Slashdot Mirror
Tech Giants Pooling Cash To Buy Patents
theodp writes with a link to a Reuters report, based on a WSJ story, that "Verizon, Google, Cisco, and HP are among the companies that have joined a secretive group called the Allied Security Trust. Each of the companies will reportedly put $5 million in escrow to allow AST to snap up intellectual property on their behalf before it falls into the hands of parties that could use it against them. Patents will be resold after AST member companies have granted themselves a nonexclusive license to the underlying technology. According to AST CEO Brian Hinman, a former VP of IP and Licensing at IBM, the arrangement will keep member companies out of antitrust trouble." (The WSJ's story itself is more detailed, but it's subscriber-only.)
Brian Hinman is currently CEO of AST. Previously he was Vice President, Intellectual Property and Licensing for IBM Corporation. While at IBM, he held various positions including Business Development Executive for IBM Research at the Thomas J Watson Research Laboratory. Prior to IBM, he was Corporate Director of Business Development and Licensing at Westinghouse Corporation.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
It looks pretty defensive. Since they are selling the patent after granting themselves a license, it looks like they are just trying to avoid patent lawsuits on the cheap.
Either way, there's a serious need for patent reform. Unfortunately, that's a standard democrat white bread (lawyers, yum) and the republicans veered off of of their small government market freedom in favor of big business pandering years ago... So I can't imagine either party trying to fix this right now.
You still do business in US ? I thought there were only law and military firms there anymore ? And HQ of companies who make their business abroad.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
On the surface, a close or controlled market doesn't preclude that either. Nothing would be different without a free market. A free market doesn't preempt a company from obaying an existing law or even the concept of a law. And nothing change when going from no free market to a free market. I'm not really sure why you would have even brought that up.
There, I fixed that for you. There is nothing wrong with the free market. In fact, you can't claim it has done damage because for the most part, we have enjoyed a free market since the beginning of the country.
When has anything dreamed about on paper made it to reality in it's purest form on the real world? And to that note, I'm not entirely sure that you understand the concept of free markets. In a free market, you and I could go into business and compete with the evil corporation. All regulations do is raise the barrier to doing so because now you and I have to join together in order to get over the hurdles imposed by regulation. In fact, regulation prevents competition which is a key benefit to the people and in essence protects the corporations in that they no longer have to provide products at competitive prices.
There is nothing they can produce that will preclude your government. All you have to do is simply not purchase their products. When people have done that in mass, any power you think companies will have will simply vanish altogether. The problem for you is that more people have their head screwed on in different directions then you do and it isn't near as bad to them as you might think.
In Europe we would send Neely Kroes to those companies. When she is finished with them, they have payed more than those small companies and everybody will know that it is forbidden.
No, he meant BMI.