From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
I tend to agree with Bob on this, however, there is one safeguard mechanism:
"the search giant will need to tread carefully to make sure its tense
relations with antitrust regulators don't get any worse, attorneys say." ( a
quote from one of the innumerable, almost inavoidable invitations I get to
sign up for an alert service.
Anti-trust regulators is what broke the old glassware cartel, the
incandescent lamp cartel, the vacuum tube cartel (part of the lamp cartel),
split the well-functioning Bell System. I think the first result of the 1916
legislation was to split Hercules Powder from Dupont. I think that some
airline business was also affected, but splitting up is not necessarly for
the common good. It is much more important to have public accountability.
Somehow I do not see that appearing in the near future in US politics, but
who am I to play the clever on US politics.
To us, the US is the country of litigation. How many inches in the old New
York Phone directory is reserved for legal services?
I make my living from analysing patent situations, and my analyses are
valuable tools for management to act upon. However, the tool consisting in
paying off even unfounded claims is more efficient.
Bob Olhsson wrote:
> A friend of mine predicted this a decade ago. He told me the tech industry
> was walking all over each other's patents and that as they consolidated
> there would be a patent war exactly like the one that resulted in RCA's
> monopoly of the late 1920s-early '50s.
> The problem is that better ideas (or better music) can't obtain the
> necessary investment to become fully realized and visible without patent
> copyright protection. I think all intellectual property arguments come
> to "I deserve protection for my intellectual property but you don't
> protection for yours because needing to pay you will make my business less
> profitable." This is why I call arguments against copyright "selective
> socialism." And people's rationalizations for not paying are endless. As
> Google, I can't imagine any cell phone that doesn't walk all over both
> Motorola and Nokia patents because Motorola invented the portable phone
> Nokia invented the cell. This isn't rocket science and shouldn't be much
> a surprise.
> Make no mistake about the fact that Google, Apple and Microsoft's
> model" all along has been a David Sarnoff style patent monopoly. I can
> assure you that ownership of "content" is also very much in their
> as the mass-looting they've enabled devalues the existing media publishing
> industries to the point that they can be acquired for little or nothing.
> The only thing protecting individuals from these monopolies will be the
> copyright and patent laws. They really ought to be strengthened but the
> best government money can buy has been lobbied for weakening them by
> Valley investment bankers for over a decade using endless tales of "Evil
> Disney" and "copyright monopolies."
> Hopefully people will begin to wake up to the fact that these folks are
> really not our friends.
> Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
> Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
> Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
> 615.562.4346 http://www.bobolhsson.com http://audiomastery.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 5:23 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Morning reading: One take on patents, somewhat related
> to discussions we've had on copyrights, plus a take on copyrights
> others would argue that the patent system is fine, it ain't broke, that
> whole point is for closely-related ideas to fight it out in courts, with
> patents being the guide for those deciding the cases.
> More directly related to what we discuss on this list:
> -- Tom Fine