3 ms·

If a company had internally 'invented' all of their 'differentiating' technologies, then why would said company purchase patents relating to those technologies

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.
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      I do not consider inventing and building synonyms, because they are not. If you want to use words as variables, my all means, go ahead. What is the point? "You can't separate the idea from the execution of the idea." It is separate, and has been demonstrated by numerous companies.
      - stanleydrew 16y ago
        Words are variables. They have different meanings to different people. The idea of a chair and the execution of building a chair are indeed separate. But I challenge you to fully specify every aspect of a software product without building it first. There are so many intricacies and connections that don't become clear until it's actually built. Anyway this has gotten pretty far off topic so we should probably stop.
        chopsueyar 16y ago
        so we should probably stop. Agreed.

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.
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    I do not consider inventing and building synonyms, because they are not. If you want to use words as variables, my all means, go ahead. What is the point? "You can't separate the idea from the execution of the idea." It is separate, and has been demonstrated by numerous companies.
    - stanleydrew 16y ago
      Words are variables. They have different meanings to different people. The idea of a chair and the execution of building a chair are indeed separate. But I challenge you to fully specify every aspect of a software product without building it first. There are so many intricacies and connections that don't become clear until it's actually built. Anyway this has gotten pretty far off topic so we should probably stop.
      - chopsueyar 16y ago
        so we should probably stop. Agreed.