3 ms·

I'm not sure I buy the argument that Apple's inventors per patent means they're a more open or egalitarian companY. The hotspots seems to suggest that Apple jus

by inlined 10y ago

I'm not sure I buy the argument that Apple's inventors per patent means they're a more open or egalitarian companY. The hotspots seems to suggest that Apple just has a culture of giving management credit on the patents.

logicallee 10y ago
Apple has an "invent this for me" culture at the very top. That does not mean those are not real patents, but I doubt if someone travels back in time from 2040 and we posit they are now are at the top of Google today, you can speak three sentences and give the instruction "invent this for me" and have your name at the top of a patent filing that essentially just prettifies those three sentences, turns them into claims, and does the prior art research. You should be able to, because by 2040 there are lots of things that would be considered genuinely novel advancements to the state of the art today, but which can be described in three sentences. It's a question about whether top executives can ask someone to invent something for them or not. At Google, no, at Apple, yes.
- vegabook 10y ago
  interesting point, which raises the question of which structure works better at bringing inventions to market. Wasn't it Thomas Edison, credited with tons of patents and produced many actual groundbreaking products, who had an army of inventors working for him? Perhaps if the people with financial and management resources to deploy the organization behind the patents, are the ones who own the patents, this means a better chance of stuff coming to market? Xerox Parc, by contrast, seems to have been quite separate from Xerox itself, and so we have this situation where many of its amazing work was never brought to market properly by Xerox itself?
- petra 10y ago
  >> At Google, no, at Apple, yes. Why ? Is this the cultural, or more related to the type and complexities of those inventions ?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by inlined 10y ago

logicallee 10y ago

Apple has an "invent this for me" culture at the very top. That does not mean those are not real patents, but I doubt if someone travels back in time from 2040 and we posit they are now are at the top of Google today, you can speak three sentences and give the instruction "invent this for me" and have your name at the top of a patent filing that essentially just prettifies those three sentences, turns them into claims, and does the prior art research. You should be able to, because by 2040 there are lots of things that would be considered genuinely novel advancements to the state of the art today, but which can be described in three sentences. It's a question about whether top executives can ask someone to invent something for them or not. At Google, no, at Apple, yes.

vegabook 10y ago
interesting point, which raises the question of which structure works better at bringing inventions to market. Wasn't it Thomas Edison, credited with tons of patents and produced many actual groundbreaking products, who had an army of inventors working for him? Perhaps if the people with financial and management resources to deploy the organization behind the patents, are the ones who own the patents, this means a better chance of stuff coming to market? Xerox Parc, by contrast, seems to have been quite separate from Xerox itself, and so we have this situation where many of its amazing work was never brought to market properly by Xerox itself?
petra 10y ago
>> At Google, no, at Apple, yes. Why ? Is this the cultural, or more related to the type and complexities of those inventions ?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]