It's far from conclusive, certainly. All the same, the results are not what we might expect from Yahoo's claims about index size. That's the only value of the report, really, to call into question Yahoo's claims.
But the query itself only uses two words, hence it seems likely to me that a very small percentage of the query sample is actually useable
Usable for what purpose? They are random combinations. Both engines get the same words. It seems reasonable to expect hits to be in proportion to index size.
the results of the study can not accurately be correlated to represent the entire engine index.
mmm... but accuracy is a relative concept. How accurate do we need to be in this case?
Yahoo claims larger indices by a factor of around 2.5, and yet search results seem to be two thirds smaller.
We have an order of magnitude difference.
That seem more than enough to justify questioning Yahoo's claims.
On the other hand, their findings to cast doubt upon Yahoo's claims regarding index size.
These findings don't do anything of the sort. In fact, Google could have only 999 pages in index, and if it returned all 999 for every query it would have won this test. There's too many assumptions here for the results to be useful.
'Scuse me: I said "cast doubt upon" not "conclusively disproved".
If Yahoo's indices are, as they claim, more than twice the size of Google's, then we might reasonably expect them to return more hits for an arbitary query.
That they do not do so suggests that Yahoo may well be telling fibs.
Yes, there are other explanations, like for example, Google deliberately falsifying all sub 1000 hit queries, as you point out. However, one likely, arguably the most likely explanation is that Yahoo is being a bit sparing with the truth in its press releases.
Could be that Google's "smaller" index is searched by a less picky search tool that gives more results because it doesn't sucessfully eliminate as many useless pages.
Could be. And it could be that Google's results are both both more numerous and of better quality. The tests did not, as you quite rightly point out, consider the relevance of the results. As is proper, the researchers make no claims regarding relevance.
On the other hand, their findings to cast doubt upon Yahoo's claims regarding index size.
Can we conclude from this study that Google has a bigger index than Yahoo? No.
To be fair, all they conclude is that Yahoo's claims seem "suspicious" in light of their findings.
Can we conclude that when you pick two English words that when entered into both Google and Yahoo, both return less than 1000 results, that Google has consistently more results? Yes.
mmm... and therefore? I think there's suppsoed to be some critical evaluation of the exprimental data.
For example, is this the expected result, given that Yahoo claims indices two and a half times larger than googles? If we accept Yahoo's claim, what does this say about the quality of their indices? Or should we perhaps conclude that index size isn't a reliable metric by which to evaluate search engine usefulness?
Certainly, it seems that Google returns more information in those cases where information is scarce. And arguably, that's the most important case.
As a google fan, I enjoy the warm fuzzies, but I don't see that much to get excited about either way.
Perhaps not, but it does cast doubt onto Yahoo's claims.
Interestingly however, for the search results analysed, google performed noticeably better whether dupes were included or discarded.
They may have more unique information simply futher down the result list, but since the search engines terminate the results at not quite 1k (1,000), the researchers have no way of testing that out.
That isn't actually what they did. They only analysed results that scored less that 1000 results on both google and yahoo. If either engine scored over that, the results were discarded.
So, for every search analysed, the full results from each engine were always considered.
All they can really show is that google returns more unique results per 1000
Errm, nope. You could make a case for the study only showing that google performs better where information is scarce - but that's exactly when you want a good search engine, so I'm not too worried. There's a limit to how many Britney Spears links I can find a use for.
(which usually means that more items are indexed, but could be from Google's Pagerank also)
Well, the researchers provide links to the perl script and the dictionary used and also a log of the search results. If you think they're skewing the results, or just that they've made some logical errors in the study, you have all the materials you need to make a detailed refutation, or to repeat their experiment and release your own findings.
And if you really believe the study is flawed then I encourage you to do so,
I don't know where you and the other person who responded to me was when this subthread started
Fourth post down from the top of the thread. Not that it matters much, but that was way before you stuck your oar in.
Perhaps you and Daniel Philips would like to learn a little about "context" next time?
You just didn't look back far enough. We were talking about why software patents are (or are not) evil in the general case, and using the specific instance of Apple and Microsoft from the TFA as an object example.
If you're going to adopt that tone with people, I'd advise you to check your facts just a little more thoroughly. Really.
You may prefer the "gas can" analogy, but it remains utterly stupid in the context of how Microsoft is going to treat Apple.
While it is a far better fit in the context of software patents in general, which is itself relevant to the overall context of this thread.
Did you have a point to make other than that there will probably be no big MS/Apple lawsuit? Because I agree with you on that one.
What say we break with Slashdot tradition and end this without resorting to excessive name calling?
Just for a change.
Its been said that if you look at history... Pioneers always got the arrow in the back and the settlers that came after were the ones that got all the money...
That's a lovely analogy. It's poetic and picturesque and evokes all sorts of warm patriotic feelings.
But in this case ones shooting at the pioneers are the settlers themselves. And if we can't stop them shooting, we can at least debate the wisdom of selling them automatic weaponry and sniper rifles.
The big hardware and software companies have a mutual undersanding regarding licences.
And here I must confess to ignorance of the details. I read somewhere that the big IT players cross licence their portfolios to anyone else with a comparable position.
On the other hand, I also recall reading that in the days following MS rise to dominance, about the only thing keeping IBM afloat was licence fees from patents. So clearly they can charge.
So what I'm wondering is: do they all automatically cross licence these things, or do fees get charged for new ones? Or is it as you say, purely an understanding, with no actual licences involved. The Seatle Post Intelligencer story mentioned licences, so anything you can do to shed some light on this would be welcome.
This situation is of course not good. Because they are afraid of each others' ability to crush themselves they'll maintain the oligopoly, yet be active and able to crush the small guy start up, thus maintaining their dominance.
Absolutely. It's another tool in the corporate dirty tricks bag. The fact that the big players are immune does nothing to justify software patents.
And if being technically better actually mattered, people would buy a creative player with longer battery life, better sound quality, larger storage capacity and a lower price. Or by technically do you just mean physically smaller? Because "technically" the ipod is already overpriced and inferior.
All I'm doing is taking the market share and a popular perception of the Apple Mac and projecting it as a future market for iPods.
I don't give a toss as to the relative merits
of the various brands of MP3 player.
I don't own one and I don't care to.
I'm probably wrong about the Mac's market share
as well.
Really, save it for someone who cares.
The only axe I have to grind in this debate concerns software patents.
You have no "argument" because I did not make a statement, I asked a question.
Suppose I say to you "Have you stopped stealing money from old ladies and cripples yet?" Would you accept that I have made no statement because the sentence ends in a question mark?
You said:
let me see if I get this: it's ok to say Microsoft "ripped off" something or that Apple "ripped off" the GUI from xerox, but software patents are bad because they disallow the sharing of ideas?
In doing so you characterise the anti software patent lobbyists as being so opposed purely because they suppose that software patents "disallow the sharing of ideas".
The statement is implicit in your question. The technical term for this is presupposition since to answer your question we must presuppose your characterisation of the anti-software campaigners is correct.
Now, it is plainly false that software patents stop people sharing ideas. How could they? Do they strike us dumb when we stop to talk? Of course not. They allow a company to gain an unfair monopoly over an idea and and can thereby prevent the expression of that idea in software form, but that's not what you said.
So what you did was to misrepresent the anti sftware patent position by imputing to us a flawed and foolish motivation. That is what a straw man argument is.
If you have anything further to say regarding software patents, or that is in some way on topic, I shall be happy to respond.
I'm not quibbling over the mechanism behind the patents. My argument is with the word "because", and the suggestion that the primary reason for opposing software patents is because it stops
people using other people's ideas.
I think we have much better reasons to oppose software patents than that, and I was curious who you had seen make that argument, since I'd have liked to have read a bit more about it.
Straw man? Not one I constructed...
If you'll stop being so damn prickly for a moment, you'll realise that I never said you did. In fact I speifically asked you about it's origin. I didn't accuse you of creating straw men at all.
Although if you continue to deliberately miss the point like this, I will surely begin to wonder.
Mercedes has been developing the automotive airbag yadda yadda yadda...
And your point is?
immune from fair enforcement of those patents?
I don't recall suggesting anyone be immune to the fair enforcement of anything. The question I raised is whether it is fair that software patents be awarded in the first place since they do not
supply the benefits claimed by their supporters, and since they make possible a whole range of new tactics for unfair competition.
innovative marketing has nothing at all to do with technical innovation.
Yes, and what has Microsoft technically innovated here? Nothing.
They said they'd licence the patents. Depending on the terms, that licence would include a royalty payment, and they could well require backdated payments, which would come as a lump sum. I never said MS would try and block iPods - just push the price up far enough to make a competing MS product more attractive. They could probably even licence them on "reasonable terms". When you're dealing with iPod scale volumes, a small difference can have a huge impact on your margin.
From the same article:
But analysts said the situation could prove troublesome to Apple. The company would no doubt prefer to avoid paying royalties to its rival, especially in a field Apple popularized.
So apparently MS haven't ruled out requiring a royalty.
But even if Microsoft do choose to withhold their hand, we still have to ask why Apple should be dependant of their forbearance.
Why MS should be afforded this unearned privilege?
but software patents are bad because they disallow the sharing of ideas?
Just occurred to me after I hit "Submit", but there are two parts to that:
but software patents are bad
I believe they are. I've talked about that in detail in another reply to your post.
...because they disallow the sharing of ideas?
Umm... says who? It's not a claim I ever heard before. If you'd said "because they allow a corporation to claim an unearned monopoly on ideas and techniques that have been in use for decades"
why then I might have agreed with you.
As it is, it sounds like a corporate Straw Man. May I ask how you came to this idea?
let me see if I get this: it's ok to say Microsoft "ripped off" something or that Apple "ripped off" the GUI from xerox,
A lot of people, myself included, find considerable irony in all the posturing about innovation and accusations of copying ideas from these two, when the basic metaphor underlying their desktops is well known to originate elsewhere.
Every now and again we like to point this out. Does this make us Bad People?
but software patents are bad because they disallow the sharing of ideas?
Well, look at it this way. Apple developed the iPod. There were MP3 players before the iPod, but apple popularised them, they did the hard work to develop a market and today they deservedly dominate the field.
And Lo! Here comes Microsoft coveting the market that Apple so carefully built. What is their chosen weapon to assail Apple's dominant position? Software patents.
If MS win the patent appeal, they're going to want royalties from Apple. They'll get a lump sum, and a slice of all future sales. These are costs that Apple will have no choice but to pass on to the customer. Meanwhile, MS has its own competing product which can now undercut Apple considerably since not only are they not paying patent licences, but they can subsidise the price with royalties from Apple. Look ahead 10 years and we can imagine MS owning 90% of the market, with actual iPods being considered technically better but overpriced.
Classic Microsoft.
Now the proponents of swpats tell us that they reward an inventor's hard work. I could argue about that being their proper purpose, but let's go with that for now. So who did all the hard work here? Apple did the cool design, and the marketing. And Apple pulled off the near impossible feat of getting record studios to agree to them selling online music at a price people would be willing to pay. That task also appeared on Bill Gates' todo list; just underneath cutting off his own left foot with a chainsaw.
And what did MS do? Well effectively, they have a big buzzword generator. It takes a technical term from column A, another from column B and one from Column C, and emails them to the Legal Dept. with a note saying "wrap these in the appropriate legalses guys". Then they send the result to the USPTO.
So who has done the hard work here? Apple. Who looks to walk away with the fruits of that hard work? Microsoft.
Instead of allowing people to profit from their own hard work, swpats are a licence for the big players to steal the fruits other people's efforts.
And that's why software patents are "bad". One reason, anyway.
mmm... they couldn't really claim it hadn't been published (unless the term has some unexpectedly precise legal meaning - IANAL) so I suppose they'd need to argue that putting the source code online didn't count as publication for purposes of patents.
I wonder if anyone has some old 3.5 inch floppies with an emacs source distro and a date? That might go a ways to closing one possible avenue of attack.
Why does everyone assume I mean all out war? Maybe the word "offensive" could have been better chosen?
I agree with you that all out patent war would be foolish. Nevertheless there are smarter ways to play thesame cards. They can use them selectively. Or they can lience them for a modest fee under a per unit licence that rules out any open source project from taking part.
As long as they are selective, how can you tell anti-competitive behavior from stading uop for the rights granted them under law?
The question is whether those rights work in the best interests of everyone, and based upon that whether it is in our interests that Microsoft, or anyone else, should have them.
The same thing that keeps IBM (mostly) in line: The Justice department.
Abusing their patent portfolio for an all out attack would likely bring the wrath of the courts down on their heads. Not just for being anti-competitive, but also for filing tons of baseless lawsuits.
Well, yeah. If they want to be stupid about it. On the other hand if they do it piecemeal, (patent A against X.com, patent B against Y incorporated), then I don't see how a court could
reasonably differentiate between this and a legitimate defense of their rights under the law.
They couldn't get everyone that way, but MS are smart enough to use their portfolio strategically. The question is whether they, (or anyone) should hold such power.
The key is that launching a full patent portfolio strike is akin to nuclear MADD.
Agreed. But all out war is not the only option, as already discussed. More importantly, in the case of nuclear weapons, we have no way to repeal the law of nature permitting fission/fusion. For patents however, we have exactly this power.
Until that time, however, Microsoft doesn't want to be the only one left without weapons of mass destruction.;-)
That's exactly what I mean.
If defence was what MS desired, their energies could be better spent in lobbying to outlaw software patents. Then no one would have weapons and MS could conquor the world by power of their superior software alone. Allegedly.
Instead, we see them lobbying for
software patents.
The defensive patent argument just doesn't make sense for the likes of MS, IBM and Amazon.
I don't think it's actually *targeted* at anything.
Nothing specific, certainly.
The idea is that if they cast a large enough net, they can eventually threaten any would-be attacker with hundreds of vague claims. While none of them would probably hold up in court, the claims would tie things up for long enough to bankrupt or entirely block the attacker.
And yet, once they have amassed a large enough portfolio, what would prevent them from launching an offensive against lesser competitors? I'd hate to have to rely on their corporate culture of ethical business practice.
It seems to be that the "defensive patent" argument owes a lot to arms race analogies. You know:
"We need patents to defend ourselves from the evil patents of our enemies".
That sort of thing.
Yet that analogy doesn't really hold up. A law making handguns illegal would leave a large number of firearms in the hands of criminals. On the other hand a law that outlawed software patents would destroy everyone'sarsenal.
So we should ask ourselves, if MS merely require patents for self-defence, why do they not employ their considerable resources to lobby against software patents?
If all that is desired is freedom from prosecution on grounds of patent infringement, a law prohibiting software patents would achieve this at a single stroke.
On the other hand, MS actively lobbied for software patents in the recent EU brouhaha. Which suggests they may have some other role in mind for their portfolio.
Slashdot Mirror
It's far from conclusive, certainly. All the same, the results are not what we might expect from Yahoo's claims about index size. That's the only value of the report, really, to call into question Yahoo's claims.
But the query itself only uses two words, hence it seems likely to me that a very small percentage of the query sample is actually useable
Usable for what purpose? They are random combinations. Both engines get the same words. It seems reasonable to expect hits to be in proportion to index size.
the results of the study can not accurately be correlated to represent the entire engine index.
mmm... but accuracy is a relative concept. How accurate do we need to be in this case? Yahoo claims larger indices by a factor of around 2.5, and yet search results seem to be two thirds smaller.
We have an order of magnitude difference. That seem more than enough to justify questioning Yahoo's claims.
If Yahoo's indices are, as they claim, more than twice the size of Google's, then we might reasonably expect them to return more hits for an arbitary query. That they do not do so suggests that Yahoo may well be telling fibs.
Yes, there are other explanations, like for example, Google deliberately falsifying all sub 1000 hit queries, as you point out. However, one likely, arguably the most likely explanation is that Yahoo is being a bit sparing with the truth in its press releases.
Hence "cast doubt upon".
Could be. And it could be that Google's results are both both more numerous and of better quality. The tests did not, as you quite rightly point out, consider the relevance of the results. As is proper, the researchers make no claims regarding relevance.
On the other hand, their findings to cast doubt upon Yahoo's claims regarding index size.
So google performs better for hard to find inform
Can we conclude from this study that Google has a bigger index than Yahoo? No.
To be fair, all they conclude is that Yahoo's claims seem "suspicious" in light of their findings. Can we conclude that when you pick two English words that when entered into both Google and Yahoo, both return less than 1000 results, that Google has consistently more results? Yes.
mmm... and therefore? I think there's suppsoed to be some critical evaluation of the exprimental data.
For example, is this the expected result, given that Yahoo claims indices two and a half times larger than googles? If we accept Yahoo's claim, what does this say about the quality of their indices? Or should we perhaps conclude that index size isn't a reliable metric by which to evaluate search engine usefulness?
Certainly, it seems that Google returns more information in those cases where information is scarce. And arguably, that's the most important case.
As a google fan, I enjoy the warm fuzzies, but I don't see that much to get excited about either way.
Perhaps not, but it does cast doubt onto Yahoo's claims.
Interestingly however, for the search results analysed, google performed noticeably better whether dupes were included or discarded.
They may have more unique information simply futher down the result list, but since the search engines terminate the results at not quite 1k (1,000), the researchers have no way of testing that out.
That isn't actually what they did. They only analysed results that scored less that 1000 results on both google and yahoo. If either engine scored over that, the results were discarded.
So, for every search analysed, the full results from each engine were always considered.
All they can really show is that google returns more unique results per 1000
Errm, nope. You could make a case for the study only showing that google performs better where information is scarce - but that's exactly when you want a good search engine, so I'm not too worried. There's a limit to how many Britney Spears links I can find a use for.
(which usually means that more items are indexed, but could be from Google's Pagerank also)
Well, the researchers provide links to the perl script and the dictionary used and also a log of the search results. If you think they're skewing the results, or just that they've made some logical errors in the study, you have all the materials you need to make a detailed refutation, or to repeat their experiment and release your own findings.
And if you really believe the study is flawed then I encourage you to do so,
Ghastly term, but it's a proper pain typing "software patents" eighty two times in a discussion like this.
Perhaps you be interested in cross licencing against my "Method and Apparatus for Denoting Excerpted Content Using Italics and Elipses" :)
Fourth post down from the top of the thread. Not that it matters much, but that was way before you stuck your oar in.
Perhaps you and Daniel Philips would like to learn a little about "context" next time?
You just didn't look back far enough. We were talking about why software patents are (or are not) evil in the general case, and using the specific instance of Apple and Microsoft from the TFA as an object example.
If you're going to adopt that tone with people, I'd advise you to check your facts just a little more thoroughly. Really.
You may prefer the "gas can" analogy, but it remains utterly stupid in the context of how Microsoft is going to treat Apple.
While it is a far better fit in the context of software patents in general, which is itself relevant to the overall context of this thread.
Did you have a point to make other than that there will probably be no big MS/Apple lawsuit? Because I agree with you on that one. What say we break with Slashdot tradition and end this without resorting to excessive name calling? Just for a change.
That's a lovely analogy. It's poetic and picturesque and evokes all sorts of warm patriotic feelings.
But in this case ones shooting at the pioneers are the settlers themselves. And if we can't stop them shooting, we can at least debate the wisdom of selling them automatic weaponry and sniper rifles.
And here I must confess to ignorance of the details. I read somewhere that the big IT players cross licence their portfolios to anyone else with a comparable position.
On the other hand, I also recall reading that in the days following MS rise to dominance, about the only thing keeping IBM afloat was licence fees from patents. So clearly they can charge.
So what I'm wondering is: do they all automatically cross licence these things, or do fees get charged for new ones? Or is it as you say, purely an understanding, with no actual licences involved. The Seatle Post Intelligencer story mentioned licences, so anything you can do to shed some light on this would be welcome.
This situation is of course not good. Because they are afraid of each others' ability to crush themselves they'll maintain the oligopoly, yet be active and able to crush the small guy start up, thus maintaining their dominance.
Absolutely. It's another tool in the corporate dirty tricks bag. The fact that the big players are immune does nothing to justify software patents.
Yeah, but only if "I" happen to be Apple, or IBM, or Microsoft...
If "I" am only me, a poor patentless software developer who dabbles in open source, then I have no gun.
And software patents allow the patent holders to stand in everyone's house at the same time. Most of whom don't have guns either.
I think I prefer the gas can analogy.
All I'm doing is taking the market share and a popular perception of the Apple Mac and projecting it as a future market for iPods.
I don't give a toss as to the relative merits of the various brands of MP3 player. I don't own one and I don't care to. I'm probably wrong about the Mac's market share as well. Really, save it for someone who cares.
The only axe I have to grind in this debate concerns software patents.
Suppose I say to you "Have you stopped stealing money from old ladies and cripples yet?" Would you accept that I have made no statement because the sentence ends in a question mark?
You said:
let me see if I get this: it's ok to say Microsoft "ripped off" something or that Apple "ripped off" the GUI from xerox, but software patents are bad because they disallow the sharing of ideas?
In doing so you characterise the anti software patent lobbyists as being so opposed purely because they suppose that software patents "disallow the sharing of ideas".
The statement is implicit in your question. The technical term for this is presupposition since to answer your question we must presuppose your characterisation of the anti-software campaigners is correct.
Now, it is plainly false that software patents stop people sharing ideas. How could they? Do they strike us dumb when we stop to talk? Of course not. They allow a company to gain an unfair monopoly over an idea and and can thereby prevent the expression of that idea in software form, but that's not what you said.
So what you did was to misrepresent the anti sftware patent position by imputing to us a flawed and foolish motivation. That is what a straw man argument is.
If you have anything further to say regarding software patents, or that is in some way on topic, I shall be happy to respond.
I'm not quibbling over the mechanism behind the patents. My argument is with the word "because", and the suggestion that the primary reason for opposing software patents is because it stops people using other people's ideas.
I think we have much better reasons to oppose software patents than that, and I was curious who you had seen make that argument, since I'd have liked to have read a bit more about it.
Straw man? Not one I constructed...
If you'll stop being so damn prickly for a moment, you'll realise that I never said you did. In fact I speifically asked you about it's origin. I didn't accuse you of creating straw men at all.
Although if you continue to deliberately miss the point like this, I will surely begin to wonder.
And your point is?
immune from fair enforcement of those patents?
I don't recall suggesting anyone be immune to the fair enforcement of anything. The question I raised is whether it is fair that software patents be awarded in the first place since they do not supply the benefits claimed by their supporters, and since they make possible a whole range of new tactics for unfair competition.
innovative marketing has nothing at all to do with technical innovation.
Yes, and what has Microsoft technically innovated here? Nothing.
Don't be so sure.
They said they'd licence the patents. Depending on the terms, that licence would include a royalty payment, and they could well require backdated payments, which would come as a lump sum. I never said MS would try and block iPods - just push the price up far enough to make a competing MS product more attractive. They could probably even licence them on "reasonable terms". When you're dealing with iPod scale volumes, a small difference can have a huge impact on your margin.
From the same article:
But analysts said the situation could prove troublesome to Apple. The company would no doubt prefer to avoid paying royalties to its rival, especially in a field Apple popularized.
So apparently MS haven't ruled out requiring a royalty.
But even if Microsoft do choose to withhold their hand, we still have to ask why Apple should be dependant of their forbearance. Why MS should be afforded this unearned privilege?
Just occurred to me after I hit "Submit", but there are two parts to that:
but software patents are bad
I believe they are. I've talked about that in detail in another reply to your post.
Umm... says who? It's not a claim I ever heard before. If you'd said "because they allow a corporation to claim an unearned monopoly on ideas and techniques that have been in use for decades" why then I might have agreed with you.
As it is, it sounds like a corporate Straw Man. May I ask how you came to this idea?
A lot of people, myself included, find considerable irony in all the posturing about innovation and accusations of copying ideas from these two, when the basic metaphor underlying their desktops is well known to originate elsewhere.
Every now and again we like to point this out. Does this make us Bad People?
but software patents are bad because they disallow the sharing of ideas?
Well, look at it this way. Apple developed the iPod. There were MP3 players before the iPod, but apple popularised them, they did the hard work to develop a market and today they deservedly dominate the field.
And Lo! Here comes Microsoft coveting the market that Apple so carefully built. What is their chosen weapon to assail Apple's dominant position? Software patents.
If MS win the patent appeal, they're going to want royalties from Apple. They'll get a lump sum, and a slice of all future sales. These are costs that Apple will have no choice but to pass on to the customer. Meanwhile, MS has its own competing product which can now undercut Apple considerably since not only are they not paying patent licences, but they can subsidise the price with royalties from Apple. Look ahead 10 years and we can imagine MS owning 90% of the market, with actual iPods being considered technically better but overpriced.
Classic Microsoft.
Now the proponents of swpats tell us that they reward an inventor's hard work. I could argue about that being their proper purpose, but let's go with that for now. So who did all the hard work here? Apple did the cool design, and the marketing. And Apple pulled off the near impossible feat of getting record studios to agree to them selling online music at a price people would be willing to pay. That task also appeared on Bill Gates' todo list; just underneath cutting off his own left foot with a chainsaw.
And what did MS do? Well effectively, they have a big buzzword generator. It takes a technical term from column A, another from column B and one from Column C, and emails them to the Legal Dept. with a note saying "wrap these in the appropriate legalses guys". Then they send the result to the USPTO.
So who has done the hard work here? Apple. Who looks to walk away with the fruits of that hard work? Microsoft.
Instead of allowing people to profit from their own hard work, swpats are a licence for the big players to steal the fruits other people's efforts.
And that's why software patents are "bad". One reason, anyway.
I wonder if anyone has some old 3.5 inch floppies with an emacs source distro and a date? That might go a ways to closing one possible avenue of attack.
I agree with you that all out patent war would be foolish. Nevertheless there are smarter ways to play thesame cards. They can use them selectively. Or they can lience them for a modest fee under a per unit licence that rules out any open source project from taking part.
As long as they are selective, how can you tell anti-competitive behavior from stading uop for the rights granted them under law?
The question is whether those rights work in the best interests of everyone, and based upon that whether it is in our interests that Microsoft, or anyone else, should have them.
Ah, gotcha. Thanks :)
Purely out of curiosity, the last time I saw that term used, (and it was twenty odd years ago), it was MAD for Mutually Assured Destruction.
Where did the extra D come from?
Abusing their patent portfolio for an all out attack would likely bring the wrath of the courts down on their heads. Not just for being anti-competitive, but also for filing tons of baseless lawsuits.
Well, yeah. If they want to be stupid about it. On the other hand if they do it piecemeal, (patent A against X.com, patent B against Y incorporated), then I don't see how a court could reasonably differentiate between this and a legitimate defense of their rights under the law.
They couldn't get everyone that way, but MS are smart enough to use their portfolio strategically. The question is whether they, (or anyone) should hold such power.
The key is that launching a full patent portfolio strike is akin to nuclear MADD.
Agreed. But all out war is not the only option, as already discussed. More importantly, in the case of nuclear weapons, we have no way to repeal the law of nature permitting fission/fusion. For patents however, we have exactly this power.
Until that time, however, Microsoft doesn't want to be the only one left without weapons of mass destruction. ;-)
That's exactly what I mean. If defence was what MS desired, their energies could be better spent in lobbying to outlaw software patents. Then no one would have weapons and MS could conquor the world by power of their superior software alone. Allegedly.
Instead, we see them lobbying for software patents.
The defensive patent argument just doesn't make sense for the likes of MS, IBM and Amazon.
Nothing specific, certainly.
The idea is that if they cast a large enough net, they can eventually threaten any would-be attacker with hundreds of vague claims. While none of them would probably hold up in court, the claims would tie things up for long enough to bankrupt or entirely block the attacker.
And yet, once they have amassed a large enough portfolio, what would prevent them from launching an offensive against lesser competitors? I'd hate to have to rely on their corporate culture of ethical business practice.
It seems to be that the "defensive patent" argument owes a lot to arms race analogies. You know: "We need patents to defend ourselves from the evil patents of our enemies". That sort of thing.
Yet that analogy doesn't really hold up. A law making handguns illegal would leave a large number of firearms in the hands of criminals. On the other hand a law that outlawed software patents would destroy everyone'sarsenal.
So we should ask ourselves, if MS merely require patents for self-defence, why do they not employ their considerable resources to lobby against software patents?
If all that is desired is freedom from prosecution on grounds of patent infringement, a law prohibiting software patents would achieve this at a single stroke.
On the other hand, MS actively lobbied for software patents in the recent EU brouhaha. Which suggests they may have some other role in mind for their portfolio.
The Scissor Freak Untree
No it isn't. Although, to be fair, it does have exceptional support for write only programmers