Danny Sauer dannysauer.com> writes: > > Sergey wrote regarding 'Re: [OT]: Domain names for evil patents' on > Mon, Feb 13 at 10:29: > > There are numerous examples when "garage inventors" won agains the > > BIG GUYS. Some names: Hewlet-Packard, Apple, Microsoft, Google, > > Genentech, Celera Genomics. Not all of these started in a garage, > > but all were startups in a field with large companies. > > And obviously they could have never made it without patents? Is that > because someone else could "do it better"? What patents does Google > depend on for its business? What about Microsoft? I'm quite certain > that both depend on trademarks, but just what patent has led to Google > being the most popular search engine today? Do they have a patent on > fast database lookups? A patent on a clean user interface? A patent An example from US PTO: United States Patent 6,678,681 Brin January 13, 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information extraction from a database Abstract Techniques for extracting information from a database are provided. A database such as the Web is searched for occurrences of tuples of information. The occurrences of the tuples of information that were found in the database are analyzed to identify a pattern in which the tuples of information were stored. Additional tuples of information can then be extracted from the database utilizing the pattern. This process can be repeated with the additional tuples of information, if desired ------------------ Google has 15 patents listed in the US PTO. > on their page ranking algorithm (the basics of which are discussed no > their "about" site and the details of which are a trade secret - not a > patent)? A patent on selling ads whose content is related to the text > a user typed in (maybe, I'm not sure on that one)? > > > IMHO, people often complain about patents/big companies/monopolies > > when they do not have a really BIG idea, or do not have business > > accumen to make it happen. > > Some of us think that, since we live in a society that is supposedly > driven by market forces, perhaps every business should compete on > their merits or ability to compete in a free market. Using patents to > block anyone else from making the same thing is both socially > backwards (these are my thoughts! I won't share them with you unless > you pay me for them and promise not to repeat them!) and anti-market > forces. If someone else can make the same product for less money, then > it seems that the inventor perhaps lacks the "business accumen" to > compete in a free market. If cheaper really isn't better, then the > cheaper product will die out. There's rarely any reason to stifle > competition through patent-encumbering much of anything - especially > things like algortihms. > Some people already commented on this point. Here are my $0.02: a follower will often have a lower cost structure because they can use more modern equipment for manufacturing. Patent protection expires in 17-20 years. In the case of drugs, generic drug manufacturers can sell for much less precicely because they have lower cost structure, they do not need to invest as much in R&D and in marketing. In addition, they use more modern technologies (15-20 year more modern). Example: a typical drug development costs $850 million and takes 11 years. A company has to spend this money without return in 11 years, and has only about 10 years of exclusive sales. Add to this the fact that only about 10% of drugs make it through a development process and one should expect pharma companies to charge high prices to make up the investment and have enough money to develop new drugs. BTW, people often complain that pharma co's too profitable, but other industries are even more profitable, e.g. software or oil. > Make a better product at a fair price, and it'll succeed - unless > someone else does it better. Patents make some sense when a developer > is ramping up production or something like that, but really, since > when was it any government's job to enforce ethics? Because that's > what it boils down to - attempting to force ethical behavior on people > who would otherwise "steal" someone's invention without giving > "proper" credit. I have little respect for laws whose only purpose > are stifling of competition and making sure someone gets richer. And > yes, I *have* had significant ideas taken and made into fairly > successful comercial products. Glad to hear that. I did not mean to imply you specifically, it was a general point. > Oh well, I don't feel like anyone owes > me fame and fortune anyway. > Charging for thoughts in a me-first, greed fueled society which has > fallen behind the rest of the world acedemically and socially. Boy, I > wonder if the two are possibly related... You have a point here, although I have to say that this society, which has fallen behind, still has the most developed economy and standard of living. No system is perfect, but it seems to me that the greed-fueled society ( I would call it entrepreneurial society) is much better off than other, more idealistic ones in terms of social development, protections etc. I speak from experience living in 2 vastly different countries for extended periods of time. > > --Danny, cynical --Sergey, cynical? realistic? idealistic? just full of it? -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist