Tim Lee

Google and Patents Again

You might not know it from my frequent ranting about the DMCA and software patents, but generally speaking I’m actually pro-copyright and pro-patent. There are, in fact, some good arguments for both copyright and patent law. (Although I wish people would stop lumping two very different legal regimes under the misleading heading of intellectual property)

But this article from CNet’s Michael Kanellos is full of cringe-worthy (and in some cases unintentionally hilarious) arguments for “intellectual property.” In fact, in a number of places, the arguments wind up coming across as unintentionally hilarious.

Intellectual property provides one of the most dependable means toward wealth and independence in the world today. In the Dark Ages, one could obtain wealth by raising an army and burning someone else’s kingdom to the ground. In the Gilded Age, those on the fast track had a secret weapon of success: they bribed state legislators to obtain canal and railroad contracts. Unfortunately, those career options just aren’t as viable as they once were. Instead, we have to invent stuff, and thus people should get compensated for the effort.

Boy, things sure have changed. Nowadays, people never making a living by lobbying for special favors from the government. I’m sure Hollywood and the recording industry spend millions of dollars every year on lobbyists and campaign contributions out of an altruistic regard for the public interest.

But wait, it gets better!

And it does take effort. Think of Larry Page toiling away on the early PageRank patents.

Larry Page’s PageRank patents? There are lots and lots of companies that benefit from patents. Merck, IBM, and Verizon come to mind. But it’s hard to think of a company whose business model is lessreliant on patents than Google.

Google exists in a very competitive business. In the last three years, Microsoft and Yahoo have poured millions of dollars into their search technologies in a mad dash to catch up to Google. I’ve read a significant amount of prognostication about the competitive dynamic among Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google. Yet I don’t think I’ve ever read a single column on the competition among Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft for the search engine market that even mentions Google’s patents.

And in fact, I have trouble imagining how Google’s trajectory would have been any different in the absence of patents (aside from them having to defend themselves from patent trolls.) Google’s primary asset is their ability to rapidly improve their products, combined with their ability to keep the implementation details of their technologies secret. Even if some Google mole managed to get detailed blueprints of Google’s facilities and a copy of all the relevant source code, it will still take a competitor’s engineers months, if not years, to figure out how it all works, acquire the relevant custom hardware, and figure out how to configure and install the software on it. And by the time they’d done that (and worked out the inevitable kinks that come with running a new piece of software) Google would be a year or two ahead with a new version of their software that was better than what the mole had stolen.

I’ve criticized the claim that patents were essential to Google’s success before, and I have yet to see anyone make a plausible argument for the contention. Patents don’t appear to have had any important role, positive or negative, on Google’s success. So why do people keep citing it?

May 10, 2007 | Comments |

Viewing 2 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    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
    • ^
    • v
    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).

Trackbacks

blog comments powered by Disqus