4 ms·
The author uses the timing of Google's patent filings and published papers to imply that Google would not have published the papers without patent protection. I
by frognibble 17y ago
The author uses the timing of Google's patent filings and published papers to imply that Google would not have published the papers without patent protection. I think the timing of the events does not provide enough information to determine what Google would have done without the patents. Google might have freely published the papers in a world with no software patents.
- kiba 17y agoIt is probable that Google would have published their algorithms after a long period of time. By the time that happen, the old algorithm would probably have no competitive advantage anyway.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- justinsb 17y agoI'm the author... and yes, the 'implication' is exactly what I'm saying. As I said in the post, you can argue that Google would have published in a world without software patents, but the purpose of patents is to incentivize publication where otherwise advances would remain secret, and that's the sequence that we saw. In that sense, we're seeing exactly what the patent system envisages. Your point of view seems to be that companies would publish their secret sauce freely without IP protection, for the warm fuzzies / indirect benefits that would result. You're free to believe that, but the patent system is based around the idea that corporations don't behave so altruistically - that people with billion dollar ideas don't want to give them away.