5 ms·

Yes, and that's why I think (most) software patents are a crock of shit, same as most design patents. The very idea that someone can get a patent something like

Yes, and that's why I think (most) software patents are a crock of shit, same as most design patents. The very idea that someone can get a patent something like 'a tablet with a metal casing and rounded corners' is revolting. But then, the whole patent system has been fucked up for umpteen years because of the way lawyers lay out the legalese on most patents. Something as specific as a new protocol to transfer data (say, SPDY) can be massaged into being a vague generic definition ("a binary transmission method designed to make HTTP-like data structures and operations possible in a more efficient manner") that could cover a lot of ground, giving the owner of the patent the power to halt innovation (ZeroMQ could very well fall under the umbrella defined of such 'patent') while giving exactly 0 benefit to anyone. I'm just waiting for someone cheeky enough to come up with a vague wording for describing a 'wooden and/or plastic object designed with the purpose of holding items and or facilitating common household tasks' (i.e. a piece of furniture) and sue IKEA.

JoeCortopassi 14y ago
Where would Google be without the PageRank patent to give them a monopoly on search? Don't think many people have an issue with that.
- throwaway64 14y ago
  what an absurdly wrongheaded statement, do you really think that Google depended on patent protection to stop others from using PageRank, and even if they did, how could it ever be conclusively proven that PageRank was used by somebody else?
  - masry 14y ago
    What the hell? How is the PageRank patent not protection to Google? If Yahoo, LiveSearch and whatever other famous search engine just went ahead and ripped off Google then Google wouldn't be the Google we know now... Proving it shouldn't be any more difficult than asserting any patent. The defendant would have to show how they're ranking pages I would imagine, and if there's an infringement, they're found guilty.
    - Zaim3 14y ago
      "What the hell? How is the PageRank patent not protection to Google?" Because it belongs to Stanford University, not Google.
      - JoeCortopassi 14y ago
        Under exclusive license by Google. Basically the same as having the patent yourselves
- fromhet 14y ago
  I know less than little about most things, but wouldnt that m ake search engienes compete more, giving us, the users, better results? I think there's a fine line where on one side inventors cant net a profit without a time-based monopoly but on the other side of this fine line it's just hurting competition.
  - JoeCortopassi 14y ago
    Sort of. The average search results would have gotten a little better, but only because Excite/Altavista/etc would have poached some key early employees of Google and walked away with their algorithm, which was Googles key advantage back then. So the big incumbents would be able to use PageRank AND their pre-existing market share to destroy google easily. The huge leap forward in search (and it was a huge leap) would have never happened, because their would be no challengers who could match the purchasing power and market share of incumbents
- dedward 14y ago
  Google has a patent on pagerank? If their algorithm was patented, it would be open for anyone to read and understand - just not to use. My understanding is their ranking is something they keep a closely guarded secret, and to apply for a patent on it would be silly. Or was pagerank something they did early on and I'm mixing up two things.
  - JoeCortopassi 14y ago
    You got it mixed up. They built Google on the (patented) PageRank algorithm, but have since improved upon it to such a degree that the what they currently use bears little resemblance.
- eli 14y ago
  Google's secret sauce has a lot less to do with page rankings and a lot more to do with how to do really cheap and efficient data processing.
  - JoeCortopassi 14y ago
    So, if they had really crappy, but fast search results, they would be just as successful? That doesn't hold merit at all
    - eli 14y ago
      Don't be silly. I'm not saying search results aren't important; I'm saying they're not difficult. The specifics of Google's algorithm have to stay secret to make it harder to game them, but the real "secret sauce" is the stuff they don't talk much about: custom built networking switches, smart power grids, and clever software like Map/Reduce. I bet R&D spends a lot more on that stuff than on figuring out how to improve ranking order.
Tloewald 14y ago
But what you said was that the constitution was supposed to break monopolies. No it wasn't.

JoeCortopassi 14y ago

Where would Google be without the PageRank patent to give them a monopoly on search? Don't think many people have an issue with that.

throwaway64 14y ago
what an absurdly wrongheaded statement, do you really think that Google depended on patent protection to stop others from using PageRank, and even if they did, how could it ever be conclusively proven that PageRank was used by somebody else?
- masry 14y ago
  What the hell? How is the PageRank patent not protection to Google? If Yahoo, LiveSearch and whatever other famous search engine just went ahead and ripped off Google then Google wouldn't be the Google we know now... Proving it shouldn't be any more difficult than asserting any patent. The defendant would have to show how they're ranking pages I would imagine, and if there's an infringement, they're found guilty.
  - Zaim3 14y ago
    "What the hell? How is the PageRank patent not protection to Google?" Because it belongs to Stanford University, not Google.
    - JoeCortopassi 14y ago
      Under exclusive license by Google. Basically the same as having the patent yourselves
fromhet 14y ago
I know less than little about most things, but wouldnt that m ake search engienes compete more, giving us, the users, better results? I think there's a fine line where on one side inventors cant net a profit without a time-based monopoly but on the other side of this fine line it's just hurting competition.
- JoeCortopassi 14y ago
  Sort of. The average search results would have gotten a little better, but only because Excite/Altavista/etc would have poached some key early employees of Google and walked away with their algorithm, which was Googles key advantage back then. So the big incumbents would be able to use PageRank AND their pre-existing market share to destroy google easily. The huge leap forward in search (and it was a huge leap) would have never happened, because their would be no challengers who could match the purchasing power and market share of incumbents
dedward 14y ago
Google has a patent on pagerank? If their algorithm was patented, it would be open for anyone to read and understand - just not to use. My understanding is their ranking is something they keep a closely guarded secret, and to apply for a patent on it would be silly. Or was pagerank something they did early on and I'm mixing up two things.
- JoeCortopassi 14y ago
  You got it mixed up. They built Google on the (patented) PageRank algorithm, but have since improved upon it to such a degree that the what they currently use bears little resemblance.
eli 14y ago
Google's secret sauce has a lot less to do with page rankings and a lot more to do with how to do really cheap and efficient data processing.
- JoeCortopassi 14y ago
  So, if they had really crappy, but fast search results, they would be just as successful? That doesn't hold merit at all
  - eli 14y ago
    Don't be silly. I'm not saying search results aren't important; I'm saying they're not difficult. The specifics of Google's algorithm have to stay secret to make it harder to game them, but the real "secret sauce" is the stuff they don't talk much about: custom built networking switches, smart power grids, and clever software like Map/Reduce. I bet R&D spends a lot more on that stuff than on figuring out how to improve ranking order.

Tloewald 14y ago

But what you said was that the constitution was supposed to break monopolies. No it wasn't.