Former Sun CEO: Tech Companies Suing Over Patents Is An Act Of Desperation
from the indeed dept
Three years ago, after one of Microsoft's regular bursts of FUD claiming that Linux violated all sorts of Microsoft patents, then CEO of Sun, Jonathan Schwartz, wrote up a brilliant post knocking Microsoft down a peg by repeating a line we've said many times here ourselves: real innovative companies innovate, not litigate. Now, following Apple's patent offensive against HTC, and unencumbered of corporate responsibilities, Schwartz is sharing a bit more detail on his views over patents (found via Mathew Ingram).Schwartz tells the story of Steve Jobs calling him and threatening Sun with a patent infringement lawsuit, to which Schwartz quickly warned Jobs that going down that path would lead to a patent nuclear war, as he pointed out how recent Apple products likely infringed on Sun patents. He then tells another story about a visit from Bill Gates, with a similar threat over patents -- and a similar response, pointing out that Microsoft clearly copied certain Sun technology. In both cases, the counterweight made the threats go away. This is the whole "nuclear stockpiling" scenario -- and, as such, it creates a ton of waste. You have to keep building up those stockpiles just to make sure the other side is too scared to sue you.
But the key point is made after this, where Schwartz again makes a statement quite similar to ones we've made when a big tech company suddenly goes on the patent offensive. It's a canary-in-the-coalmine sign that something is wrong:
For a technology company, going on offense with software patents seems like an act of desperation, relying on the courts instead of the marketplace.He also highlights how these lawsuits can backfire in a big, big way:
Having watched this movie play out many times, suing a competitor typically makes them more relevant, not less. Developers I know aren't getting less interested in Google's Android platform, they're getting more interested -- Apple's actions are enhancing that interest.Indeed. It's a point that still seems missed by so many when discussing these patent lawsuits.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: jonathan schwartz
Companies: apple, microsoft, sun
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Give it a rest
Nobody is gonna give you 100 mil
so why don't you just give it a rest ?
Everybody and his brother is sick of your propaganda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give it a rest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Give it a rest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give it a rest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give it a rest
In fact, we're so sick of you that we make sure to show up every once in a while, religiousy coming back for more and more, and even taking the time to comment on the articles of yours that we've only read because we don't want any more articles!
Wait....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give it a rest
How have you been?
You speech concatenation routines are obviously learning at an adequate rate, as the latest sentences appear almost human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give it a rest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give it a rest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give it a rest
Speak for yourself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Give it a rest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents only source of Protection from Corporate Thugs
Patents--sadly--are the only protection left for smaller companies from having their IP stolen from them by larger competitors from steamrolling them.
It's very easy for the former CEO of Sun to argue innovation. The truth is that for every Sun, there are hundreds of smaller companies with innovative ideas that are taken right from them by companies the size of Sun.
If not for patents, the small companies would have no ability to protect their inventions, their intellectual properties.
Clearly no one arguing against patent protection has ever started their own firm. Had they, they would realize that start-up companies spend the majority of their time forming business alliances with the big boys--in the form of partnerships, joint ventures, or subcontractors.
The large companies very often simply "steal" the process or methodologies of the innovator with the belief that the startup doesn't have the money to protect its IP--even incases where it does have a patent.
Yes, sometimes litigation IS desperation. Yes, startups would clearly prefer to develop their product and grow it. Often, they aren't allowed to do so--NDA MOU notwithstanding. They get steamrolled. End of story.
For the handful of companies with IP being infringed upon that have the guts--and revenue--to fight back, I salute you. It aint easy. And it isn't by any means a certainty in court.
But it's better than rolling over and quitting. It's better than being taken advantage of by a Sun-sized company, whose leadership embodies the phrase "unbridled hubris."
Hang in there, start up. Fight the good fight.
Everyone else can F themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents only source of Protection from Corporate Thugs
Patents--sadly--are the only protection left for smaller companies from having their IP stolen from them by larger competitors from steamrolling them.
It's very easy for the former CEO of Sun to argue innovation. The truth is that for every Sun, there are hundreds of smaller companies with innovative ideas that are taken right from them by companies the size of Sun.
If not for patents, the small companies would have no ability to protect their inventions, their intellectual properties.
Clearly no one arguing against patent protection has ever started their own firm. Had they, they would realize that start-up companies spend the majority of their time forming business alliances with the big boys--in the form of partnerships, joint ventures, or subcontractors.
The large companies very often simply "steal" the process or methodologies of the innovator with the belief that the startup doesn't have the money to protect its IP--even incases where it does have a patent.
Yes, sometimes litigation IS desperation. Yes, startups would clearly prefer to develop their product and grow it. Often, they aren't allowed to do so--NDA MOU notwithstanding. They get steamrolled. End of story.
For the handful of companies with IP being infringed upon that have the guts--and revenue--to fight back, I salute you. It aint easy. And it isn't by any means a certainty in court.
But it's better than rolling over and quitting. It's better than being taken advantage of by a Sun-sized company, whose leadership embodies the phrase "unbridled hubris."
Hang in there, start up. Fight the good fight.
Everyone else can F themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmmm
But, it all comes back to lack of product. I know very few people who have actually worked on a sun box in the last ten years. Maybe the oracle acquisition is exactly what sun needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oversight vs. Dismissal
The point is more frequently dismissed than missed. The idea that litigating hurts brand image while promoting a product or service that is so competitive as to make the expense and time worthwhile runs counter to the notion that a lawsuit will make the offering disappear or pay licensing fees. The common conception seems to be that the increase in purchase, subscription or other revenue resulting from a favorable judgement will far outweigh the less measurable loss in reputation and short term market share. It would be nice to see some studies done on this topic, as there surely is enough data over the last decade to draw meaningful conclusions on the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems to me there is a reflection of this desperation going on in the App store as well.
I can see why Apple has taken this position, which is to clean up the ridiculous amounts of worthlessness in the App store. Though the problem with this position is that the App store is being given too much power as a "one stop shop" and not enough social interaction with the apps themselves. I'm going to diverge a little from the topic at hand to explain what I mean.
Currently the apps have ratings, but ratings often mean nothing since apps, even good apps, are being rated into oblivion or stuck at the forever mediocre position of a three star nothing. Primary reason why is because every time somebody deletes an app, they are asked to rate it on their phone. Cool idea, but absurdly useless.
Why would I delete an app that I love? How many people rate an app that they love? They don't. They use the app, which is a testament to its popularity and usefulness. Essentially, ratings are pointless unless all apps get rated. Not all apps will be rated, which means that not all of them are getting the kudos they deserve. Don't get me wrong, apps are still rated and they still have many apps that are closer to four or five stars, but that's because of people who put in the effort to rate the apps.
Then there are the comments. They are basically akin to drudging through youtube comments, except on your phone, on Apple's own commentary platform. This is aggravating because the comments can be very useful when someone puts in the time to comment. There is no way to push these comments up so that people can quickly view them and make a decision on whether they want an app or not. The whole App store system is a huge mess that needs to be fixed.
Which brings me to the point. The app store needs to be fixed, yet Apple's way of fixing it is not the way to do it. A stronger social and open app policy is how it's going to get better, not forcing out applications and thus, developers from their platform. Likewise, Apple's problem with other companies encroaching on its territory isn't going to be fixed by strong-arming the competition with ridiculous litigation marches on another company's success.
It means Apple's focus is becoming a huge mess and it needs to clean it up. Primary example is the iPad. An entirely obvious product that was destined for launch as soon as everyone laid eyes on the iPhone. I predict that the App store will be completely irrelevant on the iPad after web apps become the primary source for everyone's day-to-day needs. Watch for Apple to block webapps from Google and MS when this happens.
It all comes back to Apple and their love for control over the entire Apple ecosystem. How OS X users have gotten away with so much for so long seems stupefying to me considering how hard Apple worked to lock users in. It won't work this time. No matter how clean Apple wants things, people don't work that way, even their own die-hards.
When something else works better, people will use it. Locking people into using only what Apple blesses to be the right way is asking for trouble in the long run. It's the same thing content companies are facing, the same thing horse and buggy companies faced, the same thing that all companies that rely on lock-in to fuel their business model will face.
End tangent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems to me there is a reflection of this desperation going on in the App store as well.
But, as an outsider, it would seem to me that I would constantly be worried that Apple would decide to take the thrust of one of my apps and make it part of the "core functionality" of the iPhone/iPad, and then axe my app for replicating it.
I can't say that Google/Android are MUCH better... but at least when Google elbows in on somebody else's turf, they don't kick them out of the Android Marketplace altogether. The only notable example I can think of is a Voice-to-Text app that pre-dated Android's native v2txt, but it was using Google's servers and APIs to do it, anyway, and the guy probably made a couple hundred bucks from it at the end of the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim O'Reilly asks the right question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]