Hacker News Reader

Comment by joelrunyon | Hacker News Reader

Does anybody else feel all the tech giants standing around with their patents in hand is like all the characters standing around with guns like at the end of Reservoir Dogs?

"Nobody innovate or we'll shoot!"

It's intriguing at first, but you can only keep it up so long before the plot line gets annoying because no one is doing anything (or innovating), or someone gets shot.

View on HN

IIRC, big companies used to claim they were gathering these patents to _prevent_ this situation from happening, using a similar logic to that of hoarding nuclear weapons to mutually assured destruction.

But it appears that something in the balance has changed, and I'm not really sure what. Are the lawyers just doing a bad job of agreeing on the licensing fees (i.e. penalty for having less cross-targeted bombs for a given opponent)? It's hard to know what to make of it all, putting myself in the shoes of an exec at one of these large companies. At least when I was at MSFT, we used to worry about this thing called "bad press" around lawsuits of this kind...

What changed was that Nokia was on the rocks, so they launched their missiles. And, as is the way with mutually assured destruction scenarios, Apple responded, and everyone else got dragged in one way or another.

Yep, MAD only works until the first guy pulls the trigger.

Ref: World War One

But it appears that something in the balance has changed, and I'm not really sure what.

Google are trying to stop software patents by actually using the ones they have? Force a meltdown?

I think the destabilizing thing was how long Google _didn't_ play the MAD game. So Apple went on the warpath feeling safe. But Google militarized really fast.

let's be clear. this war is apple's doing, not "all the tech giants".

Nokia and Motorola pulled the trigger. Everyone is responsible.

That's a separate battle. This is a new round in the war Steve Jobs started to destroy Android.

Doesn't matter what round it is, or ultimately who started. They are all acting like spoiled children.

They're acting like big companies with huge legal war chests that will do what it takes to succeed in a very lucrative and important market.

The broken patent system has created all the wrong incentives here. Hopefully lawmakers will take notice and fix the problem and we won't have to go on bickering about the symptoms.

Motorola only pulled the trigger after being approached by Apple and a lawsuit from Apple was imminent (as in days away). Filing first allows pick of the location & other benefits.

I disagree. It's more about money than innovation. The non-copy arrangement that Microsoft & Apple have led to Windows Phone which I think most would agree is the most unique and maybe the most innovative platform. Would consumers be better off if Microsoft could have puked out an iOS/Android clone instead? Arguably Windows Phone as we know it may be suffering commercially because it is a departure from the iOS/Android model. So in this case is being less innovative actually a smarter business move? If so that's really troubling. We are not seeing small companies getting stomped out over patents but instead giants fighting over who gets the most money selling essentially the same basic products.

What non-copy arrangement? AFAIK Microsoft and Apple have fairly broad cross-licensing agreements, and that some of the items that Apple has been suing Android for infringing are implemented on Windows Phone as well.

It seems to have emerged that:

1) Microsoft has a cross license deal with Apple. Samsung's license 'offer' from Apple included discounts when using licensed OSes and the example was MS provided OSes.

2) Said deal include terms requiring Microsoft to make products that aren't too similar to the iPhone although I'm not sure how that is defined.

> Would consumers be better off if Microsoft could have puked out an iOS/Android clone instead?

No, and I'll tell you why: if Microsoft felt they could have made an UI that followed the new design language that is about to become canonical for smart phones, more consumers would be tempted to buy Windows Phones. If Microsoft were to make a comeback and become a dominant player it is 100% guaranteed to result in zero innovation. Microsoft NEVER innovates when in a dominant position.

So in a sense, Microsoft condemning themselves to irrelevance by having to desperately invent new designs that don't actually work IS good for the consumer. In a roundabout sort of way.

Not to forget that Microsoft is pushing metro everywhere. If somehow Windows 8 becomes a success with the consumer market, I see limitless demand for Metro tablets and consequently metro phones.

Incorrect. Microsoft invented XmlHttpRequest during the time that they had the dominant browser.

They also brought Windows from 95 to NT, 2000 and 7, with plenty of innovation, during the time that they had the dominant operating system.

Yeah, that really moved the goalposts further afield.

Microsoft invented XmlHttpRequest during the time that they had the dominant browser.

Ability to make HTTP requests from JavaScript can hardly be described as innovation -- all the other languages had this far earlier. The innovation, though, was using XHR to create highly dynamic web applications without refreshing page, and it wasn't Microsoft that started doing it at large scale.

That "standing around with guns" is called a Mexican standoff: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MexicanStandoff , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Standoff

There is a phrase common in patent law called "dancing with the gorilla." This is what we are seeing. It is not limited to just software tech patents, this occurs in other areas as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com