From the Guardian. Short version: Google needs patents and may just sell off the hardware business; but maybe not. Maybe Google wants to try to be Apple, doing integrated hardware and software. GooMoto could make some cool devices. Might not be as nice as Apple (which is still the best, by far) but some people might sacrifice ease-of-use if they can get greater control over their device. (Gillmor is one of them.) Downside: It’s bad news for HTC, Samsung and other Android licensees, which now may migrate more to Windows Phone 7. Upside: MOTO makes set-top boxes, and Google wants to be in TV. Bottom line: Patents suck, and it’s a shame that companies now must spend billions just to arm themselves against each other.
Good Dan Gillmor piece on Google-Motorola
Posted by Dan Lyons on Aug 16, 2011 in Tech | 2 comments
You say that patents suck but without it, would any tech company invest in developing new technologies?
Patents are, in principle, a great thing. They protect those who think different and come up with new ways to solve problems.
What sucks about patents these days is the lack of due diligence performed by the patent office. Based upon my own experience, the patent examiners grant patents that clearly do not pass the novelty or non-obviousness tests. I’m not sure if graft is involved or if overworked patent examiners are just passing the buck to the court system.
The result, however, is an overwhelming glut of worthless patents that degrade the value of truly worthwhile patents.
In my opinion, there need to be strong disincentives for filing and approving worthless patents. If a patent is approved and later invalidated, the examiner in question should be fired and the patent recipient should pay a stiff penalty.