Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't disagree with your premise per-say, but, I do think its pretty easy for me, personally, to dismiss some of these positions wholesale.

1) I agree with

2) Computer technology moves at such a breakneck pace and is generally so hard to reverse engineer that this point doesn't hold water for me. We know that google's search algorithm works, ok, but can we reverse engineer it from the outside? The answer seems to be no, so why protect it with patents? Even if we could, by the time we were done google would already be on to the 'next big improvement', there is no catching up in software short of a drastic stumbling in the incombent, should we really protect the incombant from messing up?

3) The entire concept of going to college for software related endeavors is in such peril straits that I don't think we should even consider the affects or impacts of academia on software development, it's well in past at this point regardless of the patent situation.



We know how Google's algorithm works in no small part because Larry and Sergey came up with it as part of their graduate studies at Stanford. Stanford owns the patent(s?) on it and made hundreds of millions licensing it to Google.


You know how it worked ten years ago. Do you really think that has much to do with how it works today?


As of four years ago (last time I had any meaningful contact with search quality people at Google), it was a very convoluted layer cake of diverse signals and carefully tuned heuristics.


I guess that's what they needed Go (golang) for.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: