4 ms·

> Where did I say that? Hmm, I read that as a precursor to your later arguments. > "We did not enter the search business, Jobs said. They entered the phone b

> Where did I say that? Hmm, I read that as a precursor to your later arguments. > "We did not enter the search business, Jobs said. They entered the phone business. ... This don’t be evil mantra: “It’s bullshit.” Ahh, OK, a bit indirect, but I can see where you're coming from. > The rest of your post comes down to a disagreement on basic principles for which we will never agree. But that's exactly my point! You and many people here pass judgement on things based on their own principles as if those were a given! I try to present an alternate perspective because it's hard to come by around here. Now, even if asserting opinions as fact is taken as a reality of forum life and overlooked, there's another thing irks me: when it comes to patents, those opinions are almost always poorly informed, and my agenda really is to spread more awareness. This is also why I try to support my points with studies instead of regurgitating talking points put out by tech media outlets. > I have opposed software patents for decades, far longer than I've been a Google employee (indeed, I was attracted to Google because of its stance on software freedom) Yes, Google certainly is one of the stronger proponents of free software. But you should ask how much of that is because it conveniently aligns with their business strategy (see: Spolsky's "commoditize your complements.") And again, it would be useful to keep Google's antics with Motorola in mind. I do not say this to disenfranchise you with Google -- it is indeed an excellent company to work for -- but more from the perspective that an employers' stance on IP should not affect an employee's opinions. The employer is acting in their own best interests. So should the employee. > possibly even a lawyer or an employee of IP vultures. Heh, no, just a geek with a very strong interest in IP. I did previously work with a very IP-focused company, which is where I picked up my patent background, but this was the proverbial little guy that had been ripped off by the big guys, almost went under, and only managed to prevail through patents. Thus I have a very different view point on these things. > All the other attempted utilitarian justifications are bullshit. They might hold for pharmaceuticals, or other industries where it may take 10 years to R&D a drug, but the idea that software patents represent extreme risks and expenses in development is ludicrous, and anyone who has written more than a few thousand lines of code knows that. Any 12 year old can write a few thousand lines of code. Which thousand lines of code to write to provide the most value is something that only comes with a lot more insight. Ask yourself: how much do software companies invest in R&D? See that war for talent out there? How much does it cost to retain the best talent? How much does the free food and health insurance and perks cost in addition to the 6-figure salaries? What are Google's biggest expenses? Would you call that a trivial investment? Now think about what that investment gets you, and whether that's something that a company can reasonably want to protect. > The VC justification is bullshit too, I founded, raised funding, and sold two startup companies without patents. Just because you did it that way doesn't mean it's the best way. I posted studies showing that it's easier to get financing if you have patents, and companies with patents are more likely to have successful exits. Sure, your experience is valid, but that does not mean others should deny any advantages they can rightfully take. > The concept of predatory pricing makes no sense for something owned by the public (open source). Nit-pick, but most open source is not really owned by the public. Especially not Android. Not when it takes an Amazon to fork Android. > I would argue that if companies battling it out is creating and giving away knowledge or information to be owned by the public and freely copied, then it is a good for society and is exactly the kind of thing we want to be encouraging. Couple of things: 1) If it's knowledge you created all by yourself, you can give it away all you want. But if it's simply a rehashing of knowledge somebody else created, not so much. This is essentially the purpose of IP, which you're free to disagree with, but society in general has decided to support it. 2) If giving away knowledge was such a great thing, why doesn't Google open source all it's IP? Think about where you draw the lines. > Your vested interest is in protecting corporate interests against the public it seems. Oh no, very much no. I don't have any vested interests yet, but if I do, they will be very much in my own interest rather than any corporation or any public. That may seem selfish, but I have seen with my own eyes time and again how the public and corporations will take what they can get and give back nothing if they can get away with it.

cromwellian 13y ago
Most of what many software companies called R&D, I call product development. Real R&D happens at big corporate labs where crazy long term ideas are funded without regard to next quarter's profits. I used to work at IBM TJ Watson Research. That was R&D. They published a Systems Journal with the research for public consumption. Much of it was on very basic algorithms or on fundamental physics or engineering that had nothing to do with a particular product. AT&T Bell Labs? That's R&D. Even Microsoft Research is R&D, but most of the patents Microsoft sues over does not come out of their research labs. Here's software R&D: Spending 4 years on Phd research looking at new speech recognition algorithms and making fundamental improvements in the field. Here's what's not R&D: Developing a product in 6-12 months, and then asking your developers retroactively to go submit patents on anything in there that they can find: drop down menus, clicking styles, transparent overlays, extracting links from text. Ask yourself this, do you think Pinterest deserves a patent on "Pin Board" UI? Do you think a Y-Combinator startup that goes from idea to launch in 3 months, and then submits a whole slew of patents on whatever they manage to cobble together in that time is R&D? Some patents are essentially the equivalent of domain name squatting. Nothing more than a land grab for as many claims as possible. I've been through the patent process before. Asked by lawyers to drum up as many claims as possible with as wide applicability as possible, send through the USPTO, wash, rinse, repeat, until you walk away with as many viable claims as possible. It's not really about what you actually developed, it's about trying to own as much of the intellectual landscape as possible. I find that essentially dishonest and I don't think it is good for innovation. Neither Google nor Apple's biggest expenses are R&D. Apple's R&D expenses in fact have been historically low. Microsoft spend 12% on R&D last year. Apple, only 3%. IBM and Intel also essentially outspent Apple, as I bet Samsung has too. Consider that Apple relies on fundamental semiconductor advances in screens, fabs, memory, Flash memory, et al that are mostly done by other companies. These companies invest massive R&D efforts into fabs, advanced lithography, production lines. Isn't it kind of sad that Apple's $150 billion isn't going into fundamental advanced in new technology, but into stock buy back, dividends, and offshore investments? You know, if Apple were to invest in say, the kind of stuff IBM or HP is doing with trying to develop new batteries or fundamentally new storage mediums, I'd be like, sure, that was a 10 year investment, they may deserve some protection. But I just can't get behind a patent on using regular expressions to parse phone numbers or URLs out of text and turn them into clickable links, which is a basic job interview question.

cromwellian 13y ago

Most of what many software companies called R&D, I call product development. Real R&D happens at big corporate labs where crazy long term ideas are funded without regard to next quarter's profits. I used to work at IBM TJ Watson Research. That was R&D. They published a Systems Journal with the research for public consumption. Much of it was on very basic algorithms or on fundamental physics or engineering that had nothing to do with a particular product. AT&T Bell Labs? That's R&D. Even Microsoft Research is R&D, but most of the patents Microsoft sues over does not come out of their research labs. Here's software R&D: Spending 4 years on Phd research looking at new speech recognition algorithms and making fundamental improvements in the field. Here's what's not R&D: Developing a product in 6-12 months, and then asking your developers retroactively to go submit patents on anything in there that they can find: drop down menus, clicking styles, transparent overlays, extracting links from text. Ask yourself this, do you think Pinterest deserves a patent on "Pin Board" UI? Do you think a Y-Combinator startup that goes from idea to launch in 3 months, and then submits a whole slew of patents on whatever they manage to cobble together in that time is R&D? Some patents are essentially the equivalent of domain name squatting. Nothing more than a land grab for as many claims as possible. I've been through the patent process before. Asked by lawyers to drum up as many claims as possible with as wide applicability as possible, send through the USPTO, wash, rinse, repeat, until you walk away with as many viable claims as possible. It's not really about what you actually developed, it's about trying to own as much of the intellectual landscape as possible. I find that essentially dishonest and I don't think it is good for innovation. Neither Google nor Apple's biggest expenses are R&D. Apple's R&D expenses in fact have been historically low. Microsoft spend 12% on R&D last year. Apple, only 3%. IBM and Intel also essentially outspent Apple, as I bet Samsung has too. Consider that Apple relies on fundamental semiconductor advances in screens, fabs, memory, Flash memory, et al that are mostly done by other companies. These companies invest massive R&D efforts into fabs, advanced lithography, production lines. Isn't it kind of sad that Apple's $150 billion isn't going into fundamental advanced in new technology, but into stock buy back, dividends, and offshore investments? You know, if Apple were to invest in say, the kind of stuff IBM or HP is doing with trying to develop new batteries or fundamentally new storage mediums, I'd be like, sure, that was a 10 year investment, they may deserve some protection. But I just can't get behind a patent on using regular expressions to parse phone numbers or URLs out of text and turn them into clickable links, which is a basic job interview question.