<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Eyeing InterDigital&#8217;s Treasure Chest Of Mobile Patents</title>
	<atom:link href="http://paidcontent.org/2011/07/20/419-google-eyeing-interdigitals-treasure-chest-of-mobile-patents/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://paidcontent.org/2011/07/20/419-google-eyeing-interdigitals-treasure-chest-of-mobile-patents/</link>
	<description>The economics of digital content</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:31:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dirk</title>
		<link>http://paidcontent.org/2011/07/20/419-google-eyeing-interdigitals-treasure-chest-of-mobile-patents/#comment-84623</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dirk]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 13:20:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paidcontent.wp.gostage.it/2011/07/20/419-google-eyeing-interdigitals-treasure-chest-of-mobile-patents/#comment-84623</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Not shure Google really want to stock up patents. This is not like some app developer getting sued by Lodsys where the (costs of) legal and patent system and intimidation forced some of them to pay, even where the merits of the claim are at least very doubtful.

Attacking Google in court over patents is a risky business. You probably start with loosing a number of your patent claims because of prior art was found. And anyone familiar with the history of computing knows that software patents without prior art are very unlikely. C goes back to 1969, Prolog from 1972, computer networking started in the 1940s. The graphical user interface goes back to the 1970s. Beside the professional use and what happened on the university&#039;s, many thousands of people have experimented on computers like the Apple, Commodore, Atari, BBC and many others from the 1970‘s. And then someone comes claiming putting an icon on the left and not on the right is an invention?

Doing the same thing on an other (carrier) technology, in an other environment , or with an other name is not really an invention.

Perhaps they are just making sure the competition will be paying a lot.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not shure Google really want to stock up patents. This is not like some app developer getting sued by Lodsys where the (costs of) legal and patent system and intimidation forced some of them to pay, even where the merits of the claim are at least very doubtful.</p>
<p>Attacking Google in court over patents is a risky business. You probably start with loosing a number of your patent claims because of prior art was found. And anyone familiar with the history of computing knows that software patents without prior art are very unlikely. C goes back to 1969, Prolog from 1972, computer networking started in the 1940s. The graphical user interface goes back to the 1970s. Beside the professional use and what happened on the university&#8217;s, many thousands of people have experimented on computers like the Apple, Commodore, Atari, BBC and many others from the 1970‘s. And then someone comes claiming putting an icon on the left and not on the right is an invention?</p>
<p>Doing the same thing on an other (carrier) technology, in an other environment , or with an other name is not really an invention.</p>
<p>Perhaps they are just making sure the competition will be paying a lot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
