[namespace]

Interesting times. There is no doubt that the legal punches thrown at Android have been anti-competitive and kills innovation instead of what there were meant to protect. For example reportedly Microsoft earns more from Android than selling Windows phone: http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-is-making-2bn-a-year-on-andro.... If the patents were that useful for innovation, Microsoft would have been ahead of Google by miles.

[rajeevk]

What kind of innovation do you see in Android? It has been almost being copy-pasted. Google copied everything, from kernel (Linux) to UI design and trying to make lot of money from it and expecting others not to sue.

EDIT: The replies of this comment say that the others (Apple etc) are too copying and copying kernel in not wrong. Well, I did not say that copying is wrong. What I mean is that copying is NOT innovation.

[gtaylor]

To be fair, Apple has done its fair share of copying the last few years, too. They all do it now. Singling out one is pretty silly these days.

Also, Android didn't copy the kernel. They adopted it, modified it, and abide by the license (and have even started contributing changes upstream).

[namespace]

There is nothing wrong with "copying" kernel. This is what the open source is aimed at: Infectious growth. In fact that was the right and smart thing to do.

[Datsundere]

I think the correct term you're looking for is 'forked'. Which inevitably brings forth the discussion of dongling the fork, or is it forking the dongle?

BTW, widgets were original to android in regards to apple, were they not?

[nivla]

>have been anti-competitive.

Although it seems so now, keep in mind Google bid for these patents themselves and lost. They were also offered to join the Rockstar consortium, which they declined. Unfair definitely, but not enough to qualify as anti-competitive under a black & white banner.

[mikhailt]

A serious question, what was the patent system created for?

> ... gives Congress the power "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8).

From what I read based on what some legal experts simplified but again, "it's the Internet" but basically, they considered patents as legal rights to monopolize on such innovations.

So, based on that, exactly how is it anti-competitive to disallow other companies to use the said patents unless they agree to pay for the rights?

[stormbrew]

It's by definition anti-competitive. Its entire purpose is to reduce competition so that the inventor can profit from it. Even if inventors were required to license their inventions to other people for a truly fair rate it would still be anti-competitive since it would increase the costs (and thus barrier to entry) of competition. The inventor still enjoys a significant advantage in the market (not having to pay the license fees).

It's fair to ask if it's bad for there to be an official form of anti-competition, but call a spade a spade.

[jasonlotito]

One could easily make the argument in this context by this part: "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

The argument here is that the only ones that should benefit from this are the authors and inventors, and they and only they are granted "exclusive" rights. No one else. In fact, I'd find that fair. The implication being you can't sell or transfer those rights to someone, and those rights are only granted to the authors and inventors.

Which leads us to this question:

"exactly how is it anti-competitive to disallow other companies to use the said patents unless they agree to pay for the rights?"

It's not, as long as the one doing the license is the author or inventor. One should not be able to transfer those rights to a third party, as it's explicitly an exclusive right.

[X-Istence]

Except that Microsoft innovated, got there first and clearly has something valuable if other companies are using it's IP (self evident since companies are paying them licensing fees).

[pyre]

> self evident since companies are paying them licensing fees

Not necessarily. Companies could be paying them licensing fees because it's less costly then a protracted court battle with an unknown outcome.

[codygman]

The reason for paying licensing fees doesn't have to be that Micro$oft has something valuable, it could very well be they are afraid of legal repercussions.