No it isn't. It is legally dubious, but anyone who conflates IP legalism and ethics has no idea about either. The current IP scheme is anti-competitive; an arbitrary barrier to entry to any would-be competitors utterly divorced from innovation, invention or merit.
But, if one was going to go that way, then this is exactly the right thing for google to do. They're paying $12.5 billion to buy the stable of frivolous documents required to do homage to the current IP regime. Once they enter into a properly asinine mutual-licensing, then the violation of the sacred IP gods will be forgiven.
I really, badly want to argue this, but a: yeah, my comment kinda sucked and I knew that when I posted it. I should know better than to post something that lame. b: while I have relatively strong opinions on this, I don't know the law anywhere near well enough to argue properly.
all I will say is that Google should have seen this coming as a definite necessity a looooong way off. By ignoring the patents they knew they were violating, they've basically invited the costs involved. You'd have to be either insane or retarded to expect anything else.
and lets be clear here: MS and Apple are not patent trolls. They're among the biggest companies that have ever existed, and are using the system that exists to protect their interests. Whether we agree with that system [neither of us, or many rational people do], fact is it's there and it's going to be used.
Google, in short, knew this was coming.
uhm. ok, that was an argument.
and I think Apple's current effort to block sales of the Galaxy Tab is utterly filthy.
Can't disagree much there. Possibly Google went into Android as a method to compel reform of the US's patent regime. If they can manage that, it will probably be worth their investment. Otherwise, should have guessed that patent suits would be on the horizon. They should have bid higher for the Nortel patent portfolio so they would have had sufficient piles of patents in the dick-measuring contests we call mutual license agreements.
MS and Apple are not patent trolls. They are major technology companies that engage in patent trolling as a means of market control. They are not at all unique in this.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-16 12:59 pm (UTC)But, if one was going to go that way, then this is exactly the right thing for google to do. They're paying $12.5 billion to buy the stable of frivolous documents required to do homage to the current IP regime. Once they enter into a properly asinine mutual-licensing, then the violation of the sacred IP gods will be forgiven.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-16 05:28 pm (UTC)I really, badly want to argue this, but
a: yeah, my comment kinda sucked and I knew that when I posted it. I should know better than to post something that lame.
b: while I have relatively strong opinions on this, I don't know the law anywhere near well enough to argue properly.
all I will say is that Google should have seen this coming as a definite necessity a looooong way off. By ignoring the patents they knew they were violating, they've basically invited the costs involved. You'd have to be either insane or retarded to expect anything else.
and lets be clear here: MS and Apple are not patent trolls. They're among the biggest companies that have ever existed, and are using the system that exists to protect their interests. Whether we agree with that system [neither of us, or many rational people do], fact is it's there and it's going to be used.
Google, in short, knew this was coming.
uhm. ok, that was an argument.
and I think Apple's current effort to block sales of the Galaxy Tab is utterly filthy.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-17 06:21 pm (UTC)MS and Apple are not patent trolls. They are major technology companies that engage in patent trolling as a means of market control. They are not at all unique in this.