4 ms·
"Yeah, this guy's history of how Google got to where it was ("it was just luck!") is truly baffling." It sort of was, though, given it started with a good, nea
by nickpsecurity 10y ago
"Yeah, this guy's history of how Google got to where it was ("it was just luck!") is truly baffling."
It sort of was, though, given it started with a good, nearly-irreplaceable algorithm protected by a patent for 20 years. All kinds of people were looking for one. They lucked out. Whereas, I'd buy the hard work argument if they didn't have a patent on it, competition was allowed, and they still became Google of today.
- bgw 10y agoHow far would IBM or Microsoft or Apple have gotten without patents?
- PaulHoule 10y agoPagerank is overrated. It is within a mean field approximation of a simple link count; PR does not improve relevance, it only lets you pick the most popular page from a set of pages that may be more or less relevant. Anchor link text is a far more important contribution to Google's results, but it serves Google well if outsiders get false news about how it works.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoIBM and Microsoft got furthest on first mover advantage, shady deals with OEM's plus universities promoting lock-in, and copyright law. Microsoft didn't need patents at all to become a power house far as I can tell. I'm not sure about IBM. Apple succeeded on brand and copyright initially. So, I doubt they needed patents except to preserve market share later on after they got established. As in, to remove competition like we see with IBM vs Hercules-based company, Microsoft vs Android w/ royalties, and Apple vs Samsung or Mac clones trying to take their products out of stores. Strictly helping them maximize profit and minimize competition in markets they've already taken.
- valuearb 10y agoApple would have gotten just as far, given they've lost most every IP lawsuit they've ever filed. Even their Samsung "win" was reduced so much on appeal it turned into a speeding ticket.