4 ms·

If a single person at Google understood/reviewed the 'Google OS', and then later also authorized/reviewed the 'Chrome OS', then the strong form of your (b) opti

by gojomo 14y ago

If a single person at Google understood/reviewed the 'Google OS', and then later also authorized/reviewed the 'Chrome OS', then the strong form of your (b) option, "absolutely no connection", is impossible. Even without explicit sharing of code/people/documents, the earlier project would have served as an investigatory prototype and proof-of-concept, that indirectly encouraged or dissuaded certain later directions. So these 'true father' disputes get into shades of meaning and clashing-but-valid perspectives pretty quick.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago
We've yet to find anyone associated with Chrome OS who even knew Jeff Nelson existed. Perhaps there is someone, but there are few people left who could possibly fit that profile. Who's more senior than the original developers, Sundar Pichai?
- gojomo 14y ago
  The indirect relationships I posit doesn't even require anyone to remember Nelson's name, just for the chain-of-organizational-learning to exist. I don't know anything about the Google org chart. But when Google OS was a project -- and Google financed the Nelson patent application -- who was he describing his work to? Did any of those people, or even people they passed ideas to, later help make the decision to prioritize/fund Chrome OS? If so, that's more than "absolutely no connection". Did Brin/Page/Schmidt take interest in and see presentations about Nelson's 'Google OS'? And then later on 'Chrome OS'? That would also be more than "absolutely no connection". Even if the 'Google OS' project was a mess and the main lesson that percolated down from it was, "don't do it this way", it could have been an important precedent... even if Nelson's name is forgotten. That "there are few people left" who might have personal recollections cuts both ways. Note that these are all general arguments about evaluating why people's impressions differ, and how in founding disputes everyone may have a reasonable basis for their claims based on their own limited perspectives. I don't have specific knowledge of Nelson or these Google projects, and on the internet, exaggerations, hoaxes, and identity-games are always a possibility.
georgemcbay 14y ago
At some point you need to draw a logical line, lest you arrive at Linus Torvalds inventing ChromeOS since he wrote the kernel for it way back in the early 1990s. I have no knowledge of ChromeOS history other than what has been published here, but from my reading of these things it does seem pretty disingenuous for Jeff Nelson to claim to have 'invented the Chromebook'.
- gojomo 14y ago
  The wording "invented the Chromebook" is aggressive, especially for collaborative projects that collect many contributions and work on shared themes. But, journalistic accounts and promotional bioblurbs typically dumb things down, in exactly this way. And, if at any point Google asserts that Nelson's '662 patent covers the Chromebook/ChromeOS or similar products from other companies, then it's a defensible statement, at the level of fuzzyness that's used in these contexts. It should be interpreted as, "invented [key enabling technology for] the Chromebook"... like when people talk about who "invented the iPod" or "invented AdSense".
DannyBee 14y ago
Speaking as a googler from that era: It's much more likely Jeff did something independently, and it never ever got reused elsewhere. In fact, it's very likely nobody working on chrome/chromeos ever knew about it.

by gojomo 14y ago

MatthewPhillips 14y ago

We've yet to find anyone associated with Chrome OS who even knew Jeff Nelson existed. Perhaps there is someone, but there are few people left who could possibly fit that profile. Who's more senior than the original developers, Sundar Pichai?

gojomo 14y ago
The indirect relationships I posit doesn't even require anyone to remember Nelson's name, just for the chain-of-organizational-learning to exist. I don't know anything about the Google org chart. But when Google OS was a project -- and Google financed the Nelson patent application -- who was he describing his work to? Did any of those people, or even people they passed ideas to, later help make the decision to prioritize/fund Chrome OS? If so, that's more than "absolutely no connection". Did Brin/Page/Schmidt take interest in and see presentations about Nelson's 'Google OS'? And then later on 'Chrome OS'? That would also be more than "absolutely no connection". Even if the 'Google OS' project was a mess and the main lesson that percolated down from it was, "don't do it this way", it could have been an important precedent... even if Nelson's name is forgotten. That "there are few people left" who might have personal recollections cuts both ways. Note that these are all general arguments about evaluating why people's impressions differ, and how in founding disputes everyone may have a reasonable basis for their claims based on their own limited perspectives. I don't have specific knowledge of Nelson or these Google projects, and on the internet, exaggerations, hoaxes, and identity-games are always a possibility.

georgemcbay 14y ago

At some point you need to draw a logical line, lest you arrive at Linus Torvalds inventing ChromeOS since he wrote the kernel for it way back in the early 1990s. I have no knowledge of ChromeOS history other than what has been published here, but from my reading of these things it does seem pretty disingenuous for Jeff Nelson to claim to have 'invented the Chromebook'.

gojomo 14y ago
The wording "invented the Chromebook" is aggressive, especially for collaborative projects that collect many contributions and work on shared themes. But, journalistic accounts and promotional bioblurbs typically dumb things down, in exactly this way. And, if at any point Google asserts that Nelson's '662 patent covers the Chromebook/ChromeOS or similar products from other companies, then it's a defensible statement, at the level of fuzzyness that's used in these contexts. It should be interpreted as, "invented [key enabling technology for] the Chromebook"... like when people talk about who "invented the iPod" or "invented AdSense".

DannyBee 14y ago

Speaking as a googler from that era: It's much more likely Jeff did something independently, and it never ever got reused elsewhere. In fact, it's very likely nobody working on chrome/chromeos ever knew about it.