Google countersues BT on patent claims
0. phoneArena posted on 13 Feb 2013, 20:46
Google has always said that it only intends to use its patent portfolio and the portfolio it acquired when purchasing Motorola defensively, and a new filing looks like it is following that claim. Google and Motorola have countersued BT, Britain's top fixed-line telecommunications group, in a California federal court...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. joey_sfb posted on 13 Feb 2013, 21:31 4
Patent are anti innovation. The world a better place with out it.
3. lyndon420 posted on 13 Feb 2013, 21:33 0
We still need the patents though...for the real and truly innovative inventions.
4. joey_sfb posted on 13 Feb 2013, 21:44 0
More cons than pro as far as innovation is concern. The problem is patent troll are too many and they pick smaller target that ones that would be bankrupt if they engaged in the multi million lawsuits. To Apple google and Samsung its really like a pastime hobby. But smaller businesses its everything.
9. anywherehome posted on 14 Feb 2013, 01:58 0
no, in this phase of abusing patent system (Microsoft+Apple) is better to dig out all the IT software related patents....
5. Droid_X_Doug posted on 13 Feb 2013, 22:57 0
Without the exclusivity offered by patents, many of the innovations that we depend on in our daily lives wouldn't exist. Unfortunately the concept of patenting has been extended to areas that probably weren't intended to receive patent protection - how about design patents.... Do rounded corners really deserve patent protection?
Trolls are part of the process of monetizing patents. Someone thinks they can make money off a patent and they are willing to pay to purchase the patent and the rights that flow from the patent. Sometimes the troll wins, oftentimes they lose (winning patent lawsuits has gotten harder). Trolls provide a market where one likely wouldn't exist in the absence of the ability of the troll to extract royalties from patents they purchase.
7. MorePhonesThanNeeded posted on 13 Feb 2013, 23:38 0
Patents aren't the problem, it's the lazy ass companies who buy them up and don't actually use the patents for anything they are developing, only to just mooch off companies who actually need to use the patent.
USPTO should reduce the royalty amount if the patent licensed out is not actively being used by the owner. No point in giving you crap loads of money for only owning the patent and not doing anything other than sitting on it without actually developing it further. This would curb that patent trolling done by companies who have patents and do nothing but attempt to sue for royalties that they don't deserve in any way shape or form.
10. Droid_X_Doug posted on 14 Feb 2013, 02:13 0
USPTO doesn't set royalty amount. Royalty amount is set at trial based on a number of factors.
Companies generally are the entity that raises the $ to employ a team of people that do the inventing. Shouldn't the investors who put cash into the company be able to receive a return on their investment? Absent the ability for a company to 'own' patents, very few individual inventors would be able to raise the investment needed to fund their inventive efforts.
Things are a bit more nuanced than they first seem.
11. AamirSIII (banned) posted on 14 Feb 2013, 07:54 0
but actually patents are very crucial for competition! u see if one company invests millions and billions of $$ in some innovation, it should not be used by any one with out royalty and if some one does it, they should face the consequences!
think of it like, u study for ur exams and prepare everyday. at the end, when its the exam day, some one just cheats from u for no reason and gets better grades from u. how would u feel then?
6. MartyK posted on 13 Feb 2013, 23:31 1
They need to make a rule, if you are not making a product with your patent, or you have no product in the market that you created with your patent, you are not allow to sue anyone.
8. roscuthiii posted on 14 Feb 2013, 01:01 0
That's what I'd like to see. No NPE's. Damn trolls.
Also, I'd like to see patents be non-transferable. The inventor/innovator passes away? The IP becomes public domain.
No matter what corporations would have the people believe, I don't consider them to be "people" too. I don't think they should be allowed to hold intellectual properties. Let the intellect that actually created the product hold the IP. Guess companies would have to give their designers & engineers a little more incentive to stay employed with them then though.