They already purchased those patents, though. It's kind of a sunk cost. They wouldn't be losing $4.5 billion cash if patents became worthless, they'd be losing ammunition for a type of fight that they wouldn't have to deal with anymore.

That's like saying, "We can't stop fighting this war, then all our guns would be worthless."

That seems like a very common thing for people to say just after buying 4.5 billion USD worth of weapons.

Bad analogy. The war isn't over patents, it's general competition. It's more like the UN pushing you to sign a treaty pledging not to use nukes just after you spent a pile acquiring them.

Now if patents were only used defensively (which they're obviously not in this case, since Apple went on the attack) the analogy would then be banning ballistic missiles right after acquiring a ballistic missile defense system, which would be easier to swallow.

You're inferring something that wasn't intended. Your peace-treaty example was exactly the type of situation my analogy was referring to.

Patents are being used aggressively because that's the nature of competition—if anyone is going to use them that way, everyone has to. But it could be in everyone's interest if that option were removed from the table, regardless how much each had previously spent amassing an arsenal simply to remain competitive.

The war is over patents, far above and beyond general competition. If that weren't the case, then we wouldn't have so many patent trolls, who have decided that it's more profitable to sue over patents than to actually make products and compete in a consumer marketplace. The Android smartphone vendors aren't just trying to shut out any potentially superior competitors from the market, they're spending billions on patents so that they can have a chance at a fraction of Apple's monstrous profits.

It's very much like saying that, which doesn't mean it's not persuasive reasoning. It may not be ultimately rational reasoning, but it appeals to many people. That's why it's called the sunk cost fallacy. :)

Yep, I was referring to the fallacy. I know people don't always make rational decisions—and there are many other considerations here besides—but I thought it worth pointing out that it's not quite so obvious that the large companies would be against patent dissolution.

Potential revenues from patents aren't a sunk cost...

The reason companies acquire and add to their massive stockpiles of patents is because, like arms races, no one wants to stop playing the game until the game is called off. Unlike arms races, patents are intellectual creations and the "game" can be ended simply by setting precedents in court and reforming existing law.

How about following existing precedents? Flook is good precedent, as reiterated in the recent Bilski decision. Just about every software patent we talk about on HN would be invalidated if that precedent were followed.

Exactly correct. And Google has unilaterally disarmed and it ain't turning out so well for them.

Wait, in the news today: "Google Looks to InterDigital to Strengthen Patent Portfolio". So like everybody else they are buying even more ammo for the gun they keep in the nightstand drawer.

Make the reform law not apply to old patents, only new patents. So when the existing patents expire we only use the new rules. This is a win-win.

That is unilateral disarmament and a huge barrier to entry for every new startup.