3 ms·

So we are going to have to rely on the goodwill of Google not to sue others if they are awarded the patent? How about being a good corporate citizen like the ot

So we are going to have to rely on the goodwill of Google not to sue others if they are awarded the patent? How about being a good corporate citizen like the others and not trying to patent it in the first place?

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
Corporations do not act with goodwill, and those that do are often not successful corporations for long, as others take advantage of them. Remember that every time you see a corporation seemingly acting selflessly, either you don't realize how it benefits them, or its just a public relations play. But corporations always act in self-interest.
- brisance 8y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bosch_GmbH https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bosch_GmbH
  - yorwba 8y ago
    I guess you want to highlight that the company is owned mostly by a charitable foundation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bosch_GmbH#Corporate_affairs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bosch_GmbH#Corporate_af... ), but I think it's important to realize that the company itself still operates as a profit maximizer for its shareholders. You only need to scroll down to the section about their involvement in the Volkswagen emissions scandal for proof of that.
    - brisance 8y ago
      While one of Bosch’s units was involved in dieselgate, on the whole their business has been for the betterment of humanity. The point is that a company doesn’t have to always “maximize profits”. Tim Cook famously told a shareholder to “get out of the stock” if that was how he assessed his portfolio. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/apples-tim-cook-business-isn-t-just-about-making-a-profit-9163931.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne...
- jhall1468 8y ago
  You act like self-interest is black and white. Oracle persues profit at any expense, often via lawsuits. Google uses patents as a defense mechanism against other companies. Both are self-interest, but very different degrees.
  - hashkb 8y ago
    > profit at any expense Redundant definition of profit?
    - jhall1468 8y ago
      Short-term and long-term profit are not driven by the same goals. In fact, they are often at odds. I get the joke, but it's not really redundant. "Profit at any expense" sounds like short-term profit to me.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Google isn't persuing profit via lawsuits... yet. Google is well positioned to patent troll when it stops being the top dog. In fact, Google already has Patent Shield, which provides a latent threat that if you leave their umbrella they can turn around and sue a company that used to use their services. Even if you have unwavering faith in a company's current leadership, when that leadership is not making money, they will be replaced by someone who is. So if the possibility to patent troll exists, eventually, it will.
    - joshuamorton 8y ago
      Fwiw, at least with google this is debatable, since the company is, for the purposes of voting stake, held by the leadership. So the only people who could replace the leadership...are the leadership. There's an argument that institutional investors can still influence mostly privately held firms, but I'm not sure how much I buy that in this case.
    - jhall1468 8y ago
      > Google isn't persuing profit via lawsuits... yet. Google is well positioned to patent troll when it stops being the top dog. In fact, Google already has Patent Shield, which provides a latent threat that if you leave their umbrella they can turn around and sue a company that used to use their services. Slippery slope much?

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

Corporations do not act with goodwill, and those that do are often not successful corporations for long, as others take advantage of them. Remember that every time you see a corporation seemingly acting selflessly, either you don't realize how it benefits them, or its just a public relations play. But corporations always act in self-interest.

brisance 8y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bosch_GmbH https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bosch_GmbH
- yorwba 8y ago
  I guess you want to highlight that the company is owned mostly by a charitable foundation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bosch_GmbH#Corporate_affairs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bosch_GmbH#Corporate_af... ), but I think it's important to realize that the company itself still operates as a profit maximizer for its shareholders. You only need to scroll down to the section about their involvement in the Volkswagen emissions scandal for proof of that.
  - brisance 8y ago
    While one of Bosch’s units was involved in dieselgate, on the whole their business has been for the betterment of humanity. The point is that a company doesn’t have to always “maximize profits”. Tim Cook famously told a shareholder to “get out of the stock” if that was how he assessed his portfolio. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/apples-tim-cook-business-isn-t-just-about-making-a-profit-9163931.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne...
jhall1468 8y ago
You act like self-interest is black and white. Oracle persues profit at any expense, often via lawsuits. Google uses patents as a defense mechanism against other companies. Both are self-interest, but very different degrees.
- hashkb 8y ago
  > profit at any expense Redundant definition of profit?
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    Short-term and long-term profit are not driven by the same goals. In fact, they are often at odds. I get the joke, but it's not really redundant. "Profit at any expense" sounds like short-term profit to me.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Google isn't persuing profit via lawsuits... yet. Google is well positioned to patent troll when it stops being the top dog. In fact, Google already has Patent Shield, which provides a latent threat that if you leave their umbrella they can turn around and sue a company that used to use their services. Even if you have unwavering faith in a company's current leadership, when that leadership is not making money, they will be replaced by someone who is. So if the possibility to patent troll exists, eventually, it will.
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    Fwiw, at least with google this is debatable, since the company is, for the purposes of voting stake, held by the leadership. So the only people who could replace the leadership...are the leadership. There's an argument that institutional investors can still influence mostly privately held firms, but I'm not sure how much I buy that in this case.
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    > Google isn't persuing profit via lawsuits... yet. Google is well positioned to patent troll when it stops being the top dog. In fact, Google already has Patent Shield, which provides a latent threat that if you leave their umbrella they can turn around and sue a company that used to use their services. Slippery slope much?