Even if they were not vague. Even if he described in intricate detail exactly how a newsfeed works, or a search engine works in 1990, say. And you look at the patent and go WOW, HE TOTALLY DESCRIBED WHAT GOOGLE DOES. If he didn't build any technology to implement it, if he didn't struggle with the development, with scaling, attracting users, building a market, then do you think it's fair for Google to just pay him for merely describing something to the US Patent Office and then keeping it secret? This hampers competition. This is not good.
It's not Paul Allen we should be complaining about. After all, the patent law makes Intellectual Ventures and Interval Licensing very good ideas as companies. Their business plan is exactly that -- describe some things, then wait a few years, and go litigate.
It's not Paul Allen we should be complaining about. After all, the patent law makes Intellectual Ventures and Interval Licensing very good ideas as companies. Their business plan is exactly that -- describe some things, then wait a few years, and go litigate.