There are no little guys patents. That just doesn't happen. If google had built a clone of some fledgling but popular webservices then we'd... well, you tell me:
code.google.com (github and many others) buzz (twitter) orkut (friendster) Perhaps those aren't fair comparisons. So far google has avoided stamping all over a startup without at least giving them the courtesy of buying them before doing it. I'm convinced the top brass at google knows the hard to measure, mostly intangible benefit of more or less being friends with the anonymous technorati masses is worth rather a lot, and shouldn't be surrendered lightly. Tossing a million to a fledgling startup in order to avoid the stigma of taking their idea and ripping it off. NB: Even if twitter did have a patent on microblogging, and we go back in time before they had much funding, and google created buzz? Nothing would happen. Google would obliterate twitter in court if they tried anything. If one side has a vastly more capable army of lawyers than the others, that side always wins no matter how preposterous the case, especially for murky stuff like patents. That's just how the US works. In many ways its a banana republic, but many of its inhabitants have a quaint idea of tradition and will fight tooth and nail against any change. No offense intended to any readers. One of the reasons this Oracle vs. Google might get interesting is that both sides have effectively unlimited legal resources. On Aug 16, 9:46 am, Steven Herod <steven.he...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, I'm not disputing the stupidity of patents. I mean, I think if > you independently discover the same solution, there shouldn't be a > case to answer. > > But *if* Google knowingly infringed then... well... do people view it > differently? > > If Google had infringed on a "Little Guys" patent, thus robbing them > of a future... would people view it differently? > > I've thought about the lawsuit I've eventually come to the conclusion > this doesn't effect me personally in the near or medium term. If they > want to throw money at lawyers, that's their issue. Let the > billionaires have their little windmills. > > On Aug 16, 5:39 pm, B Smith-Mannschott <bsmith.o...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:27, Steven Herod <steven.he...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Out of curiosity, in all of this, we're absolutely certain no former > > > Sun engineers, fresh from patenting a concept at Sun (or working on > > > said patented code) moved to Google and reimplemented the same thing > > > the same way? > > > This is irrelevant. That's the beauty of patents. Google could have > > imported engineers from Mars with no prior knowledge of any VM > > implementation techniques. If they independently came to the solutions > > covered by Oracle's patents, they'd still have to pay. > > > So, boys and girls, before you write your next line of code, make sure > > to consult all potentially relevant patent registries. Ignorance is > > no defense. The fact that patents are written in impenetrable legalese > > is no defense. The fact that it's often unclear if a patent even > > applies until it's been tested in court is no defense. The fact that > > testing said patent in court costs more than most mortals can afford > > is also no defense. Happy hacking! > > > (Software patents make me grumpy.) > > > // Ben -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
