Slashdot Mirror
Nortel Patents Go To Apple, Microsoft, Sony and Others
tcr writes "A consortium that includes Apple, Microsoft, RIM and Sony has been successful in its bid for the Nortel patent portfolio. The winning bid was $4.5 billion. TechCrunch predicts this could result in a slew of lawsuits directed at Android, but also suggests that the deal will likely receive scrutiny from the U.S. courts."
Only company from the list that I worry about is Apple. They're really been left and right everyone about patent issues.
Such as? I guess you mean Samsung....for blatantly copying the iPhone and iPad? Nokia sued Apple first. Kodak sued Apple first. Several Microsoft proxies sued Apple. Who is Apple going after?
Microsoft, not so much, unless some patent troll has attacked them first.
What planet are you living on? Microsoft and its proxies are the biggest patent trolls on the planet. how many Android makers have they shaken down for protection money? How about Microsoft funding SCO to go after Linux? How about all the mainframe software lawsuits against IBM by their proxies in Europe? Microsoft shill much?
oh yes, because apple has never sued because somebody else used the obvious name they came up with. Like say, maybe, app store.
Patents are just ways for large companies to choke off competitors by getting a state granted monopoly on an idea.
There are billions of dollars out there being wasted on patent litigation. That's money that could go into hiring more people and developing new products.
I'm against monopoly. Why isn't everybody else?
Only company from the list that I worry about is Apple. They're really been left and right everyone about patent issues. Microsoft, not so much, unless some patent troll has attacked them first. Same goes for RIM. Sony is bad in other fronts, they're not really suing for patent issues. But Apple has been handling their patent related issues really dirty, dumping thousand+ page sues, trying to enforce ban on competitor products and in their developer agreement for iPhone/iPad they require all software developers to give away their ideas to Apple when submitting their application - after which they can decide if to accept or reject the app and maybe implement it themselves. Like when Apple ripped off an wireless sync app made by a one guy.
based on what?
Probably the worst thing Microsoft is currently doing is threatening and then shaking down Android device manufacturers( http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/27/microsoft-inks-android-patent-deal-with-itronix-causes-more-hea/), it's also hard to ignore:
License the patents?
A little under a decade ago (when our little-fish startup had been eaten by a middle-sized fish started-up-and-running but that hadn't yet been eaten by the giant conglomerate) Nortel sued our company on something I'd been co-architect on.
Though we'd done things differently (I ended up with seven patents for my inventions) I think the settlement still involved us paying them a few megabux to even out the patent licensing swap.
We all agreed that this proved Nortel was on the rocks. Switching from innovation to patent trolling, we figured, showed they were in deep trouble and trying to squeeze money out of every asset. As it turned out we were right.
Does anybody know if such cross-licensing agreements survive a bankruptcy and a patent portfolio sale? (I suspect not, since they're contracts with a bankrupt corp.)
Either way this should put the purchasers in a very good position to fend off attacks by telecoms and their equipment vendors against internet-based communication services. And if the agreements die with the previous owner it could let the buyers go on the offensive as well.
So I see this mainly as part of the generational struggle between the "Bell Head" telecoms and the "Packet Head" internet network companies, more than setting up a fight between Android and iPhone / Windows Phone / whatever.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I just want to express my opinion that patents should not be transferable. It is bad enough that corporations wield patents to hinder progress, maintain monopolies, and destroy smaller competitors. Patents are meant to protect the people who innovate. You should not be able to buy and sell this protection. If you didn't invent it, you shouldn't be able to enforce a patent on it even if you paid $4.5 billion for that "right." Also, If someone patents something, they have to do something with it themselves or they forfeit their patent. You can't just sit on an idea and wait for someone else to infringe on it so you can sue them. That's just wrong.
Off topic, but I just had to say it.
Sony is one of the most schizophrenic companies that I'm aware of, where each part seems completely unaware of the best interests of the other parts.
Everyone who dares use the letter 'i'. Oops; someone's at the door, brb.
/faint scream, carrier lost