This article makes a deeply flawed assumption by including "outside" patents, that is to say, patents which were acquired (rather than developed/filed/patented by the company's own employees). Notice this tidbit disclaimer buried towards the end of the article:
"In Google's case, we get a clue. One of the company's largest super inventors lives out there, in the periphery, disconnected from other products. That inventor is Kia Silverbrook, who sold the company 269 granted patents on cameras and printers in 2013. Obviously patents that have been recently acquired, rather than developed in house, would lack the interconnections with other employees that centralize the largest bubbles."
This is not a clue. This is a sign that you're biasing your sample. Compare this statement to the premise of the study:
"Over the past 10 years Apple has produced 10,975 patents with a team of 5,232 inventors, and Google has produced 12,386 with a team of 8,888."
Wrong, not all of those people were even employees, see above. And what about the huge patent purchase Google made by buying Motorola and then selling it off (Arris, Lenovo) while keeping the vast majority of the patents. [0] Is it accurate to count Motorola’s patents as Google-developed innovations? Is it accurate to group Motorola inventors along with Google inventors?
"This seems to indicate a top-down, more centrally controlled system in Apple vs. potentially more independence and empowerment in Google."
I disagree, this really doesn’t indicate anything and mis-characterizes the inventors. Google and Apple have purchased a sizable number of patents whose inventors are not employees and not involved in Google's or Apple's R&D. If anything, this may indicate that Google purchased more outside patents than Apple. Some examples of Google's purchases beyond Motorola are IBM [1], Silverbrook [2], IP3 [3]. One of Apple's biggest set of outside patents is Nortel [4].
"Google, on the other hand, has a relatively flat organizational structure of many small teams filled with empowered individuals."
Not disputing this but the more obvious explanation is that Google has been working on a wider variety of products and services than Apple which would mean a greater variety of patentable subject matter by inventors working in different technologies. Don't use patents or that visualization as any indicator of R&D organizational structure.
"But that would take further sleuthing to confirm."
In the patent search community, it's pretty easy and quick to filter a search to only include company-invented patents (it's as quick as filtering down to a specific company, just compare latest assignee to original assignee). So why not do that here? This is such a simple search that I'm surprised that the data provider "Portland-based data visualization studio Periscopic" didn’t team up with any of the dozens of patent analytics providers [5] who probably would have done the work for free for some publicity, not to mention address the glaring flaw of including outside patents (that is, non-employees as inventors).
"Our intention behind PatentsView was to create interfaces that could inspire the public to explore patent data," says Periscopic cofounder Dino Citraro. [...] Indeed, Apple and Google may only be a start. You could probably write a book on the corporate organizational structures revealed in PatentsView."
I hope no one uses this tool to write a book. I think it's a noble goal to open up the data and visualization to the public, but users should be very wary of what they’re really looking at.
Psychologists have long theorized that when the need to belong is unmet, people start to pay more attention to the world around them. Imagine times when you were driving down the highway, feeling hungry, and you noticed every single food sign you drove by. Same with friendships and loneliness. When you feel left out, or feel unconnected, then you notice social cues. You become hyper-aware of yourself and of other people.
Yet this doesn't drive toward social interaction. That's why you see lonely people standing in the back of the party, watching everyone else. Gardner's research suggests that people struggle to "self correct" (as you phrase it) because of feelings of loneliness. [0] This doesn't sound intuitive, but here is the idea.
When nonlonely people are surveyed, they cite commonsense solutions to making friends: clubs, sports, coworkers, coffee dates with acquaintances.
But when lonely people are surveyed, you'll likely hear something researchers call fantasy findings. Instead of planned coffee dates or the monthly photography club, lonely people believe that friends are made in chance meetings, blind luck, unlikely encounters, chatting someone up on the domestic flight. Lonely people may be unable to think practically about social outcomes and devise effective social strategies.
The author says "The ratio of times I hear, 'We should hang out!' to actual hangouts is about 10 to 1." These kind of fantasy offers express feelings of connection that bypass the difficulties of forming real relationships. Lonely people are very good at relying on these when thinking about forming connections.
It's not that lonely people don't know how to meet other people, it's that they associate friendships with daydreams, conjuring up images of togetherness.
What pervades your comment is that lonely people are somehow broken or stuck in a fantasy world. Is that really how you feel? There is a certain class of person who is incapable of making friend and will forever be lonely and a class of person who is somehow effective and organized about making friends that they make them.
This is particularly fascinating to me, because I am a deeply and painfully lonely person. My current working hypothesis is that my life experience has caused some level of attachment disorder, resulting in a feeling of loneliness even when I am not alone. The main reason I started going to various roller derby practices and events was to grow my circle of friends (the common sense advice -- clubs, events). This has happened, but I still feel a sense of apartness, which I suspect will take a long time to go away.
I've learned a lot about the mechanism of establishing friendships, though. As niftich points out above, I had the tendency to consider friendly encounters as one-offs; more specifically, "Oh, that happened. How pleasant." And then go through the mental acrobatics of wondering if the person would like to continue being friendly or [s]he was simply being polite. So the idea of "broken fantasy world" works in reverse here: I have a broken core belief where I don't understand the value someone gets out of hanging out with me.
Just a week ago, friends came over to celebrate my birthday and watch the WFTDA champs. Another friend who is not part of that circle remarked on something that hadn't really clicked for me -- I must be a good friend (and loved) because my house was full of people. So the feeling of loneliness, somehow baked into a bunch of erroneous core beliefs, also masks reality and hinders the formation of relationships.
This is interesting, I have been doing a little reading on it. Nothing particularly technical, but I would be interested to know whether you went to a boarding school.
There has been some research on the matter, and I can see the relation (boarding school in several countries from 6+).
I have a disturbingly high proportion of the symptoms mentioned on the following page[1].
I'm pretty sure that I have friends, but I don't know if it's true, so I never ask people for anything. I also have a tendency to push people away.
Most people try very hard, incredibly hard, to hide that they are lonely or don't have friends. Most people would rather admit they're depressed and get some quick pills rather than say "I'm lonely." Saying you're lonely broadcasts that you feel insufficient and unsafe. Because of that, it's much harder to ask for help and therapy, or even admit and accept that you're socially isolated.
I don't think this is a "forever" state as you put it, but I think this is why some people suffer for so long (some researchers call this chronic loneliness [0]), and turn to fantasizing friendships as a way to cope.
I want to believe there's a way out, I'm not certain, but I think therapy and mindfulness could help, and also being around secure/empathetic people. Loneliness is kicked around as the bastard child of psychology and most practitioners will disregard a lonely person as simply depressed.
But taken to an extreme, according to attachment theory, there is a class of people who naturally gravitate to social isolation yet, paradoxically, desire closeness -- they're called avoidant personality types [1]. There is early research (Bowlby, Ainsworth, lots to read online) that trace the development of this behavior to experiences as an infant. I think these types of people could get stuck in their ways through their 30s and 40s.
> "there is a class of people who naturally gravitate to social isolation yet, paradoxically, desire closeness"
Thank you for the description of avoidant personality types, I recognise elements of this in myself.
Similar themes were explored in the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion. I would suggest the main protagonist Shinji definitely has these traits (probably expressed mostly directly through the 'Hedgehog's Dilemma'). I felt a certain amount of relief after finding that show, that at least the creators understood. It also helped that it was a great anime.
To be honest, whilst I don't have the same desire for friendship that I once did, the main thing I do have desire for is a form of sensuality (not sexuality). Moments that are complete without words/with very few words. That's not exactly the easiest thing to communicate to other people, so most of the time I'll just enjoy it in my own time.
You can satisfy your need for sensuality by going into social dancing events near you. Or join group singing events. None of these require you to be musical or able to dance at all! Just leave your prejudice and thinking at the door and enjoy the good vibes. Social dancing / Conscious clubbing is what keeps me going when I do this have a significant other in my life. The importance of touch and being touched is so important. It cannot be replaced with any amount of meditation or medication.
Thank you for your comment. I do enjoy dancing, and have enjoyed trying out different styles over the years. I've taken part in group singing too. I'm glad you have found great pleasure in these activities as well.
When it comes to activities, I'm not short of options. There are new things I want to try, and things I've already enjoyed. What I find less easy is to enjoy them with other people. For example, whilst I've danced with partners before, I tend to prefer dancing by myself. I'm very happy just closing my eyes and letting my body move to the music.
> lonely people are somehow broken or stuck in a fantasy world.
That's almost a useful place to start, as long as you're not being judgmental about it. No one should think lonely people are stuck in a fantasy world.) If you can recognize that something is broken, then you can work on fixing it.
Recognizing that lonely people have fantasy notions of how friendships work is recognizing that in your 30's, it's a bit more work to form a friendship, compared to the lifelong bonds forged by the act of sharing a juice box during recess.
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is widely used to help reframe and de-fantasize a number of unproductive thought patterns so that instead of fantasizing about a chance meeting where someone instantly becomes your new BFF, mental energy is spent planning and arranging aromantic dates to form the foundation of a friendship, much like trying to find a romantic partner. It's an evidence-based practice for treating mental disorders originally for depression but it's proven helpful in a a wide range of mental health conditions, including identifying upsetting feelings and anxiety that frustrates the a person's attempt to make friends.
As angry as this video makes me, I'd point out that we've been making some progress in the fight against trolls. Yes, they're still a problem, but some things that have weakened them:
The Supreme Court's ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank, which dealt a fatal blow to a lot of software patents out there (especially the awful, vague and overly broad patents that trolls love so much). The Supreme Court reaffirmed that merely "adding a generic computer to perform generic computer functions" does not make an otherwise abstract idea patentable. [0] This ruling helps get rid of cases earlier. While it doesn't kill off patent litigation, it makes it easier for us to fight low-quality assertions. More importantly, this puts a tougher filter for prosecution of new patent applications, the vast majority of which are dumb and overly broad.
Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, which are rather expensive (average $278,000) [1], but are much cheaper than litigation. Third parties can use IPRs to challenge patent claims (patentability) based on prior art patents and publications. In the case of Austin Meyer's patent defense, many of the patent claims were invalidated through this kind of proceeding, and petitioned by a consortium (Distinctive Developments, Ltd., Electronic Arts Inc., Gameloft S.E., Halfbrick Studios Pty Ltd., Laminar Research LLC, Mojang AB and Square Enix, Inc.). [2]
Heightened pleading standards. Before December 2015, it used to be that trolls could sue dozens of companies with cookie-cutter complaints, citing no real facts, and put on pressure for settlements by threatening lengthy and costly discovery proceedings. But thanks to decisions in Iqbal/Twombly, complaints must plead facts and recite aspects of the accused product that are alleged to infringe. This butchers the spam lawsuit tactic, and the day before this went into effect, trolls filed a one day record for new suits. [3] Shameful, yes, but it's helped clarify standards governing motions to dismiss.
Are you referring to Oracle's behavior? I would agree that while it's a glorious day, nonetheless the verdict is a chilling reminder of the abuse of IP.
I know this is limited to bankruptcy practice now. But I'd love to see this evolve, and maybe even two AI lawyers fighting in court, or a Judge Judy trained AI Judge.
But humor aside, getting to the next level of an AI lawyer would mean it would need to understand more than case law, taking into consideration facts of the case and evidence. It'd be great to have and apply for underrepresented defendants who can't afford to hire an attorney (and basically everyone on death row). Almost all defendants in capital cases cannot afford their own attorneys.
While sticking the poor with AI lawyers seems morally dubious, anything to get back to majority trials not plea bargains in criminal cases might be worth it.
Just like I said over Starcraft and DeepMind, an AI is likely going to be worse than a person if bluffing is a big part of the game. In our system, prosecutors and cops have immunity that basically let's them lie about severity of evidence or true results of prosecutions to force deals. They have the full set of human language and imagination to use to do this.
Machines can't barely translate text between two languages or play Poker with its simpler bluffing. Anyone saying they're going to pull this off should be considered full of it until they have solid proof it's even possible. It would have to be the dumbest prosecutor on Earth and/or simplest case for one of today's AI's to outmaneuver them.
Is someone assuming that the AI lawyer wouldn't have a heart, would be unpassional and, in the end, all those jokes about lawyers could also apply to the AI lawyer? :)
In the short term that is correct. Also remember that since Juries get much information for oral arguments, we will need charismatic lawyer bots or actors.
Upvoted, but I can't say I feel good about how the data became public (obviously not your doing!). What's done is done.
Otherwise, great article. I sorta wish you had more to work with to get better accuracy, especially for Texas, but also to compare urban vs rural geographies.
"In Google's case, we get a clue. One of the company's largest super inventors lives out there, in the periphery, disconnected from other products. That inventor is Kia Silverbrook, who sold the company 269 granted patents on cameras and printers in 2013. Obviously patents that have been recently acquired, rather than developed in house, would lack the interconnections with other employees that centralize the largest bubbles."
This is not a clue. This is a sign that you're biasing your sample. Compare this statement to the premise of the study:
"Over the past 10 years Apple has produced 10,975 patents with a team of 5,232 inventors, and Google has produced 12,386 with a team of 8,888."
Wrong, not all of those people were even employees, see above. And what about the huge patent purchase Google made by buying Motorola and then selling it off (Arris, Lenovo) while keeping the vast majority of the patents. [0] Is it accurate to count Motorola’s patents as Google-developed innovations? Is it accurate to group Motorola inventors along with Google inventors?
"This seems to indicate a top-down, more centrally controlled system in Apple vs. potentially more independence and empowerment in Google."
I disagree, this really doesn’t indicate anything and mis-characterizes the inventors. Google and Apple have purchased a sizable number of patents whose inventors are not employees and not involved in Google's or Apple's R&D. If anything, this may indicate that Google purchased more outside patents than Apple. Some examples of Google's purchases beyond Motorola are IBM [1], Silverbrook [2], IP3 [3]. One of Apple's biggest set of outside patents is Nortel [4].
"Google, on the other hand, has a relatively flat organizational structure of many small teams filled with empowered individuals."
Not disputing this but the more obvious explanation is that Google has been working on a wider variety of products and services than Apple which would mean a greater variety of patentable subject matter by inventors working in different technologies. Don't use patents or that visualization as any indicator of R&D organizational structure.
"But that would take further sleuthing to confirm."
In the patent search community, it's pretty easy and quick to filter a search to only include company-invented patents (it's as quick as filtering down to a specific company, just compare latest assignee to original assignee). So why not do that here? This is such a simple search that I'm surprised that the data provider "Portland-based data visualization studio Periscopic" didn’t team up with any of the dozens of patent analytics providers [5] who probably would have done the work for free for some publicity, not to mention address the glaring flaw of including outside patents (that is, non-employees as inventors).
"Our intention behind PatentsView was to create interfaces that could inspire the public to explore patent data," says Periscopic cofounder Dino Citraro. [...] Indeed, Apple and Google may only be a start. You could probably write a book on the corporate organizational structures revealed in PatentsView."
I hope no one uses this tool to write a book. I think it's a noble goal to open up the data and visualization to the public, but users should be very wary of what they’re really looking at.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility [1] http://www.iam-media.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=54821371-e57d-47... [2] http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.seobythesea.com/2013... [3] http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/calling-all-patent-o... [4] http://www.reuters.com/article/rpx-rockstar-ip-idUSL1N0U713M... [5] https://www.piug.org/vendors