Conspiracy?

Posted Mar 5, 2009 22:05 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (guest, #15091)
In reply to: Conspiracy? by pzb
Parent article: Linux companies sign Microsoft patent protection pacts (LinuxWorld)

For patents yes, but not for cross-licensing agreements. In one of these Microsoft promises not to sue a (Linux) distributor with its vast array of (nonsensical) patents, and in return said distributor promises not to sue Microsoft with its corresponding array of (triffle) patents. No one delves into the merits of any patent much, and it serves to give legitimacy to both sides. I would say it is the opposite of the idea behind patents, where the inventor discloses an idea and is paid back good money by those profiting from it.

Conspiracy?

Posted Mar 6, 2009 15:06 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

I would say it is the opposite of the idea behind patents, where the inventor discloses an idea and is paid back good money by those profiting from it.

Well, I think we've come a long way from the motivation for patents to arrive at what we have now - only the lobbyists for patents can claim that it's still all the same and still keep a straight face.

Patent cartels exist in various industries; it's all about joining a club and promising not to litigate against the other members (under normal circumstances), and then developing and promoting standards encumbered by patents which are usable within the cartel but unusable to anyone else unless they pay up, join in, and start stockpiling patents themselves. At which point a new member has an incentive to saddle the cartel's standards with as many of its own dubious claims as possible - a stake in the extortion, if you will. Take a look at the telecoms business for a blatant example of this kind of thing happening all the time.

Conspiracy?

Posted Mar 14, 2009 0:55 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

A cross-licensing agreement isn't a promise not to sue. It's an actual set of patent licenses, in both directions. In contrast, the Microsoft/Novell deal ostensibly involved a covenant not to sue and no patent licenses. In the present story, the article says there are actual explicit patent licenses.

Offering to sell something is not extortion. Taking what is yours is not extortion. My landlord threatens every month to toss me out of my home if I don't hand over $1000, and it's not extortion.

Extortion is offering to sell something that you have a moral obligation to give for free.

I find people have an amazing capacity to invent obligations of others to them, which causes them to call almost anything extortion. I know lots of people feel a moral right to use anything that's been invented, in spite of the system of exclusion we've set up, so they tend to call patent enforcement extortion.