Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is the Industry's Most Innovative Company?
mjasay writes "According to a recent analysis by IEEE, Microsoft's patent portfolio tops the industry in terms of overall quality of its patents. And while Microsoft came in second to IBM in The Patent Board's 2006 survey, its upcoming 2007 report has Microsoft besting IBM (and even its 2006 report had Microsoft #1 in terms of the "scientific strength" of its patent portfolio). All of which begs the question: Just where is all this innovation going? To Clippy? Consumers and business users don't buy patents. They buy products that make their lives easier or more productive, yet Microsoft doesn't seem to be able to turn its patent portfolio into much more than life support for its existing Office and Windows monopolies. In sum, if Microsoft is so innovative, why can't we get something better than the Zune?"
265 comments making "humorous observations" about Microsoft and innovation being used in the same sentence. 0 that contain any actual humor.
Just call it a hunch...
...that patents have jack all to do with innovation. Thanks for the great example!
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Does not mean making products. It is in regards to what they are doing with their money and what they are developing. Nowhere in there does it say "worthwhile" or "what people want" Hurrah for flaimbait.
Just because someone comes up with a patentable idea, doesn't mean it's a GOOD idea.
Just call it a hunch...
Yes, but does that hunch beg the question, or raise the question? Inquiring minds want to know.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
The article, I notice, is rather light on details about what sort of patents they're talking about. As the OP says, people don't buy patents--they buy products. So concretely, what sort of innovation is Microsoft involved in? The article doesn't really go into that.
Frankly, I think the patent system hasn't been a good gauge of innovation in many, many years. Patents are issued for everything from BS "perpetual motion machines" to the grilled cheese sandwich are granted routinely.
Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
People dont like to admit it but MS actually does have patents on some fairly innovative things (example: ClearType) that are pretty clever. Whether its good or bad that you can patent a lot of these things is debatable but at least they are producing some useful stuff as opposed to just using patents as a money grab like a lot of patent troll companies.
In sum, if Microsoft is so innovative, why can't we get something better than the Zune?
Because you're busy complaining? Please, enlighten me as to how much more would get done if people who do ACTUAL WORK had OpenOffice to use on a daily basis. I am not a Microsoft apologist, it's just pretty damn low when you try to set up the Zune as the pinnacle of their accomplishments. Open your eyes.
Just where is all this innovation going? To Clippy?
Clippy has been gone for so many years now that when ever I see someone bring him/it up, it automatically diminishes my respect for the author. The only thing more lame than dragging out Clippy would be dragging out Bob, or the hoax/cliche phrase "640k is enough for anyone" crap.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Microsoft's business is profit, fueled not by innovation, but from quashing competition, customer lock-in, bribery, intimidation, and FUD.
Microsoft has never been in the business of making innovative anything. Customer happiness is not even on their radar screen.
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
I think since Anders came on board there have been dome great innovations at least on the development side at Microsoft. With the addition of Visual Studio 2008 and LINQ it could revolutionize the way a developer creates applications to take advantage of multiple cores.
An even more terse equivalent: "entropy". Most of the energy at Microsoft is no longer available to do work.
It just goes to show that the relationship of {number of patents : innovation} is a similar one to number of {number of security patches : security of the system}. It's not how many {patents/patches} you have, it's what they do for you. Apple, for example, is in the process of building another $10 billion/year business out of the multitouch patents that it has. One idea, a few patents to ring-fence and expand it, 10 billion dollars. That's a *good* idea. Microsoft has clever patents too, (eg: cleartype), but all that leads to is an argument over whether the alternative is "blurry" or "accurate", and whether cleartype text is "clear" or "anaemic". In other words, they gained support on their own platform, but they didn't managed to leverage it too much elsewhere.
Microsoft is *not* that innovative a company - it's bread and butter (80% of profits or so, I believe) come from corporations (not people), and corporations generally like "more of the same, please". There's nothing wrong with serving that demand, and [insert deity] knows they have clever people working there - the conclusion is that they don't *want* to be an innovative company - they're happy with the status quo, because it brings in gazillions of dollars for them. Sure, they'll have the occasional exciting new thing (how could they not, given their staff ?), but that's not the *company* focus.
In comparison, Steve is fond of saying he likes to run Apple as a small company, with the resources of a large company. That the cash-in-the-bank at Apple is because they *do* take risks, they *do* push the envelope that little bit farther, and that having a large wad of cash to fall back on is very useful, you know, just in case... Apple is ~1/5th the size of Microsoft (I think) in terms of staff, that's a lot of people, but they're spread pretty thin ("small company", "siege mentality", "more productive"), considering they produce computers, consumer devices, a major OS, several consumer apps, several pro-apps, as well as design their own hardware, operate a chain of retail shops (where most of the staff are), etc. etc.
Bottom line: Bill Gates said that Microsoft were one innovation away from being made irrelevant, and they work to protect their monopoly because of that. Apple's focus is more on the 'next big thing'. They take risks, and to do that you have to execute on new ideas. Apple is innovative, and its customers are people. Microsoft is protective, and its customers are corporations.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
If I pay a few millions and buy or even build an innovative R&D lab and let the PhDs there crank out super ideas every day and I never use them, I am not an innovative company. One department does not represent the whole company.
Read up on patents. A state granted monopoly (temporary) is EXACTLY what a patent provides. Without them, there would be no incentive to publish the patent. It is a payment/compensation deal.
Make sure everyone knows about it, in exchange, no one can use it without your permission until the patent expires. Once the patent expires, it's fair game.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
A state granted monopoly (temporary) on something you invented yourself which is not someone else's prior art is EXACTLY what a patent provides.
There, fixed that for you.
The author of the posting clearly has no knowledge of the state of Microsoft software and development tools today. Take one look at the .NET Framework and not only is it a ripoff of Java, but it made huge improvements like making a language-agnostic programming platform (parially due to CTS and CLI) and allowing multiple syntaxes (yes even Java-like syntax) to interoperate. Programmers can work in their language of choice and the compiled code will interoperate with all the other .NET languages which were other programmer's choices. That's one example.
We have to be careful about snuffing off Microsoft because it's the right thing to do in this forum. We won't be laughing long if Microosft runs over the industry through innovation. Their latest IE8 web browser is already passing the ACID2 test. Watch out they're coming with tools that interoperate and make life easier. Sure they make a lot of mistakes on the way but if you're an innovater that's what you do. The end result is better despite the problems. You learn from problems.
Clippy? Zune? Indeed that kind of attitude shows complete ignorance.
Okay let's be fair. I am a Linux user but Microsoft does have some innovative and very good products.
The Flight Simulator line that they bought from SubLogic is actually very good. I love it and it is one of the reasons I keep Windows on my system.
I remember Word way back when No one used Windows and WordStar and WordPerfect ruled. It required a mouse and no one used it because it was SO different. Excel was another really innovative product. It was so much better than Lotus123 that it made your head hurt. I wounder how many Mac where bought just to use Excel before It was ported to Windows.
Visual Basic for all of it's proprietary nature did let a lot more people write code for Windows. Of course it let a lot of people that should have never been allowed to code to write code but that is another story.
Visual Studio is a very good IDE.
The calendaring features of Outlook/Exchange are very good.
The XBox 360 seems to be the right balance of HD graphics and cost.
XBox Live from what I hear is very good.
So yea give the devil his due.
The real truth is that everything is going to look like small beans compared to Windows and Office.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
This sounds contradictory, but think about it. Who were always considered the "top dogs" of sheer numbers of patents? IBM? AT&T? Maybe even 3M?
All have some success stories from their respective research divisions, yet nothing remotely comparable to the number of patents they filed for.
Truthfully, a lot goes in to taking a "innovative idea" and taking it all the way through to become a marketable product in mass production. I think some of these big firms just like to pay a "think tank" to work on "anything you like", throwing all manner of things at the wall to see what sticks. This ends up being profitable for them because of all the lawsuits they can file over the trivial patents other people end up infringing on by accident - and means they're likely to eventually come up with something really innovative, at SOME point in time. (EG. Post-it notes!)
Smaller, more efficient businesses will do the R&D only on things focused squarely on a specific goal they've defined. They won't have huge numbers of patents, but will have ones relevant to their task at hand. These folks get more products to market per patent than the "big guys" do.
Does anyone else get the feeling that the editors actually do know what "begs the question" means, and are just screwing with us to get a higher post count?
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
Not if I patent it they aren't!