From one Tech to another

My signature is in the top right, second down, looks like "Elizabeth St....".

April 16, 2007

Patent Pending, and subsquent thoughts

In Patent Weary, my favorite business writer, Michael Malone, opined the following (responding to a question regarding his thoughts on the patent war between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft over patents for MP3 technology):

In my experience, digging up your old core patents and suing everyone in sight is the best indicator of a dying company. Fairchild did the same thing with integrated circuit patent, as did Motorola with the microprocessor, and Texas Instruments with everything in between. In the case of TI, the company reached the point where the patent attorney's office was the company's biggest profit center.

Ultimately, TI managed (no doubt with some of that licensing money) to turn itself around and become a major player in digital signal processing. But in most cases, I suspect, Alcatel-Lucent included -- is there any company out there right now with an uglier reputation than Lucent -- this kind of behavior is symptomatic of fatal structural rot. The $1.5 billion the jury awarded to Alcatel-Lucent in February will likely, after various Microsoft countersuits, end up a fraction of that amount, be swallowed up before it ever reaches shareholders and will do nothing for Alcatel-Lucent's future.

Optimistic, forward-looking and successful companies don't have time for this nonsense, and the distractions that come with it. And, sadly, that increasingly seems to be true for patents themselves.

I'm just wondering, could the same be said about Verizon's suit against Vonage? The following is from Bloomberg about the latest today on the "slow-death" of Vonage.

Vonage Holdings Corp. founder Jeffrey Citron replaced Michael Snyder as chief executive officer after spiraling costs and the loss of a patent lawsuit led to an 82 percent drop in the Internet phone company's stock....

... Vonage lost customers at an average monthly rate of 2.4 percent in the quarter, up from 2.3 percent in the previous three months. Subscribers have been defecting amid concerns about customer service and lawsuits that threaten to cut service.

I think all of this is very sad. "Old" companies, being eaten alive by "new" companies with better technology and marketing strategies, use bitter tactics to kill off their competitors, while slowing dying themselves.

Personally, I do not know anything about the science involved in the Verizon/Vonage law suit. Vonage may have infringed on a Verizon patent or not. (I wouldn't trust a district/trial court judge on this matter further than I could throw him). Regardless, if Verizon was a thriving, bustling company, it wouldn't "have time for this nonsense", as Malone puts it. I agree. I'm also reminded of that "old" quarrel, between Napster/Napster-like programs for file-sharing and the RIAA. The RIAA back in 2001 started fighting the new stuff because it couldn't compete. Eventually, it killed Napster/Grogster/Kazaa, etc., but it lost in the long run really. File-sharing is certainly the most prevalent method of getting music these days...thank you Apple. (I personally do not have an Ipod..I have a relic that was once called a "Disc-man" and it works just fine, thank you Sony.) Anyway, more to the point, I certainly hope Verizon has something up its sleeve...an RND section that is currently burning the midnight oil. Else, its future seems rather bleak.

Reminds me of law school

It ain't MY fault

Daily Word

From my pastor, in today's email:


"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." --John 3:16

It seems like more and more, you hear people talking about how all the religions of the world are really leading to the same God. They want everyone to just get along, put aside our differences, and make this world a giant, hug-filled place of peace.

This kind of thinking has been especially prevalent since 9/11, when it became clear that religion can be not only divisive, but deadly.

If we're not careful, we as Christians can fall into this peaceful-sounding trap. While you and I as believers are certainly to be characterized by peace and love, we are not to give up or give in on our convictions…and give credibility to another false religion.

The truth of Christ divides people. Christ certainly preached a message of love and forgiveness, but He made it clear that not all gods are equal, and there is only one path to God. He is the ONLY way!

People of this world don't like the Gospel of Christ; they see it as narrow-minded and divisive. The world praises the idea of one religion that unifies everyone-which in fact is coming. But the problem is that it will be the religion of evil in the end times.

Don't surrender the truth of the Gospel for the sake of peace. We know that Christ is the only answer to the world's need, so be ready with that answer for people who are desperately searching for something real to believe in.

Supreme Court on Global Warming

The Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in Massachusetts v. EPA, today, saying, "The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized..."

The court took 66 pages in total, 38 for the majority. Justice Stevens delivered the 5-4 opinion. This was really a case of statutory interpretation, the court stating in pertinent part "[b]ecause greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles" (page 35-36 of pdf). However, this will ultimately be a key policy-based decision.

In dicta, the court said:

The Government’s own objective assessment of the relevant science and a strong consensus among qualified experts indicate that global warming threatens, inter alia, a precipitate rise in sea levels, severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems, a significant reduction in winter snowpack with direct and important economic consequences, and increases in the spread of disease and the ferocity of weather events.

I reserve my comments on this "statement" for a future post, perhaps. At this time, I chose simply to smile at the Court's use of its dicta. It will be interesting to see how this case and interwoven comments will fit into precedent for the Court to follow, and how it will impact the global warming debate.