4 ms·

If they had invented Facebook they would have invented Facebook.

by dansingerman 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
chopsueyar 16y ago
If Facebook had invented Facebook, they would not have bought $40 million of patents from Friendster.
- DanI-S 16y ago
  I don't think the Facebook concept is really something that is 'invented', per se. It is one of those kind of ideas that will emerge spontaneously at a certain point in the technological timeline, as the natural progression of things. It was Facebook's execution (as a product and a business) which raised it above the many similar services that appeared simultaneously.
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    Obviously Facebook believed something was 'invented', as Facebook bought patents from Friendster, and wanted to ensure Facebook would not have to license the Friendster patents they were violating. In your same manner of reasoning, h.264 was not invented, it simply emerged spontaneously at a certain point of the technological timeline, as the natural progression of things. I would argue it was facebook's reliance on open-source software and existing Friendster techniques (THAT WERE PATENTED BY FRIENDSTER), that allowed Facebook to succeed.
    - DanI-S 16y ago
      I mentioned the Facebook concept. It was obviously a concept that occurred pretty much simultaneously to a whole bunch of people across the world. The same is true for h.264; it's a system for compressing video that is convenient for 21st century media. There are many, many variations on that same concept. It's the concept of 'multiple independent discovery' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery. Just because somebody got around to patenting a concept first doesn't mean that many others didn't think of it at the same time. You probably know how it is - many people have the seed of an idea, several will take it further than that, a handful might get to the stage of implementation - but only a couple will make it to the point of success.
      - chopsueyar 16y ago
        So the h.264 codec was obviously a concept that occurred pretty much simultaneously to a whole bunch of people across the world? Just because somebody got around to patenting a concept first doesn't mean that many others didn't think of it at the same time. Correct, however, the party that owns the patent, decides who can and cannot implement that concept in real life.
- stanleydrew 16y ago
  This does not follow at all.
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    If a company had internally 'invented' all of their 'differentiating' technologies, then why would said company purchase patents relating to those technologies from a competitor's company? Perhaps Facebooky did not 'invent' many of the social methods and processes it's service uses, and instead 'copied' them from existing entities (some of which were patented).
    - stanleydrew 16y ago
      Oh, I don't know, lets imagine a crazy world in which a bunch of things are 'invented' at the same time. Some company patents an invention. Then for a variety of reasons a different company gets huge, perhaps because it integrated a bunch of 'inventions' (some original, some invented in parallel) better than anyone else. That company then decides to pay a known price for the patents it doesn't own to avoid the unknown cost and unpleasantness of a lawsuit. My point is mostly that software patents don't prove original invention. And moreover, buying patents indicates nothing. There are tons of reasons to want software patents, not least of which is a need to defend oneself against trolls. Many companies buy patents related to their core technologies not because they are afraid of getting sued for infringing on those particular patents, but because they want to present a credible threat of countersuit should anyone sue them. Of course it could be both. I'm just saying that buying patents proves nothing.
      - chopsueyar 16y ago
        If buying patents proves nothing, what proves Zuckerberg invented Facebook? What, in your mind, proves anything?
        stanleydrew 16y ago
        Nothing proves that he "invented" facebook, depending on how you interpret the word "invented." The fact that he still runs the company indicates that he built facebook. And if you consider inventing and building to be synonymous then he invented facebook. The line from the movie is tautological for a reason, and it actually makes an interesting point about software patents. It's using the word "invented" in the "created/built" sense: essentially, "if you had invented facebook, you would have created facebook." You can't separate the idea from the execution of the idea. Interpreting facebook's buying of patents from friendster as evidence they didn't "invent" the product kind of misses the point.

If they had invented Facebook they would have invented Facebook.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

chopsueyar 16y ago

If Facebook had invented Facebook, they would not have bought $40 million of patents from Friendster.

DanI-S 16y ago
I don't think the Facebook concept is really something that is 'invented', per se. It is one of those kind of ideas that will emerge spontaneously at a certain point in the technological timeline, as the natural progression of things. It was Facebook's execution (as a product and a business) which raised it above the many similar services that appeared simultaneously.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  Obviously Facebook believed something was 'invented', as Facebook bought patents from Friendster, and wanted to ensure Facebook would not have to license the Friendster patents they were violating. In your same manner of reasoning, h.264 was not invented, it simply emerged spontaneously at a certain point of the technological timeline, as the natural progression of things. I would argue it was facebook's reliance on open-source software and existing Friendster techniques (THAT WERE PATENTED BY FRIENDSTER), that allowed Facebook to succeed.
  - DanI-S 16y ago
    I mentioned the Facebook concept. It was obviously a concept that occurred pretty much simultaneously to a whole bunch of people across the world. The same is true for h.264; it's a system for compressing video that is convenient for 21st century media. There are many, many variations on that same concept. It's the concept of 'multiple independent discovery' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery. Just because somebody got around to patenting a concept first doesn't mean that many others didn't think of it at the same time. You probably know how it is - many people have the seed of an idea, several will take it further than that, a handful might get to the stage of implementation - but only a couple will make it to the point of success.
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      So the h.264 codec was obviously a concept that occurred pretty much simultaneously to a whole bunch of people across the world? Just because somebody got around to patenting a concept first doesn't mean that many others didn't think of it at the same time. Correct, however, the party that owns the patent, decides who can and cannot implement that concept in real life.
stanleydrew 16y ago
This does not follow at all.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  If a company had internally 'invented' all of their 'differentiating' technologies, then why would said company purchase patents relating to those technologies from a competitor's company? Perhaps Facebooky did not 'invent' many of the social methods and processes it's service uses, and instead 'copied' them from existing entities (some of which were patented).
  - stanleydrew 16y ago
    Oh, I don't know, lets imagine a crazy world in which a bunch of things are 'invented' at the same time. Some company patents an invention. Then for a variety of reasons a different company gets huge, perhaps because it integrated a bunch of 'inventions' (some original, some invented in parallel) better than anyone else. That company then decides to pay a known price for the patents it doesn't own to avoid the unknown cost and unpleasantness of a lawsuit. My point is mostly that software patents don't prove original invention. And moreover, buying patents indicates nothing. There are tons of reasons to want software patents, not least of which is a need to defend oneself against trolls. Many companies buy patents related to their core technologies not because they are afraid of getting sued for infringing on those particular patents, but because they want to present a credible threat of countersuit should anyone sue them. Of course it could be both. I'm just saying that buying patents proves nothing.
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      If buying patents proves nothing, what proves Zuckerberg invented Facebook? What, in your mind, proves anything?
      - stanleydrew 16y ago
        Nothing proves that he "invented" facebook, depending on how you interpret the word "invented." The fact that he still runs the company indicates that he built facebook. And if you consider inventing and building to be synonymous then he invented facebook. The line from the movie is tautological for a reason, and it actually makes an interesting point about software patents. It's using the word "invented" in the "created/built" sense: essentially, "if you had invented facebook, you would have created facebook." You can't separate the idea from the execution of the idea. Interpreting facebook's buying of patents from friendster as evidence they didn't "invent" the product kind of misses the point.