-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
____/ Phil Da Lick! on Wednesday 10 Aug 2011 13:19 : \____
> On 10/08/2011 09:34, Homer wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>> ____/ Homer on Wednesday 10 Aug 2011 08:04 : \____
>>>> Top 5 Tech Companies by Patent Portfolio:
>>>> IBM 26,000 (40,000 worldwide)
>>>> Microsoft 20,000
>>>> Oracle 20,000
>>>> Apple 3,000 (one year ago)
>>>> Google 2,000
>>>> Top 5 Tech Companies by Market Cap. (Billions USD):
>>>> Apple 346.74
>>>> Microsoft 214.32
>>>> IBM 203.76
>>>> Google 185.15
>>>> Oracle 139.81
>>>> So Google is worth 45 Billion USD more than Oracle, but has just 1/10
>>>> th the number of patents (half of which it only just acquired from
>>>> IBM this month, so that market cap. was actually built upon _1/20 th_
>>>> of Oracle's patents).
>>>> Meanwhile, the most valuable tech. company, Apple, is also the one
>>>> with the second /least/ amount of patents, and the company with by
>>>> /far/ the most patents, IBM, is worth 143 Billion USD /less/ than
>>>> So the purpose of patents is...?
>>> Trophies with potential to ban the competition or tax it.
>> Yes, but if that's the case then it's clearly not working, since some of
>> the most valuable companies are those with the least patents, and vice
>> So purely in practical terms, what's the point?
>>> Patents were originally for /publication/ relating to physical
>>> What's the benefit to the public? The /publication/ part is made
>>> obsolete by the Internet.
>> Patents were never secret, indeed they're specifically only granted in
>> exchange for publication, but publication does not grant other parties
>> any rights to actually use those inventions, regardless of the fact that
>> it's now easier to find them, thanks to the Internet.
>> Patents are privileges granted to induce the willingness to share
>> supposedly unique knowledge, in exchange for a state-sponsored,
>> artificial but temporary monopoly on that knowledge, so that one may
>> financially benefit from it exclusively, to an extent sufficient enough
>> to satisfy one's purely financial motives.
>> Or more bluntly, it's a bribe to make greedy people do something they'd
>> otherwise be unwilling to do, with the inevitable consequence of
>> encouraging opportunists to peddle trivia.
>> But if the purpose of patents is profiteering, then shouldn't there be,
>> you know, some actual, demonstrable /profit/ from those patents? But
>> from the above table it's clear there isn't actually any correlation
>> between patents and the financial success of the person or company
>> holding them.
>> So again, purely in practical terms, given that patents are supposed to
>> be a practical solution to a practical problem, what's the point?
> Keeps the top 5 as those top 5. Intention is to stop another microsoft
> appearing out of nowhere.
What about Google?
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): schestowitz@xxxxxxxxx (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----