The end of the small tech business seems near

Posted Oct 2, 2010 16:14 UTC (Sat) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312)
In reply to: The end of the small tech business seems near by mikov
Parent article: Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

If this holds up I imagine it is pretty likely that there will be the formation of some monster mobile patent pool and licensing agency similar to MPEG-LA. Then relatively small companies can pay the $10-$20 or whatever royalties per device without having to negotiate with dozens of patent holders.

There is always the risk of hold outs who won't join the pool of course, but at least they tend to go after bigger targets first. Of course a rational patent system would have mandatory licensing at reasonable and non-discriminatory rates as one of its first principles.

The end of the small tech business seems near

Posted Oct 2, 2010 16:40 UTC (Sat) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (8 responses)

Rational patent system is a misnomer.

The problem is that they exist in the first place, not that they are poorly designed. Software related patents in particular, but it increasingly seems that the whole system is just broken by design.

Yup. Patents never made sense.

Posted Oct 2, 2010 17:34 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (7 responses)

If you want to read about patents you should read this book.

Patents only make some sense WRT pharmacy - and then only because new drugs must pass expensive clinical tests which are paid by initial developer and are not paid by imitator. The problem can be fixed by changing rules of mandatory tests.

Yup. Patents never made sense.

Posted Oct 4, 2010 0:26 UTC (Mon) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link] (6 responses)

We used to have that arrangement here. It resulted in lots of unscrupulous vendors of fake medicines, and the deaths of numerous people.

Good plan.

Who said "changing rules" means "removing rules"?

Posted Oct 4, 2010 8:33 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (5 responses)

If the US rules are so superior then why life expectancy is behind Cuba and Chile?

I'm not saying mandatory tests must be abandoned (just like the authors of the book are not saying that), but the firms can be compensated differently then by giving them patents. For example they can be simply reimbursed after the drug passes the test - perhaps with some coefficient (to compensate for the drugs which don't pass the tests). Other arrangements are possible too. But it's clear today that A LOT OF money in pharmacy is spent on "me too" drugs so clearly patents hurt the innovation, not help it in pharmacy too ("me too" drug is not an innovation - it's pure waste from the society POV).

Who said "changing rules" means "removing rules"?

Posted Oct 4, 2010 13:42 UTC (Mon) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link] (1 responses)

You're all over the map here. I doubt the differences in life expectancy between the US and Cubaassuming there are differences worth talking aboutcan be attributed to differences in their respective patent systems. Even if they could, that doesn't offer Motorola the least bit of assistance here. Please, in addition to doing the rest of us the courtesy of curbing your name-calling, do us all the courtesy of at least trying to stay in the neighborhood of the actual topic.

Who said "changing rules" means "removing rules"?

Posted Oct 4, 2010 18:54 UTC (Mon) by hozelda (guest, #19341) [Link]

>> Please, in addition to doing the rest of us the courtesy of curbing your name-calling, do us all the courtesy of at least trying to stay in the neighborhood of the actual topic.

The khim comment I think you were answering was about the legitimacy of classes of patents. That's not fair game in this discussion?

And that comment and going back many more in this thread (finding one more by khim) did not show me khim name-calling, but I can take your word that khim was name-calling elsewhere.

Who said "changing rules" means "removing rules"?

Posted Oct 4, 2010 20:21 UTC (Mon) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] (2 responses)

If the US rules are so superior then why life expectancy is behind Cuba and Chile?

I'm guessing that it's because Cuba and Chile probably have fewer people who desperately need to eat less and move more.

Who said "changing rules" means "removing rules"?

Posted Oct 5, 2010 1:32 UTC (Tue) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link] (1 responses)

I suspect you're correct. (Does someone have a patent on "desperately needing to eat less and move more"...?)

Who said "changing rules" means "removing rules"?

Posted Oct 5, 2010 6:59 UTC (Tue) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]

OK, since we are well on our way to tangent land...

There is a rather well known (moral) tale from the world of R&D about truly understanding your experiments. One pharmaceutical research group discovered that by giving their test animals a certain drug they lived significantly longer than the reference group. You can imagine the expectations of wealth and fame here.

And it was all dashed when it was found out the drug made the test animals sick so they could not eat too much while the reference group were overeating and "anjoying" a western styled reduction in life expectancy.

I have not heard if they applied for a patent.