5 ms·

Ask Larry Page if he is fervently opposed to software patents. https://patents.google.com/patent/US6285999B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US6285999B1/e

Ask Larry Page if he is fervently opposed to software patents. https://patents.google.com/patent/US6285999B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US6285999B1/en

opportune 7y ago
>multinationals Also the nature of patents incentivizes you to claim patents even if you fundamentally disagree with the patent system, if you want to continue doing business. Otherwise a troll or competitor could try to shut you down
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
It's years since it was his work. Now it's protecting the turf of the large corporate, from any whiff of competition by fair means and foul.
- CalChris 7y ago
  About 20 years. In fact it expired on June 2 and you’re free to use it. You are free to use the work that he was incented to do. His work is now our work.
cameronbrown 7y ago
The alternative is being defenceless when a patent troll comes around. Hate the game not the players. I'd be 100% for ending software patents. We already ban patents on mathematics.
- mcny 7y ago
  Why not ban all patents altogether?
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Because that's a silly idea? Because people will horde their inventions to themselves and reduce the rate of progression of civilisation?
    - mcny 7y ago
      > Because people will horde their inventions to themselves and reduce the rate of progression of civilisation? I bet someone else who isn't silly like that will rediscover likely within twenty years of the hypothetical hoarder. Also, you can hoard it under the current regime anyway: > WD-40's formula is a trade secret, and has not changed over the years, according to historian Iris Engstrand. To avoid disclosing its composition, the product was not patented in 1953, and the window of opportunity for patenting it has long since closed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WD-40 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WD-40
      - cameronbrown 7y ago
        Within 20 years, sure. But extrapolate that for any invention which has significant commercial value, and you've got a problem. This why patents exist in the first place.
        mcny 7y ago
        > Within 20 years, sure. But extrapolate that for any invention which has significant commercial value, and you've got a problem. This why patents exist in the first place. I didn't think of that. I don't think the situation is quite so cut and dry though. Imagine how many patents like one click [1][2] we can avoid if there simply was no patent. I am not convinced that patents have an overwhelmingly positive effect on society at this point in history. We have to consider that communication (both one to one and one to many) is a lot cheaper today than even two hundred years ago. I think reasonable people should push for an end to all patents. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click [2] https://patents.google.com/patent/US5960411A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US5960411A/en
        cameronbrown 7y ago
        I already said I wanted to get rid of software patents, so we're in agreement with one click.
dboreham 7y ago
Patents are behind a kind of shell game played with the investor class: investors like to think they own "assets". So entrepreneurs have over time decided to play a game where patents are treated as assets. They tell the investors that they own these nice valuable assets called patents. Both sides probably know the whole thing is BS, but they play along. In this context, _nobody_ is going to stand up and call BS on the game. Certainly not Larry. Senior engineers in BigTechCo get paid bonuses for patent filings so they're unlikely to speak up for fear of those bonuses. I feel a bit nervous posting this to be honest, but hey..
SeanAppleby 7y ago
Google only uses their patents defensively when sued for patent infringment. A world without patents would result in the same result for them but with less overhead. In this landscape where it's almost impossible to build products without stepping on patents, the only way to defend a large company against being bled to the bone by patent lawsuits is to have a deep warchest of patents to file countersuits, basically just MAD for software.

Ask Larry Page if he is fervently opposed to software patents. https://patents.google.com/patent/US6285999B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US6285999B1/en

opportune 7y ago

>multinationals Also the nature of patents incentivizes you to claim patents even if you fundamentally disagree with the patent system, if you want to continue doing business. Otherwise a troll or competitor could try to shut you down

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

It's years since it was his work. Now it's protecting the turf of the large corporate, from any whiff of competition by fair means and foul.

CalChris 7y ago
About 20 years. In fact it expired on June 2 and you’re free to use it. You are free to use the work that he was incented to do. His work is now our work.

cameronbrown 7y ago

The alternative is being defenceless when a patent troll comes around. Hate the game not the players. I'd be 100% for ending software patents. We already ban patents on mathematics.

mcny 7y ago
Why not ban all patents altogether?
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Because that's a silly idea? Because people will horde their inventions to themselves and reduce the rate of progression of civilisation?
  - mcny 7y ago
    > Because people will horde their inventions to themselves and reduce the rate of progression of civilisation? I bet someone else who isn't silly like that will rediscover likely within twenty years of the hypothetical hoarder. Also, you can hoard it under the current regime anyway: > WD-40's formula is a trade secret, and has not changed over the years, according to historian Iris Engstrand. To avoid disclosing its composition, the product was not patented in 1953, and the window of opportunity for patenting it has long since closed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WD-40 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WD-40
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      Within 20 years, sure. But extrapolate that for any invention which has significant commercial value, and you've got a problem. This why patents exist in the first place.
      - mcny 7y ago
        > Within 20 years, sure. But extrapolate that for any invention which has significant commercial value, and you've got a problem. This why patents exist in the first place. I didn't think of that. I don't think the situation is quite so cut and dry though. Imagine how many patents like one click [1][2] we can avoid if there simply was no patent. I am not convinced that patents have an overwhelmingly positive effect on society at this point in history. We have to consider that communication (both one to one and one to many) is a lot cheaper today than even two hundred years ago. I think reasonable people should push for an end to all patents. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click [2] https://patents.google.com/patent/US5960411A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US5960411A/en
        cameronbrown 7y ago
        I already said I wanted to get rid of software patents, so we're in agreement with one click.

dboreham 7y ago

Patents are behind a kind of shell game played with the investor class: investors like to think they own "assets". So entrepreneurs have over time decided to play a game where patents are treated as assets. They tell the investors that they own these nice valuable assets called patents. Both sides probably know the whole thing is BS, but they play along. In this context, _nobody_ is going to stand up and call BS on the game. Certainly not Larry. Senior engineers in BigTechCo get paid bonuses for patent filings so they're unlikely to speak up for fear of those bonuses. I feel a bit nervous posting this to be honest, but hey..

SeanAppleby 7y ago

Google only uses their patents defensively when sued for patent infringment. A world without patents would result in the same result for them but with less overhead. In this landscape where it's almost impossible to build products without stepping on patents, the only way to defend a large company against being bled to the bone by patent lawsuits is to have a deep warchest of patents to file countersuits, basically just MAD for software.