Once again, it's not just about the technology, but the perceived view people have of Google as compared to Microsoft.
Perhaps the fact that users of Microsoft's other products have been so abused, that the association with Microsoft is actually a big minus. Not to mention the backlash against absurd business practices, and illegal maintaince of a monopoly has indelibly stained Microsoft.
Noel Le
· 2 years ago
Man, ssheeesh, when talking about patents, "copying" is not relevant. That belongs to copyright doctrine. Uhh....
A couple other points:
Google did patent a lot of its search technology. This will enable it to further commercialize and improve on that technology. Don't doubt that Google developed its software with patenting in mind.
Microsoft entered the search engine late and is now the third ranked search firm.
Who has cloned Google's technology. Your statement about this refuts the whole argument of your post.
Uhhh, would the iPhone or Google search technology exist without patents. Probably in some form, but with patents, these firms can share the knowledge from their R&D;, collaborate with firms holding complementary technologies and further invest in refining their products.
Noel Le
· 2 years ago
Tim, can you clarify one point. You've stated elsewhere that "copying is innovation." Can you expand, describing both formal means of appropriation, the concept of spillovers and dynamic efficiency.
Tim Lee
· 2 years ago
You've stated elsewhere that "copying is innovation."
I don't remember saying that. Do you have a link?
Lewis Baumstark
· 2 years ago
Man, ssheeesh, when talking about patents, "copying" is not relevant. You've never clarified why this is so, partly because you have yet to explain your distinction between "imitation" and "copying".
Lewis Baumstark
· 2 years ago
Ack, sorry for the bold. I meant to use a br tag instead. It's late...
Noel Le
· 2 years ago
Lewis, I'll reply to you here rather than TechDirt as Masnick's post is getting to long.
In IP lingo, copying does take on certain context, implying that someone is aware of a technology by copying it. Thinking more about this, imitating might also imply something similar and thus not be right when talking about patents. Check out the post I put up on IPcentral about Lemley's writing on an independent invention defense for patents (I would post the link but then my post would take a long time to clear).
The whole concept of of independent invention in patents suggests that "copying" is not relevant to patent infringement. Patent doctrine is not meant to prevent mere copying, so to say that its hard to copy patented technology isn't really saying much.
Tim, I recall Masnick quoting you a couple weeks back, but if this is not your view, then I apologize. I raise the issue though because I wanted to gauge what boundaries you would suggest for the value of copying in innovation.
The notion that "copying is innovation" does have some truth to it. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, nations often *leapfrogged* by copying and refining innovations from other nations. Early in the Internet era, academic scientists often shared research and encouraged copying of their work.
In today's economy, some level of copying is still important when the societal value of an invention or knowledge is greater than the private value (economists call it spillovers). To facillitate spillovers, IP doctrine has such provisions as *misuse*, reverse engineering exceptions and limitations to protectable subject matter. Thus, current IP doctrine does support the notion that *copying is innovation* to a limited extent.
Noel Le
· 2 years ago
***The whole concept of of independent invention in patents suggests that "copying" is not relevant to patent infringement.***
Sorry, I meant to say that *copying* is not necessary nor necessarily relevant to patent infringement.
Richard Bennett
· 2 years ago
Tim, you've got your facts wrong again. Your claim: "Clearly, Google has been able to turn a tidy profit (to put it mildly) from its search engine without any significant recourse to patent law" is not remotely true. Google has patented its page rank algorithm, and that's the heart of their search engine. They also have a number of other patents in the search area that are quite significant. Here's a list of 38 Google patent applications.
Tim Lee
· 2 years ago
Richard, has Google enforced any of its patents? Earned licensing revenues on any of them? I'm pretty sure the answer is "no." Every major software company files for patents because if they don't they're dead meat should a company with a large patent portfolio target them. But if they haven't used their patents for anything other than self-defense, it seems unlikely that the patent system is important to their business strategy.
Noel Le
· 2 years ago
Uhhh Tim, a patents value doesn't just come from enforcement or licensing.......:) Google's patents still provide it with the kind of exclusivity to improve on its technology.
Tim Lee
· 2 years ago
Noel, how does that work exactly? Does the warm and fuzzy feeling from seeing their name on a patent give them greater motivation to produce better technology? If Google never enforces its patent or seeks licensing revenue from it, how does the patent give it any kind of "exclusivity?"
Noel Le
· 2 years ago
Tim, patents are a FORMAL form of protection, thats a bit more than a warm and fuzzy feel.
***If Google never enforces its patent or seeks licensing revenue from it, how does the patent give it any kind of "exclusivity?"***
The possiblity of enforcement...
Tim Lee
· 2 years ago
OK, do you have evidence that Microsoft or Yahoo have steered clear of implementing certain features in their search engine to avoid infringing on Google's patents? Or are you predicting that Google will be suing Microsoft, Yahoo or other infringers in the near future?
If not, I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how Google's business strategy would be any different in a world without patents.
Noel Le
· 2 years ago
You seem to be saying that a patent is worthless unless another party is deterred from making a certain technology in a particular way, or there is a suit. I see some logic in this, but not really an argument. Of course, I can't predict the future like you can, and don't know if Google will ever enforce or licenses its patents. Having patents gives it more options though.
There are a variety things that could be going through Google's mind. I can't read their mind like you can, but here are some prospects:
Google's patents basically raise the bar on entering the search technology market. They might say: "Hey, we're Google, we have these patents, don't make anything like them, figure out your own way." This is good for innovaiton because it forces creativity and deters duplication.
Or, Google can be saying, "we've invested in this technology, Uncle Sam gave us a patent, now our patent is public info and we can license it to others." This is good for innovation because it spreads knowledge resutling from R&D; to the technological community.
Or, Google might say, "haha, we're patent trolls, if our firm ever flopps, we'll sue any company still standing in the search market." this is not good for innovation... and I doubt its google's strategy.
Tim Lee
· 2 years ago
Google's patents basically raise the bar on entering the search technology market. They might say: "Hey, we're Google, we have these patents, don't make anything like them, figure out your own way." This is good for innovaiton because it forces creativity and deters duplication.
Noel, there are already several big companies making search engines, and as far as I can tell, they work very similarly to Google's own search engine. Yet as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) Google has no sued any of those companies. So it doesn't seem very likely that this is their strategy.
Or, Google can be saying, "we've invested in this technology, Uncle Sam gave us a patent, now our patent is public info and we can license it to others." This is good for innovation because it spreads knowledge resutling from R&D; to the technological community.
Really? Most of the software patents I've looked at don't have nearly enough detail to replicate the patented technology. And as I said before, I don't believe that Google has actually licensed any of its patents.
Obviously, I can't prove that patents will never be a part of Google's business strategy. But it seems pretty clear that they're not an important part of their strategy right now, and you've offered nothing but speculation that that might change in the future.
They probably did it for the ad revenue, don't you think?
Noel Le
· 2 years ago
Tim, you seem to be writing under the assumption, among many, that patents need to be leveraged in certain ways to be useful. Should Google wait until someone develops similar technology before trying to patent their work, should they wait until they see an infringing product to seek a patent. I mean...uhhh
Tim Lee
· 2 years ago
Noel, companies--Microsoft, Yahoo--have already developed similar technologies. If patents were an important part of Google's strategies, they would have already sued those companies. The fact that no such lawsuit has occurred seems like strong evidence that that's not Google's strategy.
Richard Bennett
· 2 years ago
Google makes its money selling ads, not licensing patents, so if that was your point, it's certainly valid. However, there's an interesting side point to consider. Google's main revenue stream is ad words, and the patent behind that is actually owned by Yahoo, who licensed it to Google for some stock. So obviously, Google isn't going to run around suing people for violating Yahoo's patents on ad words.
Perhaps the moral is that Google is both less innovative and less virtuous than is commonly believed.
Noel Le
· 2 years ago
What. First Tim states that after 5 years the wealthiest companies on the planet cannot beat Google at its game, then he says that they're infringing its patents, then he says that all the patents he's seen are so vague there's no point in replicating them.
Lets just wait and see what Google does Tim:):)
Tim Lee
· 2 years ago
Noel, there's nothing contradictory about those three statements.
All Comments
Perhaps the fact that users of Microsoft's other products have been so abused, that the association with Microsoft is actually a big minus. Not to mention the backlash against absurd business practices, and illegal maintaince of a monopoly has indelibly stained Microsoft.
A couple other points:
Google did patent a lot of its search technology. This will enable it to further commercialize and improve on that technology. Don't doubt that Google developed its software with patenting in mind.
Microsoft entered the search engine late and is now the third ranked search firm.
Who has cloned Google's technology. Your statement about this refuts the whole argument of your post.
Uhhh, would the iPhone or Google search technology exist without patents. Probably in some form, but with patents, these firms can share the knowledge from their R&D;, collaborate with firms holding complementary technologies and further invest in refining their products.
I don't remember saying that. Do you have a link?
You've never clarified why this is so, partly because you have yet to explain your distinction between "imitation" and "copying".
In IP lingo, copying does take on certain context, implying that someone is aware of a technology by copying it. Thinking more about this, imitating might also imply something similar and thus not be right when talking about patents. Check out the post I put up on IPcentral about Lemley's writing on an independent invention defense for patents (I would post the link but then my post would take a long time to clear).
The whole concept of of independent invention in patents suggests that "copying" is not relevant to patent infringement. Patent doctrine is not meant to prevent mere copying, so to say that its hard to copy patented technology isn't really saying much.
Tim, I recall Masnick quoting you a couple weeks back, but if this is not your view, then I apologize. I raise the issue though because I wanted to gauge what boundaries you would suggest for the value of copying in innovation.
The notion that "copying is innovation" does have some truth to it. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, nations often *leapfrogged* by copying and refining innovations from other nations. Early in the Internet era, academic scientists often shared research and encouraged copying of their work.
In today's economy, some level of copying is still important when the societal value of an invention or knowledge is greater than the private value (economists call it spillovers). To facillitate spillovers, IP doctrine has such provisions as *misuse*, reverse engineering exceptions and limitations to protectable subject matter. Thus, current IP doctrine does support the notion that *copying is innovation* to a limited extent.
Sorry, I meant to say that *copying* is not necessary nor necessarily relevant to patent infringement.
***If Google never enforces its patent or seeks licensing revenue from it, how does the patent give it any kind of "exclusivity?"***
The possiblity of enforcement...
If not, I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how Google's business strategy would be any different in a world without patents.
There are a variety things that could be going through Google's mind. I can't read their mind like you can, but here are some prospects:
Google's patents basically raise the bar on entering the search technology market. They might say: "Hey, we're Google, we have these patents, don't make anything like them, figure out your own way." This is good for innovaiton because it forces creativity and deters duplication.
Or, Google can be saying, "we've invested in this technology, Uncle Sam gave us a patent, now our patent is public info and we can license it to others." This is good for innovation because it spreads knowledge resutling from R&D; to the technological community.
Or, Google might say, "haha, we're patent trolls, if our firm ever flopps, we'll sue any company still standing in the search market." this is not good for innovation... and I doubt its google's strategy.
Noel, there are already several big companies making search engines, and as far as I can tell, they work very similarly to Google's own search engine. Yet as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) Google has no sued any of those companies. So it doesn't seem very likely that this is their strategy.
Or, Google can be saying, "we've invested in this technology, Uncle Sam gave us a patent, now our patent is public info and we can license it to others." This is good for innovation because it spreads knowledge resutling from R&D; to the technological community.
Really? Most of the software patents I've looked at don't have nearly enough detail to replicate the patented technology. And as I said before, I don't believe that Google has actually licensed any of its patents.
Obviously, I can't prove that patents will never be a part of Google's business strategy. But it seems pretty clear that they're not an important part of their strategy right now, and you've offered nothing but speculation that that might change in the future.
Perhaps the moral is that Google is both less innovative and less virtuous than is commonly believed.
Lets just wait and see what Google does Tim:):)