| That’s kind of a sweeping generalization for the few examples here and not exactly applying the scientific method, don’t you think? I hope you notice that I’m purposefully not using legal jargon because I genuinely want an honest communication where we understand each other. Jargon is not a sign of intelligence but rather of hiding. And I hope we get lots more, because I’d really like to see the nature of the problem. Not to dismiss anyone here, but remember we haven’t looked at any of the patent claims and actual references, and unless I’m missing something, no one’s stated having expertise in the patent field. When large company A licenses its 2000 patents to large company B for $470 million, and thrown in the mix are other rights, license and non-competes, that doesn’t make the news because the deal is confidential. I’ve done a lot of these, and I’m not bragging here because a lot of others on here have too, but it’s a plain fact that you wouldn’t know about these unless if you were a cxo at one of those companies or their lawyers. But you definitely would see reports about a no-name patent troll suing a startup. The bogeyman is spotted by your local tech reporter/blogger, emboldened by the fact that everyone thinks like her/him and won’t question the various biases and misinformation. Also consider that today the distinction between hardware and software is really arbitrary. It’s more about the type of instructions being implemented. Anything implemented on software can be embedded into firmware and the like. Can you imagine how arbitrary and nonsensical would be a patent system that says you can’t protect software, but if you burn it into a chip you can protect it? That's the definition of a bad law. But that’s different than say software for implementing a business process. In my view, and I may be wrong, that’s why you’ll see the CY folks make a distinction between patents for rockets versus for an online store. |