Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
A problem to those that want a free ride, maybe.
Be careful: what today seems obvious was not necessarily obvious or trivial at the time of the filing. When it comes to OS tech, MS is old school so a lot of now-common work was done first there.
It might be inconvenient for newcomers but if they did the work first they were entitled to patent it.
As for B&N, they have placed themselves in a position where either they win or they are made an example of. Not smart. Smart companies don't go scorched earth in public.
It's not as if they even have the money to pay the legal fees for the all-out court warfare needed for a "win" so what they really are facing is a lose-lose scenario.
Somebody ought to tell B&N about NTP vs RIM.
NTP started out asking for a few million, RIM refused; they went to court, lost and the judge awarded NTP $56 million. RIM appealed and challenged the patents. They lost the appeal and the debt grew to $612 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTP,_Inc. |
So let me get this straight, if I go and secure a patent on fire, then I'll have the world over a barrel, right? Or maybe a patent on light, and require everyone who can't pay to wear a blindfold or have their eyes surgically removed at their own expense?
These patents were overly broad and some of them appear to have been made in very bad faith. Bad faith and overly broad patents are not a healthy form of capitalism, no matter what your economics professor might tell you. Neither is strongarming your way into a de facto monopoly over a sector the way MS has.