B&N: Microsoft Forcing "Oppressive" Agreements on Android?

[teh603]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Patent law is all about negotiation; it is meant to protect and reward inventors, not competitors, not consumers.
It's a game for sharks not whiners.
(shrug)
Smart players negotiate, survive, and prosper; others go shoot craps in the courts and, more, often than not, lose.

Nice comparing it to a game. Except for one thing; in a game, abuses of the rules get the rules changed and people have an option to get out.

There's no option to not use technology anymore.

[kartu]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It's the clueless amateurs that whine.

I work in IT for quite a while and I find patents (heck I can't even name a country that would allow patenting basic software ideas, besides US) one of the ugliest and dangerous things that ever legally happened in the USA.

There is no spending millions on RD to come with some ideas that one could steal without stealing your code. Hence there is even remotely no reason to grant such patents.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by teh603

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?

If it was *patentable* in the first place, and nobody had patented it first you would. Try an example that might actually be patentable under current law instead of one that would be laughed out of the Patent Ofice.

The Immersion case is a pretty good example; they had a patent for using an electric motor to create vibrations in response to gaming conditions. From *our* perspective, this is obvious.

However, at the time they filed the patent nobody else had submitted the idea. They were the first.

The fact that MS and Sony later implemented it on their own did nothing to negate the fact that whoever filed the Immersion patent got there first.

That is exactly how patents are supposed to work.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Patent law is all about negotiation; it is meant to protect and reward inventors, not competitors, not consumers.

Except that it rewards those with enough money to purchase the patents, not necessarily those that actually do the inventing. It's simply another way for capital to increase itself. And the end result? Lack of innovation an further squeezing of the consumer.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by teh603

Nice comparing it to a game. Except for one thing; in a game, abuses of the rules get the rules changed and people have an option to get out.

Last I heard, Congress was in fact looking to change the rules of the game.
Of course, congress answers to the needs of those with the loudest voices which means those who donate the most to their campaigns. That too is a game. One that MS learned to play after getting raked over the antitrust coals. So no miracle save is coming that way.
Relying on politicians is just another crap shoot.

In the end, the only true weapons are creativity and productivity and sales. Then you'll have the patents in your portfolio and the money in the bank to buy all the shysters and poiticians you'll need to offset the other guy's staff.

Simple question: Sony also uses Android; in the phones, their new reader, their new Vita and who knows where else. And they're almost as broke as B&N (just on a bigger scale). So why aren't *they* screaming about how unfair it is? (Cause Sony is a bonafide tech company that has actually invented a thing or two in their day. And they have a cross-license deal with everybody who is anybody.

See, the way I see it, B&N wants special treatment:
They want to sign exclusive deals (Peanuts!) but throw a publichissy-fit when the other guy gets one (DC Graphic novels).
They load their STR home screen with promo ads for their ebookstore but get all snotty when Amazon puts discount coupons on the Special Offers readers.
They copy Amazon's business model (in a timely fashion, too) without understanding the prerequistes to be in the business and then expect everybody else to give them a free pass. Android isn't the only way to build ebook readers. In fact, most of what android brings isn't even needed to read or sell ebooks. The just wanted a free ride. Well, there are no free rides in the tech industry. Or anywhere else. TINSTAAFL!

I understand B&N is under financial stress. I think their situation is a lot worse than is publicly known. I also think the entire ebook business will suffer if they end up in chapter 11 next spring.

But if you're going to pay the game the rules that exist, not the ones you wish existed.
And in the game of business emotional hissy fits do nothing to help your position. The outfit you're vilifying today might otherside be your customer or parter tomorrow. Burning bridges only burns you.

Witness Samsung's own android issues with Apple and MS. With MS it is simply business and they both reached a quiet deal without either making a public spectacle. For Steve Jobs it was emotional and public and they went nuclear from day one so Samsung has no option but to fight Apple to the death. Lost in the fight is that Samsung is Apple's biggest component supplier and Apple is Samsung's biggest customer. Nobody is going to win this war.

B&N has no such leverage.
Making a spectacle of themselves over the DC Fire deal is not going to endear them to Time Warner. Forcing MS to take them to open court is just going to raise the stakes and the legal costs; money B&N doesn't have in the first place.

I don't know or care if the patents at issue are valid or not; ultimately it doesn't matter as much as how B&N does business. Maybe in the retail and publishing industries public whining and showing up the other guy gets you something but in the tech industry all it gets you is squashed.

Oh, and yes; B&N has the option to get out of the game.

Indigo did just that.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Except that it rewards those with enough money to purchase the patents, not necessarily those that actually do the inventing.

It rewards those that do the inventing because they get the money from selling the patents!

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

It rewards those that do the inventing because they get the money from selling the patents!

For the most part they get a pittance compared to the funds generated via licensing and other uses of the patent and that's even assuming that the inventor gets the patent rights, as opposed to the company for whom she labours. The incentive is to get the patent in and then use it to lock down everything else and establish a (limited) monopoly. This has the quite predictable effect of slowing innovation because everything has to be checked so many times to avoid infringement (or, if a possible infringement is found, re-engineered to avoid it). It also has a chilling effect due to fear of litigation and inflates prices due to rent-seeking behaviors on the part of patent owners.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The Immersion case is a pretty good example; they had a patent for using an electric motor to create vibrations in response to gaming conditions. From *our* perspective, this is obvious.

That is a good example, because it wasn't about vibrations in response to gaming conditions in general-it was a specific method of achieving the effect that Microsoft and Sony both utilized. Nintendo wasn't included in the suit, because they had their own specific methods of achieving a similar effect (also patented, but by Nintendo).