

Games Where The Only Winning Move Is Not To Play - mrkmcknz
http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2012/03/games-where-the-only-winning-move-is-not-to-play.html

======
grellas
_By now the blogosphere, twitterverse, and even mainstream media is abuzz with
the absurd decision that Yahoo has made to sue Facebook over ten software
patents with the assertion that Facebook’s entire business is based on Yahoo’s
patented inventions._

What is the potentially depressive effect on Facebook's IPO price come this
May (or whenever) if it has a lawsuit hanging over it claiming that its entire
business model is based on Yahoo's patented inventions and that it would face
a ruinous liability should Yahoo prevail?

I suppose the timing could be coincidental but I doubt it. After all, the
problem for Facebook can easily go away if it is just willing to be
"reasonable" in resolving this quickly. Truly a new low in patent trolling.

~~~
jpdoctor
> _I suppose the timing could be coincidental but I doubt it._

I don't. FB is much more vulnerable now than after the IPO shares have been
sold. (That probably translates to a bigger settlement.)

~~~
chc
That's what grellas was saying — he doubts the timing is a coincidence.

~~~
jpdoctor
Sorry, I was snarking: I don't doubt the timing at all. I also won't be
surprised if other lawsuits materialize soon.

There's a lot of money in FB, and if they don't have good patent protection,
then it's open season.

~~~
recursive
So if you don't doubt the timing is a coincidence, that would mean you think
it is a coincidence?

~~~
jpdoctor
No, it means there's _no doubt_. I in fact believe the opposite of what you
wrote wrt it being a coincidence. And I don't _doubt_ it.

Got it now?

~~~
recursive
I understand your intention. But you are using the word differently from most
people understand it. If you are convinced that something is not true, most
people would say that you doubt that thing _a lot_. I'm not trying to stir up
an argument, just explain why people seem to be having problems with your
statement.

------
jpdoctor
> _This is not a winnable game for Yahoo, the Internet, innovation, or
> society._

It is however winnable for Scott Thompson's quarterly earnings, which must be
a driver for the decision.

BTW, Would love to hear Fred Wilson talk about how Twitter is preparing,
because it's a good guess that they're next.

------
malandrew
I'm wondering what the result would be if this actually did escalate/spiral
out of control with everyone suing everyone for every patent they have in
Silicon Valley.

Maybe the best way to bring about patent reform is to highlight the absurdity
of the system by blowing the entire system up.

Every patent holding company should just literally clog the court system with
this BS. The lawyers from both each side of a suit can even be aware of the
fact that the other side has no intention of actually trying to win a case and
is instead just asserting its patents and forcing the courts to deal with
them.

When you file a patent lawsuit, are you required to claim damages or can you
just claim nothing, but just file a suit that you want the judicial system to
deliberate on. i.e. can you seek judgement without seeking damages?

~~~
jpdoctor
> _spiral out of control with everyone suing everyone for every patent they
> have in Silicon Valley._

That misses the real dynamic: Yahoo is suing because FB has money + they don't
have as deep of a patent portfolio. (It's why Google shelled out a pile of
dough for Nortel's portfolio.) The lawsuit wouldn't have happened if they had
comparable portfolios; The lawsuits would then have ended in a draw.

Bullying/shakedown at its best. (I'm sure it's not personal to Scott Thompson,
just business.)

~~~
tomjen3
Nah FB can drag this through the court system for years or even decades and
then find some way to kill Yahoo in the meantime.

FB must have made a lot of improvements in online ads, which as far as I am
aware, is what makes Yahoo money (side note, do Yahoo actually earn money?) so
that would be an obvious place to attack. An alternative is to team up with
Microsoft, who desperately needs some sort of social media strategy and have
very very extensive patent portfolios.

~~~
jpdoctor
> _Nah FB can drag this through the court system for years or even decades and
> then find some way to kill Yahoo in the meantime._

It's a big distraction for FB. It's not a distraction for Y! (because
obviously they don't have much business left in their business). So my guess
is that FB settles to get it off their plate.

If FB instead takes the strategy you mention above and blows all that money,
I'd love them to death for it. ("You wanna piece of me?! Come over here and
let's rumble!" It would tell patent trolls that they are going to have to blow
serious money in the future.)

~~~
tomjen3
Define distraction? You would need, say 10 full time lawyers on it, assume
200k/year on average, which would cost about 2 million a year.

Mark doesn't need to focus on the law suit, instead he can simply spawn of a
process and subscribe to its signals (to borrow an OS metaphor).

------
lucasjake
What people don't understand is, patents legally are valued under the legal
standard of roughly 'patents that win in court are real patents, those that
lose, are not' This means that patents MUST be defended to even really be a
patent. This means that, this scenario is almost automatic when a company like
Facebook comes up for IPO. Facebook is one of those companies that essentially
is 'The Internet' in 2012 on the timeline of companies that have held that
title, (Yahoo, Google, Facebook).

This lawsuit will be settled, and then Facebook, Apple, Yahoo-Alibaba,
Microsoft, AOL, and everyone else will resume the world war against Google.

Amateur hour in some of the analysis in these articles.

~~~
rdl
Patents aren't like trademarks -- it's not "defend it or lose it".

It's quite reasonable to have a huge patent portfolio of crap patents, keep
them around to use as defensive ammunition (to deter being sued, or as a
threat when sued), and not to be a punk ass bitch like Yahoo is now by trying
to enforce them against a company contributing an order of magnitude (or two,
or three) times more value to the world.

Yes, if a patent fails to stand up in court, it is no longer real, but if
never use a bogus-but-issued patent, no one really tests its validity.

This action was entirely voluntary on Yahoo's part, which is why they must
suffer. Seriously, if anyone competent is left at Yahoo, quit and get a job at
a real company. Being an H1B is really the only reason I can imagine staying
there, and I'm sure a competent person can find a replacement employer in the
current market.

------
saturdaysaint
There needs to be a movement to encourage family members and friends to dump
Yahoo e-mail, change their home page from Yahoo, maybe even dump Flickr.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I think that movement was called gmail beta.

------
DanBC
Has any blogger found prior art yet?

