Slashdot Mirror
Nortel Patent Sale Gets DoJ Review
gavron writes "The US Department of Justice will review the Nortel patent sale to the entity formed by Apple, Microsoft, and others. This is the same sale that the Canadian authorities declined to review because the $4B+ deal was valued by them at less than $328M. According to a (paywalled) Wall Street Journal report, 'The Justice Department wants to know whether [the consortium] intends to use them defensively to deter patent lawsuits against its members, or offensively against rivals.'"
$328M = $4B+ ? Ain't Conservative math and fiscal responsibility wonderful?
This was is so obvious that even the DOJ couldn't ignore it...
It does not matter if competitor like or not that a patent exist for something they want to market. For it to have any value, the patent must be defended, either defensively or offensively. So asking the question is kind of stupid.
The Justice Department wants to know whether [the consortium] intends to use them defensively to deter patent lawsuits against its members, or offensively against rivals. Well, it's good that the justice department is taking a closer look at patents. But what about taking a closer look at the IP trolls that are using their patents offensively in both senses of the word (against an opponent and in a disgusting manner).
And then change their mind later, what then? While I'm on the subject, is it just me, or has the mood on Slashdot changed lately? I doubt I'll see one post in defense of these patents, and I don't see as much of the 'ole libertarian bias as I used to. After 11 years of us tech workers getting screwed and having our jobs shipped overseas, maybe we finally got it. :).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
How are either offensive or defensive patents better than the other really? They both make a joke of the patent system. The question should be: do they intend to use them to innovate or not? Isn't that the reason we have patents?
Buying defensive patents is, IMHO, worse than buying submarine patents and suing someone. I mean business-wise. You are spending millions to buy something that will not even help you make money or be more profitable. Use that to do R&D and innovate. Don't they have shareholders? At least patent trolls have a clear business plan...
This is the (corporate) cold war all over again: My arsenal is bigger than yours!
At least there's a silver lining there if we get to the state of Mutually Assured Destruction: they will stop attacking each others with patents and we will move on with our lives. Or so we can hope...
There are still libertarians here, they are just rarer and drowned out by the noisier people with ideals and no common sense or understanding of how humans work.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There are still libertarians here, they are just rarer and drowned out by the noisier people with ideals and no common sense or understanding of how humans work.
There's a difference?
(ducks and dons asbestos gear)
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
even though they're a bunch of greedy, fat-cat hypocrites, liars, and other sorts of assholes, i believe they should have the right to just say: "screw you, no, we're not going to court unless we've been shown to have already broken some kind of law. the answer is we're using them PRIVATELY, for WHATEVER THE FUCK WE WANT.'
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
The end to Google's IP theft is, known as Andriod is coming. Whether you like it or not there are 1000's of patents covering aspects of Andriod which Google knowingly ignored when it released the software as Open Source.
Google is a blatant IP theft and idiots who have fallen for their "open" agenda are just pawns. If Google was really Open it would make available it's Search Engine, Page Rank patents and software for everybody to use. It doesn't do that because it is EVIL and seeks to commoditize the Smart Phone and Tablet OS with free and open source Andriod software so it can push it's search engine and web apps to datamine private personal data to display adverts to the masses.
Google and Andriod are only interested in your personal information to make money selling advertising to all their users. This IS NOT the promotion of a free and open source ideals. It's about making sure Microsoft and Apple do not completely take over mobile computing operating systems and marginalize Google near monopoly on Internet advertising.
We just made independent invention an absolute defense against patent infringement. If your idea is truly innovative then there should be little risk to someone independently inventing it.
It is not like Apple would ever sue someone to stop a product that might compete with the iphone. That is just paranoid and silly
http://saveie6.com/
I demand Zillions for purchasing patents. Not a cent for debt relief and no taxes. This is war and we must be productive to achieve victory!
Citizen's Political Power in the U.S.
http://i-voter.tripod.com/
I called it as soon as I heard the deal was closed and it wasn't Google who won the patents. There is no way that Google or the government was going to let that go unchallenged.
In the context of business one must "defend or lose it." So asking if they plan to become patent trolls will not give the answer they seek. Further, even if they say "no, we will be nice" there is nothing to stop them from changing their position in some way or even better, to sell patents to go trolling to another shell to go about trolling. Just asking them in advance if what their intentions are is just about useless.
If we want the patent and other IP systems to work the way they should, copyright, patent and trademark ownership should not be transferable away from the original creator. And in the case of a corporation, I think rights should remain with the original creators as well which is to say the people employed by the company at the time who were involved in the creation. This would result in the instant death of patent trolling and the instant reform of the copyright industry. It would force companies to be loyal to their employees once and for all instead of treating them as disposable peons while they reap the benefits for the life of the corporation + XX years. And the copyright industry, unable to rape artists now and in the future, will have to play nicely with the talent for a change.
If the patent system is supposed to benefit the inventors, then restore it to suit that purpose. If the copyright system is supposed to benefit the artists, then restore it to suit that purpose. If not, then I would rather the system and the people operating it stop lying to the people about what it is and what it is for.
You know selling something that you value at less than 328 million, for 4 billion, is the exact opposite of a firesale, right?
You have disassociated the statement from its original context. I think that it's obvious from what I said that I was referring to the general environment (with those douchebags in power) in which any national asset (like say, the Tar Sands or INCO) could now be sold to foreigners without more than the mere formality of filling out a few forms.
I also know the meaning of "sellout". Nortel's asset-holders (not the Canadian mis-government or Canadian citizens) did well by selling to foreign multinationals. And Canada has lost more of its technological edge in communications going forward as a result.
FTFA: "the Canadian authorities declined to review because the $4B+ deal was valued by them at less than $328M
Had these assets been properly valued, the Canadian mis-government would have been obligated to review the deal and under the Investment Canada Act and under pressure to nix the deal, just as they were forced by public pressure to do when they were going to allow the sellout of MacDonald-Dettwiler to foreigners. Of course, the Harper bastards were in minority in those days and still had to pretend to give a shit about public opinion.
Meanwhile, the money spent on legal fees is not spent on the following: R&D, manufacturing, hiring, capital equipment purchase, advertising, stock dividends, salaries, stock value increases.
Ultimately, no matter which side prevails, the total wealth generated is less then it should be due to the patent system. Patents were intended to reward innovation. Now all they do is keep high priced litigators in luxury cars.
They also reward companies, not individuals. Even when innovation occurs, it can be crushed though the use of patent law. We use the wrong term in "patent trolls", when it should be "patent leaches". Leaches can kill, and the smaller the target the greater the chance it will be destroyed.
I'm working on software I hope to use for a start up, and I know I have to apply for provisional software patents. I don't want to waste the time, but if I don't someone else can make a patent application and take my work away from me. Even if I do apply, someone with a full time legal staff can plow me under, and my only hope would be to get some major financial backing. At that point I am not doing software, I'm doing patent work. Once again, innovation looses and lawyers win.
Why is Snark Required?
The Justice Department wants to know whether [the consortium] intends to use them defensively to deter patent lawsuits against its members, or offensively against rivals.
As opposed to "innovatively, for the common good".
I don't have access to the paywalled article, but isn't this the DoJ publicly admitting that patents only serve two purposes, neither of which are the ones they're intended to serve?
Must be nice for Eric Schmidt to have Obama's ear.
As I said:
It was clear a more than a decade ago that H***er and his cabal of thieves were always about a fire-sale of Canada's assets to, raping of Canada's land by and stripping of Canada's "wealth" by multinational corporation$.
Yet Canadians allowed the bastards to game the system and get into power. Go figure.
Why would they care... is using patents offensively illegal? (not that I think it's right)
If you cannot out innovate them out litigate them. Apple VS everyone else. "APPLE disgusts me"
This is the Axis of Evil we're talking about. Of course they're going to say, "We would never dream of using these patents offensively -wink, wink-. We would only use them defensively -chuckle, chuckle-.
Pooling patents does not give you increased defence. In fact, having them in a 3rd party company is even weaker defensively than holding your own. The only plausible explanations are joint licensing of the lot - like H-264, or to make offensive strikes like MPEG LA was trying to do against WebM. I don't see the commonality between the companies and patents to support the former.
OF COURSE the Rockstar consortium made its Nortel patent purchase with the intent (AND potential result) of limiting competition! Isn't that kind of the point? If owning IP with the purpose of "limiting" competition is the DOJ's sole criterion for evaluating the legitimacy of an enterprise, then every patent owner in existence is running a crooked business! Though I do understand the importance of ensuring fair business dealing, I think that "limiting competition" would have to come perilously close to anti-trust territory before the DOJ would have authority to do much about the deal. Let's put it another way: if Google had handled the deal skillfully (or at least more stealthily) and won its bid, would the DOJ be making similar inquiries into Google's purchase right now?