Larry Page, Tim Cook Discussing Patent Issues Together

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Take ten paces, turn and fire. That would be one way to solve the differences, but civil discussion between two of the world’s most powerful CEO’s is a good alternative. The two CEO’s have been having casual chats over the patent situation and actually could talk out a mutual agreement between the two, saving both companies lots of time, trouble and a whole boatload of legal fees.

Truce? That’s a far cry from the “thermonuclear” approach that the late Steve Jobs prescribed, but it’s not entirely a shock to see the word bandied about — I’m sure neither company is afraid of pulling the legal trigger should it prove necessary, but words can sometimes settle issues in a way that pure legal might can’t.
Click to expand...
 
When a computer nerd becomes so rich and so powerful that he thinks that he can get away with threatening thermonuclear war on others, then it is time for him to go from this world.
 
DW-UK said:
When a computer nerd becomes so rich and so powerful that he thinks that he can get away with threatening thermonuclear war on others, then it is time for him to go from this world.
Click to expand...

Especially when they patented ideas that were/are prior art.
 
Two of the biggest scumbags in the computing industry having a chat about how to commit more violent acts against peaceful individuals. The only person missing is Steve Ballmer. Perhaps they can have a threesome.
 
damicatz said:
Two of the biggest scumbags in the computing industry having a chat about how to commit more violent acts against peaceful individuals. The only person missing is Steve Ballmer. Perhaps they can have a threesome.
Click to expand...

Patent Fixing = Price Fixing = Insider Trading
 
The previous three posters above me need to chill. Perhaps this dialogue will sow the seeds of some meaningful patent reform.
 
Safety said:
The previous three posters above me need to chill. Perhaps this dialogue will sow the seeds of some meaningful patent reform.
Click to expand...

True reform would be to eliminate patents because patents are nothing but rent-seeking; coercive monopolistic grants by the state to those who tribute it with enough money.
 
damicatz said:
True reform would be to eliminate patents because patents are nothing but rent-seeking; coercive monopolistic grants by the state to those who tribute it with enough money.
Click to expand...
Well when you say it like that.... :rolleyes:

It costs $95 for an individual to apply for a US patent.

For the record I pay $1.25 tribute to the vending machine at work EVERY DAY. In this scenario a box of Good & Plenty can be considered 'The Man'.
 
Safety said:
The previous three posters above me need to chill. Perhaps this dialogue will sow the seeds of some meaningful patent reform.
Click to expand...

Perhaps all the CEO’s involved in the dialogue will agree to share the market equally between them. Either that, or they will agree to share it with those who are not involved in the dialogue.
 
Safety said:
Well when you say it like that.... :rolleyes:

It costs $95 for an individual to apply for a US patent.

For the record I pay $1.25 tribute to the vending machine at work EVERY DAY. In this scenario a box of Good & Plenty can be considered 'The Man'.
Click to expand...

The application does you no good if you can't enforce it.

See, this is the scam.

You have to :

A.Pay lawyers to suitable obfuscate your idea so that no one reading your patent application has the foggiest idea what it is you are patenting.

B.Pay lawyers to harass people who are using "your" patent.

C.Pay the government the requisite court "fees" for item B.

The money that lawyers make, in turn, also gets funneled back to the government through things like bar associations and appearance fees.
 
damicatz said:
The application does you no good if you can't enforce it.

See, this is the scam.

You have to :

A.Pay lawyers to suitable obfuscate your idea so that no one reading your patent application has the foggiest idea what it is you are patenting.

B.Pay lawyers to harass people who are using "your" patent.

C.Pay the government the requisite court "fees" for item B.

The money that lawyers make, in turn, also gets funneled back to the government through things like bar associations and appearance fees.
Click to expand...

Seems your beef is more with the way the legal system is setup than with the way the patent system is setup.

If you're looking for reform of the legal system, I can get behind that. If you're looking for reform in the patent system, I can get behind that. But if you are looking to abolish patents all together all I can say is, "Go back to your commune and shit in a bucket you hippie!"
 
Safety said:
...a box of Good & Plenty...
Click to expand...

YUM!

Dwango said:
Seems your beef is more with the way the legal system is setup than with the way the patent system is setup.

If you're looking for reform of the legal system, I can get behind that. If you're looking for reform in the patent system, I can get behind that. But if you are looking to abolish patents all together all I can say is, "Go back to your commune and shit in a bucket you hippie!"
Click to expand...

dami is a little bit anti-legal system. :( I guess that's okay, but I'm fairly sure he generally obeys laws and whatnot in real life. Either that or the crimes are simply too small to deserve much attention.

At any rate, I'm glad to see those two talking. They're both in a position to mess with each other on quite a few points. Had Creepy Uncle Google not purchase Motorola's mobile portfolio, they probably wouldn't be having a little fireside chat though. It was a good move to shield the company from being sued.
 
I can see a patent lasting a "reasonable" time period to recoup R&D, but not the typical 20 years it is now. Say 5 years. Also end patent extensions unless there's a justifiable reason, and then only once. Even with an extension it should not total more than 10 years.
 
Safety said:
Well when you say it like that.... :rolleyes:

It costs $95 for an individual to apply for a US patent.

For the record I pay $1.25 tribute to the vending machine at work EVERY DAY. In this scenario a box of Good & Plenty can be considered 'The Man'.
Click to expand...

$95? http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee092611.htm

Before that you need to do a patent search. You'll also want to have a lawyer go over it. So for the total cost, http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/28/the-cost-of-obtaining-patent/id=14668/

Even if you get a patent, what happens if some patent thief like Apple steals your idea anyways? Then you'll need tens of millions of dollars to take them to court to defend your patent.

So expect to need around $10,000 to start with, and at least another $10,000,000 to defend your rights if a big corporation steals your ideas.
 
BladeVenom said:
$95? http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee092611.htm

Before that you need to do a patent search. You'll also want to have a lawyer go over it. So for the total cost, http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/28/the-cost-of-obtaining-patent/id=14668/

Even if you get a patent, what happens if some patent thief like Apple steals your idea anyways? Then you'll need tens of millions of dollars to take them to court to defend your patent.

So expect to need around $10,000 to start with, and at least another $10,000,000 to defend your rights if a big corporation steals your ideas.
Click to expand...

Patents don't protect the little guy.

If anyone remembers Aureal, they were a company that used to make sound chips that competed with and bested anything that unCreative Labs came up with. unCreative labs, not wanting to actually compete, filed a bogus patent lawsuit against Aureal. Aureal countersued claiming that unCreative Labs infringed on their patents. In the end, Aureal was found to not infringe, unCreative was found to infringe and was ordered to pay Aureal damages. However, the cost of litigation left Aureal bankrupt and they were forced to liquidate and sell their assets to unCreative labs. I haven't bought an unCreative Labs soundcard since.
 
damicatz said:
Patents don't protect the little guy.

If anyone remembers Aureal, they were a company that used to make sound chips that competed with and bested anything that unCreative Labs came up with. unCreative labs, not wanting to actually compete, filed a bogus patent lawsuit against Aureal. Aureal countersued claiming that unCreative Labs infringed on their patents. In the end, Aureal was found to not infringe, unCreative was found to infringe and was ordered to pay Aureal damages. However, the cost of litigation left Aureal bankrupt and they were forced to liquidate and sell their assets to unCreative labs. I haven't bought an unCreative Labs soundcard since.
Click to expand...

Aureal could easily have included legal fees as part of the claimed damages in their lawsuits once Creative was found to be infringing in addition to gaining up to 3x the losses in damages in return. In addition, companies that overextend themselves, failing to reserve cash for a rainy day (Apple being on the extreme end of this with their money mountain) aren't being properly managed and led. Balancing investments, liabilities, and expenditures is something that goes along with running a successful business. Aureal stumbled in more ways than one during their litigation drama.
 
SkribbelKat said:
Aureal could easily have included legal fees as part of the claimed damages in their lawsuits once Creative was found to be infringing in addition to gaining up to 3x the losses in damages in return. In addition, companies that overextend themselves, failing to reserve cash for a rainy day (Apple being on the extreme end of this with their money mountain) aren't being properly managed and led. Balancing investments, liabilities, and expenditures is something that goes along with running a successful business. Aureal stumbled in more ways than one during their litigation drama.
Click to expand...

And unCreative would have appealed, staying the judgment and dragging it on for many more years. Aureal couldn't afford that as they were already drained of all of their money from litigation costs by that time.
 
damicatz said:
True reform would be to eliminate patents because patents are nothing but rent-seeking; coercive monopolistic grants by the state to those who tribute it with enough money.
Click to expand...
It's also a tool designed to spur innovation. Without it, how do you sustain the current rate of innovation? Altruism alone isn't enough to keep the needle in the red.
 
damicatz said:
And unCreative would have appealed, staying the judgment and dragging it on for many more years. Aureal couldn't afford that as they were already drained of all of their money from litigation costs by that time.
Click to expand...

Thus the whole money management point. At any rate, companies come and companies go. Businesses compete on multiple fronts beyond just products and services and that competition can include litigation. Were that option not available to companies, they'd be unable to find legal recourse that would offer incentives to protect their investments in research and development. Certainly the system is abused once in a while, but if you feel that way and insist on being so critical of it, perhaps coming up with a realistic alternative amid your ranting about it would be helpful. Being quick to argue that something is stupid is the easy part. Investing enough thought into finding an alternative structure is something that I doubt many of us in this forum have the insight or experience to do alone.
 
I don't appear to see an answer to the question in that article. Can you point it out?
 
wonderfield said:
I don't appear to see an answer to the question in that article. Can you point it out?
Click to expand...

The first one I inadvertently posted the wrong link (although it is a good read none the less). The second link contains a laundry list of cited studies showing no benefit (and even negative consequences) from the patent system.

Thus the whole money management point. At any rate, companies come and companies go. Businesses compete on multiple fronts beyond just products and services and that competition can include litigation. Were that option not available to companies, they'd be unable to find legal recourse that would offer incentives to protect their investments in research and development. Certainly the system is abused once in a while, but if you feel that way and insist on being so critical of it, perhaps coming up with a realistic alternative amid your ranting about it would be helpful. Being quick to argue that something is stupid is the easy part. Investing enough thought into finding an alternative structure is something that I doubt many of us in this forum have the insight or experience to do alone.
Click to expand...

You must have impressive money management skills if you can ensure that a small startup company has tens of millions of dollars in the bank solely for litigation.
 
damicatz said:
You must have impressive money management skills if you can ensure that a small startup company has tens of millions of dollars in the bank solely for litigation.
Click to expand...

You're offering constructive alternatives, I see. That's forward progress and it's refreshing to see you're stepping up the ladder. Oh wait...no you're not. :) Nevermind about that. :p
 
damicatz said:
The first one I inadvertently posted the wrong link (although it is a good read none the less). The second link contains a laundry list of cited studies showing no benefit (and even negative consequences) from the patent system.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how we're defining "benefit", but let's assume for the sake of discussion that everything you linked to is true and correct, and that intellectual property is a Bad Thing. You're of the belief, then, based on this data, that the abolishment of intellectual property as a legal construct will accelerate innovation?

I see an A, and I see a B, but I don't see the line between A and B. There has to be some sort of line there.
 
wonderfield said:
I'm not sure how we're defining "benefit", but let's assume for the sake of discussion that everything you linked to is true and correct, and that intellectual property is a Bad Thing. You're of the belief, then, based on this data, that the abolishment of intellectual property as a legal construct will accelerate innovation?

I see an A, and I see a B, but I don't see the line between A and B. There has to be some sort of line there.
Click to expand...

Competition drives innovation because there is the drive to one up your competitor. Patents are monopolies and, thus, the opposite of competition because it allows you to use the state as a means to prevent your competitors from improving upon designs that you created. A person or organization with a patent can sit on it without any motivation to further innovate so long as the money keeps coming in. One only has to look back to the Pentium 4 days to see what lack of competition will do.
 
damicatz said:
Competition drives innovation because there is the drive to one up your competitor. Patents are monopolies and, thus, the opposite of competition because it allows you to use the state as a means to prevent your competitors from improving upon designs that you created. A person or organization with a patent can sit on it without any motivation to further innovate so long as the money keeps coming in. One only has to look back to the Pentium 4 days to see what lack of competition will do.
Click to expand...

But in the article it says “Larry Page, Tim Cook Discussing Patent Issues Together”. This must mean that they are not going to do any new patents, and that they are going to tear up the existing ones.

Cynics may say that, like a couple of crime bosses, they are just going to discuss splitting up the territory.
 
damicatz said:
Competition drives innovation because there is the drive to one up your competitor. Patents are monopolies and, thus, the opposite of competition because it allows you to use the state as a means to prevent your competitors from improving upon designs that you created. A person or organization with a patent can sit on it without any motivation to further innovate so long as the money keeps coming in. One only has to look back to the Pentium 4 days to see what lack of competition will do.
Click to expand...
Let's say you spend 2 years paying 5 engineers $100,000/yr salaries to develop a new internet-enabled toaster. The design you come up with costs $25 in parts, but you price it at $50 to recoup your investment.

You hope to sell at least 40,000 toasters so you can break even, but 20,000 units in another company pays a lone engineer $75,000 to reverse engineer your toaster. All the careful market research, product testing, and design has already been done by your engineers. All company B has to do is figure out how to turn your $25 worth of parts into a passable representation of your toaster, sell it for $35 (effectively guaranteeing you won't recoup your investment), and break even at 7,500 units.

This is just as bad, if not worse, if company B's product is better in some way than company A's. Let's say that Company B's engineer got bored one night and strapped a rechargeable battery pack to the bottom of the toaster, making it a wireless internet-enabled toaster. You may have sunk $1 million into R&D for this thing, but one guy with a high school understanding of electronics just made it more attractive to consumers. And if you decide to bolt on a battery pack to your toaster, then all the fans of Company B's cheap toaster will vehemently condemn you for stealing Company B's feature...

This hypothetical story should not be construed as either a ringing endorsement of the patent system or of Apple. Apple with its mountain of cash reserves is most certainly not company A in my sad story above. My point is, in need of reform as it may be, the patent system encourages innovation by ensuring that company A will see a return on its investment. If company A possessed the foresight to see what company B was going to do, then they might decide not to hire those five engineers and the internet-enabled toaster would never be created. How to simultaneously do that while preventing insane dying billionaires from declaring thermonuclear war on competitors? It will take a better man than I to figure that out.
 
Jobs must be rolling in his grave, every which way... First they decide to make a larger iPhone, now Cook is in talks with his mortal nemesis, the horror.

Seriously tho, patents aren't the issue, the way companies abuse the system to stifle innovation thru patent disputes rather than just licensing and getting their money's with is the issue.

Microsoft doesn't need to be included in these talks because they know how to work the system for long term gain rather than some ridiculous vendetta. There's a reason they earn money off every Android phone sold (outside Motorola's).
 
The problem with the patent system is execution. Use to be the Patent Office would kick patents away for being stupid. But now they kick everything over to the legal system to figure out.

I'm sure many lawyers making many donations to campaign funds had nothing to do with that.
 
Patent offices have a huge backlog and a lot of pressure to get thru it... Honestly the problem might be clerical or sheer logistics (born out of an overly litigious world) as much as anything else. Some more specialized expertise would do wonders for the patent approval pprocess, so many of the current patents in question would be rejected as prior art... I just don't understand why they aren't more easilyrejected after the fact.
 
Impulse said:
Patent offices have a huge backlog and a lot of pressure to get thru it... Honestly the problem might be clerical or sheer logistics (born out of an overly litigious world) as much as anything else. Some more specialized expertise would do wonders for the patent approval pprocess, so many of the current patents in question would be rejected as prior art... I just don't understand why they aren't more easilyrejected after the fact.
Click to expand...

Because it takes a hugely expensive court case and explaining things to a largely technically illiterate jury to get a patent declared invalid. And, even when logic says it should work (some of the Apple patents in this latest case) the jury doesn't do what it should. There is, in this case, no indication that the jury even considered that the patents might not be valid. They were supposed to consider that but all their commentary is that they felt Apple was right after day one of a multi-week trial.
 
damicatz said:
Competition drives innovation because there is the drive to one up your competitor.
Click to expand...
And without a patent system and copyrights, your competitors can merely duplicate your products. The company that pours money into R&D would not be able to price their own products as aggressively as the company that merely duplicates products (because R&D investments need to be recouped), and would be a considerable disadvantage in the marketplace. The company that performs no R&D (i.e., the company that produces no innovation) has a high likelihood of becoming dominant in the marketplace. In this system, the organization that does the least innovation is the organization most likely to perform well in the marketplace.

How do you solve this problem?
 
wonderfield said:
And without a patent system and copyrights, your competitors can merely duplicate your products. The company that pours money into R&D would not be able to price their own products as aggressively as the company that merely duplicates products (because R&D investments need to be recouped), and would be a considerable disadvantage in the marketplace. The company that performs no R&D (i.e., the company that produces no innovation) has a high likelihood of becoming dominant in the marketplace. In this system, the organization that does the least innovation is the organization most likely to perform well in the marketplace.

How do you solve this problem?
Click to expand...

You assume that it is a problem. A natural monopoly occurs when someone invents a new technology because no one has reverse engineered it yet. Reverse engineering takes time and, in that time, the inventor has a monopoly and can set the price for his/her product.
 
So, if I'm understanding correctly, based on your response to what I said, you're of the belief that a marketplace that favors those who do not undertake the prospect of innovation is not a problem to the end of ensuring innovation. Is my understanding correct?
 
wonderfield said:
So, if I'm understanding correctly, based on your response to what I said, you're of the belief that a marketplace that favors those who do not undertake the prospect of innovation is not a problem to the end of ensuring innovation. Is my understanding correct?
Click to expand...

My belief, one that is backed up by the numerous studies that I linked to earlier, is that patents do not encourage innovation and in fact, have the exact opposite effect. We are now to the point where European software companies are refusing to release their products in the US because of the litigiousness of the patent trolls. People that actually do innovate are bogged down in bogus lawsuits by those who don't.

Competition, not monopolization, drives innovation. One merely has to compare the current state of our space program to the state of the space program when the Soviet Union was in competition with the United States to see this; when NASA was in competition with the Soviet Union, huge advances were being made in engineering and spaceflight on a near yearly basis. Now, we just dicker around in orbit on a giant money-pit of a space station in "mutual cooperation". The worst part is that the "discoveries" on this station, discoveries that are funded with stolen money are sold off as "patents" so that a private individual or organization may assert a violent monopoly against something that was funded by taxpayer money.
 
European nations have regulated economies that are not pure capitalism. They also have patent systems. Most products are not brought to a US market because the business doesn't see a market, doesn't have the resources to reach across the pond, or doesn't wish to compete. Additionally, trade restrictions and tarriffs may apply. Legal action isn't the only reason and is, in fact, a minor consideration at best.

NASA hires private contractors who create things to solve problems. Those things, depending on the specifics of the individual contract, can become patented and licensed or sold to other companies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top