[HN Gopher] The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mo...
___________________________________________________________________
The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent
wars
Author : webmaven
Score : 79 points
Date : 2021-10-22 14:42 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (pluralistic.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (pluralistic.net)
| AlbertCory wrote:
| A general comment about patent trolls ("NPEs") business model. I
| actually heard a presentation by a (former) troll about this.
|
| They buy a patent which looks good, i.e. applies broadly, hasn't
| been litigated unsuccessfully, has a few more years to run,
| ideally has been tested by an unsuccessful IPR. The whole goal is
| to make back the investment in a few years. Contrary to what
| someone said, there is _not_ an infinite supply of those.
|
| Then they pick out easy targets to sue, i.e. companies which just
| settle without much fuss. Those settlements don't have to be for
| large amounts, and typically are not.
|
| I should correct the word "sue." Often there is no lawsuit. If a
| defendant is formally notified that they might be sued, they can
| seek a Declarative Judgment (DJ) in a friendly venue, which
| affirms that they're not infringing. The troll does _not_ want to
| be DJ 'ed. So they just threaten without really threatening
| ("hey, you might want to take a look at this patent!").
|
| Those easy targets build up a war chest, which the troll then
| uses to go after the bigger and harder targets. These are
| companies that will fight back, often with an IPR.
|
| So the moral is: make yourself a hard target. Never roll over for
| those people.
| ece wrote:
| Things like OIN[0] didn't exist when MS and Google bought
| companies to strip them of their patents. They do exist now, and
| it's basically a truce over fighting on patents.
|
| The Bork view on anti-trust definitely has favored these
| companies, and Apple and Google can absolutely be accused of
| having and using monopoly power to keep competitors out. Google
| pays to be the default search engine on iOS (keeping competitors
| out), and Apple denies fair platform access to software it thinks
| has a chance at competing with it's ecosystem (Tile, etc..).
| Amazon and Facebook can be accused of this pretty easily too
| (restricting 3rd party sellers, restricting API access
| respectively).
|
| The law[1] is pretty clear on this, but bills exactly like [2]
| and [3] would clear it up more, which I believe Cory Doctrow
| supports, at least from reading his Twitter.
|
| [0] https://openinventionnetwork.com/
|
| [1] https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-
| single-...
|
| [2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-
| bill/3825...
|
| [3] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-
| bill/3816...
| gowld wrote:
| What's the difference between keeping competitors our and
| keeping yourself in? Some goods are unique or scarce and go to
| the highest bidder.
| ece wrote:
| Those aren't the type of goods these companies are making.
| All of these companies have durable market power (in search,
| networking/communication, marketplaces); and can and have
| used it to expand their own power like the article says, and
| do it at the expense of smaller competitors. Hence the new
| anti-rust view being one that stops such anti-competitive
| actions.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Re [0], there are zillions of these "open patent" initiatives.
| Every week a new one comes along. It's easy to get lots of tiny
| companies to sign up for them. It's a lot harder to get anyone
| with a really valuable patent.
|
| As for the Bork view: all those things you mentioned _are_
| "consumer harm" and are not protected. It would be a lot more
| fruitful to look at the lobbyist spending by the tech giants,
| and the Astroturf "studies" they fund.
| ece wrote:
| OIN includes Google and Microsoft, and 43 other pages of
| companies big and small:
| https://openinventionnetwork.com/download/48946/
|
| I hope the current lawsuits against these companies over the
| exactly the things I mentioned should be easily decided then,
| and we won't need the bills I linked.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| What an ignorant blowhard Cory Doctorow is.
|
| " _This is a great strategy in light of US anittrust [sic]
| theories over the past 40 years, during which time antitrust
| regulators promised to leave companies alone as they formed
| monopolies, provided they didn 't hike price after attaining
| monopoly dominance._"
|
| No, Cory, that's not what happened and there was no "promise."
| The new theory of anti-trust was "consumer harm." Hiking prices
| is certainly one form of that, but so was forming a monopoly.
| Microsoft was prosecuted for forming a monopoly and reducing
| consumer choices.
|
| " _Google 's true operating costs aren't captured by adding up
| its salaries and servers - a correct accounting must include the
| costs of acquiring companies and with them, patents. That's the
| cost Google must incur, if is to retain its power._"
|
| No, Cory, those are not "operating costs," those are called
| "capital costs." They're treated _real_ differently in
| Accounting.
|
| I was part of this "acquire patents" effort at Google. I actually
| interviewed people to be in Legal whose job would be to acquire
| patents. The theory (since discarded) was that a heavy patent
| portfolio would give you a better negotiating position if you
| were sued. There was no thought of actually _asserting_ these
| patents against Microsoft, or anyone.
|
| I actually used some of our internal tools to assess our patent
| portfolio. Most of those Motorola patents were worthless.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| All of this information could have been delivered without also
| delivering personal insults on the side.
| johncena33 wrote:
| Well, it wouldn't be HN if people couldn't post angry rants
| about Google. 10% of HN is just a group of same people
| complaining about Google again and again. Anytime I see a
| link about Google, I know there wouldn't be any insightful
| discussion. Just same people complaining endlessly about the
| same things. I wish mods would do a better job moderating
| this relentless tirades.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Except in this case it's not against Google, but someone
| being aggressive against someone taking a position critical
| of Google.
|
| Disclaimer: I work at Google, and I'm used to keeping
| things polite when the workforce here is attacked on the
| forum. So not sure why the reverse can't also be true.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Perhaps, but this is the second article by Doctorow this
| week.
| rektide wrote:
| Cory is awesome & has an accurate, informed view on techno-
| politics.
| [deleted]
| tessierashpool wrote:
| that's not a valid reason for insulting somebody. if I've
| had to tone down my attitude to fit the tone this site aims
| for, then I think you should too.
| socksick wrote:
| I get his annoyance. It's infuriating to keep seeing the
| opinions of the ignorant elevated on HN as if they're
| gospel. It's bad enough that this place is a shrine to
| Paul Graham, let's not add any more fools to this roster.
| rektide wrote:
| Oh more undeserved out of hand insults, from another
| camp, great!
|
| Cory is a well networked, fairly thorough, informed
| blogger. He participates in all sorts of panels on topics
| of regulation, listens to a wide amount of voices. His
| views typically reflect & meet with a wide variety of
| other expert opinions.
|
| It's really unfortunate that such easy, cheap character
| assassination is being done against someone who has
| spoken so well, with such unvarnished genuine interest &
| care for what technology can be in this world.
| cma wrote:
| I doubt the little guy acquiring patents at behest of some
| corporate initiative from executives actually necessarily gets
| told the real reason. It would leave an paper trail for
| antitrust. "Would give you a better negotiating position if you
| were sued" is the exact kind of generic motivation you'd want
| on something that's real purposes could look worse in an
| antitrust trial.
|
| Especially in light of stuff like "Google training documents
| advise avoiding monopoly language":
| https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/7/21358441/google-alphabet-t...
| AlbertCory wrote:
| You and gota both need to read the literature on patent
| strategy in maturing markets. This is well-known and informed
| everyone's strategy in the 2010 era, Google's _and_ Microsoft
| 's.
|
| The literature says that in mature markets, the major players
| all have cross-licensing agreements sharing their giant
| patent portfolios, shutting out the minor players. They form
| an oligarchy, in other words.
|
| I may be a few years behind, having been retired for a few
| years, but I don't think this has actually happened. It's
| _possible_ that Google and Apple and Microsoft really do have
| cross-licenses now, but I kinda doubt it. It would be too
| complicated to negotiate. What they have is mutually assured
| destruction.
| webmaven wrote:
| The difficulty of negotiating cross licensing deals has led
| to the creation of large patent pools like the Open
| Invention Network and Allied Security Trust.
| gowld wrote:
| The entire point of the patent system is to provide a legal
| monopoly, as written in the Constitution. It's not a dirty
| secret.
| cma wrote:
| A limited time monopoly on an invention. But antitrust laws
| are allowed to break up stuff with too much power if they
| engage in certain practices, and this can split up a patent
| portfolio amongst the parts.
| rektide wrote:
| Wow uh.... hitting a bit hard there. This seems like a very
| strong reaction, to something that seems straightforward &
| accurate to me. So you've found a couple bones to pick to
| justify these insults you're gunning to fire... here's my view
| on them.
|
| > _No, Cory, that 's not what happened and there was no
| "promise."_
|
| Borkism's "consumer harm" theory has, in almost all cases, been
| centered around hiking prices. Given the lack of interference
| we've seen for the past 40 years, whether or not there was this
| "promise" seems moot: there has been a pathetically low level
| of anti-trust enforcement. Whether promised or not, there has
| certainly been a delivery.
|
| That you can cite a single 20 year old Microsoft case does
| little to convince me that there is efficient & active anti-
| trust regulation. It was a pretty heinous act, by Microsoft, at
| a time when there was only one mainstream consumer OS. But now
| that there's two OSes, there's no need for anti-trust,
| seemingly, and Apple is allowed to engage in far far far worse
| behaviors on iOS with regards to only permitting Safari
| technology to run, hampering the web. Social media companies
| have faced no scrutiny in their bonanza of competitor
| purchasing. The semiconductor market has undergone a radical
| vast wave of consolidation, again, seemingly entirely
| unchecked. Whatever the new Robert Bork "consumer harm"
| standard might grant it license to regulate, it certainly
| doesn't seem to be doing much. Proving those harms is much
| harder & more specific a task than what came before, and has,
| imo, been enormously clearly for the worse, as Cory continues
| to rightly argue.
|
| > _No, Cory, those are not "operating costs,"_
|
| The entire basis of this post is that the accounting doesn't
| reflect the truth of the matter. The accounting of acquisitions
| as a one time capital costs isn't really genuine or fair, when
| a constant ongoing stream of acquisitions is required to
| maintain the power & position of dominance. The dominant player
| has to keep feeding the meter to continue operating from a
| position of power. Each of those may be a one time cost, but
| the macro behavior is that this is not so different than the
| grid hookup keeping the data-centers running. It sustains the
| dominance of the entity. It's an operating cost, the cost of
| staying where they are.
|
| Your point about patents is entirely besides the point. This
| isn't about companies using courts to try to destroy one
| another- something we haven't ever really seen at scale in the
| modern world. This is about Saturn Eating His Son. This is
| about the gigantic titaneous overlords of the planet insuring
| nothing new ever happens, preventing disruption. By acquiring
| all freshness & devouring it, bodily.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > "That you can cite a single 20 year old Microsoft case"
|
| OK, do you want some more? How about [1]?
|
| If your point is that the tech giants have not faced enough
| anti-trust litigation: you'd have to define "enough" as
| "sufficient to break them up." Because they're still here.
|
| The EU has been all over them, and almost every state AG is
| joining in an anti-trust suit against them. Congress
| investigates them every week, and we might _eventually_ see
| some legislation. Democracy is slow. But yeah, more is
| better.
|
| Your last two paragraphs rely on a false premise: "a constant
| ongoing stream of acquisitions." If there are acquisitions
| going on, it's not for patents -- it's to eliminate
| competitors. That's not a defect of IP laws; it's a matter
| for legislation and anti-trust action. Which I support.
|
| [1] https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-
| proceedings/151-0065/s...
| dang wrote:
| Please make your substantive points without name-calling and
| personal attacks. You broke the site guidelines badly here.
|
| This is particularly important when your view of the underlying
| issue is actually correct, because if you post like this about
| it, you end up discrediting not only yourself but also the
| truth [1], and that hurts everybody. We're really trying to
| avoid that sort of internet dynamic here.
|
| I certainly appreciate that you have inside knowledge about
| this topic and are willing to share it with us! That part is
| great. I also understand (believe me) the frustration that
| comes up when people make glib claims about a situation they
| don't have first-hand knowledge of. But if you wouldn't mind
| reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and
| taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be
| grateful.
|
| [1]
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
| AlbertCory wrote:
| OK.
| gota wrote:
| > I was part of this "acquire patents" effort at Google. I
| actually interviewed people to be in Legal whose job would be
| to acquire patents. The theory (since discarded) was that a
| heavy patent portfolio would give you a better negotiating
| position if you were sued.
|
| Interesting! Can you expand on this topic? Does/has the
| strategy work?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The theory goes like this. The Patent Office keeps granting
| overly broad patents to your competitors, who then show up to
| sue you for unintentionally violating them. So you get your
| own overly broad patents, counter-sue them when this happens,
| and then they all cancel out.
|
| The main problem with this strategy is patent trolls. Some
| company that doesn't make anything buys up some broad
| patents. Then there is nothing you can sue them over because
| they don't make anything so the strategy doesn't work.
|
| It also makes the whole concept of software patents pretty
| useless, because the "defensive patents" could equally be
| used to counter anyone who tries to sue you for violating a
| "legitimate" patent. So the whole system becomes a bludgeon
| for larger companies to use against smaller companies,
| because they have more patents, even if most of them are low
| quality, which means they can tie up anyone who actually
| makes anything in court indefinitely.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Some of that is correct, but patent trolls are only after
| money. They like to settle quickly for a fairly small
| amount, and move on. An effective counter-strategy is to
| resist them (with IPRs, especially) because that ties up
| their resources.
|
| As for big companies suing smaller ones: citations (in the
| mobile space), please?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| You're asking for citations to things that happen behind
| closed doors. "Big company pressures little company into
| a buyout/capitulation" is bad PR for big company, so part
| of the buyout/capitulation is to sign the NDA.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| There are still conspiracy theory leaker mathematics in
| play here. Facebook can't so much as send an internal
| email complaining about leaks making somebody's job
| harder without it being trumpted as yet another great
| wrong they committed.
|
| It is within a space of possibilities but a sustained
| lack of evidence decreases the probability of it being so
| as numbers increase. It is possible that a given person
| drove drunk without being caught. But if they drove drunk
| everyday throughout many different towns and villages?
| Less likely.
| orangeoxidation wrote:
| > The theory (since discarded) was that a heavy patent
| portfolio would give you a better negotiating position if you
| were sued. There was no thought of actually asserting these
| patents against Microsoft, or anyone.
|
| Doesn't it kind of prove part of the argument?
|
| Google apparently felt threatened by patents, enough so to
| acquire "second strike capabilities" as deterrence.
|
| Seems to me Google though patents aggressive tools with the
| purpose to hurt other companies or threatening to do so (though
| defensively in this case).
|
| I am really interested in the "since discarded" part, if
| someone can recommend some reading.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| It only "prove[s] part of the argument" if you rephrase the
| argument to _your_ liking. You are also conflating
| "defensive" and "aggressive." Kinda like saying Switzerland
| is "aggressive" because they have mandatory military service
| for all males.
| some_furry wrote:
| > Kinda like saying Switzerland is "aggressive" because
| they have mandatory military service for all males.
|
| I'm curious: Have you heard of the state's "monopoly on
| violence" before? It comes up a lot in political theory
| discussions, and it applies to this attempted rebuttal by
| analogy.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I've certainly heard of that theory. How is that relevant
| to "defensive" vs. "aggressive"? You're saying
| Switzerland is aggressive because they have a military?
| [deleted]
| Snild wrote:
| Just to offer a more benevolent interpretation: I read that
| "Google thought patents aggressive tools" sentence not
| necessarily as any implication of Google's intent, but
| rather an implication that Google were worried about
| patents being used as weapons against _them_.
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| Cory Doctorow is ignorant of economics and competition policy.
| It's frustrating to see his thoughts shared here so often.
|
| There is no credible economic theory of firm "power seeking".
| What's more, you don't need such a theory to explain what's going
| on here.
|
| If you want to explain why Google paid so much for Motorola, you
| can do so via the various defects in intellectual property law.
|
| All large firms are at least occasionally involved in patent
| litigation, frequently with patent trolls (though sometimes with
| large competitors too). This is familiar enough to everyone on
| this site. For Google this was a defensive acquisition, but a
| defense against frivolous litigation. There is no need to invent
| some theory of firm "power seeking" to make the case.
| Ar-Curunir wrote:
| Maybe ask economists if there's a 'credible economic theory of
| firm "power seeking"'?
|
| https://capitalaspower.com/
| dmoy wrote:
| It's like reading Paul Krugman talking about stuff other than
| economics. Freaking genius economist with amazing papers and
| articles (my personal favorite is his joke-but-actually-
| realistic paper on intergalactic trade). But then he strays
| into territory where he isn't actually an expert, connects a
| few dots, and then publishes in his NYT column despite it being
| mostly rubbish.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| "Everything is about power": this reminds me of the 4-year-old
| who's just discovered a dirty word, and revels in its effect of
| shocking the grownups, so he yells it at every opportunity.
|
| Yes, boys and girls, "power" is sometimes a motivator. There
| are other ones, though. Maybe read a few more books.
| staticman2 wrote:
| Doctorow seemingly believes most economists are full of crap so
| isn't going to recite whatever theory you subscribe to.
|
| He discusses his view of economics in this twitter thread here:
|
| https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1450136949327425537?s=20
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| It's funny to read that thread. There is stuff I agree with
| there! And more stuff I disagree with or is totally
| unfounded.
|
| - First of all, I have no interest in or patience for Ayn
| Rand. I don't know any economists who take her remotely
| seriously. All of the American economists I know are on the
| left politically. So are most of the non-American economists
| I know. There are, of course, prominent exceptions to the
| rule.
|
| - I don't know why we are accused of having no theory of
| prices? I teach that in week 2 of my principles of
| microeconomics class. I don't teach inflation b/c I don't
| teach macro, but they do have theories.
|
| - We don't assume people have perfect information, with the
| _possible_ exception of using it as a _very simple_ benchmark
| case on our way to something more complicated and realistic.
| Incomplete /imperfect information has been a central feature
| of all theoretical and empirical work in the profession for
| more than 40 years now.
|
| - He shares a post about concentration in meatpacking. I
| agree that we have allowed many markets to become too
| concentrated, including meatpacking! I am in favor of
| stronger antitrust enforcement! My entire sub-field is
| empirical studies of imperfectly competitive industries.
|
| - Skipping several tweets (there is really too much here to
| argue with every point...) we have talked about the CORE
| textbook in my department. Most of us put it on our syllabi.
| It is free, after all. As a comment on Doctorow's take:
| _every_ Principles textbook mentions the environment because
| _every_ Principles textbook talks about externalities. I
| spend a week on the subject.
|
| Again, I confirm my impression that he doesn't know anything
| about economics or competition policy, but studying it more
| seriously would be to his benefit, _especially_ in commenting
| on technology and regulation issues.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Perhaps theory of prices has a totally different meaning
| from "leftist" contexts? They operate under imperatives and
| assume there is some sort of ideal formulae that ignores
| that it makes the Knapsack Problem look log(n).
|
| "What the market will bear." is a nonanswer to them even
| though it is accurate because reality is messy with human
| psychology more so.
|
| Of course from mainstream economics perspective their
| concepts of value and exploitation are between fallacious
| (universal global value because labor is assumed as the
| basis) to pants-on-head levels of crazy (the idea that a
| fair trasaction becomes unfair when the buyer is able to
| reap later profit).
| monocasa wrote:
| Patent portfolios aren't typically used as a defense against
| trolls. Since they're overwhelmingly non practicing entities,
| they're typically not infringing on anything.
| josaka wrote:
| It's a defense against trolls acquiring those patents and
| leverage to force license on transfer deals with other large
| cos.
| monocasa wrote:
| Trolls have no problems finding patents, it's not that
| limited of a pool that you can suck them all up. And sure
| about MAD with big companies, but that's orthogonal to my
| comment on trolls.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > There is no credible economic theory of firm "power seeking"
|
| How is the theory of market power combined with everything else
| we know not that? [1] It seems obviously in the firms interest
| even if their primary motive were still profit since it ensures
| increased rates of profit (modulo risk of a regulatory
| smackdown.)
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| Market power is a well defined economic concept. I am an
| economist who works on that issue. If he wants to talk about
| market power I think that would be great! (Though not as an
| explanation for this case.)
|
| Indeed, I said I thought he was ignorant of economics in part
| bc he brought up this weird "capital as power" thing which
| has nothing to do (AFAICT) with _actual_ market power as we
| understand it.
|
| Furthermore, in this particular case I think you get a much
| better, more direct explanation of Google's behavior vis-a-
| vis its acquisition of Motorola via intellectual property and
| patent litigation than via market power, let alone via
| "capital as power".
| guerrilla wrote:
| They seem to be economists too [1] and it seems like he's
| deferring to them. I haven't read their work but the way
| Cory presented it makes it sound like it's just basic
| Machiavellian realism[2] applied to economics and if that's
| all it is then I'm all in. Is there something specific you
| didn't like or just that the theory isn't presently popular
| among economists? What's your alternative story of what
| happened here? I'm not sure how intellectual property and
| patent litigation would conflict with what he's saying.
|
| 1. https://capitalaspower.com/about/
|
| 2. https://iep.utm.edu/polreal/
| Nasrudith wrote:
| The idea of powerseeking is an outright reification of power
| that conflates definitions by assuming the worst possible
| light. Influncing the market doesn't mean complete control
| over production - that is an obsession of Marx's ideological
| descendants. Just influncing it in either direction for any
| reason works. Providing it cheaper than market rates or
| convincing others to pay more also qualifies.
|
| If everyone in a village economy is capable of growing their
| own food on the side for about the equivalent of say
| $15/bushel averaged out but you have the specialization,
| mechanization to grow it for $1/bushel margins. Even if you
| wind up the only one growing food others still have their
| fields.
|
| If we call increasing efficiency "power seeking" then the
| term has lost any and all meaning and only serves to confuse
| and make the most mundane actions sinister by interpreting
| them in the most conspiratorial light. If you drink commodity
| coffee in the morning you actively to exploit the rural poor,
| if you go with more expensive fair trade coffee you are
| engaged in conspicious consumption of veblem goods while
| people starve, and if you just drink water you are trying to
| starve the rural poor.
| guerrilla wrote:
| What definitions do you believe are conflated? What "worst
| possible light" do you believe is being assumed? I don't
| think influencing the market means complete control over
| production. I don't know how you see that idea as inherited
| from Marx though and if it were, it would be fallacious to
| reject it on those grounds. To be clear though the authors
| that Cory is citing reject Marx in the first pages of their
| book and I myself have no interest in Marx other than
| historical.
|
| We don't call increasing efficiency "power seeking." Yes, I
| think many anti-capitalists would respond to that by saying
| that "there is no ethical consumption in capitalism" and
| that these problems cannot be solved by consumer choices.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| yes, but if you get powerful enough there is no regulatory
| smackdown.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
|
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34397551-the-
| chickenshit...
| throwawaysea wrote:
| The link here isn't exactly the right one - the same thing
| happened to me when I tried sharing this article previously as
| well (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28933313). Either we
| both pasted the wrong URL or maybe HN trims off the hashtag part
| of the URL (with the #capital-as-power on the end of the URL).
|
| Anyways, the correct link is
| https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/20/vizio-vs-the-world/#capit....
| webmaven wrote:
| I definitely submitted the URL with the hash-mark and
| fragment[0], so HN must strip it off.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_fragment
| dang wrote:
| Yes, that's what happened. Sorry! I've put it back and will
| try to prevent this from happening again.
| webmaven wrote:
| Given that there are sites that use fragment identifiers to
| encode state, and users may be including fragments
| mistakenly (eg. click a link in a Wikipedia page's TOC,
| scroll to the top, share link), figuring out what to do
| with some random URL submission that includes a fragment
| isn't straightforward.
|
| In THEORY, when the fragment is (semantically?)
| significant, the site could dynamically alter the link
| rel="canonical" value to include the fragment such that you
| could check whether to keep it or not, but in practice I
| think that canonical links are intended for web crawler
| deduplication and so nearly always strip fragments off.
| mips_avatar wrote:
| The thing I think Doctorow is missing is the motivation at the
| engineering level to get a patent. There is very minimal
| strategizing between corporate attorney's about how the patent
| might be strategic. If something is patentable, the engineering
| teams will often pursue a patent mostly motivated from a bragging
| rights perspective. It's a great way to give recognition to
| engineers. Most of Google's/Microsoft's portfolio are collections
| of patents like that. Maybe at a portfolio level there is some
| strategizing, but not at the level of the engineers actually
| inventing things.
| mogopugh wrote:
| The patents are usually at least nominally related to a
| product, and the allocation of engineering to product is very
| intentional. You're correct that there's some loss in that
| process, and lots of funny business/perverse incentives
| besides, but engineers aren't generally patenting _totally
| random_ things.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-22 23:02 UTC)