0 thoughts on “Innovate, don’t litigate, says Sun’s Schwartz

  1. “Innovation beats litigation”??
    Usually those with the bankroll can afford to beat back those darned innonvators.
    Do I think Open Source is good and that Microsoft’s attack via patents is invalid? Ofcourse. But in reality our courts have been used by businesses as a forum for competition for a long time. Large companies can afford lawyers. Smaller companies can not. Monopolists can afford lawyers, loosely allied innovators can not.

  2. RIAA and SCO litigation has often had humorous results but its always been an effective weapon. Peer to Peer networks are indeed innovative, but I don’t think the RIAA cares. Online casinos are disfavored only because the Brick and Mortar Casinos don’t want the innovative competition and will use the Congress and the Courts to fight innovation until the physical casinos own the innovations.

  3. I think Schwartz and many others are mostly concerned with the bankroll effect. To the extent that litigation chills innovation it does not serve the public interest, and may not even serve Microsofts best interests although I’m guessing they are beginning to think they are handily losing the battle for the internet world and looking for alternatives. In a sense it’s fair to say MS has been trying hard to innovate and adapt to new web sensibilities but has not had the results they expected (e.g. MS Search / LIVE search still have a tiny fraction of Google’s usage despite significant improvements in quality). So MS is now saying – if you can’t beat the bastards, sue the bastards!