

Larry Page: If we can't win on quality, we shouldn't win at all. - tzury
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576351650017002270.html

======
Matt_Cutts
By the way, if you're interested in search, Google, or SEO, it's a pretty good
book: [http://www.amazon.com/Im-Feeling-Lucky-Confessions-
Employee/...](http://www.amazon.com/Im-Feeling-Lucky-Confessions-
Employee/dp/0547416997/) There's several anecdotes about the early days of
Google that help explain why parts of Google turned out the way they did.

~~~
franze
i'm reading it currently (page 220 at the moment) i must say it's the best
book about google yet.

it's actually the book about google i was waiting for. it's a book from an
(ex) googler (no, i won't call them xoogerls) about google. it tells the story
about the chaotic start up days, about their victories and their failures (and
yes, there were failures), about the time when marketing had to "volunteer" to
rewire servers, how brand and engineers fought about UX only to be overruled
by sergy, how frustrating it can be to work with genius developers.

it is way better than "in the plex" (which is just "myth making" with little
substance), much much better than all the "what would google do" like books,
and much better than all SEO books (which are all sh#t anyway ... exception
"search engine marketing incorporated")

well i'm on page 220 and there was not much about SEO yet. matt cutts and his
p#rn cookies were mentioned, his fight against spam. there is a short story
about "search for non PhD" which explains search engines pretty well (and
holds more valuable information than you can get from an average SEO).

it also settles the question once and for all "does google uses the data from
the google toolbar?" (the answer is: YES, and the green page rank bar (i call
it "thought cancer bar") is indeed just a bait to turn on the "advanced
features"). nothing new, but this time it's official (kind of). i hope that
all the SEOs which claim that "it's not important what the users do after the
SERP clickthrough" will finally be silenced.

@matt looking forward to your book...

~~~
Andrenid
Hardcopy is 40c more than ebook? $9.99 for ebook, $10.39 for physical.

Digital pricing for books is really starting to get to me. It makes absolutely
no sense why a digital version can cost nearly as much (and sometimes more)
than a physical copy.

~~~
pchristensen
Being able to read a book, instantly, without it consuming additional physical
space in your home is a feature for some people.

------
scottshea
Almost the complete opposite of a company I worked at in the late 90s where
the CEO would say things like "If rover will eat I will feed him" (meaning if
the customer buys the schlock we're selling who cares what you think) and
"Quality Assurance is an impediment to revenue".

~~~
asciilifeform
_> "If rover will eat I will feed him"_

This slogan handily summarizes the history of the computer industry, software
and hardware.

------
uriel
This is one of the reasons why I don't buy the whole concept of "intellectual
property": the only thing that should matter is the quality and value provided
to consumers; not marketing, not ideas, not strategy, but the end result,
which as many have pointed out before is mostly execution, but whatever the
path one gets there, only product standing on its own merits should matter.

~~~
danssig
So only big companies like google should ever be able to do anything?

When a little guy with no resources comes up with a brilliant idea he would
try to implement it, the big guys would see it and use their near infinite
resources to copy it while adding features and you would be cheering for them?

We need to fix intellectual property, not scrap it.

~~~
GFischer
If the idea was "nonobvious" it should take some time for the big guy to
figure out how to implement it (and it might even end up being cheaper to buy
out the small guy).

Plus, the implementation should be covered by IP (but not the idea itself).

If a small guy invented the "one click buying" button, should it be protected?

Plus, in the end, we all win (if big company popularizes small guy's idea and
it makes something better).

~~~
anamax
> If the idea was "nonobvious"

Lots of things are obvious in hindsight.

> Plus, the implementation should be covered by IP (but not the idea itself).

Huh? Are you suggesting copyright protection on the implementation is enough?

If not, what kind of IP protection on the implementation are you suggesting
that isn't "idea" protection?

> Plus, in the end, we all win

I want the little guy trying to become big, because that's how things change.
Letting the big guy win every time isn't nearly as good.

~~~
GFischer
What I wanted to say is that protecting the idea is a very bad thing (and
we've seen it).

I do agree with protecting the implementation (which is what most countries
do).

I'm not sure on how to give the "small guy" a head start without giving him
some protection on the idea, but I have a strong opinion that protecting the
idea is bad. (I could be wrong, and I'm open to being convinced).

~~~
anamax
> What I wanted to say is that protecting the idea is a very bad thing (and
> we've seen it).

Are you against protecting all ideas? If not, what kind of ideas do you think
should be protectable and how?

For example, if I invent a new way to do scheduling - is that something that
you're willing to let me protect? If so, how?

> I do agree with protecting the implementation (which is what most countries
> do).

What kind of protection are you talking about? Copyright? If so, that's
useless against a legit big guy because they don't copy.

~~~
GFischer
Yes, I'm against protecting abstract ideas with no implementation.

Even when there is an implementation, it's not obvious to me that it should be
especially protected by a government (especially a fallible government, which
is all of them, as well-meaning as they might be).

I'm definitely not in favor of granting you protection on a "new form of
scheduling". A program or calendar or whatever that implements it, sure.

See for example:

<http://www.lessig.org/content/standard/0,1902,4296,00.html>

"Patent No. 5,715,314, for example, gives the holder a monopoly over "network-
based sales systems" - we call that e-commerce." (yes, Amazon among others is
a licensee)

Other horrible examples:

<http://w2.eff.org/patent/EFF_Patent_Busting_Project.pdf>

See also for a broader view, the ideas of economist Friedrich Hayek:

<http://blog.mises.org/9247/hayek-on-patents-and-copyrights/>

or, a mainstream view on an industry without copyright, the fashion industry:

[http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/20/copycats-versus-
copyright...](http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/20/copycats-versus-
copyrights.html)

Another well-known case is of course Coca-Cola, which protects its core
formula via trade secret rather than relying on the government.

(I am in favor of copyright, and protecting implementations as well - a
reduced form of patents).

As I mentioned, if it's not obvious, and the big guy requires resources to
copy it, they might be better off purchasing the small guy. If it was easy to
copy, well, let's hope the small guy's execution was better than big guy's. (I
do realize that big guy has an advantage in marketing, etc.)

~~~
anamax
> Yes, I'm against protecting abstract ideas with no implementation.

It's curious that you seen to think that patents can protect something other
than ideas because ideas are the only things that patents protect.

> Even when there is an implementation, it's not obvious to me that it should
> be especially protected by a government (especially a fallible government,
> which is all of them, as well-meaning as they might be).

Then whom will enforce them? Do I hire a private army?

I assume that you feel the same about contracts and copyright (wrt
enforcement).

> I'm definitely not in favor of granting you protection on a "new form of
> scheduling". A program or calendar or whatever that implements it, sure.

So, once someone sees my new form of scheduling, they can use it and there's
nothing that I can do about it. (I wasn't thinking calendar scheduling, but it
doesn't matter.)

In that world, I'm going to reveal as little as possible.

> If it was easy to copy

Small orgs innovate only when they benefit from doing so. Since the
innovations come from small orgs, reducing their ability to benefit is a huge
cost. I'm still waiting to see the benefit.

Note that there are bogus patents in chemistry and every other field, yet I
don't see near the outrage. Is software special?

~~~
GFischer
No, they don't protect ideas, they protect products or processes. According to
WIPO:

"What is a Patent?

A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or
a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a
new technical solution to a problem. In order to be patentable, the invention
must fulfill certain conditions "

<http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/patents_faq.html#patent>

On your second point, I am in favor of government enforcement of contracts (as
a last resort, hopefully), and copyright as well (though it should be amended
or limited).

On your scheduling idea, yes, if the implementation is easy, then your only
recourse is obscurity (trade secrets).

[http://www.ipo.gov.uk/peertopatentblog/?tag=mathematical-
met...](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/peertopatentblog/?tag=mathematical-method)

Scientific theory or discovery and mathematical methods are NOT patentable.

At Business School you learn that all sources of competitive advantage are
temporary. BigCo will catch up with you eventually if you don't use your
temporary advantage to build up.

~~~
anamax
> A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product
> or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or
> offers a new technical solution to a problem. In order to be patentable, the
> invention must fulfill certain conditions "

You're reading "product" and "process" too literally. A patent on a new way of
making a wheel is not just a patent on the wheels that you're making. It's on
the way you make wheels, the idea, whether or not you're involved in said
wheel making.

> Scientific theory or discovery and mathematical methods are NOT patentable.

Scheduling isn't any of the above, even if it happens to use some of them.

Consider the patent on making vulcanized rubber. It came out of scientific
discovery and depends on chemical "laws", but isn't any of those things. It
doesn't cover the use of those things to do other things. It just covers the
use of those things to vulcanize rubber.

> At Business School you learn that all sources of competitive advantage are
> temporary.

Patronize much? Anything that applies to "all" isn't specifically relevant to
this discussion, which is about specific sources of competitive advantage.

I'll repeat my question - do you really want to leave innovation to BigCos?

