Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)
Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)
Posted Oct 5, 2010 15:16 UTC (Tue) by hozelda (guest, #19341)In reply to: Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica) by hozelda
Parent article: Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)
Large companies have a number of levers over start-ups. Starts-up have their own share, but, as a rough indicator of lever strength, we can consider the longevity large companies tend to have vs start-ups.
Mike and the people over at techdirt make a decent case on an ongoing basis that execution is more important than IP (and don't like IP or at least not in its current form and how it is (ab)used). They show cases of small firms thriving without leveraging it, even as larger firms try to copy them. They frequently target copyright, and, as another example, show the successes and diversity found in many industries where copyright is not applicable (eg, fashion, restaurant, comedy, football, ...). Most people would probably agree copyright is way too long so way past the point of promoting the progress as the years run by.
Whether patents were once a tool of the start-up, it seems now the large companies have the advantage (and this has promoted somewhat the spread of the patent troll business model, if only because the large co offer a very large target and because they otherwise hold so much leverage against you if you try to take products out under the current patent landscape). Many people like the idea of a healthy environment for start-ups. It's a different character of people that tend to seek employment at these firms, but I think it's healthy to make sure start-ups will not be drowned in courtroom patent attacks or face any sort of significant handicap when the large companies come asking for tribute (or outright injunctions).
Posted Oct 5, 2010 17:04 UTC (Tue)
by Lefty (guest, #51528)
[Link] (1 responses)
I'm pointing out that as part and parcel of the idealized world of "software freedom" that RMS discusses in the essay I cite, he states very clearly that developers are overpaid, and in fact have unrealistic expectations about what they should get paid. He goes on to say that making all software "free" would resolve this, per force as it were, by reducing incomes for programmers down to "a mere living". The massive reduction in pay (and corresponding reduction in ROI on their investment in becoming programmers in the first place) would be offset by their rediscovering the "joy of accomplishment" inherent in their work.
I personally don't believe that 99% of developers what anything like that, regardless of how they feel about "free software" otherwise. I've never met a programmer worth the air he consumed who was willing to cut his own pay down to minimum wage to further the cause of "software freedom". I suspect a number of them might, under those circumstances, find greater "joy" inhering to the accomplishments available to the occupations of lawyer, architect, stockbroker, or any other highly-skilled job which hasn't had its payscale "freed down" to a level which might seem like prosperity "only to a Pakistani bricklayer" as Neil Stephenson put it in "Snow Crash".
Posted Oct 6, 2010 11:19 UTC (Wed)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link]
I thought that most people were generally in agreement that you can still support the notion of Free Software without agreeing with 100% of the personal views of any particular individual in the Free Software movement. In any case, regarding the economic influence of Free Software (and ignoring bizarre lawsuits accusing the GPL of being a price-fixing instrument), although Free Software might encourage a more efficient economy by reducing the amount of money spent on proprietary software that, for example, could have been improved or extended at significantly less cost had it been non-proprietary software, there are plenty of opportunities for earning a decent living in such an economy. Stallman points this out in his essay, in fact, so it isn't a fair summary at all to claim that he thinks everyone should be programming at "minimum wage" levels. Now, one can question whether it is wise to divert a large stream of revenue from one sector of the economy to others, particularly if one is a politician in whose district there are companies operating in that particular sector who employ significant numbers of people. But ultimately, when such companies sit on top of large cash reserves, in some cases accumulated by unethically exploiting their market position, one has to wonder whether that money might not do more good elsewhere, and not just through occasional and often conditional charitable donations to a selection of worthy and not-so-worthy causes.
Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)
Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)
I'm pointing out that as part and parcel of the idealized world of "software freedom" that RMS discusses in the essay I cite, he states very clearly that developers are overpaid, and in fact have unrealistic expectations about what they should get paid.