Coercion
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Oct 08, 2007 10:53 AM EDT |
As long as the contracts to "bundle" are voluntary, the regulators have no crime to prosecute. Using regulations to tell people how to run their businesses is just more coercion. Those places where Microsoft has used the fraud of FUD to coerce an OEM into signing such a contract, well, those aught to be prosecuted really hard. Oh well. So many people make the mistake of thinking they can legislate social justice that they agree with. Once that power is granted, however, it will be used to enforce things that one does _not_ agree with. The sword of justice is double-edged. Edit: Just a side-note for TC. I didn't make this a political issue. The entire point of the article is the use of political power to stop the OEMs and Microsoft from entering into contracts they both believe to be in their favor. It doesn't matter if I agree with those contracts or not, I am not a party to them. Neither are the regulators, bureaucrats and politicians. That's why the initiation of force is on the part of the regulators, and initiating force is always wrong. |
| tracyanne Oct 08, 2007 1:15 PM EDT |
The thing you forget here is that the EU, and indeed US, anti trust bodies aren't there specifically to be fair to business, they are there to ensure that the consumer has better choice. The point of these bodies is to foster, force, if necessary, competition. That means 'Using regulations to tell people how to run their businesses is just more coercion." is well within their brief. |
| bigg Oct 08, 2007 1:23 PM EDT |
> The point of these bodies is to foster, force, if necessary, competition. At least in the US, they are there only to ensure that monopoly power is not used to hurt competition in a way that hurts consumers. There is nothing illegal about being a monopolist, or even exercising monopoly power, in the US. Monopoly leads to high prices, but as much as that might hurt consumers, a company like Microsoft is doing nothing illegal so long as they do not use their monopoly as a retaliation for dealing with competitors. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 08, 2007 1:54 PM EDT |
Sadly, Anti-Trust is far more ambiguous than that, and in my reading of history is mostly used as a political tool to punish companies that don't provide enough campaign contributions. http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=... http://www.mises.org/story/436 http://www.mises.org/story/2694 |
| bigg Oct 08, 2007 4:50 PM EDT |
You open a big can of worms if you debate the foundations of antitrust law. I was only responding to Tracyanne's argument that the DOJ is charged with ensuring there is competition. I have worked on large antitrust cases, and there is generally a three-part strategy to defend yourself. "They haven't shown we have market power." "They haven't shown we used market power to hurt competition." "They haven't shown we used market power to hurt competition and that consumers are harmed because of it." I would definitely support making life tougher for Microsoft, because they have done much harm to the US economy, but I don't see any way to do so given the current law. I hate market power, but it's not always a good idea to have the government make those kinds of decisions. As far as Microsoft is concerned, my opinion is that this whole discussion is irrelevant, because Linux and Mac are good enough that even though Microsoft has a big market share, they no longer have market power. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 08, 2007 5:52 PM EDT |
> You open a big can of worms if you debate the foundations of antitrust law. I'm not here to debate. I consider them false in the extreme. Pure political machinations, just like the Federal Reserve, rationalized to the gullible as saving them from evils which are created by government in the first place. If you disagree, fine, I'm not going to debate. I think I'm right, you think you're right, we're done. |
| hkwint Oct 09, 2007 6:22 AM EDT |
Quoting:If you disagree, fine, I'm not going to debate. I think I'm right, you think you're right, we're done. Indeed, no debate, cause you're not the one enforcing or interpreting the laws over here. You're wrong, the judges in Luxembourg are right, we're done. Anyway, what I wanted to say is this: Though there might be now 'lawful' reason to unbundle Windows from PC's, the least the OEMs could and _should_ do (and if not, be forced to) is offer a reimbursement for those not wanting to buy Windows. The second thing they should do, in my opinion, is publishing the price of Windows consumers pay when buying a new PC. All I ask... And guess what? The EC are the ones I'm going to ask. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 09, 2007 1:20 PM EDT |
> the least the OEMs could and _should_ do (and if not, be forced to) is offer a reimbursement for those not wanting to buy Windows. I agree, they _should_. I am not going to put a gun to their head to do so, when I have the option to not buy their product at all. > The second thing they should do, in my opinion, is publishing the price of Windows consumers pay when buying a new PC. Quick question: what if, taking the marking kickbacks and such into the balance, it turns out the difference in their cost between providing Windows and nothing is trivial, while it costs more for them to customize a Linux/BSD offering than than just put Windows on it? Will you accept 5 Euros back? Will you pay 10 Euros more for a Linux offering preinstalled? Please don't misunderstand me, I _want_ Windows to a line-item option, just like size of HD and processor speed, price included. You and I have the same goals. > And guess what? The EC are the ones I'm going to ask. Fine. You go get your gun. I'll use my checkbook. |
| dinotrac Oct 09, 2007 1:52 PM EDT |
Bob - I actually wish the makers would publish the "to users" price of Windows. Methinks some zealots would be depressed. Although, it makes me wonder how the silly things would be priced and where the actual consumer benefit lies. Most people hate the crippleware additions, but I'll bet they don't mind the price reduction that comes with them. I'll also bet the crippleware alerts some people to products they would like to have. In either case, a no-OS requirement seems more likely to hurt consumers than help. |
| bigg Oct 09, 2007 3:39 PM EDT |
> the "to users" price of Windows I think they'd like to see the price but not the cost of Windows. My guess is that you'd have to pay a good chunk more for a computer without Windows. The price, which is the payment to Microsoft, is not really the issue. I have even recently had a salesperson for a major retail chain tell me that much. I asked how they could sell a computer at their sales price, and his answer was that (a) they can convince customers to buy more computer once they get into the store, but (b) they sell so much software to go with the computer that they'd gladly take a $50 loss per machine. Antivirus, antispyware, MS Office, photo software, plus services (like removing viruses and reinstalling operating systems). Selling Linux as the OS, you would get none of that. This is one of the occasions where I actually agree with Bob. It's just not the government's place to dictate what should be done. |
| jdixon Oct 09, 2007 5:31 PM EDT |
> As long as the contracts to "bundle" are voluntary, the regulators have no crime to prosecute. While I agree, voluntary bundling has not been the case with Microsoft in the past. As I understand it, the only way you could get an OEM agreement was to agree to bundling. Since the OEM price was less than 50% of the retail price, that didn't really qualify as voluntary. |
| tuxchick Oct 09, 2007 5:44 PM EDT |
"Since the OEM price was less than 50% of the retail price, that didn't really qualify as voluntary." In a truly competitive market, hardware vendors could say "stuff it" to terms like that. It would be more like what audio system comes with your new car, or what set of bits are included with your shiny new cordless drill? Redmond's only innovation has been making sure there is not a competitive market. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 09, 2007 10:34 PM EDT |
Quoting:the least the OEMs could and _should_ do (and if not, be forced to) is offer a reimbursement for those not wanting to buy Windows. I disagree. The very least they should do is let me buy the machine without Windows. I don't want to buy Windows and then say "pretty please with sugar on top, can I have my money back?". |
| dinotrac Oct 10, 2007 4:12 AM EDT |
> can I have my money back? Would you be just as happy to pay more for the machine without Windows if it turns out that the price of Windows is more than offset by the crippleware? |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 10, 2007 5:23 AM EDT |
I would. But for most machines it's unlikely that the cippleware pays for more than Windows, as the Acer case showed, where 53% of the bundle was software cost. |
| dinotrac Oct 10, 2007 6:08 AM EDT |
>as the Acer case showed, where 53% of the bundle was software cost. I haven't read through the evidence in that case or how the court calculated the damages, so I have no idea. |
| hkwint Oct 10, 2007 12:39 PM EDT |
Quoting:I haven't read through the evidence in that case or how the court calculated the damages, so I have no idea. You didn't? Well, you should, because I took the effort to translate that rather difficult French text and then explicitly send it to LXers frontpage for your reading pleasure! Or it should be you are allergic to stories with 'France' in the Title, or I didn't give it an attractive title... Anyway, here it is: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/ext_link.php?rid=93440 If you can read French, I advise you to read the whole story. However, this is quite a 'low' judge / court as far as I can understand, and I guess Acer will appeal. Also, it's just France, and the world is much bigger than that. The issue is, how to calculate the cost of that software. When I'm talking about the cost, I'm referring to how many they paid to the software-manufacturers like Microsoft or Nero. Not how much more expensive it is to install Linux instead. When I ask you how much a Mercedes cost, you aren't answering with how much more it costs than an equivalent BMW, do you? You don't because it doesn't make any sense in a working free market environment without monopolies. If a harddisk full of malware makes my computer cheaper, fine, install it for me, as long as I don't pay for WIndows and other software I don't use. dd -i /dev/zero will get rid of the malware later of course. Quoting:disagree. The very least they should do is let me buy the machine without Windows I was just being cautious saying 'the least they should do'; I agree there's a lot more to be done. However, a nice reimbursement-policy (which doesn't even exist at this moment!) in a place on the site where consumers can find it would be a good start. Quoting:Fine. You go get your gun. I'll use my checkbook. Since there's no reason for me to buy a new PC for a while, the current two ones I own work well, I can't use my checkbook for a while, so residing to the gun is the only thing left for me to do. |
| bigg Oct 10, 2007 1:52 PM EDT |
> However, a nice reimbursement-policy (which doesn't even exist at this moment!) in a place on the site where consumers can find it would be a good start. You have to ask why one doesn't exist. If it is because Microsoft is forcing them somehow to not have a reimbursement policy, that's one thing. Take Microsoft to court. Retailers, however, are not the monopolists. Retailing is a pretty competitive business, so I don't see what problem you are solving by forcing them to do something. I honestly don't see how this is different from regulations requiring auto dealers to make specific colors of cars available for purchase. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 10, 2007 2:07 PM EDT |
For one, cars don't come in just one color supplied by just one paint supplier, regardless of the brand or make of the car. A better analogy would be ADSL suppliers and the phone network suppliers[*]. A couple of years ago it didn't really matter who you bought your ADSL from. They all sourced it from the same (and only) network supplier around: Your local monopolist telco. Then the government intervened to open up the network market and today I can get ADSL from many companies who in turn source it from many different network suppliers. Now I actually have a choice I did not have before. Same goes for mobile phone operators[*] [*] At least here in The Netherlands and I think most of Europe. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 10, 2007 2:30 PM EDT |
> Then the government intervened to open up the network market... I think that if you dig a little, what happened was the government grants of monopoly on the carriers were renegotiated to some extent. Sadly, those same kinds of local carrier monopolies still exist in the US, regardless of the allusions to "deregulation" and "free market". Imagine for a moment how vigorous the environment would be without those monopoly grants creating such huge, artificial, barriers to entry of competition. But that brings us right back to the difference between Capitalism and Merchantilism. Government steps up to proclaim how their latest regulations are going to save us from the very problems that earlier regulations caused, without actually repealing those earlier regulations. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 10, 2007 3:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:I think that if you dig a little, what happened was the government grants of monopoly on the carriers were renegotiated to some extent. Actually, The Dutch telco (KPN) was already privatized by that time (happened in 1989). They didn't have a government granted monopoly at that time. Just a natural monopoly because they owned the vast bulk of the wires. Since privatization didn't open up the market enough, there was an intervention (happened all across europe). |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 10, 2007 4:06 PM EDT |
> Just a natural monopoly because they owned the vast bulk of the wires. Because they had been built by a state, monopoly, telco. Right. I leave my case well demonstrated. Too bad the telco was "privatized". Far more efficient for a government agency is to hold an auction to sell everything off. That way it's not just cronies who end up with the new, old, department. |
| bigg Oct 10, 2007 5:03 PM EDT |
> For one, cars don't come in just one color supplied by just one paint supplier, regardless of the brand or make of the car. The market you are talking about is the market for computer hardware. It is *possible* for computer retailers to sell boxes with no OS, with Linux, with Windows, or with any other OS combination. They are *choosing* not to sell them. There is nothing that prevents retailers from selling Windows-free boxes. In fact, some do, like Dell. Car companies find it in their best interest to sell many colors of cars. Computer retailers find it in their best interest to not offer many choices. The only reason for government intervention would be if something were preventing car companies from offering specific colors or hardware companies from offering computers without Windows. > A better analogy would be ADSL suppliers and the phone network suppliers[*]. A couple of years ago it didn't really matter who you bought your ADSL from. They all sourced it from the same (and only) network supplier around: Your local monopolist telco. I don't think so. There are many suppliers of computer hardware. There's only one supplier of Windows, but you are saying you don't want Windows anyway, so it should not matter that Microsoft is the only supplier. You want just a piece of hardware, nothing installed on top of it, and I would be hard pressed to think of a market that is more competitive than the computer hardware market. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 10, 2007 9:27 PM EDT |
Quoting:There is nothing that prevents retailers from selling Windows-free boxes. Microsoft's monopoly is. And there is extensive documentation about that in all the court cases about Microsoft's monopoly. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 11, 2007 4:49 AM EDT |
> Microsoft's monopoly is. I disagree. Microsoft's OEM contracts, yes. But machines without Windows have always been available. What the mass marked demand has been is Windows pre-installed. I don't understand why that is so hard for some here to understand. The retail PC with Windows has been convenient, available, cheaper than the specialty stores where OS options have always existed, and easily wiped clean. So even the majority of non-Windows users have had little reason (beyond occasional hardware drivers) for getting their knickers in a twist about what OS is preinstalled. It is because of the pervasive demand for Windows preinstalled that the sole-source contracts with Microsoft were attractive to OEMs and resellers. As that demand shifts, retailers and OEMs will also shift their contracts. Dell seems to be doing so (with bait-and-switch a possibility), HP is making those noises, who knows? I do not disagree that Microsoft has done awful, nasty, petty little things to try to disable the competition. Did you know that the car manufacturers change the threads on their oil filters every once in a while to try to make 3rd party oil filters "unreliable"? Same thing. |
| bigg Oct 11, 2007 5:06 AM EDT |
> Microsoft's monopoly is. And there is extensive documentation about that in all the court cases about Microsoft's monopoly. To add to Bob's response, if Microsoft is the one preventing the sale of machines without Windows (we can debate whether that is the case) the most that should be done is to punish Microsoft. Forcing hardware sellers to change their practices is punishing one of the victims of Microsoft's actions. I believe Microsoft has broken the law in the past (and the US courts have agreed). In principle it is possible to impose restrictions on Microsoft to fix the problem, though that might be hard to do in practice. I do not agree with fixing the problems by going after companies that sell computers. We could also "fix" the Microsoft monopoly problem by making the use of Windows illegal, but the ultimate goal is to protect consumers, not to reduce Microsoft's market share. |
| hkwint Oct 11, 2007 5:16 AM EDT |
Quoting:Did you know that the car manufacturers change the threads on their oil filters every once in a while to try to make 3rd party oil filters "unreliable"? Same thing. Sure that and tons of other comparisons looks like the same thing, but in fact they are not, because in the case of products other than software, there's no network-effect; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effects#Software In the case of those 3rd party oil filters (or printer manufacturers changing the ink to prevent 3rd party filling or so), this means the brand 95% of the people are using doesn't affect my experience with my 3rd-party oil filter or brand oil filter. However, in the case of Office products, the brand 95% of the people are using in fact _does_ matter with regards to my experiences with my own Office product. Therefore, I always have difficulty in those comparisons like car radio's etc, they neglect the network effect. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 11, 2007 5:19 AM EDT |
> but the ultimate goal is to protect consumers, not to reduce Microsoft's market share. I'm not going to put envy out of the realm of possibility for some people, neither do I discount Microsoft's lack of pre-prosecution campaign contributions and overt lobbying efforts as motivations in the government prosecution. "Look at those balance sheets, Bob. We could sue them for _billions_! It would make our department look really important!" |
| dinotrac Oct 11, 2007 5:26 AM EDT |
> In principle it is possible to impose restrictions on Microsoft to fix the problem, though that might be hard to do in practice. Restrictions (of the wrist slap variety) were placed on Microsoft and are about to end if they haven't already. That will make Microsoft once more a "good citizen", having done its mandated pennance. |
| jdixon Oct 11, 2007 5:38 AM EDT |
> We could also "fix" the Microsoft monopoly problem by making the use of Windows illegal, but the ultimate goal is to protect consumers, not to reduce Microsoft's market share. Or, we could do something really drastic and original. We don't allow a convicted burglar to keep his lockpicks. We could simply not allow a convicted monopolist to keep his tools of monopoly. Take the copyrights for Windows and Office away from Microsoft and release them into the public domain. That would establish a level playing field. |
| bigg Oct 11, 2007 5:58 AM EDT |
> Take the copyrights for Windows and Office away from Microsoft and release them into the public domain. That would establish a level playing field. That would do the trick. Knowing your political leanings, I doubt you are saying that seriously, though, as it would be a Hugo Chavez-style solution. I did support breaking up Microsoft. I also support restrictions against silly things like bundling a browser with the operating system. If IE were not bundled with Windows, I would probably be still be using Windows. > Restrictions (of the wrist slap variety) were placed on Microsoft and are about to end if they haven't already. I know an individual who played a prominent role in the Microsoft litigation. The DOJ's primary goal was to get a court to say Microsoft is a monopolist, and you know well the importance of that. The wrist slap might go away, but the findings of the courts will not. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 11, 2007 5:59 AM EDT |
> Take the copyrights for Windows and Office away from Microsoft and release them into the public domain. That would establish a level playing field. You forgot all of Microsoft's existing patents. That would be fun just from the standpoint of watching as Microsoft pulled out all the stops to defend them. |
| jdixon Oct 11, 2007 6:05 AM EDT |
> I doubt you are saying that seriously, though, as it would be a Hugo Chavez-style solution. Not as an initial penalty, no. However, Microsoft has now been convicted of abusing their monopoly. They've essentially been the equivalent of put on probation. Any further abuse of their monopoly position should result in further penalties, and removing their copyrights should be one of the options. I didn't use the analogy of a burglar and his lockpicks lightly. |
| dinotrac Oct 11, 2007 6:28 AM EDT |
>and you know well the importance of that. I have commented on it in these fora many times. The real damage to Microsoft was not the DOJ action, but the effect of res judicata on umpteen civil actions. There is a reason that Microsoft has been paying out hundreds of millions -- Yikes!! I think it's into the billions now, isn't it? -- in agreements with assorted companies. |
| bigg Oct 11, 2007 7:35 AM EDT |
> Any further abuse of their monopoly position should result in further penalties, and removing their copyrights should be one of the options. That makes sense. If you're hunting bald eagles, they can confiscate your pickup and gun, so why not your intellectual property in the case of Microsoft. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 11, 2007 7:52 AM EDT |
I don't like hurting a company which has done no actual harm, so I'm not advocating that Microsoft _should_ be punished. That said, if they are convicted I think having their patents expire early is an excellent punishment. It directly harms no one at all, not even the company so "punished", it throws things into the public domain, and it creates a situation where they must again innovate to remain competitive instead of sitting on their big, soft, well-padded patent portfolio. |
| hkwint Oct 11, 2007 10:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:You forgot all of Microsoft's existing patents. Exactly, therefore it would make more sens to first release their patents to the public domain, or simply qualify all software patents invalid (people who know me, know I propagate the second). In the case only Microsoft 'loses' its patents, the playing field is not leveled at all. In the case _ALL_ software patents are declared invalid, actually no harm is done to Microsoft (the 'loss of IP' is compensated by the fact that MS won't have to pay to Eolas-like companies anymore), the only harm is to lawyers. This also touches the recent remarks of Ballmer about a 'conservative' reform of the patent system instead of a 'progressive' reform. It seems Microsoft is scared to death of a patent reform. However, they don't have to be, since it would only save them money for juridical costs (of course, Preston, Gates & Co is the one who losses). The only real 'damage' they have, is everybody could use the implementations described in their patents, but most of them cover ideas, not implementations. That's why I propagate a German-like copyright system, which also covers 'fuzzy' copies of for example code (basically, a broad definition of the term copyright). If you'd ask me, people like the developers and users of Mono and Samba would be better of with the abolishment of software-patents, then they would be in the case Microsoft releases Windows code in the public domain, since I understood the Windows-code is unusable junk for a large part anyway. The reason this is all not likely to happen, can be seen in Preston, Gates and co: Lawyer-firms are closely related to lobby-firms, and they don't want to lose their money (that's exactly what happened in the EuroParliament: The commission that decided about software-patents was mainly filled with people with a juridical background and juridical friends). |
| dinotrac Oct 11, 2007 10:12 AM EDT |
Entertaining thread. I guess you people would favor captial punishment for litterbugs, too. |
| hkwint Oct 11, 2007 10:24 AM EDT |
And how is abolishment of software patents a punishment, when you're not a lawyer, lobbyist or politician 'making nice trips'? (And please remember, over 95% of the people do not belong to that category). |
| dinotrac Oct 11, 2007 11:10 AM EDT |
>And how is abolishment of software patents a punishment, Abolishment of patents is not a punishment. Taking the patents from a specific company without abolishing them would be punishment. |
| jdixon Oct 11, 2007 11:14 AM EDT |
> I guess you people would favor captial punishment for litterbugs, too. How much litter and how many times, Dino? Suppose the "litter" were radioactive waste? Would that make a difference? Microsoft's monopoly has not been remedied by the agreements. Microsoft's behavior has been, but to date they've shown no signs that they've actually changed. If they go back to their old abuse of monopoly ways once the agreements expire, at what point is it appropriate to take the tools of their monopoly away from them? |
| dinotrac Oct 11, 2007 11:27 AM EDT |
>If they go back to their old abuse of monopoly ways once the agreements expire, at what point is it appropriate to take the tools of their monopoly away from them? At the point a new action has been taken against them and they have lost again. Obviously, surrendering some or all of their patent portfolio could enter into settlement negotiations. |
| jdixon Oct 11, 2007 11:39 AM EDT |
> At the point a new action has been taken against them and they have lost again. I don't think anyone here is arguing that due process be ignored. Merely what penalties would be appropriate. |
| dinotrac Oct 11, 2007 11:55 AM EDT |
>I don't think anyone here is arguing that due process be ignored. I'm not so sure. We seem to have a little desire for eternal punishment. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 11, 2007 1:05 PM EDT |
Quoting:However, they don't have to be, since it would only save them money for juridical costs. There would be fallout. Microsoft (and a lot of other companies) would have to explain to their shareholders why the company invested XXX millions into buying up and registering patents and how all those umpteen millions have now gone up in smoke. The patent system favours the big guys. MS pays out millions to people bringing patent suits but it also gets many millions from licensing and suing themselves. Contrast that to the little guy who hold no patents or just a few. They still have to pay out massively to other patent holders but have very little chance of making money off their own patents. Unless they are lucky enough to have a killer patent and a target with wads of cash (e.g. Eolas). Software patents make the big player stronger at the expense of the little guys. Scatch "software" because it holds true for nearly all patents related to technology (and that's most of them). Technology is simply moving too fast. What's innovative and high-end now is food for "Basic Engineering Principles 101" a few years from now. If this goes on then it won't be long before things we consider (by then) to be basic, to have another 10 years of patent protection in them. How are you going to innovate if you need to license 600 different patents just to get the basics done? Parent reform: Scrap software patents and reduce the length of all other patents to five years. That's what I'd like to see. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 11, 2007 1:18 PM EDT |
> ...explain to their shareholders why the company invested XXX millions into buying up and registering patents and how all those umpteen millions have now gone up in smoke. Actually, this is one of my talking points for anarchy. So long as Congress is in session, the legal landscape can change on a whim. Ok, ~268 whims. It retards long-term investment and promotes the boom-bust cycle and "rent seeking" by vested interests. But back on topic, they explain it the same way they explain the explosion of unforcasted costs to comply with SarbOx: It's not our fault, they changed the laws on us. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 11, 2007 1:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:It's not our fault, they changed the laws on us. That's a bit hard to say to your shareholders if you welcome or encourage the abolishment of software patents. Now that umpteen millions have been invested, they just have to defend them. Unless they find a very good reason not to (e.g. when they are paying out more then they are generating revenue. Something that's unlikely for a big company with lots of patents). |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 11, 2007 5:03 PM EDT |
> > It's not our fault, they changed the laws on us.
> That's a bit hard to say to your shareholders if you welcome or encourage the abolishment of software patents. Oh, I don't think Microsoft would do anything of the sort, which is why I wrote before, ... [me] That would be fun just from the standpoint of watching as Microsoft pulled out all the stops to defend them. $40B (or is it $50B by now?) is a LOT of stops. |
| dinotrac Oct 11, 2007 5:53 PM EDT |
>Software patents make the big player stronger at the expense of the little guys. Patents actually level the playing field in many cases, giving little guys a weapon against the big guys. Does anybody remember the first big patent news involving Microsoft? They were sued by Stac Electronics for infringing their disk compression patents. They lost and paid out a rather tidy (for the time) sum in the neighborhood of $50,000,000. Or the $9,000,000 they were ordered to pay to a Guatemalen inventor in 2005? Just two months ago, Microsoft negotiated to settle a $500 million patent infringement judgment in favor of that IT heavyweight Eolas Technologies. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 11, 2007 9:44 PM EDT |
Quoting:Patents actually level the playing field in many cases, giving little guys a weapon against the big guys. There's a difference between a single individual and a group of individuals[*]. Software patents may benefit a single individual against a big corporation, but if you looks at the average of a group of individuals against that same corporation it may not be a benefit at all. I.e. Microsoft pays 9 million to an individual inventor, but a group of 100.000 individuals working in the same field pay on average $500 to Microsoft for various hoarded patents in that field. The individual wins out but the group on a whole looses out by $41 million. [*] For example, when you meet an individual, it's usually a rational and pretty smart being. But people as a group tend to be rather stupid. |
| dinotrac Oct 12, 2007 3:04 AM EDT |
Sander - Huh? I didn't follow your post at all. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 12, 2007 4:14 AM EDT |
Dino, I read Sander as putting numbers on what I've been saying is an attribute of such grants of monopoly that patents represent: focused benefits and distributed costs. That is the primary reason arguing against patents is difficult. It's easy to find the winners, even while we all lose. |
| hkwint Oct 12, 2007 4:40 AM EDT |
Indeed, research of the university UNU-MERIT shows software patents stifle IT-innovation. |
| dinotrac Oct 12, 2007 5:02 AM EDT |
>Indeed, research of the university UNU-MERIT shows software patents stifle IT-innovation. It's hard to know what to make of such a study though, because, even if one presumes it is possible for some piece of software to meet the novelty, etc, requirements for a patent, the vast majority of software patents do not. As the US Supreme Court correctly noted, using an obviousness test that essentially presumes practitioners to be dolts has a negative impact on innovation, not to mention plain old day-to-day work. |
| gus3 Oct 19, 2007 3:15 AM EDT |
dino, I think Sander is talking about an economy of scale. The more employees a patent violator has, the easier it is to "spread out" the patent violation fine through corporate expenses. In other words, once a company gets to be so big, patent violations become "business as usual," something to be figured into the annual budget. |
| dinotrac Oct 19, 2007 7:28 AM EDT |
>In other words, once a company gets to be so big, patent violations become "business as usual," something to be figured into the annual budget. Umm...no. Several things happen: As the company becomes bigger, the scale of the infringement tends to increase and the penalties with it. If patent violations become "business as usual", the company either knowingly infringes or is recklessly indifferent to infringement. In that case, a court can award treble damages. Not fun to pay three times what something should have cost you. Bigger companies tend to have a messier time defending themselves. That means very expensive attorney's fees. Worse, in a case of willful infringement, they can be ordered to pay the other side's very expensive attorney's fees. Finally, in addition to damages, the court can order the company to stop its infringing activities, with the potential for significant disruption. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 19, 2007 1:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:I think Sander is talking about an economy of scale. The more employees a patent violator has, the easier it is to "spread out" the patent violation fine through corporate expenses. No. Bob had a better interpretation of my point: The benefits of the patent system are concentrated on the big corporations with large portfolios. It's a tax on the rest of us. The occasional lone individual that does benefit from a worthwhile patent does not make up for the taxation on the rest of the individuals. On average, the group of individuals is still worse off. |
| NoDough Oct 19, 2007 1:46 PM EDT |
Quoting:The benefits of the patent system are concentrated on the big corporations with large portfolios.Agreed. And, sadly, that's directly inverse to the system's intended purpose. What is it they say about unintended consequences? |
| bigg Oct 19, 2007 2:10 PM EDT |
Speaking of patents, one of the most recent Nobel Prize winners has actually been doing work on software patents and intellectual property more generally (one paper was linked on Slashdot I think). http://www.researchoninnovation.org/WordPress/?p=83 |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 19, 2007 3:38 PM EDT |
> What is it they say about unintended consequences? http://www.mises.org/econsense/ch7.asp Making Economic Sense by Murray Rothbard The Consequences of Human Action: Intended or Unintended? Chapter 7 And... http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae10_2_5.pdf "Unintended Consequences" In the vernacular is nothing but a cop out, a deus ex machina that disguises the true source of failed public policy - a refusal to appreciate the full implications and ramifications of public policy initiatives for human action. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!