5 ms·

Those excerpts demonstrate that the 555 timer became significant in part because it was not patented. You could even argue that Camenzind wouldn't have been eu

by kderbe 14y ago

Those excerpts demonstrate that the 555 timer became significant in part because it was not patented. You could even argue that Camenzind wouldn't have been eulogized for his invention of the 555 timer if it wasn't for its success due to widespread copying.

jessedhillon 14y ago
That would be a specious and incredibly naive argument. First A (unpatented invention), then B (success), ergo A causes B -- is that the proposal here? Wouldn't I just have to show the existence of only one invention which became popular, despite being patented, to disprove this? (If I didn't reject it on the grounds that it is fallacious reasoning) Yes, you could argue that he would not have been eulogized, but you would need to have a better argument and it would be speculative at best. Edit: sorry it's late, not trying to be a dick.
- 001sky 14y ago
  That would be a specious and incredibly naive argument The invention is before the patent. You're missing that. It is important. > Invention | patent
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- kderbe 14y ago
  No, you're right, it's a specious argument. While digging for data to back it up, I found this interesting quote from Camenzind: There are no patents on the 555. Signetics did not want to apply for a patent. You see, the situation with patents in Silicon Valley in 1970 was entirely different than it is now. Everybody was stealing from everybody else. I designed the 555 Signetics produced it, and six months, or before a year later, National had it, Fairchild had it, and nobody paid any attention to patents. The people at Signetics told me they didn’t want to apply for a patent, because what would happen if they tried to enforce that patent, is the people from Fairchild would come back with a Manhattan-sized telephone book and say “These are our patents, now let’s see what you’re violating”. It was a house of cards – if you blew on it, the whole thing collapsed.[1] That's strong evidence that the lack of patent for the 555 was unrelated to its particular success, so I admit I was wrong about that. But if Camenzind is correct in his history, then it sounds like Silicon Valley had a solution 40 years ago to the patent mess: pretend they don't exist! [1] http://www.semiconductormuseum.com/Transistors/LectureHall/Camenzind/Camenzind_Page9.htm http://www.semiconductormuseum.com/Transistors/LectureHall/C...
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - indiecore 14y ago
    >sounds like Silicon Valley had a solution 40 years ago to the patent mess: pretend they don't exist! No they had a solution and it was MAD. >The people at Signetics told me they didn’t want to apply for a patent, because what would happen if they tried to enforce that patent, is the people from Fairchild would come back with a Manhattan-sized telephone book and say “These are our patents, now let’s see what you’re violating”. And it worked really well for a time. Unfortunately someone thought they could win and decided to "go nuclear" and now we're all stuck in the middle of a patent war.
  - pcamenzind 14y ago
    There was an interesting bit of industrial espionage intrigue around the 555, a story he told friends and family many times. As he mentions in his book "Designing Analog Chips" he was at one point stuck on a design that required 9 pins, and that forced it into a 14 pin package. He initially submitted this design to Signetics and it was this design that someone in the company leaked to a competitor. But the larger package bugged him and he kept at it until he was able to get it down to 8 pins which allowed an 8-pin package, much preferable over a 14 pin one. The competitors, unaware of the improved design, came out with the larger 14-pin package and this gave Signetics a significant edge when they started selling the 555.
- mseebach2 14y ago
  The quote at the top of this thread specifically argues causation from non-patent to success. Not patented -> rivals release own versions -> price pushed down -> chip becomes ubiquitous. It is, of course, entirely possible that, if patented, it would have been licensed at a low enough cost to still have become ubiquitous.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Since when is non-existence a cause? I think you need to re-phrase this a bit. The simultaneity of non-existence is precisely not a cause. The fact that they are independent (statistically) is perhaps more interesting. Certainly from a public policy perspective.
    - mseebach2 14y ago
      The decision not to patent can be a cause. But other accounts in this thread suggests that patenting or not would have had little influence in the environment in the Silicon Valley.

by kderbe 14y ago

jessedhillon 14y ago

That would be a specious and incredibly naive argument. First A (unpatented invention), then B (success), ergo A causes B -- is that the proposal here? Wouldn't I just have to show the existence of only one invention which became popular, despite being patented, to disprove this? (If I didn't reject it on the grounds that it is fallacious reasoning) Yes, you could argue that he would not have been eulogized, but you would need to have a better argument and it would be speculative at best. Edit: sorry it's late, not trying to be a dick.

001sky 14y ago
That would be a specious and incredibly naive argument The invention is before the patent. You're missing that. It is important. > Invention | patent
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
kderbe 14y ago
No, you're right, it's a specious argument. While digging for data to back it up, I found this interesting quote from Camenzind: There are no patents on the 555. Signetics did not want to apply for a patent. You see, the situation with patents in Silicon Valley in 1970 was entirely different than it is now. Everybody was stealing from everybody else. I designed the 555 Signetics produced it, and six months, or before a year later, National had it, Fairchild had it, and nobody paid any attention to patents. The people at Signetics told me they didn’t want to apply for a patent, because what would happen if they tried to enforce that patent, is the people from Fairchild would come back with a Manhattan-sized telephone book and say “These are our patents, now let’s see what you’re violating”. It was a house of cards – if you blew on it, the whole thing collapsed.[1] That's strong evidence that the lack of patent for the 555 was unrelated to its particular success, so I admit I was wrong about that. But if Camenzind is correct in his history, then it sounds like Silicon Valley had a solution 40 years ago to the patent mess: pretend they don't exist! [1] http://www.semiconductormuseum.com/Transistors/LectureHall/Camenzind/Camenzind_Page9.htm http://www.semiconductormuseum.com/Transistors/LectureHall/C...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- indiecore 14y ago
  >sounds like Silicon Valley had a solution 40 years ago to the patent mess: pretend they don't exist! No they had a solution and it was MAD. >The people at Signetics told me they didn’t want to apply for a patent, because what would happen if they tried to enforce that patent, is the people from Fairchild would come back with a Manhattan-sized telephone book and say “These are our patents, now let’s see what you’re violating”. And it worked really well for a time. Unfortunately someone thought they could win and decided to "go nuclear" and now we're all stuck in the middle of a patent war.
- pcamenzind 14y ago
  There was an interesting bit of industrial espionage intrigue around the 555, a story he told friends and family many times. As he mentions in his book "Designing Analog Chips" he was at one point stuck on a design that required 9 pins, and that forced it into a 14 pin package. He initially submitted this design to Signetics and it was this design that someone in the company leaked to a competitor. But the larger package bugged him and he kept at it until he was able to get it down to 8 pins which allowed an 8-pin package, much preferable over a 14 pin one. The competitors, unaware of the improved design, came out with the larger 14-pin package and this gave Signetics a significant edge when they started selling the 555.
mseebach2 14y ago
The quote at the top of this thread specifically argues causation from non-patent to success. Not patented -> rivals release own versions -> price pushed down -> chip becomes ubiquitous. It is, of course, entirely possible that, if patented, it would have been licensed at a low enough cost to still have become ubiquitous.
- 001sky 14y ago
  Since when is non-existence a cause? I think you need to re-phrase this a bit. The simultaneity of non-existence is precisely not a cause. The fact that they are independent (statistically) is perhaps more interesting. Certainly from a public policy perspective.
  - mseebach2 14y ago
    The decision not to patent can be a cause. But other accounts in this thread suggests that patenting or not would have had little influence in the environment in the Silicon Valley.