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.)
Offensiveness and defensiveness both fall in to the 'interests' catagory so expect it to be used for both of these as necessary.
Where it gets interesting is what happens if two members are in despute about a single patent. Could this trust be used to arbitrate between them or come to some solution outside of the courtroom? Are the patents open to everybody with the organisation then?
I think it could be a very interesting deal, for those on the inside that is.
Sounds like racketerring in a sense. IANAL, but I wonder if an ambitious prosecutor somewhere could use the RICO statues instead of anti-trust statutes.
Any lawyers familiar with RICO want to chime in?
Well, if they do sell the patents, it would be nice if the Open Invention Network people were standing first in line to buy them. http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/index.php/
I'm not talking about first-sale doctrine. I agree that when I've sold I've nothing to do with what happens with the product/patent/whatever.
I'm talking about maybe not selling to whomever just because they have the money ("We reserve the right to refuse service") on account of that I believe selling to that person/company/entity would be detrimental to my best interests (and not only to my bottom-line).
Now, the buyer might get the same thing ("find a way around the obstruction") somewhere else, but at least I've stuck to my principles and acted according to my beliefs.
I guess it's hard to agree with this if you don't have any principles though. Or if they're worth less than a "dumptruck-full-of-cash".
That is what worries me. That Dad was forced out of business by competitors with no principles, no scruples and a couldn't-care-less attitude about anything else than the bottom line. That is what's driving this country down the road of corporatism. That is why you get corporate-sponsored laws and politicians, and that is why the rights of the individual is eroding in favor of the right of the corporate owners to make a profit.
Oh. Sorry for the rant. I'll step off the soapbox now.
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
It's called a "cartel."
Ok, maybe not exactly, but it could certainly turn into one, especially if some of the more, shall we say, "evil" industry players begin to join.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I just don't like it.
Jokes aside, in my book Dad did the right thing. His actions were completely relevant in that he tried to do the right thing, not just simply the thing that made most financial sense. I applaud the Dad and wish more were like him.
Anyway, I guess I'm objecting more on a philosophical and/or ethical level than on a practical level. I've owned a small company and been an officer of a couple of others, so I know the drill - and you're right of course in your description of how it works.
I do think that if people stood up more for their principles (such as they might be) we'd have a healthier society as a whole, and perhaps even a healthier economy.
But on the other hand that might require a revolution.
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley