tim, you actually made me pause a think for a moment. on the opne hand, your comments about google being unreliant on patents is a good one and well founded. i think they are true innovators in their own right.
that said, intellectual property rights have fundamentally played a role in every advance google has made. for instance, but for patents on page rank (fka backrub), one can not imagine the same level of financial support early on for google; a start up not so many years ago.
in subsequent chapters, patents played a role in google's life; perhaps the most major one. GOOG made a decision to infringe on Patent 6,269,361. this was filed and obtained by goto.com, which became overture.com; then purchased by yahoo for $1.63 billion. GOOG was sued by YHOO for patent infringement for allegedly infringing on a new system of paid placement for online ads. this was NOT google's creation. this was someone else's intellectual property. google may dominate the space today. it did NOT invent this technology. instead google chose to settle for 2.7 MILLION GOOG shares and an undisclosed royalty.
so, to say intellectual property or patents relfecting and protecting it hasnt been a factor is an incomplete thought.
lastly, you should know that google is one of the most prolific patent filing firms. the company filed dozens upon dozens of patents. apparently, though, they have 'discovered' this need late in life, as many of their patents are after 2003. so, while you may think patents are unimportant and inconsequential to google, the management and board of a $150 billion corporation have a different view; just see their filings.
jason galanis, geotag, when "where" matters
Tim
· 2 years ago
Jason,
for instance, but for patents on page rank (fka backrub), one can not imagine the same level of financial support early on for google; a start up not so many years ago.
This seems clearly wrong to me. Google didn't apply for their first patent until 2000, and didn't receive it until 2003. By 2000, they'd already received a major round of venture capital, and by 2003, they were a large and successful company. Clearly, their early investors were investing based on something other than their patent portfolio.
The fact that Google has been sued for patent infringement by other companies is neither here nor there as far as the factors in Google's success goes. The question I was trying to address was whether Google's patents have had a major impact on Google's direction.
Finally, the fact that Google files for a lot of patents is simply evidence that they don't want to meet the same fate as Vonage, which is currently being driven into bankruptcy due to its lack of a patent portfolio, which would have allowed it to retaliate against Verizon. If we want to know whether Google is benefiting from the patent system, we should be looking at licensing revenues (which I'm pretty sure are small or non-existent) and whether Google has sued other companies for infringement (as far as I know, they haven't).
All Comments
that said, intellectual property rights have fundamentally played a role in every advance google has made. for instance, but for patents on page rank (fka backrub), one can not imagine the same level of financial support early on for google; a start up not so many years ago.
in subsequent chapters, patents played a role in google's life; perhaps the most major one. GOOG made a decision to infringe on Patent 6,269,361. this was filed and obtained by goto.com, which became overture.com; then purchased by yahoo for $1.63 billion. GOOG was sued by YHOO for patent infringement for allegedly infringing on a new system of paid placement for online ads. this was NOT google's creation. this was someone else's intellectual property. google may dominate the space today. it did NOT invent this technology. instead google chose to settle for 2.7 MILLION GOOG shares and an undisclosed royalty.
so, to say intellectual property or patents relfecting and protecting it hasnt been a factor is an incomplete thought.
lastly, you should know that google is one of the most prolific patent filing firms. the company filed dozens upon dozens of patents. apparently, though, they have 'discovered' this need late in life, as many of their patents are after 2003. so, while you may think patents are unimportant and inconsequential to google, the management and board of a $150 billion corporation have a different view; just see their filings.
jason galanis, geotag, when "where" matters
for instance, but for patents on page rank (fka backrub), one can not imagine the same level of financial support early on for google; a start up not so many years ago.
This seems clearly wrong to me. Google didn't apply for their first patent until 2000, and didn't receive it until 2003. By 2000, they'd already received a major round of venture capital, and by 2003, they were a large and successful company. Clearly, their early investors were investing based on something other than their patent portfolio.
The fact that Google has been sued for patent infringement by other companies is neither here nor there as far as the factors in Google's success goes. The question I was trying to address was whether Google's patents have had a major impact on Google's direction.
Finally, the fact that Google files for a lot of patents is simply evidence that they don't want to meet the same fate as Vonage, which is currently being driven into bankruptcy due to its lack of a patent portfolio, which would have allowed it to retaliate against Verizon. If we want to know whether Google is benefiting from the patent system, we should be looking at licensing revenues (which I'm pretty sure are small or non-existent) and whether Google has sued other companies for infringement (as far as I know, they haven't).