6 ms·

The one single reason, no need to look any futher, for why it shouldn't be used by public services is because it's a private for profit operation. A simple conc

by rplnt 3y ago

The one single reason, no need to look any futher, for why it shouldn't be used by public services is because it's a private for profit operation. A simple concept that might have been useful, but is closed, so it won't be.

mort96 3y ago
And, to my understanding, the concept is patented, so nobody else can make an open version of it. So yes, the concept is kept from being useful through the power of the state. I really don't like patents.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
  IANAL - but (in most countries) you can’t patent a concept or an idea - only specific implementations of an idea (I.e. a physical invention) - software patents and business-process patents notwithstanding. But that doesn’t stop companies (especially those with a weak technical moat) from abusing the system.
  - mort96 3y ago
    "You can’t patent a concept or an idea" also doesn't prevent patent offices from granting patents on concepts and ideas. IMO, if we are to have patents at all, the patent offices should be robust, well-funded systems which make sure that no patent that's not genuinely a novel implementation of an idea gets granted. In reality, it seems like patent offices more or less accept anything that's written in dense enough lawyerese, and it's up to the legal system to slowly invalidate the bad patents after they've done a ton of harm. The fault here doesn't lie with the companies, but with the whole patent system where governments are way too quick to give out a state-backed monopoly of an idea. I find the whole practice despicable. Here's the What3Words patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2909524A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2909524A1/en The first claim of the patent is: > 1. A computer implemented method of producing a location identifier comprising: > receiving at a processor geographical coordinates of a location; > at said processor performing the steps of: > converting the geographical coordinates into a single unique value n; > converting the single unique value n into a unique group of a plurality of > values; and converting the plurality of values into an equal plurality of > respective words; and making the plurality of words available as a location > identifier. It's hard to imagine anything remotely based around the idea to "convert a location to a set of words" which doesn't infringe on that claim.
- dtgriscom 3y ago
  Patents are a great idea, and essential to technological progress. It's a bargain you make with the state: in return for publishing complete details on your idea, you get a twenty-year monopoly on use of the idea. You get value for your research, and the public gets full access to the idea after twenty years. Patents as currently implemented are a problem. Too many are granted for too-vague ideas; patent trolls buy those vague ideas and then milk them for rent; companies game the system to get far more than the specified twenty years of exclusivity. So, it's a mixed bag.
trollied 3y ago
It is for-profit, but they have yet to turn a profit. Their financial situation is a disaster. 10s of millions of £ burned, with very little income. Look for yourself: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08430008/filing-history https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c... £31m loss in FY22. Cybergibbons has also done a very good critique on how unsafe it is. See here: https://cybergibbons.com/security-2/why-what3words-is-not-suitable-for-safety-critical-applications/ https://cybergibbons.com/security-2/why-what3words-is-not-su... They are also very litigious towards people that call them out.
- czechdeveloper 3y ago
  All the more reason to not use it as they may turn to some way of aggressive monetization to fix that.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    > they may turn to some way of aggressive monetization to fix that That's the plan all along. The end-game is to become the ultimate rent-seeker on the whole concept of addresses, so that any device capable of looking up or resolving an address is obligated to pay rent to them.
- lioeters 3y ago
  > 10s of millions of £ burned Sounds like it's been a great "success" for the people who did the burning.
matkoniecz 3y ago
Or more specifically, private company having monopoly on addressing - with any decoding/encoding between location and mnemonic format - controlled solely by them is not acceptable. "The algorithm is patented in several countries, preventing anyone from implementing a compatible algorithm or developing anything like it as a competing standard. Notably the patent is not restricted to schemes which use three words, so a hypothetical "what4words" would potentially also violate the patent. The wordlist necessary for encoding/decoding what3words locations is copyrighted, and is stored in an encrypted form in the what3words mobile apps (so decrypting the wordlist would likely trigger "anti-circumvention" laws such as DMCA §1201)." (from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/What3words https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/What3words )
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by rplnt 3y ago

mort96 3y ago

And, to my understanding, the concept is patented, so nobody else can make an open version of it. So yes, the concept is kept from being useful through the power of the state. I really don't like patents.

DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
IANAL - but (in most countries) you can’t patent a concept or an idea - only specific implementations of an idea (I.e. a physical invention) - software patents and business-process patents notwithstanding. But that doesn’t stop companies (especially those with a weak technical moat) from abusing the system.
- mort96 3y ago
  "You can’t patent a concept or an idea" also doesn't prevent patent offices from granting patents on concepts and ideas. IMO, if we are to have patents at all, the patent offices should be robust, well-funded systems which make sure that no patent that's not genuinely a novel implementation of an idea gets granted. In reality, it seems like patent offices more or less accept anything that's written in dense enough lawyerese, and it's up to the legal system to slowly invalidate the bad patents after they've done a ton of harm. The fault here doesn't lie with the companies, but with the whole patent system where governments are way too quick to give out a state-backed monopoly of an idea. I find the whole practice despicable. Here's the What3Words patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2909524A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2909524A1/en The first claim of the patent is: > 1. A computer implemented method of producing a location identifier comprising: > receiving at a processor geographical coordinates of a location; > at said processor performing the steps of: > converting the geographical coordinates into a single unique value n; > converting the single unique value n into a unique group of a plurality of > values; and converting the plurality of values into an equal plurality of > respective words; and making the plurality of words available as a location > identifier. It's hard to imagine anything remotely based around the idea to "convert a location to a set of words" which doesn't infringe on that claim.
dtgriscom 3y ago
Patents are a great idea, and essential to technological progress. It's a bargain you make with the state: in return for publishing complete details on your idea, you get a twenty-year monopoly on use of the idea. You get value for your research, and the public gets full access to the idea after twenty years. Patents as currently implemented are a problem. Too many are granted for too-vague ideas; patent trolls buy those vague ideas and then milk them for rent; companies game the system to get far more than the specified twenty years of exclusivity. So, it's a mixed bag.

trollied 3y ago

It is for-profit, but they have yet to turn a profit. Their financial situation is a disaster. 10s of millions of £ burned, with very little income. Look for yourself: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08430008/filing-history https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c... £31m loss in FY22. Cybergibbons has also done a very good critique on how unsafe it is. See here: https://cybergibbons.com/security-2/why-what3words-is-not-suitable-for-safety-critical-applications/ https://cybergibbons.com/security-2/why-what3words-is-not-su... They are also very litigious towards people that call them out.

czechdeveloper 3y ago
All the more reason to not use it as they may turn to some way of aggressive monetization to fix that.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  > they may turn to some way of aggressive monetization to fix that That's the plan all along. The end-game is to become the ultimate rent-seeker on the whole concept of addresses, so that any device capable of looking up or resolving an address is obligated to pay rent to them.
lioeters 3y ago
> 10s of millions of £ burned Sounds like it's been a great "success" for the people who did the burning.

matkoniecz 3y ago

Or more specifically, private company having monopoly on addressing - with any decoding/encoding between location and mnemonic format - controlled solely by them is not acceptable. "The algorithm is patented in several countries, preventing anyone from implementing a compatible algorithm or developing anything like it as a competing standard. Notably the patent is not restricted to schemes which use three words, so a hypothetical "what4words" would potentially also violate the patent. The wordlist necessary for encoding/decoding what3words locations is copyrighted, and is stored in an encrypted form in the what3words mobile apps (so decrypting the wordlist would likely trigger "anti-circumvention" laws such as DMCA §1201)." (from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/What3words https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/What3words )

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]