Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Are Patent Wars Worth the Price Tag?

Posted by samzenpus on from the cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face dept.

ericjones12398 writes "It's beginning to feel like a TV series, a weekly patent war drama. Apple and Samsung have consistently been going back and forth with claims of IP infringement, to the point where who is accusing who of what is exhausting to follow. The question I would like to ask and try to answer is what the opportunity costs are of pursuing litigation versus just toughing it out? Would it be more economic for both companies to live and let live, or is there value to be captured in legal finger pointing? My best guess would be that this isn't about stopping sales this quarter or next, nor is it about defending the small-scale tech features that merely mildly differentiate. It's instead about momentum and branding. Winning these cases is PR that says, we are the leaders in smartphone technology, we are the innovators."

40 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Shoot a lawyer... by Gription · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is more about the legal department making decisions. Are they going to decide "Let's not do any litigation!"? Of course not. They will always pick a choice that keeps them employed.

    1. Re:Shoot a lawyer... by reebmmm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is more about the legal department making decisions

      This is usually very much NOT the case. Legal departments in major corporations don't usually make these sorts of decisions. Or, when they do make the decisions, they're usually very conscious of the fact that lawsuits (and legal fees generally) are not viewed as revenue centers, but cost centers. Wins in any litigation are usually windfalls, not strategic investments.

      There are exceptions, of course. Companies do exist with litigation as their business model. However, you might be surprised about how much strategic planning goes into that as well.

      Are they going to decide "Let's not do any litigation!"? Of course not. They will always pick a choice that keeps them employed.

      In-house lawyers don't view litigation as job security. Few companies staff litigation lawyers. That work is almost always moved to outside counsel. Those with litigators on staff don't usually do patent litigation. Litigation tends to detract from scarce corporate resources for legal services that are usually necessary to keep a business running.

      For most companies, in-house counsel are concerned more about avoiding litigation and the expense of that litigation than they are with prolonging that litigation.

      All of that said, it may come as a surprise to you that BUSINESS teams are usually more litigation happy than the lawyers especially if they see a competitive reason. In fact, at Apple, Steve Jobs famously said that he's willing to go "to thermonuclear war" with Google over Android: http://www.insidecounsel.com/2012/06/04/steve-jobs-quotes-allowed-in-apple-google-patent-t

      In addition, business teams tend to be less calculating about their litigation risks than the lawyers they have on staff.

    2. Re:Shoot a lawyer... by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      ..-. ..- -.-. -.-
          --- ..-. ..-.
             

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Shoot a lawyer... by s.petry · · Score: 2

      Wait, you are claiming that the post is not valid because in-house lawyers don't generally do the litigation? You state yourself that outside firms normally handle that litigation. This points at the post being more correct, not less correct based on that fact. An outside firm has to worry about their jobs, so of course prolong cases to increase revenue when possible. At the same time, I'm sure that businesses are shown over and over how companyA won a million dollars from companyB, and using case law think they can win.. even in cases like SCO vs. IBM.

      The whole idea patent bullshit needs to be reverted and removed from the system. Let's all just call it a social experiment that went totally wrong and be done already. It has broken the patent system as to be nothing but a big joke to everyone except a few select law firms and companies that make money trolling on patents, and of course those with enough capital to staff law firms and patent writers.

      Nobody want's to innovate in this environment for fear of being sued into Chinese rice farmer poverty. Hell, look at the innovation rewards Nest is getting thanks to Honeywell. In case you are not familiar here is an article. The opinions expressed against Honeywell don't take away the lawsuit, the C&D orders, the lost revenue, etc.. etc...

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:Shoot a lawyer... by reebmmm · · Score: 2

      An outside firm has to worry about their jobs, so of course prolong cases to increase revenue when possible

      There are a few mitigating factors here. First, outside law firms don't usually drive business decisions. Management still needs to be convinced of the value of a course of action. And, outside counsel is not free to do whatever they want. They are typically on a short leash. General Counsel's office gets every bill and is involved in the strategy. To say that "outside counsel does the litigation" is more of a they-handle-the-day-to-day operations of a case, they acquire the experts, they do the filings, they prepare witnesses, they write the briefs, etc. But none of this is without review. None of this would go on without the business teams.

      Second, you're making an assumption about how outside counsel is paid. Sure, with some unsophisticated companies, those companies might be paying straight through the nose on an hourly basis. But sophisticated companies understand the dynamics and have payment schemes that avoid the worst abuses: incentive payments for getting things done early, fee structures that create incentives for lower costs / settlements, plaintiffs attorneys might be contingent fee, etc.

      Common billing strategies, by the way, are to: give a bonus based on when you get out of a case (earlier better); set a fee sharing arrangement that if a firm can get the job done before x, they keep some of the savings; etc.

    5. Re:Shoot a lawyer... by s.petry · · Score: 2

      Actually I make few assumptions since I'm pretty familiar with how it works, hence my example of how law firms will try and continue cases. Do those tactics work with the larger companies? Maybe not, but they do work well with small to middle sized companies, and even the smaller large companies. Remember that the majority of companies and corporations in the US can not afford the type of legal staff you are talking about, or have the operational knowledge you are talking about. The reason is obviously that most businesses in the US are small to middle sized, but I'm sure you know that.

      Billing from an Attorney/Firm is generally accurate, however there are many fees and costs which don't make sense to average Joe. I'm sure you know that "Filings" as a billing category is a very general item. It could be preparation, research, countless types of requests for the court, writing the documents, and finally actually filing something. Big companies may ask for a break down, but generally it's only provided on request and usually has additional fees.

      I don't believe that many law firms are actually, in your terms, abusive. I do believe that many will squeeze a bit extra out of anyone possible, and assuming the money keeps rolling in they will pursue cases that are lost before they hit the court room.

      Lastly, with Business Process Patents there are far more turds than anything else on both ends of the spectrum. All of those turds are sitting in a patch of grass that should have never been, since the patenting of ideas is not something that should have been allowed and is against the concept of a patent as a whole. Abuse is rampant in the system, and as with my example above it's horrible for everyone except: Legal people that make money from it, and businesses that can afford to buy in to the game. Those two things are an extremely small percentage of the social and economical make up of the USA.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  2. Are Patent Wars Worth the Price Tag? by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To the community at large: no. End of line.

    --
    William George
  3. I despise patents by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am convinced that at least 99% of patents are useless. They are trivial expansions on previous patents, maybe changing the temperature of an annealing, maybe adding .01% more chromium, or changing the angle of a gear surface by a degree. Software patents are far worse them mechanical patents, and I have not heard of a single one that is not obvious to someone skilled in the arts.

    If those companies spent half on research what they spend on patent lawyers, they'd beat the competition in products and build up their internal skills to keep their edge.

    Patents are the first refuge of the unskilled.

    --
    Infuriate left and right
    1. Re:I despise patents by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes I do. Intellectual property is no more property than vibrations in air.

      The idea that someone can write a song and retire and the grandkids can probably retire at birth too is disgusting. Whereas I write a program and have a job. Did K&R retire from writing C? No, it just gave them the reputation to get further work. That's all anyone should get.

      I have a neighbor whose father wrote some famous songs, and now he spends half his time ferreting out bands who don't pay the proper respect. Nice for him, does nothing for productivity or creating new works or making anyone, including him, any happier.

      --
      Infuriate left and right
    2. Re:I despise patents by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There, there. I agree that intellectual property ha been completely subverted. I agree that software patents should be outlawed, that the copyrightableness of code should be carefully examined, and the copyrightableness of binaries also. However, there are indeed domains where a period of exclusive commercial exploitation makes sense. Drug research, movie production.

      I like the position of the pirate party : copyrights should be a lot shorter (~10 years) and non-commercial sharing should be allowed. It is, however, productive to propose a period of commercial exclusivity.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    3. Re:I despise patents by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Informative

      he idea that someone can write a song and retire and the grandkids can probably retire at birth too is disgusting. Whereas I write a program and have a job. Did K&R retire from writing C? No, it just gave them the reputation to get further work. That's all anyone should get.

      I agree. For example, I recently went to an Elton John concert here in Costa Rica. Sir Elton is what, 60-odd now? We had a great time and he played his all time hits. I went home and looked at his concert schedule. The man is working in Vegas every weeknight, and flies internationally on his private jet on the weekends. What this means is he is working his ASS off. Therefore he well deserves all the fabulous riches that he has.

      Now look at some of those "one hit wonders" from the same time period that go around complaining and suing people at the drop of a hat. Yeah, fuck em. They don't deserve any more than they got. If they didn't manage their money and decided they could retire at 20, well, they are reaping the rewards life gives such people.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:I despise patents by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

      However, there are indeed domains where a period of exclusive commercial exploitation makes sense. Drug research, movie production.

      I don't by that at all. Most copyrighted items make all their money in the first few months. That's the lead time when your imitators are copying you and when you should be already working on the next project.

      As for copying books and such, I know many people who are quite happy only buying the real thing. I have no doubt that enough people do that to make it worthwhile. If movie budgets have to be cut back and movie stars no longer get $20M for phoning in a mediocre performance, I won't be crying.

      Then there are artists who actually make statues and paint pictures. I do not think it makes any difference if someone copies their work. There are far too many fat cats willing to pay premiums for certified works. The people who buy copies couldn't afford to buy the real thing, so what sale has been lost?

      It's just like people who download thousands of tunes they couldn't afford to buy. What sale has been lost?

      --
      Infuriate left and right
    5. Re:I despise patents by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

      So you are claiming that a patent which no one ever violates is a tool for innovation?

      I say the patent holder could have better invested that money in other ways. Patent lawyers are overhead.

      --
      Infuriate left and right
    6. Re:I despise patents by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However, there are indeed domains where a period of exclusive commercial exploitation makes sense. Drug research, movie production.

      Disagree on both counts. Drug research should be publicly funded, for the benefit of the public and of humanity at large. Why should pharmaceutical companies get to extort money from people who desperately need medicines, and deny medicines to entire regions that are plagued by disease? We have also seen these companies push medications harder than those medications need to be pushed, pressuring doctors to give unnecessary and sometimes dangerous prescriptions, and pressuring politicians to keep easy-to-produce medicines illegal (and that means more than just marijuana).

      As for movies, it is almost impossible to tell at this point whether or even if the movie industry has had financial problems resulting from online copyright infringement. We have seen them claim that blockbuster hits like Forrest Gump actually turned a loss, just to deny payment to people who foolishly requested a cut of the profits. With the questionable accounting practices we see in the entertainment industry, the cutthroat tactics that have nothing to do with copyrights, I am not sure that industry needs any government protection.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    7. Re:I despise patents by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To be fair ... are you serious? Should we be fair to serial killers or politicians who know no other line of work?

      --
      Infuriate left and right
    8. Re:I despise patents by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure he was saying that we shouldn't be fair, I think what he was saying is that it's NOT fair for someone who obviously sucks at his job to still get paid for it.

      If they are unable to make money writing new music, maybe they should get a different job? I'm a programmer. If I wrote one program for my company and then never could get anything else to compile, they wouldn't think it was "fair" to keep paying me anyway.

      So, I think he agrees. Let's be fair. Let's let EVERYONE be paid for what they do, and not allow some people be paid for what they've done.

      --
      --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
    9. Re:I despise patents by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Drug research should be publicly funded, for the benefit of the public and of humanity at large. Why should pharmaceutical companies get to extort money from people who desperately need medicines,

      - that's so stupid.

      What are you going to do? Outlaw private funding into medical research? Outlaw results of such private research from being used to make money on the drug market?

      The problem is exactly what you propose as a solution - government IN research with its patents and FDA and various subsidies, and you want to solve that problem ... wait for it .... with more government.

      Are you a government employee?

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    10. Re:I despise patents by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      Yes, in that the actual invention is documented and publicly available for future inventors to build on, archived using the best methods available to ensure that the knowledge is never lost.

      Throughout history, vast amounts of research have been gained and lost as novel inventions failed to succeed in the market, or as the inventing culture or company was destroyed by invaders or competitors. The only traces we now have of such inventions are the non-functioning relics found in attics and archaeological sites. What knowledge do we possess today that may be of use tomorrow, and who would dare to know?

      The management of money is always simpler in hindsight, when the inventor knows that nobody will buy his self-promoted product, and no big company will buy the invention, and a better solution to the problem came out a year later. In retrospect, it's far cheaper to have spent the money on a new car and a fancy suit, to get a better job to rebuild the wasted investment on the product. On the other hand, if the patent is vital to a new industry or is adopted by the whims of fashion, the effort to patent it and secure the credit as the original inventor may be well worth it in the long run. Few inventors have the luxury of knowing their future, however.

      There are problems with patents. As I said, it is a tool that can be misused. Faults are no reason to abolish the system entirely, as it does have a useful and beneficial premise that was been well served for the past few hundred years. We should instead encourage reform to correct those faults to accommodate the modern market environment and the breakdown of separation between theory and application.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    11. Re:I despise patents by houghi · · Score: 2

      Drug research should be publicly funded

      Isn't it already? I mean I see tv shows asking for my money all the time. Radio shows asking for donations.

      Or what happens with that money and what if somebody actually found a cure for cancer? Would they say: "ey, we got this great thing because the people gave us money, so let us open-source it and give it away for free, so anybody can produce it and people can buy it at the lowest price."

      Or would they say "Sod them, this is where people will give their and their kids money for, so let's charge that."

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:I despise patents by neonKow · · Score: 2

      Yes....this is a known thing that big companies do. Google and Microsoft both spend a ton keeping up a patent portfolio and a team of lawyers, not only to push people around if they need to, but also as a deterrent to being sued. If you follow the news, you'll see something like, Samsung sues Google for violation on 52 patents, and google countersues for infringement on 41 of its own patents.

      There's even Intellectual Ventures, which offers their protection as a service. They don't make any products; they just hoard patents and sue people.

      I'm saying you can't get an edge by playing nice in an environment like this, at least if you get to any decent size others can coerce you into settling for money if you don't have teeth of your own.

    13. Re:I despise patents by aitikin · · Score: 2

      Posts like yours and (moreso) the posts that follow tell me that I no longer belong reading slashdot. Musicians deserve payment. Fuck off if you feel they do not. Sure the music companies don't deserve the majority of the payment, but that doesn't deter from the fact that, if I write a song, and you love said song, I should be able to reap some reward from it.

      I don't have a problem with copyrights being shorter, although, I'd say 10 years is a hair short, 20-25 is plenty though. If I, personally, ever write anything that's copywritten (music, books, otherwise), it will be in my will that, if five years after my death, the piece is not 25 years old, any piece still remaining will be public domain. But, judging from the comments following your post, I just don't belong here anymore. I've been reading Slashdot for years, but I fear that I no longer follow the same mindset as this place, and even that I'll be brandished a troll for having this mentality.

      I dislike patents, and frankly feel that, outside of perhaps medical applications, patents should be limited to 10 years and strictly enforced in favor of the patent holder (my old neighbor invented the spray attachment for sinks, never made more than a few hundred dollars off of his patent), but at the same time, should be limited. Patents on medication should be extremely limited in the case of sustaining meds (as in you have to keep using it), but extensive (35 years or so) in the case of curative meds (take it for six months tops and you'll never have to take it again).

      I don't know. I'm starting to think that, when it comes to IP law, Slashdot is almost as bad as the creationists when it comes to evolution.

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    14. Re:I despise patents by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So if a programmer writes code that you like in your phone, should you pay every time you use it?

      If an ironworker installs an elevator, does everyone who rides it pay a fee, inclduing for 75 years after his death?

      If you take a trip on the subway, does the driver get paid for that trip until he dies, and his children and grandchildren collect royalties for 75 years more?

      If you have a really good juicy apple some day, should the farmer who grew it collect royalties for the rest of his life, and his children for 75 years after?

      Fuck you. Everyone is people too, and enrich your life far more than songs. They also have families and bills to pay. Unlike songwriters, they don't expect to collect royalties for every use, or for their descendants to keep collecting said royalties for 75 years after they die.

      --
      Infuriate left and right
    15. Re:I despise patents by aitikin · · Score: 2

      No. A coder is paid up front. An Ironworker is paid up front. A driver gets paid at the end of the trip. A farmer gets paid before I eat it.

      A musician gets paid a loan, and then gets fucked over by the RIAA and then, people like yourself, who are seemingly inherently jealous of the fact that they have creative talent, fuck them over as well. Frankly, good sir or madam, fuck you and your philosophy on people who create things making nothing in the way of money and being ignored the entire way through. You can fuck off and realize that the slashdot community has, in no small part because of yourself, lost some perspective by driving individuals like myself away. You and those like you, who are resentful of those who care about the creative process should move to China and respect their lack of copyright laws, or being a fucking (wo)man (as applicable) and respect that there are people who hold a separate opinion from yourself and deserve to be able to express themselves without having to worry about the fact that the people around them hate what they have to say.

      If you fucking bothered to read what I wrote, you'd see that I don't agree that copyright should last as long as it does, but no, you think you know better than to read an actual argument that disagrees with your standpoint, and, therefore, show that you have no fucking will or intellect, merely a high and mighty point of view. Frankly, I consider you as low as the god damned fundies who disbelieve evolution because they refuse to even consider it. You can fuck off.

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
  4. Yes, because only the BIG guys can play the game by thomasdz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After a few years of these patent wars, all the Googles, Apples, Microsofts, Samsungs, etc have big war chests that they can win some battles and lose some battles. unfortunately, battles will kill the smaller companies and keep the existing big companies in place.
    Status quo all the way baby...it's a new world.

    --
    Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
  5. It depends by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you can spend $20M on litigation and it gives you a monopoly over a key feature in a market worth even a few billion, it may well be worth it.

    Whether it's worth it to *society* is a different question, one that has to do with when and to what extent patents actually do their job of promoting innovation.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:It depends by ColdCat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe but personally I haven't in mind even one patented feature which gives a company a monopoly sufficient to kill competition. Today's patents is made to fight between company of the same size.

      It's used by big company to kill small once.

      It's completely ignored by big company because they could handle years of procedures.

      It's used by dying company to try to win maximum money before completely collapsing.

  6. Maybe it's not about the IP at all by EliSowash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A little part of me wonders if the lawsuits are as much a strategic business plan to foil the competition. Y'know, like throwing around some bad press will dissuade investors, and a court ordered delay for a product's entrance to market in a particular region will cost the opponent so much in revenue, and allow the plaintiff time to get a foothold in the marketplace. Sort of 'gaming' the legal system to get a competitive edge, without so much concern for the outcome of the suit.

  7. Re:Yes, because only the BIG guys can play the gam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nail, head hit. It means that someone who has something truly innovative either faces the choice of being bought out by a big company for pennies on the dollar of what they are worth, versus being forced into bankruptcy.

    And people wonder why zero R&D is done in the US these days...

  8. Re:In all seriousness by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My personal belief is *any* public policy that favors huge corporations over small business is a job killer. It's not the huge corporations that are creating the jobs and it never will be again unless the U.S. goes to 3rd world status and people start taking jobs for $1 an hour.

    That means patents. It means tax law and abatement. That been big money lobbying.

    You can list all day.

  9. Re:Yes, because only the BIG guys can play the gam by girlintraining · · Score: 2

    Status quo all the way baby...it's a new world.

    That's a definition of 'new' of which I was previously unaware. We already have big business, the status quo, the stagnation of our technology and engineering industries, the lack of people entering college who can pass the entrance exams to take science and technology courses... everything happening right now seems centered around depriving the middle class of any ability to exist, let alone move into wealth.

    Whether it's Google, Intel, Apple, Microsoft... or big pharma, or big oil, or whomever... the agenda is clear across the board: It's time to kill America. We're moving in to milk it dry, wait for the infrastructure to rot out, and then move on like locusts to another country we can develop, exploit, and then impoverish. ]

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  10. Are they worth it? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

    A patent is a contract between the inventor and the government. The exchange is:

    1. The government grants an right to the inventor to prevent others from practicing the invention for some period of time, currently 20 years.

    2. The inventor publishes in the patent the details of the invention which would give others the ability to practice the invention.

    So it's worth it if having the details of the invention published outweighs the costs associated with the restriction on practicing the invention.

    Your mileage will vary depending on the nature of the invention. The less obvious it is the more likely you will come out ahead.

    For the vast majority of the inventions that Samsung and Apple are quibbling about the answer is pretty simple to see. It's not worth it.

    These patents should have never issued.

    1. Re:Are they worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are correct in that this is the theory behind why the US has patents.

      You are incorrect in the practice. Anything truly worthy of becoming a patent most often is instead treated as a closely guarded business secret; both for international competition among whack-a-mole importers and the hope that they can keep the secret longer than 20 years.

      I am convinced that we would all be better off with /copyright/ having a term much more like patents (if you haven't made your money back within 10 years you'll have starved anyway) and patents simply not existing. Please cover Mickey Mouse type stuff via trademark (a consumer protection tool is where brand reccognition belongs).

    2. Re:Are they worth it? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      >Anything truly worthy of becoming a patent most often is instead treated as a closely guarded business secret

      Eventually people will reverse engineer almost anything, especially if the economic value is there. Without patents a new problem arises - a lot of things will be sold with licenses and contractual agreements constructed to prevent reverse engineering. Some things, like some industrial catalysts are already sold in this fashion. Not having disclosure of a technology is harmful.

      My analysis of the value of patents is simplistic in that is doesn't consider the effects of encouraging or discouraging investment into innovative enterprises.

      As far as copyrights, I am also in favor of a much more limited term too. I'm not exactly sure what it should be though. For example consider the copyrights on computer source codes. These protect license agreements that have nothing to do with making money.

  11. It is about crushing your competition by dave562 · · Score: 2

    It's instead about momentum and branding. Winning these cases is PR that says, we are the leaders in smartphone technology, we are the innovators.

    It has nothing to do with PR. It has everything to do with frightening your competitors and locking new entrants out of the marketplace. These IPO litigations are expensive. On a slightly deeper level they are about trying to establish revenue streams based around licensing agreements.

  12. Re:Yes, because only the BIG guys can play the gam by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We're moving in to milk it dry, wait for the infrastructure to rot out, and then move on like locusts to another country we can develop, exploit, and then impoverish.

    It's called shock economics - was popular in the 80's and 90's on the international scene (I think they re-branded it and call it austerity now). It is a theory based on breaking unions, abolishing the middle class, privatizing everything in the interests of global companies, and creating two distinct classes of folks - rich and poor. Many of it's proponents and architects came from the University of Chicago. . . . And it seems that they've turned their sights on our country in the last ten years.

    There's a book out called the Shock Doctrine - it's about the IMF's and US's involvement in South America, Europe and the Middle East, and our policy of shocking an economy back to health. It's older at this point, but it's main ideas are still relevant, and startlingly similar to what we have going on in places like Greece, and the early stages of what's happening here in the US. Privatize (for a profit for my buddies), because private industry does it soooo much better. What's that? Health care - NOPE. Living wage? NOPE. Suck on that po' folks. But I digress. It's a good book, and is just the start of the rabbit hole.

  13. Of course it is worth it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The ability to own an idea, and to have the full force of law behind my ability to control the utilization of that idea for *everyone in the world,* is worth every penny.

    Of course, the only people who can actually leverage patents to this effect are the already-entrenched wealthy, but that is a practical necessity; if patent enforcement were available to everyone then the whole system would come crashing down in a gridlock. What a waste *that* would be! So since the utilization of patents is already limited to the specific groups who already own most of them anyway, the system as a whole is well worth the cost.

  14. Don Lancaster's writings on Patents by xtronics · · Score: 2

    A patent is a license to enrich ones lawyer. - kps

    Once you read Don's writings on this topic - there isn't much left to be said.

    See:
    http://www.google.com/cse?cx=003767467503737118174%3Aw_hild2gcro&q=patents&sa=Search+Guru's+Lair&cof=FORID%3A0#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=patents&gsc.page=1

  15. Prisoner's Dilemma by Patch86 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In many ways, patent wars resemble a version of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

    If both companies sue each other for patent infringement, they both lose. If neither company sued the other, they would have a pleasant status quo. But if just one company sued the other, they would win big.

    Although both players know that they'd be better off if they didn't play, it is literally a logical certainty that they have to sue each other.

    I'm not sure how "make a cross licensing agreement and move on" fits into a classic Prisoner's Dilemma, but why let real life complications get in the way of a good philosophy metaphor.

  16. "1, 2, 3, 4, I declare a patent-war, by McDrewbs · · Score: 2

    5, 6, 7, 8, I know how to litigate."
    I think that also shows what I feel the maturity level of these "patent wars" are.

  17. Re:Yes, because only the BIG guys can play the gam by oxdas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What is most interesting to me about this is that patents were originally created to encourage companies to share their designs instead of hording trade secrets. In the current climate, however, many companies are more inclined to keep their products closed source rather than risk having someone sue them for patent violation. Perversely, a highly litigious patent climate encourages the exact behavior that patents were intended to remedy.