And... Meeting three, patent holders armed with Apple legitimacy, and posibly enjoined by Apple, meet with undisclosed Japanese company, and request additional licensing fees/taxes.
Reading could be as subjective as watching which is why I refered to text analysis. For example, there are a number of highly reproducible techniques, often from antrhopology, sociology or linguistics, that can be used to compare text correlates. Think for example, how Google serves search results or provides Adword estimates, or how Amazon identifies its concordance or unique statement book data.
Why watch them - why didn't she do a text analysis of the scripts/director nots and compare this to other texts? Watching seems subjective and a tremendous time suck. Am I missing something?
Right, but intel was losing a tonne of benchmarks to AMD so created a tonne of lingo and tm's so no one could really figure out how to compare them....
PS Without sorting through all the garbage a smart shopper will buy AMD until Intel comes back with sequential names based on some performance metrics that the consumer cares about.
The last story was about some legal action whereas this is meant to envoke the destruction of FOSS and the collapse of the US economy. This happens everytime there is some useless decision slightly altering the perceived boundaries of patent claims. Two simple facts. First, patent litigation is rare. Two, if you do anything useful, or more broadly valuable, you're going to get sued by someone, somehow.
I think this is an awesome idea. First, I doubt that most complaints will be investigated. As with most complaints police receive, there will be a distribution of compliants and only the top few will be seriously investigated. Second, my bet is that this will long term cache flagged coversations (avoids invasion of privacy as not third party), creating a pattern of evidence. Awesome idea.
Projectors have a razor blade model as you describe - sell the projector plus a $250 lamp every couple years.
DLP is going to lose out in the projector market like Beta. High end DLP projectors ($25K have three DLP chips and totally kick ass. However most consumer projectors ($1-5K) have one DLP chip with a segmented color wheel (early TV technology) that causes some folks to see rainbows on bright patches (I'm one). But DLP chips have historically offered much better contrast than LCD so they have sold better. What has happened is that LCDs mans. have nearly caught up to DLPs in contrast, but don't have to pay licensing fees to TI for three DLP chips. Now you can see some fantastic Panasonic and Sanyo three chip LCD projectors that for a buck five that nearly have the same contrast as single chip DLPs but don't have rainbows (like $10K+ three chip DLPs)
Good points, some other more really big flaws on patent quality.
1. Novices don't have the experience to judge patent claims (sorry/. but this is part of why the CAFC was createdhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Paten t_Appeals_and_Interferences , for this to work it should be for experts to provide limited by relevant counter claims)
2. Exminers can't desk reject patents - so while the wiki might be identify flaws, bs patents will still issue and will still need to be proved out in negotiation/litigation (that said the wiki would help valuation of patents)
3. I think the f-with much hated company could easily happen, but it probably won't nix a deal between for example two big semi-cos --> they'll still drift to license/litigation if they have a beleif in their IP . However, it will screw the small inventor who won't have the resources to overcome a barrage of novice opinions nixing the technology.
I'm all for better prior art but in patents, but we need A HIGHER DENSITY OF EXPERTISE IN THE PATENT SYSTEM NOT LESS as enabled by this wiki design.
You may be interested too look for companies with small business inovation research grants (SBIR) - many of them do earlier stage work as many bridge the academic to business orientation. Most of the technical folks that I have worked with are PhDs - perhaps becuase they require that people write grants to be funded and PhDs are more likely to do this. Each federal research funding agency has an affiliated SBIR program. Portions of the grant projects are made public as are geographic and regional information. If you provide more information maybe I can narrow more. Good luck. See http://www.sba.gov/SBIR/indexsbir-sttr.html
This is what National Research Corporation, an MIT incubator, aimed to do in the 1940s... It didn't work then becuase the cells wouldn't survive, but maybe they can aim for some good OJ. http://www.minutemaid.com/aboutus/history.shtml
They may well be misrepresenting the number of clicks - this has yet to be decided in our legal system. Of course, by your very language,if there are 'legitimate' and 'illigetimate' clicks then it seems likely that charging as though they are all 'legitamate' seems tricky.
While accounting clicks might still be difficult, estimates should be relatively easy and advertisers could be reimbursed in adword product based on these estimates.
I appreciate your respectful and interesting response, but I think your initial arguments are dangerous.
First I agree that when you add agent communication to the model it reduces the power of the experimentation/delay argument. I don't think this is sufficient to shift my argument given today's reality, though in the long run we end up in the same place, I explain how.
Here's where I am coming from. Google is transforming the advertising business. It is tremendously difficult in the near term for any advertiser to learn from the system as the pace of change is too rapid. Lags are big and important. Where could timely communication be coming from? Are advertisers sharing pricing information prior to bidding with competing advertisers (except through Google's own estimation service which endogenizes clickfraud). Probably not - why would they do this? Are there comparable services to adwords that allow you to estimate the pricing of Google? Again, not really. Google advertisers are really relying heavily on experimentation within Google's system to price, and this is expensive when the fraud is built into the system.
So here's what happens with experimentation. Not only do you have growth in robots going around running up the click-rates, but you also have in the short term increasing demand for this new advertising medium, in part from transformation in the ad world, but also due to the need for continuous short-run experimentation, making for a very complex dynamic pricing system that has in the long run all sorts of ways to tip. Despite the rhetoric of what people are trying to do, my sense is that the reality is that it is not a market where optimization is happening- people are just happy if they get a positive surplus. Your initial comments reflect this. My model doesn't need an infinite number of advertisers - I'm guessing you can probably get these effects with about 15 to 30 advertisers, but when you add demand from short term experimentation, you could get these effects with a few advertisers running experiments, driving up the potential for winner's curse. I ran a search yesterday for an obscure dishwasher part number and had all my slots filled. I'd expect a search for "Nike jacket" would have an obscene number of interested advertisers.
In the long run everything dies, so you'll have no argument from me there.. My sense is that now, in the short term, demand growth is outstripping erosion of value from increases in click-fraud, meaning that there is no disincentive to google and that they can continue to get more for less for a while. This condition can persist in the medium-term if additional competition enters with similar business model and click-fraud rates, but can shift if google or another service will measure advertising in a way that is less susceptible to this type of fraud.
Latest post aside, even if advertisers don't get driver data etc... they still expect the ad to be on the billboard. Billboard companies charge by space with an adjustment for the quality of the space. If they misrepresent the space, i.e. you buy 50 spaces and get 10 that is simple fraud.
Google charging by clicks - if they misrepresent clicks I don't see how it is any different.
This is such a goofball arguement. Yes, googles actions cause the rate of returns to advertisers to approach zero as the amount of clickfraud increases. That's NOT a disincentive - is mean's that google captures all the surplus rents when fraud goes up. Now introduce a delay between measurement an action and the winner of the adwords auctions actually lose as they overspend before they pull out.
Now to this concept of noise - guess you've been reading your Claude Shannon? Again, you start off reasonable - advertisers will look at correlates, but they can only do this once they experiment, and there's a big winner's curse problem is that you have to spend money before you get click data. So google promises a bunch of clicks, and the advertisers will base an estimate of that in the early game. Yes, people that overpay will leave, but google gains again in this transaction.
"Larry and Brin need California king size beds on their plane"
From WSJ "Lawsuits Fly Over Google Founders' Big Private Plane"
Mr. Jennings says Messrs. Brin and Page "had some strange requests," including hammocks hung from the ceiling of the plane. At one point he witnessed a dispute between them over whether Mr. Brin should have a "California king" size bed, he says. Mr. Jennings says Mr. Schmidt stepped in to resolve that by saying, "Sergey, you can have whatever bed you want in your room; Larry, you can have whatever kind of bed you want in your bedroom. Let's move on."
Nearly agree with you entirely. In the earlier post I should have noted that whatever success HP can claim (a la Forbes) survived Carly.
But where I disagree is that this is not a HER issue. Carly rushed to puchase a massive negative growth company. Moronic, whatever one's gender. She swallowed the pig, when HP only needed some bacon. Second, she is in the good old boy network as she's getting awards and top board spots like noboby's business. Still, no one wants her running anything.
If this is where google is going my guess would be that it signals the start of a revenue slow down. There are way fewer point of sales than "value added sites" who refer traffic. This would shift traffic to those who sell, a subset of those who can refer a sale.
How will this work as a business? A move like this simply squeezes out the little middle-man referrer, spliting that value to google and the point-of sale customer. What is the value proposition to the point of sale? Reduced cost of advertising, at expense of loss of new customer markets from innovating lead referrers --> probably sales growth decline for the POS (and google), thought the point of sale could be more profitable due to lower ad costs.
Would reduce the click-fraud problem though, profitable as that is for google.
I agree. I bet that there is way more money in the extremely high volume, anyone can host, click-fraud PPC than getting a bigger chunck of a PPSale from people that actually make shit.
DC's not a good example of east coast VCs and even though it's been hopping these last 5 years, I'm not sure it knows what it doing other than private goverenment work (i.e. formality and contract execution).
Most eastern VCs are in Boston and that's where it stated with ARC. DC doesn't have MIT, Harvard, or anywhere near the edcuational and innovation history or infrastructure. And it's also riduculous to have this general conversation without considering the impact of MIT on defense R&D during WWII, Vannevar Bush on governement R&D and communication technologies, Forrester (DRAM), Licklider ARPANET, and even DEC. That's without even considering the MIT migration of folks for better weather. On the West Coast side- Stanford get's its due in this post, but what about Fairchild Semiconductor? A tremendous amount of the valley starts here.
What the hell are we paying for if not infrastructure improvements?
This isn't water, or electricity where you have to generate the resource - unlike resources, marginal cost of an extra bit is trivial. You just need to make sure your pipes are big enough. And lets not forget that the pipes are getting cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
And... Meeting three, patent holders armed with Apple legitimacy, and posibly enjoined by Apple, meet with undisclosed Japanese company, and request additional licensing fees/taxes.
Reading could be as subjective as watching which is why I refered to text analysis. For example, there are a number of highly reproducible techniques, often from antrhopology, sociology or linguistics, that can be used to compare text correlates. Think for example, how Google serves search results or provides Adword estimates, or how Amazon identifies its concordance or unique statement book data.
Why watch them - why didn't she do a text analysis of the scripts/director nots and compare this to other texts? Watching seems subjective and a tremendous time suck. Am I missing something?
The "WTF, ok, better buy intel, better buy new" monopoly marketing approach.
PS Without sorting through all the garbage a smart shopper will buy AMD until Intel comes back with sequential names based on some performance metrics that the consumer cares about.
The last story was about some legal action whereas this is meant to envoke the destruction of FOSS and the collapse of the US economy. This happens everytime there is some useless decision slightly altering the perceived boundaries of patent claims. Two simple facts. First, patent litigation is rare. Two, if you do anything useful, or more broadly valuable, you're going to get sued by someone, somehow.
I think this is an awesome idea. First, I doubt that most complaints will be investigated. As with most complaints police receive, there will be a distribution of compliants and only the top few will be seriously investigated. Second, my bet is that this will long term cache flagged coversations (avoids invasion of privacy as not third party), creating a pattern of evidence. Awesome idea.
Projectors have a razor blade model as you describe - sell the projector plus a $250 lamp every couple years. DLP is going to lose out in the projector market like Beta. High end DLP projectors ($25K have three DLP chips and totally kick ass. However most consumer projectors ($1-5K) have one DLP chip with a segmented color wheel (early TV technology) that causes some folks to see rainbows on bright patches (I'm one). But DLP chips have historically offered much better contrast than LCD so they have sold better. What has happened is that LCDs mans. have nearly caught up to DLPs in contrast, but don't have to pay licensing fees to TI for three DLP chips. Now you can see some fantastic Panasonic and Sanyo three chip LCD projectors that for a buck five that nearly have the same contrast as single chip DLPs but don't have rainbows (like $10K+ three chip DLPs)
Good points, some other more really big flaws on patent quality. 1. Novices don't have the experience to judge patent claims (sorry /. but this is part of why the CAFC was createdhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Paten t_Appeals_and_Interferences , for this to work it should be for experts to provide limited by relevant counter claims)
2. Exminers can't desk reject patents - so while the wiki might be identify flaws, bs patents will still issue and will still need to be proved out in negotiation/litigation (that said the wiki would help valuation of patents)
3. I think the f-with much hated company could easily happen, but it probably won't nix a deal between for example two big semi-cos --> they'll still drift to license/litigation if they have a beleif in their IP . However, it will screw the small inventor who won't have the resources to overcome a barrage of novice opinions nixing the technology.
I'm all for better prior art but in patents, but we need A HIGHER DENSITY OF EXPERTISE IN THE PATENT SYSTEM NOT LESS as enabled by this wiki design.
And business skills are more likely to get you hired than technical skills in >$100M companies (Figure 3.2).
Should I seek counsel?
You may be interested too look for companies with small business inovation research grants (SBIR) - many of them do earlier stage work as many bridge the academic to business orientation. Most of the technical folks that I have worked with are PhDs - perhaps becuase they require that people write grants to be funded and PhDs are more likely to do this. Each federal research funding agency has an affiliated SBIR program. Portions of the grant projects are made public as are geographic and regional information. If you provide more information maybe I can narrow more. Good luck. See http://www.sba.gov/SBIR/indexsbir-sttr.html
This is what National Research Corporation, an MIT incubator, aimed to do in the 1940s ... It didn't work then becuase the cells wouldn't survive, but maybe they can aim for some good OJ. http://www.minutemaid.com/aboutus/history.shtml
They may well be misrepresenting the number of clicks - this has yet to be decided in our legal system. Of course, by your very language,if there are 'legitimate' and 'illigetimate' clicks then it seems likely that charging as though they are all 'legitamate' seems tricky. While accounting clicks might still be difficult, estimates should be relatively easy and advertisers could be reimbursed in adword product based on these estimates.
I appreciate your respectful and interesting response, but I think your initial arguments are dangerous. First I agree that when you add agent communication to the model it reduces the power of the experimentation/delay argument. I don't think this is sufficient to shift my argument given today's reality, though in the long run we end up in the same place, I explain how. Here's where I am coming from. Google is transforming the advertising business. It is tremendously difficult in the near term for any advertiser to learn from the system as the pace of change is too rapid. Lags are big and important. Where could timely communication be coming from? Are advertisers sharing pricing information prior to bidding with competing advertisers (except through Google's own estimation service which endogenizes clickfraud). Probably not - why would they do this? Are there comparable services to adwords that allow you to estimate the pricing of Google? Again, not really. Google advertisers are really relying heavily on experimentation within Google's system to price, and this is expensive when the fraud is built into the system. So here's what happens with experimentation. Not only do you have growth in robots going around running up the click-rates, but you also have in the short term increasing demand for this new advertising medium, in part from transformation in the ad world, but also due to the need for continuous short-run experimentation, making for a very complex dynamic pricing system that has in the long run all sorts of ways to tip. Despite the rhetoric of what people are trying to do, my sense is that the reality is that it is not a market where optimization is happening- people are just happy if they get a positive surplus. Your initial comments reflect this. My model doesn't need an infinite number of advertisers - I'm guessing you can probably get these effects with about 15 to 30 advertisers, but when you add demand from short term experimentation, you could get these effects with a few advertisers running experiments, driving up the potential for winner's curse. I ran a search yesterday for an obscure dishwasher part number and had all my slots filled. I'd expect a search for "Nike jacket" would have an obscene number of interested advertisers. In the long run everything dies, so you'll have no argument from me there.. My sense is that now, in the short term, demand growth is outstripping erosion of value from increases in click-fraud, meaning that there is no disincentive to google and that they can continue to get more for less for a while. This condition can persist in the medium-term if additional competition enters with similar business model and click-fraud rates, but can shift if google or another service will measure advertising in a way that is less susceptible to this type of fraud.
Latest post aside, even if advertisers don't get driver data etc... they still expect the ad to be on the billboard. Billboard companies charge by space with an adjustment for the quality of the space. If they misrepresent the space, i.e. you buy 50 spaces and get 10 that is simple fraud.
Google charging by clicks - if they misrepresent clicks I don't see how it is any different.
This is such a goofball arguement. Yes, googles actions cause the rate of returns to advertisers to approach zero as the amount of clickfraud increases. That's NOT a disincentive - is mean's that google captures all the surplus rents when fraud goes up. Now introduce a delay between measurement an action and the winner of the adwords auctions actually lose as they overspend before they pull out.
Now to this concept of noise - guess you've been reading your Claude Shannon? Again, you start off reasonable - advertisers will look at correlates, but they can only do this once they experiment, and there's a big winner's curse problem is that you have to spend money before you get click data. So google promises a bunch of clicks, and the advertisers will base an estimate of that in the early game. Yes, people that overpay will leave, but google gains again in this transaction.
From WSJ "Lawsuits Fly Over Google Founders' Big Private Plane"
Mr. Jennings says Messrs. Brin and Page "had some strange requests," including hammocks hung from the ceiling of the plane. At one point he witnessed a dispute between them over whether Mr. Brin should have a "California king" size bed, he says. Mr. Jennings says Mr. Schmidt stepped in to resolve that by saying, "Sergey, you can have whatever bed you want in your room; Larry, you can have whatever kind of bed you want in your bedroom. Let's move on."
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB11522278853 6400097-i72SXBBTMX_EPvtfDIn9uNjtiss_20070707.html
But I thought Carly totally helped here? By faclitating HP's name change to "Horrible Performance" she allowed them to charge lower prices...
Nearly agree with you entirely. In the earlier post I should have noted that whatever success HP can claim (a la Forbes) survived Carly. But where I disagree is that this is not a HER issue. Carly rushed to puchase a massive negative growth company. Moronic, whatever one's gender. She swallowed the pig, when HP only needed some bacon. Second, she is in the good old boy network as she's getting awards and top board spots like noboby's business. Still, no one wants her running anything.
If this is where google is going my guess would be that it signals the start of a revenue slow down. There are way fewer point of sales than "value added sites" who refer traffic. This would shift traffic to those who sell, a subset of those who can refer a sale. How will this work as a business? A move like this simply squeezes out the little middle-man referrer, spliting that value to google and the point-of sale customer. What is the value proposition to the point of sale? Reduced cost of advertising, at expense of loss of new customer markets from innovating lead referrers --> probably sales growth decline for the POS (and google), thought the point of sale could be more profitable due to lower ad costs. Would reduce the click-fraud problem though, profitable as that is for google.
I agree. I bet that there is way more money in the extremely high volume, anyone can host, click-fraud PPC than getting a bigger chunck of a PPSale from people that actually make shit.
DC's not a good example of east coast VCs and even though it's been hopping these last 5 years, I'm not sure it knows what it doing other than private goverenment work (i.e. formality and contract execution). Most eastern VCs are in Boston and that's where it stated with ARC. DC doesn't have MIT, Harvard, or anywhere near the edcuational and innovation history or infrastructure. And it's also riduculous to have this general conversation without considering the impact of MIT on defense R&D during WWII, Vannevar Bush on governement R&D and communication technologies, Forrester (DRAM), Licklider ARPANET, and even DEC. That's without even considering the MIT migration of folks for better weather. On the West Coast side- Stanford get's its due in this post, but what about Fairchild Semiconductor? A tremendous amount of the valley starts here.
Patents are federal, how could this possibly differentiate Silicon Valley?
Awful post... At least when I pull numbers out of my ass I know where they came from...
What the hell are we paying for if not infrastructure improvements? This isn't water, or electricity where you have to generate the resource - unlike resources, marginal cost of an extra bit is trivial. You just need to make sure your pipes are big enough. And lets not forget that the pipes are getting cheaper.