3 ms·
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
by 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 agoSince 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 agoThe 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.