Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 193 posts

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#161

Post by Guvante »

andrewfong wrote: post #146
zanny wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue you'd get more economic benefit abolishing patents entirely (not just the software ones, I mean the ones on reproducing someone elses car or gas furnace). You pay a cost in a loss of investment valuation towards invention because it is less economically beneficial if you can't have a monopoly on your patented good, but you benefit economically by letting new inventions reach natural price equilibrium immedi…

Not necessarily opposed, but there are a couple areas where this might be a net loss absent other adjustments. Pharmaceuticals would be the obvious one -- they require a large upfront research cost, copying is trivial, and the FDA approval process erodes first-to-market advantages.

Pharmaceuticals would be devastated. While there are externalities that need to be solved around our production of drugs, the patent system is a good thing overall for them.

No one spends $1 billion to make a drug if anyone can copy it simply.

Additionally there are international problems related to abolishing patents.

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#162

Post by squirejons »

WalterBright wrote: post #94
chavesn wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can think to yourself: “ugh, patent trolls are disgusting”. But the protection of intellectual property is what America is built on. Smart people invent things. Then they get to protect the intellectual property on what they invents. Other companies can’t steal[1] that technology. "Protection of intellectual property is what America is built on ?" Hyperbole much? "Smart people invent things. Then they get to pr…

> But the protection of intellectual property is what America is built on. Is it? I recall the story of how the textile industry in America was built upon designs illegally smuggled out of Britain. Also, the movie, auto, and aviation industries were all hobbled for years under patent lawsuits. It was so bad in the aviation business that development in the US pretty much ground to a standstill and the center for aviat…

Indeed--in fact the word 'yankee' as applied to americans long ago, referred to the american ripping off of intellectual property: yankee meant IP pirate. No joke!

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#163

Post by greyfade »

andrewfong wrote: post #146
zanny wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue you'd get more economic benefit abolishing patents entirely (not just the software ones, I mean the ones on reproducing someone elses car or gas furnace). You pay a cost in a loss of investment valuation towards invention because it is less economically beneficial if you can't have a monopoly on your patented good, but you benefit economically by letting new inventions reach natural price equilibrium immedi…

Not necessarily opposed, but there are a couple areas where this might be a net loss absent other adjustments. Pharmaceuticals would be the obvious one -- they require a large upfront research cost, copying is trivial, and the FDA approval process erodes first-to-market advantages.

But even in situations where pharmaceutical companies don't have patent protection, just providing a better product at lower prices to a larger, poorer market has proven to recoup costs just as well as charging $10,000 per dose on a patent drug.

(I saw quotes yesterday from the founders or presidents(?) of Merck and Bayer, which espoused both philosophies, and both claimed successes.)

I'm not entirely convinced that patents are necessary to ford the research and regulatory approval. Even in a market where generics are relatively trivial, there are ample opportunities for profit.

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#164

Post by Buttons840 »

greyfade wrote: post #163
andrewfong wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily opposed, but there are a couple areas where this might be a net loss absent other adjustments. Pharmaceuticals would be the obvious one -- they require a large upfront research cost, copying is trivial, and the FDA approval process erodes first-to-market advantages.

But even in situations where pharmaceutical companies don't have patent protection, just providing a better product at lower prices to a larger, poorer market has proven to recoup costs just as well as charging $10,000 per dose on a patent drug. (I saw quotes yesterday from the founders or presidents(?) of Merck and Bayer, which espoused both philosophies, and both claimed successes.) I'm not entirely convinced that…

Let's stay: I am a pharmaceutical company, and you're a competing pharmaceutical company.

I invented miracle-drug and can now produce miracle-drug at 0.04$ per pill, can you can produce miracle-drug at 0.06$ per pill. You would think I should win because I can product the pill cheaper, but the full story is your very first miracle-drug pill costs you 0.06$ and my very first miracle-drug pill cost 1.5 billion dollars. I lose because I invented.

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#165

Post by klipt »

zaroth wrote: post #149
skj wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's remember that when the guy was "gobbled right up", Google was a dozen people with one server in a garage. The fact that multiple entities came up with this idea, without communication of the idea between them, means that it was more a function of the environment the idea was conceived in than the person who did the conceiving.

Agree with everything you've said, and I still think Google has to pay for infringing. Patents are NOT just to prevent copying. Patents are not supposed to be worthless against larger companies who can just replicate your work without your help. If you could just re-engineer any patented invention, patents would be worthless. Companies would be incentivized to bury their heads in the sand so they could be sure they w…

> Companies would be incentivized to bury their heads in the sand so they could be sure they were not 'inspired' by anything out there that might have been patented.

Already the case, because willful infringement penalties are much worse than accidental infringement. Any lawyer will tell you that, as an engineer, you should never read patents:

http://www.dresan.com/blog/?p=1030

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#166

Post by ensignavenger »

omegaworks wrote: post #60
saraid216 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems to be pretty well established now that this system does not support innovation (at least not in the software business. Back when I was actively studying this stuff, it was noted that there are four specific industries where intellectual property just doesn't work as intended. Software was one, pharma was another, and I forget the other two but a quick Google ought to surface them with more credibility than…

> pharma was another I thought pharma relied on patents to offset the massive cost of regulatory control over the product. (FDA fees, cost of running patient trials, etc)

The reasons why patents are bad in pharma are different from software- in pharma, if you can't afford to pay for a patented drug, you (very well could) die.

Also, pharma companies have been known to get patents on drugs that have existed for many years- which does not support innovation (though pharma argues it supports government regulation of these drugs, which have been on the market for many years)

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#167

Post by ama729 »

greyfade wrote: post #163
andrewfong wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily opposed, but there are a couple areas where this might be a net loss absent other adjustments. Pharmaceuticals would be the obvious one -- they require a large upfront research cost, copying is trivial, and the FDA approval process erodes first-to-market advantages.

But even in situations where pharmaceutical companies don't have patent protection, just providing a better product at lower prices to a larger, poorer market has proven to recoup costs just as well as charging $10,000 per dose on a patent drug. (I saw quotes yesterday from the founders or presidents(?) of Merck and Bayer, which espoused both philosophies, and both claimed successes.) I'm not entirely convinced that…

> just providing a better product at lower prices to a larger, poorer market has proven to recoup costs just as well as charging $10,000 per dose on a patent drug.

Unfortunately, it's not alway possible, there are sometimes very few people in the first place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#168

Post by CompleteMoron »

graving wrote: post #49
dangrossman wrote: post #2

> Even though there was no evidence of copying—Vringo admitted as much What a ridiculous system we all operate under. You come up with a mathematical formula for ranking some text on a page (in this case, what ads to show first), and you could now owe $250M/year to some company you've never heard of because they already bought the rights to that formula. It turns my stomach; sorry that I have nothing of more substanc…

They(and you), did hear of the company that originally got these patents. Here's the very interesting story behind the patents. http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/31/why-google-might-be-going-t... edit: I am rate limited from replying to fpgeeks reply below so I will post my reply here. First, the author is extremely clear that he invested in Vringo, in fact the whole article is about why he did so., so I am not sure why…

whew i thought they had to pay the $$$ to PUD from Fucked company for the little tiny ads!

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#169

Post by eob »

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #30

So called "intellectual property" is an other way to decrease the value of manual work and increase the income of pure "possessions". By making creative work "property" that can be owned and making minimal creative acts "possessable" in a way, that other creativity is inhibited or at least "billed", actual work is diminished for pure "property" holding. The only way, non-possessing people can climb up "from rags to r…

This is an interesting angle of thought. Thanks!

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#170

Post by WalterBright »

squirejons wrote: post #162
WalterBright wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the protection of intellectual property is what America is built on. Is it? I recall the story of how the textile industry in America was built upon designs illegally smuggled out of Britain. Also, the movie, auto, and aviation industries were all hobbled for years under patent lawsuits. It was so bad in the aviation business that development in the US pretty much ground to a standstill and the center for aviat…

Indeed--in fact the word 'yankee' as applied to americans long ago, referred to the american ripping off of intellectual property: yankee meant IP pirate. No joke!

I don't think yankee meant pirate. I'm pretty sure it's an old term with the same meaning as 'wanker'.

However, the Yankees turned it around on the British and owned the term. Classic.

Edit: the actual origin of the word is lost in obscurity. There are lots of theories.

Post reply on HN