Comments on: Copying Innovation is Hard

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:08:43 +0000

Noel, there’s nothing contradictory about those three statements.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:08:43 +0000

Noel, there’s nothing contradictory about those three statements.

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:25:25 +0000

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:):)

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:25:25 +0000

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:23:53 +0000

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.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:23:53 +0000

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:34:18 +0000

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.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:34:18 +0000

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:31:35 +0000

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

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:31:35 +0000

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:46:59 +0000

They probably did it for the ad revenue, don’t you think?

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:46:59 +0000

They probably did it for the ad revenue, don’t you think?

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:41:00 +0000

Google is interested enough in patents to have built a customized search engine for the USPTO database. They probably didn't do that for fun.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:41:00 +0000

Google is interested enough in patents to have built a customized search engine for the USPTO database. They probably didn't do that for fun.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:36:11 +0000

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.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:36:11 +0000

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.

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:26:55 +0000

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:

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.

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:26:55 +0000

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.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:58:35 +0000

If not, I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how Google's business strategy would be any different in a world without patents.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:58:35 +0000

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.

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:38:02 +0000

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...

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:38:02 +0000

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...

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:49:02 +0000

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?”

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:49:02 +0000

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:43:02 +0000

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.

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:43:02 +0000

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.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:24:29 +0000

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.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:24:29 +0000

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:59:27 +0000

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.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:59:27 +0000