> To be clear: If Motorola were going after other companies, I would have a problem with that type of behavior. Apple and Microsoft, however, deserve every kind of patent abuse they are getting (and then some).
This isn't patent abuse at all. The patents in question involve sophisticated, complex technologies (Wi-Fi and video compression). It's not the type of thing you accidentally stumble upon--these were technologies created by a consortium, including Motorola, at substantial cost. Licensing the underlying patents, and litigating if those patents are infringed, is how the members of the consortium recoup those costs. The situation presents the classical case of applicability for patents--you want the technology to be openly disseminated, so it can be used as a standard, but don't want people to be able to use it without paying.
As much as people kvetch about standards patents, they're an example of the patent system working well. You have an industry consortium (of specialists in a specific area) which develops complicated technology then standardizes it for everyone to use. Companies who want to be compatible with the standard then license the patents underlying the technology. The patents are just the legal glue that facilitate that transaction. Patent litigation is the mechanism by which the terms of that transaction are enforced--just like litigation is always the mechanism by which the terms of transactions are enforced.
I agree with this - A similar example of patents working in a reasonable manner is the pharmaceutical industry, where the time and money investment of developing a new drug is astronomical, and it can be reasonably argued that this justifies the 20-year monopoly that a patent entails.
The above cannot be said for design patents. Because there are essentially no barriers to entry in getting a design patent, yet they last the same 20 years as the development of a new drug, it's easy to see this getting stupid and destructive for the tech industry.
This isn't patent abuse at all. The patents in question involve sophisticated, complex technologies (Wi-Fi and video compression). It's not the type of thing you accidentally stumble upon--these were technologies created by a consortium, including Motorola, at substantial cost. Licensing the underlying patents, and litigating if those patents are infringed, is how the members of the consortium recoup those costs. The situation presents the classical case of applicability for patents--you want the technology to be openly disseminated, so it can be used as a standard, but don't want people to be able to use it without paying.
As much as people kvetch about standards patents, they're an example of the patent system working well. You have an industry consortium (of specialists in a specific area) which develops complicated technology then standardizes it for everyone to use. Companies who want to be compatible with the standard then license the patents underlying the technology. The patents are just the legal glue that facilitate that transaction. Patent litigation is the mechanism by which the terms of that transaction are enforced--just like litigation is always the mechanism by which the terms of transactions are enforced.