I think the patent law being broken arguement that the article is trying to make is as follows:
the consortium that bought nortel's patents didn't do so for the patents themselves, they did so to prevent google from having the patents. And they didn't want google to not have the patents not because they were afraid of google bringing products to market based on those patents, but because they didn't want google to be able to shield themselves from patent lawsuits.
Nortel has several 4G LTE-related patents in the pool(http://mobile.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/RIM-Not-Goog...). Those are HUGELY valuable to Apple, RIM, Sony Ericsson and Nokia. I would be very surprised if none of those companies came out with 4G phones in the next year or so. Getting control of the patents can save them a pretty tremendous amount of money on licensing fees.
These were probably the ones that those companies wanted, and the entire reason that the price is so high. They simply could not let Google be the sole owner of the patents, because that would give Google way too much power in the mobile space.
Out of all the companies, MS is probably the only one that did it specifically to hurt Google. However, this also could signal that MS is going to make their own WM7 phone.
>"MS is probably the only one that did it specifically to hurt Google"
Exactly what is the basis for this?
As you noted Nokia with whom Microsoft shares some interest would benefit from owning those patents. In addition, Microsoft as owner of Skype now has a substantial interest in patents applying to telephony networks.
How exactly would Google owning "several" patents on LTE translate to them being a sole owner of the technology? My understanding is that there are a couple of thousand patents on parts of LTE, with companies like Qualcomm, Nokia or Ericsson controlling hundreds of patents.
A good leader is more valuable than an good underling, but just as a body without a brain is useless, so a brain without a body is useless.
What is necessary isnt 'democracy' per se, but some means of a good body rejecting a bad brain, because bad leadership more than any other single thing is what kills companies, and typically there is nothing structurally in place to eliminate bad leaders.
> just as a body without a brain is useless, so a brain without a body is useless
RIM's problem isn't a lack of a body or a brain, but rather a broken nervous system. RIM's fingers are slowly being burned in the fire and the brain is just happily looking on, since it's not feeling the danger from any nerve impulses.
a public company is a democracy of that requires you buy a vote(s).
Good leaders realize that they must to some degree listen to their underlings, they shouldnt be beholden to underlings, but they should always listen and know when act on what they hear and when not to.
Worked for subsidiary of SAIC contracting out to NYC government over a decade ago. Trust me when I say this is nothing out of the usual... project will go order of magnitude over budget constantly.
As for the requirements that drive these projects, typically they are written specifically to present the appearance of an open bidding process while allowing the departments to know ahead of time who will actually implement the contract because they are so specific in certain areas that only one contract can possibly fulfill them.
the consortium that bought nortel's patents didn't do so for the patents themselves, they did so to prevent google from having the patents. And they didn't want google to not have the patents not because they were afraid of google bringing products to market based on those patents, but because they didn't want google to be able to shield themselves from patent lawsuits.