Shared publicly  - 
"But for a technology company, going on offense with software patents seems like an act of desperation, relying on the courts instead of the marketplace. See Nokia's suit against Apple for a parallel example of frivolous litigation -- it hasn't slowed iPhone momentum (I'd argue it accelerated it)." Jonathan Schwartz, 2010
Will Hill's profile photo
I love that essay and enjoyed reading it again, thanks. Here's another one that's interesting in a different way.

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. I feel certain that some large company will patent some obvious thing related to interface, object orientation, algorithm, application extension or other crucial technique. If we assume this company has no need of any of our patents then the have a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want. The solution to this is patent exchanges with large companies and patenting as much as we can. ... In many application categories straighforward thinking ahead allows you to come up with
patentable ideas.."

What an ass. He said, essentially, "Here's a problem, let's exploit it with trivial patents." He should have renamed his yearly retreat, "stink week."

The defensive strategy has obviously failed and it was exclusionary at best. It can be argued that the failure was visible when Kodak was suing Sun. It's clearly failed when large companies are wasting all sorts of money buying patents and suing each other anyway. Even if patent warfare had not broken out, why would we accept an unjust system where the only people who can profit from software are big, rich companies that can afford to waste their customer's money?

I'm hoping the EU is not dumb enough to recognize software patents and that the US quits.
Add a comment...