4 ms·

I'm not pro-patent, I just want Google's motives as I see them to be more transparent, and that is what I am aiming to achieve with my comment. If they thought

by davidu 15y ago

I'm not pro-patent, I just want Google's motives as I see them to be more transparent, and that is what I am aiming to achieve with my comment. If they thought patents were more strategic for them, they wouldn't be anti-patent. For them it's purely a strategic viewpoint that benefits them due to their current size. That patents are grossly abused is a serious issue that is quickly coming to a head, so it won't take ages from now for major reform to occur.

dman 15y ago
Companies that consider themselves in a growth phase take an anti intellectual property stance. Once they are sitting on an empire they shift positions. Its the rational thing to do. All this says about Google is that they are still looking to enter and disrupt new markets.
- Steko 15y ago
  I'd say the dynamic is more complicated, many small businesses are highly reliant on IP protections. Innovators are pro-IP, followers are contra-IP.
  - dman 15y ago
    I did not say anything about size of business. I think a better framing of your latter point would be - incumbents are pro-IP newcomers are contra-IP. Just being first in a field does not mean that you are innovating in it currently.
    - Steko 15y ago
      "I did not say anything about size of business." Well 'empire' has some connotations you may not be aware of.
      - dman 15y ago
        Sorry about that, I can now see how I miscommunicated. I was lazily using empire to allude to - 'an economic entity with a well defined identity and well defined borders'. Let me take an example to clarify this situation - Lets assume a hypothetical situation where Nokia has reached its limits of what it thinks a Phone could be it has stopped doing fundamental innovation ie it has a well defined empire with a well defined cost structure and a well defined revenue model. In such a situation it is in Nokia's self interest to use their immense patent portfolio to create a moat around their business to keep upstarts like Apple / Google away. On the other hand lets consider another hypothetical situation where Nokia were innovating and trying to reimagine what a phone could be. Perhaps they were doing interesting things in software to displace desktops and make the phone the central location of the users global state. In this case they would be encroaching onto areas where other entities (like Microsoft, Google) might hold significant patents. In this case it would be in Nokia's self interest to be the anti patent candidate. I have often found that when I use more words to clarify a miscommunication I often end up causing more damage. I hope that is not the case here.
  - kelnos 15y ago
    Innovators are pro-IP, followers are contra-IP. Strongly disagree. This kind of statement really needs some supporting evidence.
    - Steko 15y ago
      Ok so I'll cite some supporting evidence: http://infochachkie.com/fast-followers-i/ http://infochachkie.com/fast-followers-i/ "Whenever creating an imitation of a successful leader, great care must be taken to avoid outright intellectual property infringement; the closer the duplication, the greater the care which must be exercised. MGA Entertainment (MGA), which produced the Bratz dolls, learned this the hard way. Late in 2008, U.S. Courts forced MGA to cease and desist in the manufacture of the dolls. A jury deemed that the creator of Bratz, Carter Bryant, devised the idea while he was an employee at Mattel. In the Spring of 2009, a U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the jury decision, mandating that the intellectual property associated with Bratz dolls was the sole property of Mattel."
      - kelnos 15y ago
        Making a blanket statement about all innovators and all followers is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence. A reference to a single court case between a pair of companies hardly passes that bar. Regardless, reading your linked article, it seems to have a pretty positive (or at least neutral) view of being a so-called "follower". It's interesting to point out the NKOTB-follower groups like Backstreet Boys and 'NSync. Regardless of whether or not you like their music, it's hard to deny that they were hugely successful and helped push the "boyband" genre of music into greater popularity. Not saying this is good or bad from an aesthetic point of view, but it sounds good from a business perspective.
        Steko 15y ago
        It seems fairly intuitive to me that innovations are protected by IP so innovators are always for stronger IP protections and wheras followers are always trying to skirt close to the line of infringement without passing it, and thus are disposed towards weaker penalties towards infringement. I'm surprised at the level of disagreement this assertion has provoked. How much evidence do you really want? Are the Chinese vendors hawking illegal Harry Potter books for or against greater penalties in China for violating IP? Are the fake Apple stores and fake iPhone "KIRF" makers for or against greater IP penalties? I mean I guess this classification loses value when you start talking about companies like Zynga that both steal and are stolen from (today's injunction). And that probably applies to Apple and many other large businesses but it seems to me that most of these companies put up a fight but ultimately accept that they have to pay for many things -- as Apple did with Amazon's One Click or the IP they buy or the Nokia settlement. OTOH Google seems to have adopted something scarily close to the Chinese pirate model.
moultano 15y ago
So if the ethical position is also strategic, it is no longer ethical? That's a pretty high standard for what constitutes ethical behavior. >If they thought patents were more strategic for them, they wouldn't be anti-patent. This needs a gigantic [citation needed] next to it.
- davidu 15y ago
  You believe that being pro IPP or anti IPP is an ethical position? I am pro IP protection (IPP) and but I strongly dislike the existing IPP system we have.
  - moultano 15y ago
    What do you mean? Any normative statement is ultimately an ethical one, so any position on the proper use and law of patents is an ethical position as well.
    - davidu 15y ago
      You're conflating two issues. An individual can be in support of protecting intellectual property and against our current laws that implement said protection.
      - moultano 15y ago
        I agree. I didn't say otherwise. My assertion is that Google's position is still an ethical one even though it is also strategic.
        davidu 15y ago
        It may be your ethical belief that all patents are bad, but we know it isn't Google's. They have hundreds of patents, a number of which list one of your co-founders as inventors. So sure, I guess it's nice that in this instance your company's strategy lines up with your ethical beliefs.

by davidu 15y ago

dman 15y ago

Companies that consider themselves in a growth phase take an anti intellectual property stance. Once they are sitting on an empire they shift positions. Its the rational thing to do. All this says about Google is that they are still looking to enter and disrupt new markets.

Steko 15y ago
I'd say the dynamic is more complicated, many small businesses are highly reliant on IP protections. Innovators are pro-IP, followers are contra-IP.
- dman 15y ago
  I did not say anything about size of business. I think a better framing of your latter point would be - incumbents are pro-IP newcomers are contra-IP. Just being first in a field does not mean that you are innovating in it currently.
  - Steko 15y ago
    "I did not say anything about size of business." Well 'empire' has some connotations you may not be aware of.
    - dman 15y ago
      Sorry about that, I can now see how I miscommunicated. I was lazily using empire to allude to - 'an economic entity with a well defined identity and well defined borders'. Let me take an example to clarify this situation - Lets assume a hypothetical situation where Nokia has reached its limits of what it thinks a Phone could be it has stopped doing fundamental innovation ie it has a well defined empire with a well defined cost structure and a well defined revenue model. In such a situation it is in Nokia's self interest to use their immense patent portfolio to create a moat around their business to keep upstarts like Apple / Google away. On the other hand lets consider another hypothetical situation where Nokia were innovating and trying to reimagine what a phone could be. Perhaps they were doing interesting things in software to displace desktops and make the phone the central location of the users global state. In this case they would be encroaching onto areas where other entities (like Microsoft, Google) might hold significant patents. In this case it would be in Nokia's self interest to be the anti patent candidate. I have often found that when I use more words to clarify a miscommunication I often end up causing more damage. I hope that is not the case here.
- kelnos 15y ago
  Innovators are pro-IP, followers are contra-IP. Strongly disagree. This kind of statement really needs some supporting evidence.
  - Steko 15y ago
    Ok so I'll cite some supporting evidence: http://infochachkie.com/fast-followers-i/ http://infochachkie.com/fast-followers-i/ "Whenever creating an imitation of a successful leader, great care must be taken to avoid outright intellectual property infringement; the closer the duplication, the greater the care which must be exercised. MGA Entertainment (MGA), which produced the Bratz dolls, learned this the hard way. Late in 2008, U.S. Courts forced MGA to cease and desist in the manufacture of the dolls. A jury deemed that the creator of Bratz, Carter Bryant, devised the idea while he was an employee at Mattel. In the Spring of 2009, a U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the jury decision, mandating that the intellectual property associated with Bratz dolls was the sole property of Mattel."
    - kelnos 15y ago
      Making a blanket statement about all innovators and all followers is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence. A reference to a single court case between a pair of companies hardly passes that bar. Regardless, reading your linked article, it seems to have a pretty positive (or at least neutral) view of being a so-called "follower". It's interesting to point out the NKOTB-follower groups like Backstreet Boys and 'NSync. Regardless of whether or not you like their music, it's hard to deny that they were hugely successful and helped push the "boyband" genre of music into greater popularity. Not saying this is good or bad from an aesthetic point of view, but it sounds good from a business perspective.
      - Steko 15y ago
        It seems fairly intuitive to me that innovations are protected by IP so innovators are always for stronger IP protections and wheras followers are always trying to skirt close to the line of infringement without passing it, and thus are disposed towards weaker penalties towards infringement. I'm surprised at the level of disagreement this assertion has provoked. How much evidence do you really want? Are the Chinese vendors hawking illegal Harry Potter books for or against greater penalties in China for violating IP? Are the fake Apple stores and fake iPhone "KIRF" makers for or against greater IP penalties? I mean I guess this classification loses value when you start talking about companies like Zynga that both steal and are stolen from (today's injunction). And that probably applies to Apple and many other large businesses but it seems to me that most of these companies put up a fight but ultimately accept that they have to pay for many things -- as Apple did with Amazon's One Click or the IP they buy or the Nokia settlement. OTOH Google seems to have adopted something scarily close to the Chinese pirate model.

moultano 15y ago

So if the ethical position is also strategic, it is no longer ethical? That's a pretty high standard for what constitutes ethical behavior. >If they thought patents were more strategic for them, they wouldn't be anti-patent. This needs a gigantic [citation needed] next to it.

davidu 15y ago
You believe that being pro IPP or anti IPP is an ethical position? I am pro IP protection (IPP) and but I strongly dislike the existing IPP system we have.
- moultano 15y ago
  What do you mean? Any normative statement is ultimately an ethical one, so any position on the proper use and law of patents is an ethical position as well.
  - davidu 15y ago
    You're conflating two issues. An individual can be in support of protecting intellectual property and against our current laws that implement said protection.
    - moultano 15y ago
      I agree. I didn't say otherwise. My assertion is that Google's position is still an ethical one even though it is also strategic.
      - davidu 15y ago
        It may be your ethical belief that all patents are bad, but we know it isn't Google's. They have hundreds of patents, a number of which list one of your co-founders as inventors. So sure, I guess it's nice that in this instance your company's strategy lines up with your ethical beliefs.