Make any sense for Yahoo's IP?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| vainrveenr Feb 02, 2008 8:04 PM EDT |
Most of the arguments for and against the MS acquisition of Yahoo focus around brand recognition, increased customer base for marketing, being one of the leading search engines to vie with Google, ...etc. Consider this: Microsoft's purchase of Yahoo would include with this purchase of course, all IP patents Yahoo has invented. These all would now belong to Microsoft to use or to abuse as it wishes. What about a possible future (or more immediate) Microsoft attempt to bludgeon Google and other possible F/OSS-using vendors with FUD and IP Patent legal threats regarding its new IP holdings, unless such F/OSS companies are forced to somehow ante up ?? The clear threat would be that such F/OSS-using companies are now illegally using the old-Yahoo's IP in IN ANY DEGREE within their products and/or services. Maybe anteing up by making certain undisclosed Novell-type "deals" with Microsoft? Just exactly how far-fetched is this scenario? |
| Scott_Ruecker Feb 02, 2008 8:41 PM EDT |
Quoting:Just exactly how far-fetched is this scenario? Its not far fetched at all... |
| hkwint Feb 03, 2008 2:17 AM EDT |
Google has a rather big 'patent portfolio' to use as a defense though. And, sad for Microsoft, Google doesn't make its sources like pagerank public or open source, so it will be hard for Mircosoft to state which IP Google infringes. Looking at the USPTO database, it seems Yahoo! only has 96 patents. For a reference, Google has 75 of them. That's really peanuts compared to the 8000+ patents Microsoft owns, but who knows? It seems both Google and Yahoo! depend on trade secrets and not patents, just like Coca Cola and Windows. As far as I know, not much of PageRank is patented, because if it was, it would become public and the whole world would know how it works and how to abuse it. The same must be true for Yahoo. So, how far fetched is it? If Microsoft thinks those 96 patents are enough to scare Google, and Google won't try to use their 75 patents to 'counter-sue', than it's not far fetched. But if Microsoft really wanted to take this path, why didn't they sue Google for using Linux - which infringes on Microsofts IP as they say - in first place? They could also file a whole new patent farm using Yahoo's current trade secrets, thereby making those trade secrets public, at the disadvantage of allowing people to abuse Yahoo's pagerank system. It sounds like a possibility to me. However, these 96 patents doesn't look like a healthy source of FUD to me, Yahoo needs its trade secrets, and therefore I'd say at this moment it's a bit far fetched. |
| jezuch Feb 03, 2008 4:10 AM EDT |
Quoting:As far as I know, not much of PageRank is patented, because if it was, it would become public Ah, the beauty of it! They patented the concept and the recipe is there for someone to make something PageRank-like (and get sued for it), but the details are secret. Very well, my friend! Anyway, algorithms of any sort have a interesting property that usually they have lots of parameters. The concept may be fully revealed, but if you don't know the exact values for the parameters (in a concrete implementation of interest), this knowledge not of much use. That's how modern cryptography works, for example. |
| gus3 Feb 03, 2008 7:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:Google has a rather big 'patent portfolio' to use as a defense though. And, sad for Microsoft, Google doesn't make its sources like pagerank public or open source, so it will be hard for Mircosoft to state which IP Google infringes.It won't stop them from trying. Exhibit #1: SCO. |
| hkwint Feb 03, 2008 10:03 AM EDT |
You're right, turns out Yahoo! is four years older than Google, so why not state Google was built upon Yahoo's IP? When it comes to search engines, it seems Microsoft ain't got much to lose. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!