Google Doesn't Rely On Intellectual Property For Its Leadership Position
from the stop-saying-it dept
In the various debates we have on intellectual property, we often hear people insisting that Google's dominance is based on intellectual property -- even though there's very little evidence to support this at all. The people who make this argument are guilty of the same mistake made in studies that count all things covered by intellectual property laws as if they only exist because of those laws. Entertainment industry lobbyists, like The Copyright Alliance, love to tout that "$1.52 trillion of the nation's GDP" comes from intellectual property. But that's both misleading and wrong. The number itself is exaggerated, but it also gives credit to intellectual property for anything that touches IP. For example, when we dug into the methodology, we saw that the study counts things that clearly were not because of IP law: such as furniture and jewelry. Are the Copyright Alliance and its entertainment backers really trying to suggest that without copyright law we would have no furniture or jewelry?Similarly, Google often gets lumped into these discussions, with people insisting that its position in the market is due to copyright and patents. Google does, in fact, have a bunch of patents -- but I watch the patent app filings and patent grants on a bunch of different companies each week, and Google tends to file significantly fewer patents than other comparable companies. Furthermore, I don't know of a single case where Google even hinted at or threatened another company with a patent infringement suit (if there are any examples, please let me know). It appears that Google has focused very much on just using patents for defensive purposes, since it is regularly sued by others for infringement.
Matt Asay, over at News.com, has now highlighted an even stronger example of how Google is showing that it's not relying on intellectual property, but on execution, for its business position. The company recently open sourced its Closure tools, which it uses to build its web services (disclosure: I'm good friends with one of the folks involved in this project, and yes, he reads Techdirt regularly). As Asay puts it:
In many ways, Google is giving away the recipe to those that would like to build a Google clone.It's the execution, not the idea. It's the service, not the code.
The problem? Google is so much more than software.
In fact, one of the primary reasons that Google can write and open-source so much software is that it isn't a software company. Not even remotely. I could have every line of Google's software, both open source and proprietary, and I couldn't hope to compete with Google.
Google is what Google does with the software, and not the software itself.
In fact, this sort of activity confuses the hell out of companies that do rely on intellectual property. Again, Asay makes this clear:
Google and Red Hat have moved beyond software. Software enables their operations, but software doesn't define such operations. Google, for its part, is open sourcing Microsoft, one line of code at a time, and Microsoft hasn't a clue as to how to respond, because it only knows the old world: competition through better IP.And that -- right there -- is the key point we keep trying to make around here. You don't need to rely on intellectual property. And, if you do, you are opening yourself up wide to competition that doesn't rely on IP and innovates in a way that simply cuts your legs out from under you. Yet... we'll still hear stories for years about how all of Google's billions are because of its intellectual property, even as it gives away more and more of it each and every day.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: intellectual property, services, software
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is this bad?
Interesting side note, I remember a time not too long ago when my brother had an extra credit question on a quiz that asked to list two search engines. Guess what, the teach counted Google.com wrong. If they have been able to go from search engine nothingness to major innovator in less than 10 years, what are they going to be in another 10-20 years.
The last time we saw growth like this we got Micro$oft. But something tells me Google is heading in a completely different direction. The Anti-Microsoft? Time will tell I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mikey is a moron
Google started on a server side, with minimal exposure of their IP to competitors
netscape, on the other hand, was on a client side and tried to compete woth Mshit
Where is Netscape now, mikey-boy ?
You don't remember the name ? because you were too young and pissing under your parent's dinign table when all of this happened ?
Now Google can do to MShit whatever they want because they are HUGE and have loads of cash
JUst another clueless anti-patent PR rant from mikey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikey is a moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mikey is a moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mikey is a moron
And successful at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikey is a moron
And you call Mike the moron? Incredible. Anyone with a history knowledge of browsers knows exactly what happened to Netscape, and quite a portion of this comes from Microsoft undermining Netscape's business model to charge for its browser by offering its free version with every Windows purchase.
Moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mikey is a moron
it's not "free" IE that killed Netscape Navigator
It's IE with exactly the same functionality as Netscape, bundled with Windoze (which is NOT free, as you probly know it, punky-boy)
GO take a piss, little punk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mikey is a moron
Well, there's also the fact internal company decisions also helped kill Netscape, but there's absolute *NO* disputing that Microsoft's bundling of IE (and everyone needs an OS, moron) into Windows helped its demise.
But given *you* were pissing under your parents dining table when all this occurred, it explains your position.
As well as your grammar.
Hell, I bet you don't even know what IE stands for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mikey is a moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikey is a moron
In short, it is not the size of your IP that matters, it is how you use it. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikey is a moron
**I trolled with angry dude**
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikey is a moron
The browser Netscape is basically gone, but the people behind it aren't. Versions 6 and 7 of Netscape were based on the Mozilla Suite. The Mozilla Suite is a cross-platform integrated internet suite built by the Mozilla Corporation. They are now focused on Firefox and Thunderbird. And with Firefox, they are maintaining or winning market share through open source coding and implementation rather than heavy handed use of IP. Hope that answers your question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikey is a moron
"Your life is waiting".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I have said before. The day everyone blocks Google on robots.txt is the day Google stops functioning. All the software in the world won't change it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So in theory you are right, but that won't happen in practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly, dude
TO be more specific, Google depends on everyone else's trademarks
Just like MIkey depends on on his shitty techdirt trademark
Abolish trademarks and google will collapse (with the rest of e-commerce)
Trademarks are form of IP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
when you search Google in order to buy some latest brand of penis enlarger or a male masturbation device Google comes back with some answers which are registered trademarks
YOu won't buy some no-name penis enlarger from some dude on the internet, will you punky ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @angry dude
Could you define your use of punky? Is it just someone that disagrees with you or what?
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ask American Motors about that one!
Google isn't the only player out there, just the biggest. But like the previous biggest players (like yahoo, excite, altavista, hotbot, etc) they all end up having a fall.
Google has set themselves up to be in a world of hurt if public opinion turns against them at all, as they are entirely dependant on people being nice to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well that's good, because have you seen the way they treat their employees? Pool tables, free cereal, $10,000 bonus for good ideas, etc. I wish my employer was that cool. Barring any huge mistakes, which so far doesn't seem likely, they are in a position to succeed where others have failed because of their openness and business model. I don't see public opinion turning anytime soon.
But a decade or so from now, we'll have to see how things pan out.
Personally, between technological innovation and business innovation we live in some exciting times. And companies like Google & Mozilla are poised to be the big winners if they play their cards right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't know about you, but this is *exactly* where I want all corporations to be. When they have a government grated monopoly to keep them in business regardless of public opinion, that's when things go to shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not that angry dude is making any sense, but this isn't why he's crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lots of companies make their money by getting in the middle of transactions. FedEx makes lots of money delivering products from producers to consumers. Should the producer get upset because FedEx is making money off his customers, with his products? Or should he be thankful that they supply a valuable service to him and his customers, allowing everyone to make more money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Turns out there was some stuck to the bottom of my shoe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kipling
but they couldn't copy my mind
and I left 'em sweating and stealing
a year and a half behind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google sues for IP a lot...
As to MS killing Netscape. Anyone that was around using the web at the time knows what killed Netscape. Netscape died because Netscape 4 sucked so bad no one was willing to use it. IE 4 however was twice as fast, loaded faster, loaded pages faster. (Please keep in mind that at this point both IE and Netscape where free to the public). If it had just been giving the browser away that had killed Netscape why didn't it die when IE 3.5 came out, it was free to download and Netscape you still had to pay for. Why? Because IE 3.5 sucked and Netscape that the only product worth using. (I mean what where you going to use Lynx?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google sues for IP a lot...
Netscape died because it failed to be the best, and the best was not only way better, but free. Heck, Mike should be all over it as a way to show the disruptive nature of free in a business.
But the story wouldn't hang so well on that concept, so we get a little alternate history. Mike will say "I didn't write the story" but in the end, he republished it and appears to be agreeing with the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google sues for IP a lot...
As to Google suing... that is more than a little misleading. Google has been involved in a number of lawsuits, but has only initiated a few. The ones it started are, for the most part, not IP suits. For instance, Google sued MS for antitrust. The exception I know of is the 2005 suit against Froogles (first hit if you google "google sues," as you suggested). Given that Google had a product out called "Froogle" at the time, the lawsuit was probably well-advised (unlike most of the craptastic IP litigation out there from companies that think a lawsuit is their ticket to paradise).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google sues for IP a lot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google sues for IP a lot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For God's sake!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stuff...
As for Google, they sue over trademarks and domain names, but no suits over patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google has threatened for IP infringement
Sure, he was able to find a work-around, but he was still threatened for helping other people to have a better experience using Google's services on Android handsets. The end result has been an extra hoop for people using his distribution to jump through.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/24/google-hits-android-rom-modder-with-a-cease-and-desis t-letter/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
freaking punks everywhere
a mindless spineless techdirt lemming punk creature
(in addition to its regular meaning of "biting midge" or "gnat")
Have a nice day, abortion victims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moderate the blog comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moderate the blog comments
You are serious, little punk ?
A philosophical question: if something has no value at all how can it be devalued ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moderate the blog comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moderate the blog comments
The comments really only represent the blog reader's musings, and are already moderated to an extent. Name calling is part of the political process as we have seen, and I think "punky abortion victim" is just as valid as "communist terrorist free america-hater" when it comes this practice.
I think angry dude actually adds value somewhat... but that's just me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moderate the blog comments
"loooooooooots of t-shirts".
He pokes his head in here every now and then, and has been posting here since like 2001.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moderate the blog comments
"loooooooooots of t-shirts".
And we did. Have to admit I'm disappointed he didn't buy one. We made it just for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think that the smart car companies will simply stop functioning as car companies. According to their Wikipedia article, Studebaker is still around as a loan provider.... thought someone might be interested to know that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO CHAIRS FOR YOU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google would not exist without patent protection
To bring this back to reality, I was involved in Yahoo's incorporation of Google search results back in the day when Yahoo was huge and Google was a small, scrapy startup. Google made it very, VERY clear that they felt the PageRank patent was defensible and that they would sue if any attempt was made to duplicate it within Yahoo (and Yahoo legal agreed with them.) If it was not for the protection of the patent system, Yahoo would have copied and crushed Google by 2001 and they would have been lucky to get bought by Microsoft for maybe a billion or so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google would not exist without patent protection
That is the same that I heard in the trenches.
PageRank brought people to Google. Pay-per-click monetized the traffic.
The value of PageRank for the average user has sadly declined with fraud and over-zealous SEO. However, Pay-per-click is alive and well, and making Google (and a few others) plenty of money to keep them out of the "litigate for profit" business model.
Google did rely on IP to reach maturity, but they use an open business model to survive and thrive today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
first, all successful *LARGE* businesses rely on IP somewhere at some point. maybe theirs, maybe someone elses... but thats NOT the point that was being made in the article to begin with.
the actual point being made is that google has been successful in out-maneuvering its competition (for the most part and/or just flat buying the competition when they couldnt compete very well) rather than tossing out a ton of shaky patents and suing the hell out of everyone who had an idea that even remotely sounded similar.
and while they were going that route, the patent trolls were suing everyone in sight for a bit of money now but nothing to keep them going in the long term... leaving them pretty much with no future.
you can sit here and toss out comparisons and argue points that have nothing to do with any of this all day long (i.e nutscrape vs intardnet exploder) but all you are doing is serving up a freakshow and proving that you have absolutely no idea what mike was talking about in the first place.
how bout some civility and sanity here... or even just some thorazine maybe...geezzee...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But if you can accept the concept that ideas can be owned in the first place then trade secrets like the "secret sauce" to their page rank algorithm are as much "property" as ideas covered by patents are. From this it follows that Google are totally reliant on their IP. Without their page ranking technology they would be nothing.
On the other hand intellectual property is an oxymoron and any treatment of ideas as property is a distortion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]