You didn't in my view demonstrate that it led to a worse overall outcome.
I suggest at least knowledge was disclosed to the public. Who knows, maybe because of the patent the original inventor got additional development money, or even quit an expensive project that would have been too far before it's time to succeed.
Given the absurdly high failure rates in innovation it's not as though inventors have wonderful forsight about invention quality until they start to put themselves out there - through information sharing or product release.
Sorry, I didn't see you reply.
But FYI - no iPods in 1970 is not an incentives problem. It's a technological knowledge problem.
And the "cost to society" you claim is not calculable or useful. Innovating has a 95-99.9% failure rate - Scherer calls it the innovation lottery. It's a high cost to society. But that doesn't mean we stop doing it.
ANd it's not just like the technology comes along. The ideas and technologies build on prior ideas and technology.
In short, patents didn't seem to get in the way of the ipod. But they did disclose technical knowledge 30 years before the ipod. So what's the problem? Patents worked.
I have a different reading. The argument is not that Google is hiding royalties, but that the perpetual agreement is potentially revokable.
If the contract were to be revoked, under certain conditions, it could be material. I'm obviously speculating, but if the patent bust, then the contract might be revoked under conditions favorable to google. However, if some other condition causes the contract to be revoked, it might be material to google but wouldn't show up on liabilities. I would think it would be classified as unforseen patent litigation which is usually covered in the general business risk disclosures. Right?
And in fariness, google's lawyers were pretty fast and loose in the early days. For example their "google" name derivations of copyrighted work.
It's an interesting article, but too complex. I think that MSFT want's to bust YAHOO and are relatively indifferent to owning Yahoo's assets. They just want to concentrate the industry.
This argument is really a sample selection problem becuase you're only sampling on the innefficiencies given a successful drugs. Think of it this way --> nearly all promising drugs never see a dollar spent on marketing becuase they never get sold.
Now you might say "wait, our calculations include all the costs of those 7 million compounds into the sucessful one and it's still innefficient!" But what that argument fails to obserbve is the cost of market creation. Market creation is necessarily innefficent and spread across a vast space of entrepeneurial effort not captured in the pharma numbers. That is, no one will attempt to create a new market (i.e. regulation, distribution, education) if you remove the entrepeneur from the equation.
Finally I doubt that killing patents would make too much different in the system, becuase that other goverment monopoly called "FDA approval" would take up any monopoly slack - as it already does with orphan drug applications and biologics.
Everyone understands the second, it's the task that needs the analogy.
How about:
If a task is handing out a dollar, it's like handing out a dollar to every person in China every second.
(AKA the US economy analogy).
(1) Google Docs sharing is actually live; you can see other people's edits being made in real time So do you have to share Google Docs to make edits in real time?
Most scholars considering patents and innovation would defer to this definition.
Schumpeter, J., "The Theory of Economic Development", Harvard University Press, Cambridge,Mass., 1934. 1) The introduction of a new good --that is one with which consumers are not yet familiar--or of a new quality of a good. 2) The introduction of a new method of production, which need by no means be founded upon a discovery scientifically new, and can also exist in a new way of handling a commodity commercially. 3) The opening of a new market, that is a market into which the particular branch of manufacture of the country in question has not previously entered, whether or not this market has existed before. 4) The conquest of a new source of supply of raw materials or half-manufactured goods, again irrespective of whether this source already exists or whether it has first to be created. 5) The carrying out of the new organization of any industry, like the creation of a monopoly position (for example through trustification) or the breaking up of a monopoly position
That most patents aren't valuable is a historical reality. That also means that most "novel" patents aren't worth anything. Scherer has described the distribution as the "Innovation Lottery" - it's a 2000 paper.
This assumption that patent trolls are some horrendous problem is probably misplaced. You, and many others may find some moral aversion to it, but there are two things to consider. 1. Patent disputes can occur honestly with both sides feeling that they are true inventors. And if you don't buy that, and it isn't true in many cases 2. Mark Lemley has proposed in 2004 that the USPTO is "rationally ignorant" becuase the costs of litigation are very low accross a small proportion of contested patents vs. the costs of novelty search accross the universe of issuing patents.
You shouldn't have wasted your limited capacities on responding to me.
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution protects INVENTORS, not innovators. Patents are FOR INVENTIONS. http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/howtopat.htm
To suggest that innovation forms some legal definition for patenting is flat wrong and has been since 1790.
On definitions, the source you chose sucks. If you want to quote Schumpeter or Adam Smiths' definitions that would be helpful. Or Utterback, or Christensen, or Rogers etc.. They all link innovation to commercialization (whereas invention is not).
My only point was that you can't take the "profiteering" out of "innovation". If you do, whatever you have is no longer called innovation.
I don't understand why people don't realize that innovation often arises more quickly without profiteering involved.
The majority of definitions of "innovation" involve introducing of a product into a market, so by definition profiteering is coincident with innovation.
Funny how people have forgotten about "invention".
Microsoft is way underleveraged for a mature company. With debt as cheap as it is, especially given MSFTs debt rating, they should go into debt whether they buy YHOO or pay out additional dividents.
The original claim is a logical fallicy - the argument samples on the dependent variable.
Christensen examines something like 130 companies of which maybe 8 are considered successful. Only about 3 are left in the end. Many industries sort out like this.
So depending on how you look at it you can pretty much mock anyone with a 94-98% chance that they will not be disruptive.
Jollyreaper, between your two posts you argue that MS isn't good at innovating internally or aquire innovations externally. How can one really respond to this crap? MS is excellent at both and dominates a lot of markets,even some not realted to its OS.
I've use gmail. In fact I've used it since it was beta (hahaha!!!) But, take hotmail - MS took it from 13M users to something like 250M. Google's like 60? On user basis, MS creates way more value than Gmail. And hotmail looks nothing like hotmail of old. The consumer productivity suites, blogging tools, gtalk, are all pretty much a joke compared to the MS offerings. Obviously MS is in ton of other markets.
Google is a one-trick pony that still doesn't have new paying tricks. And ironically, even though google continues to dominate search, MSN has better technology for advertisers as the spend/click is higher. http://www.rimmkaufman.com/rkgblog/2007/11/01/october-2007-ppc-engine-share/
Microsoft has been buying innovative companies for two-decades and this has only added to their growth. The fact that Microsoft can both identify and assimilate innovative firms, accross so many product offerings, is a strength, not a weakness of the company.
Are you sure you're talking about the NFLX? I always get my top choice. I schedule new releases. And I have a two business day turn around on movies from when I send them.
On value. Netflix sells the long tail. Think of their "Watch Now" as a whole blockbuster store without the new release section. Lots of crap, but it was added as a free service. Add to that the giant DVD selection, the recommender system, the queue, no late fees and you're looking at a huge value.
Finally, I would bet that NFLX is cheaper per viewing minute than a kiosk.
Ballpark, assuming you keep each DVD for 5 days (5 replacements/month ) On a $16 plan you get 16 hours of watch now, + (3 DVDs x 2hr x 5 replacements) (week per dvd) ~ $0.35 per viewing hour vs. kiosk $0.66-$1.33 (incl. late fees) per viewing hour.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't in my view demonstrate that it led to a worse overall outcome. I suggest at least knowledge was disclosed to the public. Who knows, maybe because of the patent the original inventor got additional development money, or even quit an expensive project that would have been too far before it's time to succeed. Given the absurdly high failure rates in innovation it's not as though inventors have wonderful forsight about invention quality until they start to put themselves out there - through information sharing or product release.
Sorry, I didn't see you reply. But FYI - no iPods in 1970 is not an incentives problem. It's a technological knowledge problem. And the "cost to society" you claim is not calculable or useful. Innovating has a 95-99.9% failure rate - Scherer calls it the innovation lottery. It's a high cost to society. But that doesn't mean we stop doing it.
ANd it's not just like the technology comes along. The ideas and technologies build on prior ideas and technology. In short, patents didn't seem to get in the way of the ipod. But they did disclose technical knowledge 30 years before the ipod. So what's the problem? Patents worked.
If the contract were to be revoked, under certain conditions, it could be material. I'm obviously speculating, but if the patent bust, then the contract might be revoked under conditions favorable to google. However, if some other condition causes the contract to be revoked, it might be material to google but wouldn't show up on liabilities. I would think it would be classified as unforseen patent litigation which is usually covered in the general business risk disclosures. Right?
And in fariness, google's lawyers were pretty fast and loose in the early days. For example their "google" name derivations of copyrighted work.
It's an interesting article, but too complex. I think that MSFT want's to bust YAHOO and are relatively indifferent to owning Yahoo's assets. They just want to concentrate the industry.
I have an x40 running of a 300x 8GB CF card. It's way faster than most subnotbooks.
Now you might say "wait, our calculations include all the costs of those 7 million compounds into the sucessful one and it's still innefficient!" But what that argument fails to obserbve is the cost of market creation. Market creation is necessarily innefficent and spread across a vast space of entrepeneurial effort not captured in the pharma numbers. That is, no one will attempt to create a new market (i.e. regulation, distribution, education) if you remove the entrepeneur from the equation.
Finally I doubt that killing patents would make too much different in the system, becuase that other goverment monopoly called "FDA approval" would take up any monopoly slack - as it already does with orphan drug applications and biologics.
What is not paid for is the upfront money drug companies need to invest in development.
Having read your arguments I now suspect you all of being pedophiles.
Everyone understands the second, it's the task that needs the analogy. How about: If a task is handing out a dollar, it's like handing out a dollar to every person in China every second. (AKA the US economy analogy).
The bigger picture is that you and Google don't value property rights.
Let us know when it is convenient for us to come over and take your shit.
It was a joke. I find google docs slow as hell.
Thought there are many theories on patenting, the most basic is that rents from patents create incentives for innovation.
It's not some "hide the rents" conspiracy.
Schumpeter, J., "The Theory of Economic Development", Harvard University Press, Cambridge,Mass., 1934. 1) The introduction of a new good --that is one with which consumers are not yet familiar--or of a new quality of a good. 2) The introduction of a new method of production, which need by no means be founded upon a discovery scientifically new, and can also exist in a new way of handling a commodity commercially. 3) The opening of a new market, that is a market into which the particular branch of manufacture of the country in question has not previously entered, whether or not this market has existed before. 4) The conquest of a new source of supply of raw materials or half-manufactured goods, again irrespective of whether this source already exists or whether it has first to be created. 5) The carrying out of the new organization of any industry, like the creation of a monopoly position (for example through trustification) or the breaking up of a monopoly position
That most patents aren't valuable is a historical reality. That also means that most "novel" patents aren't worth anything. Scherer has described the distribution as the "Innovation Lottery" - it's a 2000 paper.
This assumption that patent trolls are some horrendous problem is probably misplaced. You, and many others may find some moral aversion to it, but there are two things to consider. 1. Patent disputes can occur honestly with both sides feeling that they are true inventors. And if you don't buy that, and it isn't true in many cases 2. Mark Lemley has proposed in 2004 that the USPTO is "rationally ignorant" becuase the costs of litigation are very low accross a small proportion of contested patents vs. the costs of novelty search accross the universe of issuing patents.
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution protects INVENTORS, not innovators. Patents are FOR INVENTIONS. http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/howtopat.htm To suggest that innovation forms some legal definition for patenting is flat wrong and has been since 1790.
On definitions, the source you chose sucks. If you want to quote Schumpeter or Adam Smiths' definitions that would be helpful. Or Utterback, or Christensen, or Rogers etc.. They all link innovation to commercialization (whereas invention is not).
My only point was that you can't take the "profiteering" out of "innovation". If you do, whatever you have is no longer called innovation.
The majority of definitions of "innovation" involve introducing of a product into a market, so by definition profiteering is coincident with innovation.
Funny how people have forgotten about "invention".
Is he in Tyrell's lab? Someone else. Please substantiate your claims.
Microsoft is way underleveraged for a mature company. With debt as cheap as it is, especially given MSFTs debt rating, they should go into debt whether they buy YHOO or pay out additional dividents.
Also, CDs are way more expensive in Canada than the US. Not like they went down in price when the currency appreciated.
And there will always be a country that is the last on any list. Good for Canada that it's on the bottom of this one.
The original claim is a logical fallicy - the argument samples on the dependent variable.
Christensen examines something like 130 companies of which maybe 8 are considered successful. Only about 3 are left in the end. Many industries sort out like this.
So depending on how you look at it you can pretty much mock anyone with a 94-98% chance that they will not be disruptive.
Thanks for the copy of the article. Shit. Computer being seized.
Jollyreaper, between your two posts you argue that MS isn't good at innovating internally or aquire innovations externally. How can one really respond to this crap? MS is excellent at both and dominates a lot of markets,even some not realted to its OS. I've use gmail. In fact I've used it since it was beta (hahaha!!!) But, take hotmail - MS took it from 13M users to something like 250M. Google's like 60? On user basis, MS creates way more value than Gmail. And hotmail looks nothing like hotmail of old. The consumer productivity suites, blogging tools, gtalk, are all pretty much a joke compared to the MS offerings. Obviously MS is in ton of other markets. Google is a one-trick pony that still doesn't have new paying tricks. And ironically, even though google continues to dominate search, MSN has better technology for advertisers as the spend/click is higher. http://www.rimmkaufman.com/rkgblog/2007/11/01/october-2007-ppc-engine-share/
Microsoft has been buying innovative companies for two-decades and this has only added to their growth. The fact that Microsoft can both identify and assimilate innovative firms, accross so many product offerings, is a strength, not a weakness of the company.
Are you sure you're talking about the NFLX? I always get my top choice. I schedule new releases. And I have a two business day turn around on movies from when I send them. On value. Netflix sells the long tail. Think of their "Watch Now" as a whole blockbuster store without the new release section. Lots of crap, but it was added as a free service. Add to that the giant DVD selection, the recommender system, the queue, no late fees and you're looking at a huge value. Finally, I would bet that NFLX is cheaper per viewing minute than a kiosk. Ballpark, assuming you keep each DVD for 5 days (5 replacements/month ) On a $16 plan you get 16 hours of watch now, + (3 DVDs x 2hr x 5 replacements) (week per dvd) ~ $0.35 per viewing hour vs. kiosk $0.66-$1.33 (incl. late fees) per viewing hour.
You're a dinosaur. Get a new outlook.