Bird Strike DEM Modeling Impact Dynamics & Material Failure Nonlinear Impact Modeling Bulk Mixing DEM Modeling

Google-Motorola, let the Patent Arms Race Begin!

In a recent article entitled Google-Motorola Deal Highlights Patent Arms Race By Peter Svensson, AP Technology Writer on Manufacturing.Net - August 18, 2011, we find another discussion on how companies such as Google don't think that patents are valid property in and of themselves.  The core belief is that companies, and by the same logic, individual inventors or small entities, that don't build the products using the technology for which they own patents should basically have no rights in using that patent property to protect their inventions.

Patents are property thus, one can legitimately and legally own them without regard to any product being produced.  The patent itself is a product.  The rights given the owner of the patent (property) are only the right to exclude others from the use of said property.  It is clear by the negative spin on the ownership of patent property that certain companies wish to exclude themselves from the need to license the rightful property of others.

Claims of patent invalidity have a method already in place to handle them without the need for the proposed "patent reform" again, companies want to be exempt from that as well.  There are many who claim that "worthless" or "frivolous" patents are being awarded too often especially in the software world where many think that software shouldn't be patentable.  They could be referring to patents such as this one US7,912,915 from Google themselves.  They found it highly important to patent what they call "Google Doodles" spending 10 years in the process.  Or one can look at this one from just a week ago US7,996,328 where Google patents electronic shipping notifications via email.  Email notification patentable?  Innovation?

There is also a common practice of cross licensing between two competing companies, the "real" kind that make "stuff" which is one solution to the "mutually assured destruction" that is presented by the two companies portfolio's.  This is no different than a company licensing a individuals patent property.  So, in the end there is nothing that really needs fixing in the patent system in regards to this.  Instead, there is a clear intent to manipulate the patent system in favor of companies wishing to benefit themselves to the exclusion of others.  This is not what the patent system is or should be for.

Thursday the 13th. Copyright © 2008-2021 Knowvention, LLC All Rights Reserved - Templates Joomla