I think that this piece should have been clearly labeled as an editorial piece, as it does not seem to be balanced in the manner expected of responsible journalism.
That being said, the rage of the author came screaming through in pretty much every paragraph. Sheesh. Does Google keep him up at night? Does he toss and turn, muttering under his breath about Google and breaking into a cold sweat?
Entertainment? Maybe. Editorial opinions? Probably. Responsible journalism? No way.
Yes!That is an absolutely brilliant idea!
I've struggled in the past with how AI should deal with Dilger's work but this is by far the easiest and cleanest solution I've seen.
AI already tag articles with Breaking and Feature. Why not simply tag these opinion pieces as Opinion or Editorial?
There could be a news story based on this information, and then another another editorial piece by Dilger on how he views the news.
I think you're just splitting hairs on that one. Ultimately trademark, copyright, patent, etc are all synonymous, use changing depending on the product being referred to (name, literal work, manufactured item).
Nope. Not even close.
The resemblances are superficial, at best. The differences are stark. For example, the aim of each is different, and the rights conferred by each overlap in only a very few places.
Better? The original iPhone was missing basic functionality that was standard on pre-existing smartphones, and has taken them until now to implement some of them.
Yes, vastly better, despite the absence of some features that some people decried as deal-breakers...
I have to agree with google on this. I when you don't focus on who won and who lost and you think about what they plan to use the patents for then the story changes. Google spends more energy on developing technology then protecting their parents they are in the technology business not the legal business. Had google won it would have used the patents to defend from legal issues. However the winning group is almost certain to use the patents to place an expensive licensing fee on android to raise prices and make their OSs more favored with developers. Basically they are squeezing out the competition using pathetic methods. If they impose an outrageous license fee it will like htc said they cannot compete in the market so they chose to take it to court.
Google isn't in the technology business except tangentially; they are in the advertising business. That being so, the reason you don't see them suing people is that they give technology away for free to drive their advertising business.
You'll notice you'll never, ever hear Google talking about what they actually make money on. That's because the entire operation is designed to obfuscate their status as a personal information harvester/seller. When someone steals that, you better believe they'll sue their asses off.
I think you're just splitting hairs on that one. Ultimately trademark, copyright, patent, etc are all synonymous, use changing depending on the product being referred to (name, literal work, manufactured item).
The problem is software patents cover ideas not items.
To take your Star wars example: copyright stops you simply changing a couple of names and passing it off as your own work. But just imagine if Lucas patented the idea of having a spaceship in a movie. Even if you wrote a completely original scifi script that had no connection to Star Wars, you are still in trouble unless you have a lot of time and money to fight the case.
Also remember that software is still covered by copyright. You cannot just copy Apple's code. You need to write it yourself from scratch. Even without worrying about patents programming is hard. Again going back to your Star Wars example: even if you went with the same basic premise (Young farm boy fight evil empire) you still have to write an entire screenplay. You don't need to patent the basic ideas.
I'd be the first to say that the overall quality of Google's financial reporting is excellent. Indeed, others (especially Android handset makers) should follow their lead.
I think addabox was referring to the fact that Google doesn't spend a lot of time talking about the advertising business and search (its core) but rather, spends its time venting on a lot of other issues (e.g., IP, climate change, mobile, etc).
I think that this piece should have been clearly labeled as an editorial piece, as it does not seem to be balanced in the manner expected of responsible journalism.
You need an editorial label for a post on a tech blog? Really?
Quote:
That being said, the rage of the author came screaming through in pretty much every paragraph. Sheesh. Does Google keep him up at night? Does he toss and turn, muttering under his breath about Google and breaking into a cold sweat?
DED is a raving zealot and writes like one. Gruber is more sparse with words but much sharper wit. Which is why Daring Fireball is on my daily reading list and Roughly Drafted isn't.
Quote:
Entertainment? Maybe. Editorial opinions? Probably. Responsible journalism? No way.
I've struggled in the past with how AI should deal with Dilger's work but this is by far the easiest and cleanest solution I've seen.
AI already tag articles with Breaking and Feature. Why not simply tag these opinion pieces as Opinion or Editorial?
There could be a news story based on this information, and then another another editorial piece by Dilger on how he views the news.
AI would potentially get more hits this way.
Brilliant!
DED isn't exactly known for his balanced journalism. AI keeps him around to rabidly attack Google and bring in clicks to the site. It works. I'm here and I think he's a nut job
Since the dawn of the patent system, the rip off artists like Google have whined and complained that the patent system hinders innovation. That's a bunch of bull.
Companies like Google and RIM have been very successful at breaking down the patent system by saying we shouldn't allow non-practicing entities to enforce their patents. That argument doesn't work with Apple, Microsoft, and Nokia. So now all Google can say is, "patents hinder innovation". Google has confused ripping people off with innovating. No wonder they think patents inhibit innovation. It makes perfect sense.
Apple isn't an R&D driven company, the reason they generate much more profit is because they are the ones "borrowing" from other's research and development, look at iOS 5.
Google is good at developing good technology, but failed miserably to protect their IP. Apple won at patents, they're playing the broken system to win while Google had its head up its a** innovating.
Google may be right but it doesn't matter, the law isn't on their side, Apple army of lawyers will find every way to piggy back on their success. Another win for MS/Apple duo.
Apple uses its R&D money efficiently and effectively. they invest in research and development that has high ROI. r&d that can contribute to revenue.
UNLIKE Google. Google invests in Self-Driving Cars, Solar Technology, etc. it's a waste of money.
Apple, Cisco, eBay, MS are also investors but they are not acting like whiny babies and acting all high and mighty preaching about how patents are destroying "innovation".
I just want to say this again: Google: you are a hypocrite.
The name "PageRank" is a trademark of Google, and the PageRank process has been patented (U.S. Patent 6,285,999). However, the patent is assigned to Stanford University and not to Google. Google has exclusive license rights on the patent from Stanford University. The university received 1.8 million shares of Google in exchange for use of the patent; the shares were sold in 2005 for $336 million.
That's the original algorithm, which is now a small part of a larger system. The current algorithms Google use and the data requirements to make them work aren't patented.
And since you brought it up, Google's exclusive use of the Pagerank patent granted by Stanford ends this year.
Given their original sales pitch in the early 00's it's not surprising they got investment from tech companies including Google:
Quote:
When Myhrvold and Jung first began raising money for IV in 2002, the sales pitch was crystal-clear: The company's patent portfolios would provide a way for big tech companies to defend themselves against intellectual property lawsuits. At the time, many people feared an explosion in patent litigation because of the bursting of the dot-com bubble, which had sent many startups into bankruptcy. That, in turn, had forced the defunct companies to put their patents?their last remaining assets, in some cases?on the market at bargain-basement prices. The threat that opportunistic trolls would buy the patents and then file lawsuits alleging infringement worried many executives in Silicon Valley.
So Myhrvold and Jung began making the rounds of major technology companies to drum up investment in what they called the Patent Defense Fund, a name that pretty much translates into "troll repellent." Initially, each company, say several individuals familiar with the sales effort, was asked to pony up $50 million. The plan was that IV would then go out and buy patents that were knocking dangerously around the marketplace, and investors would get a license to the entire portfolio?effectively immunizing them from the danger of intellectual property litigation.
It's only in the mid-to late 00's IV became trolls, with their first official lawsuit (that is, without using a fall company) taking place in 2010. It was pretty much a bait and switch, so companies like Google and Cisco who invested early get a pass.
So many problems with Google's post. Lots of claims but little fact to back them up:
1. "...waged through bogus patents". A patent shown to be bogus can be challenged by submitting prior art to the PTO.
2. "banding together to acquire ... old patents... to make sure Google didn?t get them". In a free market economy, Google is free to acquire the same patents. In fact, they did try. However, they failed. Surely Google's attempt at acquiring the same patents makes this claim a bit hypocritical. And if claim #1 is valid, why was Google bidding on bogus patents?
3. "Patents were meant to encourage innovation..." Yes, but the mechanism by which patents encourage innovation is to protect intellectual property. Which rewards the patent holder for their innovation.
So, Google, how about you fight back by innovating, and then patenting. It strikes me that you're trying to build insurmountable momentum by skirting the rights of patent holders.
FriedLobster, are you DED? You are passionately against Google to the point that you sound like a tabloid. READ ALL ABOUT IT!! GOOGLE'S RESEARCH IS BASED ON NAZI PRINCIPLES! THEY HAVE KILLED ELDERLY WIDOWS!! THEIR NEW GOAL IS TO STEAL YOUR CHILD'S SAFETY BLANKET AND BURN IT BEFORE THEIR EYES!! Get a life. I love Apple products for their amazing workmanship, and I love Google products for their amazing utility. My brain has not yet imploded, and I don't think yours will either if you ever decide to open your front door and check out the world.
Comments
I think that this piece should have been clearly labeled as an editorial piece, as it does not seem to be balanced in the manner expected of responsible journalism.
That being said, the rage of the author came screaming through in pretty much every paragraph. Sheesh. Does Google keep him up at night? Does he toss and turn, muttering under his breath about Google and breaking into a cold sweat?
Entertainment? Maybe. Editorial opinions? Probably. Responsible journalism? No way.
Yes! That is an absolutely brilliant idea!
I've struggled in the past with how AI should deal with Dilger's work but this is by far the easiest and cleanest solution I've seen.
AI already tag articles with Breaking and Feature. Why not simply tag these opinion pieces as Opinion or Editorial?
There could be a news story based on this information, and then another another editorial piece by Dilger on how he views the news.
AI would potentially get more hits this way.
Brilliant!
I think you're just splitting hairs on that one. Ultimately trademark, copyright, patent, etc are all synonymous, use changing depending on the product being referred to (name, literal work, manufactured item).
Nope. Not even close.
The resemblances are superficial, at best. The differences are stark. For example, the aim of each is different, and the rights conferred by each overlap in only a very few places.
Better? The original iPhone was missing basic functionality that was standard on pre-existing smartphones, and has taken them until now to implement some of them.
Yes, vastly better, despite the absence of some features that some people decried as deal-breakers...
First uh third
I have to agree with google on this. I when you don't focus on who won and who lost and you think about what they plan to use the patents for then the story changes. Google spends more energy on developing technology then protecting their parents they are in the technology business not the legal business. Had google won it would have used the patents to defend from legal issues. However the winning group is almost certain to use the patents to place an expensive licensing fee on android to raise prices and make their OSs more favored with developers. Basically they are squeezing out the competition using pathetic methods. If they impose an outrageous license fee it will like htc said they cannot compete in the market so they chose to take it to court.
Google isn't in the technology business except tangentially; they are in the advertising business. That being so, the reason you don't see them suing people is that they give technology away for free to drive their advertising business.
You'll notice you'll never, ever hear Google talking about what they actually make money on. That's because the entire operation is designed to obfuscate their status as a personal information harvester/seller. When someone steals that, you better believe they'll sue their asses off.
I think you're just splitting hairs on that one. Ultimately trademark, copyright, patent, etc are all synonymous, use changing depending on the product being referred to (name, literal work, manufactured item).
The problem is software patents cover ideas not items.
To take your Star wars example: copyright stops you simply changing a couple of names and passing it off as your own work. But just imagine if Lucas patented the idea of having a spaceship in a movie. Even if you wrote a completely original scifi script that had no connection to Star Wars, you are still in trouble unless you have a lot of time and money to fight the case.
Also remember that software is still covered by copyright. You cannot just copy Apple's code. You need to write it yourself from scratch. Even without worrying about patents programming is hard. Again going back to your Star Wars example: even if you went with the same basic premise (Young farm boy fight evil empire) you still have to write an entire screenplay. You don't need to patent the basic ideas.
You'll notice you'll never, ever hear Google talking about what they actually make money on.
http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html
http://investor.google.com/earnings/..._earnings.html
Also remember that software is still covered by copyright. You cannot just copy Apple's code. You need to write it yourself from scratch.
You mean, if I wrote it down, character for character, I would be OK, but if I were to use cut-and-paste to do the same thing, I'd be in violation?
http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html
http://investor.google.com/earnings/..._earnings.html
I'd be the first to say that the overall quality of Google's financial reporting is excellent. Indeed, others (especially Android handset makers) should follow their lead.
I think addabox was referring to the fact that Google doesn't spend a lot of time talking about the advertising business and search (its core) but rather, spends its time venting on a lot of other issues (e.g., IP, climate change, mobile, etc).
I think that this piece should have been clearly labeled as an editorial piece, as it does not seem to be balanced in the manner expected of responsible journalism.
You need an editorial label for a post on a tech blog? Really?
That being said, the rage of the author came screaming through in pretty much every paragraph. Sheesh. Does Google keep him up at night? Does he toss and turn, muttering under his breath about Google and breaking into a cold sweat?
DED is a raving zealot and writes like one. Gruber is more sparse with words but much sharper wit. Which is why Daring Fireball is on my daily reading list and Roughly Drafted isn't.
Entertainment? Maybe. Editorial opinions? Probably. Responsible journalism? No way.
Here...let me help you with this: http://bit.ly/phXtJz
Yes! That is an absolutely brilliant idea!
I've struggled in the past with how AI should deal with Dilger's work but this is by far the easiest and cleanest solution I've seen.
AI already tag articles with Breaking and Feature. Why not simply tag these opinion pieces as Opinion or Editorial?
There could be a news story based on this information, and then another another editorial piece by Dilger on how he views the news.
AI would potentially get more hits this way.
Brilliant!
DED isn't exactly known for his balanced journalism. AI keeps him around to rabidly attack Google and bring in clicks to the site. It works. I'm here and I think he's a nut job
Companies like Google and RIM have been very successful at breaking down the patent system by saying we shouldn't allow non-practicing entities to enforce their patents. That argument doesn't work with Apple, Microsoft, and Nokia. So now all Google can say is, "patents hinder innovation". Google has confused ripping people off with innovating. No wonder they think patents inhibit innovation. It makes perfect sense.
OH PLEASE
Apple isn't an R&D driven company, the reason they generate much more profit is because they are the ones "borrowing" from other's research and development, look at iOS 5.
Google is good at developing good technology, but failed miserably to protect their IP. Apple won at patents, they're playing the broken system to win while Google had its head up its a** innovating.
Google may be right but it doesn't matter, the law isn't on their side, Apple army of lawyers will find every way to piggy back on their success. Another win for MS/Apple duo.
Apple uses its R&D money efficiently and effectively. they invest in research and development that has high ROI. r&d that can contribute to revenue.
UNLIKE Google. Google invests in Self-Driving Cars, Solar Technology, etc. it's a waste of money.
The Hypocrisy!
Google major investor in PATENT TROLL Intellectual Ventures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/201...investors.html
Apple, Cisco, eBay, MS are also investors but they are not acting like whiny babies and acting all high and mighty preaching about how patents are destroying "innovation".
I just want to say this again: Google: you are a hypocrite.
Apple uses its R&D money efficiently and effectively. they invest in research and development that has high ROI. r&d that can contribute to revenue.
UNLIKE Google. Google invests in Self-Driving Cars, Solar Technology, etc. it's a waste of money.
It's not necessarily a waste of money, but there won't be a realistic return, if any at all, for many many years.
It actually is patented.
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6285999
From Wikipedia
The name "PageRank" is a trademark of Google, and the PageRank process has been patented (U.S. Patent 6,285,999). However, the patent is assigned to Stanford University and not to Google. Google has exclusive license rights on the patent from Stanford University. The university received 1.8 million shares of Google in exchange for use of the patent; the shares were sold in 2005 for $336 million.
That's the original algorithm, which is now a small part of a larger system. The current algorithms Google use and the data requirements to make them work aren't patented.
And since you brought it up, Google's exclusive use of the Pagerank patent granted by Stanford ends this year.
Brad Smith (@BradSmi)
"Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no."
Interesting.
The Hypocrisy!
Google major investor in PATENT TROLL Intellectual Ventures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/201...investors.html
Given their original sales pitch in the early 00's it's not surprising they got investment from tech companies including Google:
When Myhrvold and Jung first began raising money for IV in 2002, the sales pitch was crystal-clear: The company's patent portfolios would provide a way for big tech companies to defend themselves against intellectual property lawsuits. At the time, many people feared an explosion in patent litigation because of the bursting of the dot-com bubble, which had sent many startups into bankruptcy. That, in turn, had forced the defunct companies to put their patents?their last remaining assets, in some cases?on the market at bargain-basement prices. The threat that opportunistic trolls would buy the patents and then file lawsuits alleging infringement worried many executives in Silicon Valley.
So Myhrvold and Jung began making the rounds of major technology companies to drum up investment in what they called the Patent Defense Fund, a name that pretty much translates into "troll repellent." Initially, each company, say several individuals familiar with the sales effort, was asked to pony up $50 million. The plan was that IV would then go out and buy patents that were knocking dangerously around the marketplace, and investors would get a license to the entire portfolio?effectively immunizing them from the danger of intellectual property litigation.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...7/b3991401.htm
It's only in the mid-to late 00's IV became trolls, with their first official lawsuit (that is, without using a fall company) taking place in 2010. It was pretty much a bait and switch, so companies like Google and Cisco who invested early get a pass.
1. "...waged through bogus patents". A patent shown to be bogus can be challenged by submitting prior art to the PTO.
2. "banding together to acquire ... old patents... to make sure Google didn?t get them". In a free market economy, Google is free to acquire the same patents. In fact, they did try. However, they failed. Surely Google's attempt at acquiring the same patents makes this claim a bit hypocritical. And if claim #1 is valid, why was Google bidding on bogus patents?
3. "Patents were meant to encourage innovation..." Yes, but the mechanism by which patents encourage innovation is to protect intellectual property. Which rewards the patent holder for their innovation.
So, Google, how about you fight back by innovating, and then patenting. It strikes me that you're trying to build insurmountable momentum by skirting the rights of patent holders.