Hacker News Reader

Comment by funkah | Hacker News Reader

I keep seeing this idea that Apple is filing patent lawsuits because they are afraid of their competitors and their business is on the verge of collapse, and I just don't understand. Their business is better than ever, breaking records every quarter. I think maybe people are reading too much into market-share figures, or projecting their wishes onto reality.

Also, did Google not just try to buy the Nortel patents? Weren't they in an auction with the same companies called out in this blog post? I wonder if we would be reading this post at all, had Google won that auction.

Ultimately, patents are not good for our industry, obviously. And if Google manages to bring about change in this area, we will no doubt be the better for it. But it just seems a little funny to strike this "patents are bad" pose when they just bid like $3B for a bunch of 'em.

View on HN

I don't think Google's suggestion that patents are bad is at odds with them trying to buy $3B of them.

Whether or not they like patents, they still have to deal with the effects. They claim that they tried to buy the patents as a defensive move to keep them out of the hands of their competitors.

>I keep seeing this idea that Apple is filing patent lawsuits because they are afraid of their competitors and their business is on the verge of collapse, and I just don't understand.

Noone's saying their business is on the verge of collapse, just that Android is a strong competitor.

They banned Google Voice (eventually relenting), Google Latitude, and even apps with references to "Android" in the past (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/app-store-craziness-banning-...)... doesn't seem weird they'd use the legal system to strike at their competitor as well.

I play board games, many of which have an auction mechanic. It's not uncommon in such a game to bid on something to prevent everyone else from getting it and using it against you. Why wouldn't the same thing happen in the real world, where real money is at stake?

Had Google won the auction, then we likely wouldn't be having this discussion. Google would have had a huge stockpile of patents with which to countersue Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle, the result being a cross-licensing deal where everyone goes back to actually making things. Google's loss created a mismatch in power, so the cartel can sue them without fear of reprisal. It's this mismatch that has led to the current situation of companies competing in the courts instead of the marketplace. Just think: if Microsoft managed to impose another $15/unit licensing fee on Android, would it even be worth their while to try to compete? Why bother with WP7, which is never likely to be the market leader, when you can make more money leeching off Android?

Because ultimately Android is still controlled by an arch enemy? And there is still Apple's iOS rake in all the dough?

google doesn't sue to hinder competition. At Apple and MS its a regualar practice. And yes MS is making more money off of Android than WP7

Countries can argue that nuclear weapons are bad and call for disarmament, but it's not contradictory to stockpile them when there's the credible threat of other countries fighting with these weapons.

Apple is doing just fine but that doesn't mean they've laid off their legal department. As long as there is money to be made here, they're going to do something about it. That's business.

I'm not saying your conclusions are wrong, but Microsoft is also setting records every quarter, yet I think many would be skeptical about microsoft's future.

They bid for them defensively as dictated by a broken patent system. The problem is that all their competitors joined together to block them from buying the patents so they could tax Android.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com