), but because Pirate Bay is tarnishing the image of the entire P2P and distributed computing industry, and giving credence to cries of some in the content industry who want to ban all technologies that MAY be used for piracy.
http://blog.actonline.org/2009/04/good-riddance-pirate-bay-long-live-bittorrent.html
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with your argument...
Mike,
That was not what I meant, and I apologize for not being more clear. You started off by suggesting the only thing important about what I said was the fact that Microsoft was one of my members. You questioned my integrity and my honesty from the first post forward, rather than focusing on the content of my ideas. My point was meant to be that we, including me, all TRUST that you are independent in your opinions and focus instead on quality of your ideas. Shouldn't you be willing to do the same? I should have stated that more clearly, rather than simply inferring it.
Again, I'm sorry for not being more clear and certainly didn't mean to slur your in any way. Between the flu and lack of sleep, I'm sure this is all a big misunderstanding on both sides.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with your argument...
@Mike
With all due respect Mike, we don't know whether you're paid to push the opinions you write or not. It's not like you're publishing facts and research devoid of slant or advocacy and can say you're just being a "journalist." So, based on that logic, we just have to take your word for it that your opinions are yours and yours alone.
Yes, ACT advocates on behalf of free market principles that our 3000+ members companies, including Microsoft, support. However, isn't the content of my arguments more important than the members who support them?
So one more time, I will try to discuss what is important. I'm sure there are many IP lawyers that license bogus patents all the time. But, they?re probably talking about situations where their company has few if any patents and are being approached aggressively by someone looking to extract just enough $$ to make it cheaper than litigation. However, I guarantee you that those exact same lawyers would admit that discussions between two giant companies with massive patent war chests are a COMPLETELY different scenario. There isn?t the same incentive to just write a check for anything cheaper than litigation.
Re: Re: The problem with your argument...
Mike,
Unlike many commentators on this blog, I post using my real name and link back to our website that clearly lists Microsoft as one of our members. I'm not trying to hide anything here. That said, if you start announcing every time you write about a sponsor/advertiser/customer of Floor64/TechDirt, I will be sure to follow :-)
Now, back to substance. There are times when companies simply pay licensing fees because it's "cheaper." However, the companies I was listing off have SIGNIFICANT patent portfolios, so instead this is about negotiating cross licensing deals. It's a very different calculus.
In those scenarios, typically, the two companies sit down to figure out:
1. What patents each company has that potentially read on each other's products.
2. What patents the other company has that might be useful to future development strategies.
3. What those patents are worth.
Every part is negotiated heavily, because neither company wants to pay for patents they don't need or pay too much for the ones they do. Otherwise, they could be the ones writing a massive check at the end of the year. In this scenario, the question of litigation costs is rarely if ever the guiding principle.
So, while no patent lawyer would definitively state "this patent reads on this technology," the fact that mature companies with significant patent portfolios (including patents that probably read on Microsoft technologies) decided to license these patents suggest that they at least pass the "laugh test."
Finally, my point about Stallman et al is not meant to PROVE anything. It was meant to help correct some language in your post. It's a bit of personal pet peeve, because the Freetards spent years promoting fear about Microsoft's patents and the danger they posed to Linux, I'm sorry... "GNU/Linux." Heck, Moglen used to call the FAT patents a "Sword of Damocles" hanging over open source.
But, as soon as Microsoft said "Yes. There are 235 patents," they started complaining that Microsoft was simply throwing FUD. Not truly important, but one of those things that just bugs me after following this issue for years. I'm not asking you to give Microsoft a "pass," just not perpetuate the myth that Microsoft is that one who started the FUD about its patents re: Linux.
The problem with your argument...
I'm just glad that we had one glorious moment of agreement on patents recently, because we're back to disagreeing. I know that you're just not a fan of patents, but I don't think your FUDing of the Micosoft patents really holds up to scrutiny.
In this particular case, large companies like Pioneer, Alpine, and Kenwood have all taken licenses for them. If they thought the patents were bogus, I'm sure their legal departments wouldn't have signed those deals.
As for the Linux patents you call "mythical," companies like BMW and Siemens, both with massive patent portfolios and powerful legal teams voluntarily took licenses for Microsoft's Linux related patents. If they were all specious, the Germans would have laughed Ballmer & Co. out of the country.
Additionally, as I've written before Microsoft was the very last one of join the supposed "Microsoft Patent FUD Party." Stallman, Moglen and Company started tossing that FUD all around the world years ago in their effort to create excuses for killing software and software-related patents.