Don't blame the patent system. While it is true that patent system should be reformed/eliminated, those companies chose to take advantage of it.
Just because you can steal something when nobody is looking doesn't mean it's justified to be stolen.
Just because you can steal something when nobody is looking doesn't mean it's justified to be stolen.
But thats the point. You can blame the companies all you want, another will always be there to step up and take advantage of it. I do blame the companies, but what does it matter? Are we likely going to see an Apple Boycott? I doubt it, and changing one companies business practices will have little impact on the industry as a whole.
But the patent system - that's a single target we can all align against, whose elimination would solve these issues immediately.
> Every system has its exploits, will you blame those systems for their failures?
The system is responsible for maintaining the most beneficial incentives possible. In some cases, it is difficult or even impossible to remove those exploits, and in those cases I look to blame individuals to the maximum extent possible. But in this particular example, there is little to no apparent benefit to having (the current) patent system in place, and only perverse incentives. While it doesn't absolve the companies of their behavior, I don't see how it can be viewed as anything other than an inevitable outcome (given the system design). In that light, I may avoid Apple products for instance, but am generally uninterested in any complaint or action that isn't targeted at the root cause which for all intents and purposes can be fixed!
I absolutely blame the patent system, and it's absurd of you to suggest otherwise.
This meme needs to die.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/09/h...
"There are no statutes that put the shareholder at the top of the corporate priority list."
"Nor does the law require, as many believe, that executives and directors owe a special fiduciary duty to shareholders."
It needs to die.
Edit: And there are many, many other places you can find support for this.
Money alone makes a poor measure of business as business is there to do stuff and money is just one of the processes involved.
It's easier to maximize profitability than it is to maximize growth. This is why more companies pursue the first path.
The vast majority of single actions that a corporation takes are not mandated under some simplistic view of "maximising shareholder value".
All that has to happen is that shareholders (which are often other corporations) need to act RESPONSIBLY, and you're right, this meme will die. I expect the sun to go red giant, first, though.
I'm reminded of the phrase, Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.
What would they do, just let Google acquire even more mobile-related patents? You think Google would never sue them? Let's not be naive, the only reason Google is a good citizen with patents today is because a retaliation would make a dent on them, and they know it.
The parent is right, the problem is the patent system, which gives a disproportional power to the holder and creates these power dynamics, "eat or be eaten". There's no space for ethics or fairness there.
Google has gone as far doing an "open patent non-assertion pledge" which is far beyond just not using patents: http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/
Twitter has an Innovator Patent agreement: https://blog.twitter.com/2012/introducing-innovators-patent-...
Do you really think Google won't do the same to younger tech companies a decade from now?
What do you do after that. Leave the companies that didn't pay alone ?
There used to be a time where companies would have been doing just that. But in mobile market, there is no competition anymore, there is a very rough war. 2 market leader (Nokia, Blackberry) have basically been pushed out of the market in less than 5 years. That's like incredible speed ( I work in financial software company, it takes decades of continuous bad strategy to doom a company ). Their error of judgement was all considered minor and the correction they have done should have been more than enough to limit the losses. In addition of that, only 2 players on the market manage to make money, a lot of money.
In that climate, anything that can give you even a few months edge can be the difference between competing and becoming irrelevant.
The smartphone market is brutal - too brutal for regular competition strategies.