Page 1 of 2
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:11 am
by Malcolm
Click to view the psychosis.
Earlier this week, Microsoft said open-source programs step on 235 Microsoft patents. The core of the free Linux operating system violates 42 patents. Open-source programs' graphical user interfaces, or the way menus and windows look on the screen, breach 65. E-mail programs step on 15, and other programs violate 68 patents, the company said. The patent figures were first reported by Fortune magazine.
Emphasis mine. So, don't write any SMTP or POP3 clients. You might get sued.
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 1:09 pm
by Leisher
"I'll sue you." should be the new national motto.
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 6:44 pm
by Cakedaddy
Actually, I just pattened that saying. So, stop using it or I'LL SUE YOU!!!
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 6:48 pm
by TheCatt
Hah! Can't patent a saying.
I trademarked it.
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 7:54 pm
by Vince
I've been loving all the law suites against Google on YouTube, though.
I'm so torn... excessive legal action versus a company I despise...
Being pragmatic, the legal system isn't going to change in my lifetime. Google, on the other hand...
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 7:55 pm
by TheCatt
Hate Google why?
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 8:04 pm
by Vince
Started when they bought the 747's and gutted them to use as private corporate jets while boasting how "green" they are with their bonuses for employees that buy electric razors to drive to work.
The final nail was when they refused to help the Justice Department by turning over searches logged for kiddie porn (DoJ wasn't asking for IP's, they were just studying the search patterns). Okay, they're all about privacy and and rights. Then a week later they agree to filter their searches for China.
So apparently USA is bad, but communist China is good. Or kiddie porn is good and freedom for the Chinese citizens is bad. Either way, I try not to use any of their products.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 10:55 am
by Malcolm
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 8:09 am
by Leisher
Hate Google why?
I agree with Vince on the Google hating.
To me, they're the same company as Microsoft, Sony, Apple, etc.
I know when they started people jumped on their bandwagon because they were that small indie start up and they were fighting the established evil empires, but now they are one of those evil empires.
And can someone tell me where all their money comes from? Seriously. What is their biggest source of revenue? If it's online ads, how the hell are they still in business? Better yet, how are they a multi-billion dollar company?
Edited By Leisher on 1179922386
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 8:46 am
by TheCatt
What do you mean? It is online ads, with 99% of their revenue coming from that. Margins for ads served on google.com are roughly 90%. I used to work for one of their competitors, and we had fat margins as well (This company has become part of Yahoo). I also studied Google last semester for a business case. I don't understand your question. They make boatloads of money.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:06 am
by thibodeaux
We had fat margins?
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:21 am
by TheCatt
The parent company did. I think we were just there to hurt their margins.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 10:27 am
by Leisher
What do you mean? It is online ads, with 99% of their revenue coming from that. Margins for ads served on google.com are roughly 90%. I used to work for one of their competitors, and we had fat margins as well (This company has become part of Yahoo). I also studied Google last semester for a business case. I don't understand your question. They make boatloads of money.
I wasn't being sarcastic, I was honestly curious as to if that's where they were getting their money.
How did they manage to avoid the internet advertising crash?
I guess I just can't believe they get as much money as they do for the ads they have. I've barely ever noticed they were even on the page and I certainly have never clicked one.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 10:39 am
by thibodeaux
Google's profit comes from stealing newspaper content:
"If all of the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content, how profitable would Google be?" Sam Zell, the new owner of the Tribune Company, asked reporters during a speech at Stanford University last month. The Tribune Company operates the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune.
Zell didn't wait for the reporters to reply, according to The Washington Post. "Not very," he said.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 12:21 pm
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote:What do you mean? It is online ads, with 99% of their revenue coming from that. Margins for ads served on google.com are roughly 90%. I used to work for one of their competitors, and we had fat margins as well (This company has become part of Yahoo). I also studied Google last semester for a business case. I don't understand your question. They make boatloads of money.
I wasn't being sarcastic, I was honestly curious as to if that's where they were getting their money.
How did they manage to avoid the internet advertising crash?
I guess I just can't believe they get as much money as they do for the ads they have. I've barely ever noticed they were even on the page and I certainly have never clicked one.
Click-throughs make a ton of money. Thib and I worked for a company whose main money-making division was purely click-through advertising. The margins on those ads were huge, and growth was large during that time (2000-2001). The problem is that if you don't have native traffic, then sites that do have traffic (Yahoo, MSN, AOL at the time) can demand large portions of your margins, or threaten to a) develop their own system or b) go with your competitor.
Thus, Google makes massive profits off of any traffic coming from its own sites.
As for the "crash," that was primarily confined to banner ads and similar advertising methods. Click through advertising has never declined, and is still experiencing double-digit YoY growth. The general argument is that it's much easier to measure the effectiveness of a click-through than banner ads/impressions. If 1 person buys something for every 10 click-throughs, and each new customer is worth $5.00, then 1 click-through is worth $0.50, and so it's worth up to $0.50 to place the ad on Google.
Some words charge over $20/click-through (mainly related to lawsuits, like asbestos). But what's the cost to Google of serving that ad? About $0.01... at most.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 12:46 pm
by Leisher
I honestly had no idea that click-throughs were so effective.
Of course, SPAM is effective too, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 1:17 pm
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote:I honestly had no idea that click-throughs were so effective.
Of course, SPAM is effective too, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
If the costs are low enough, goddamn near anything can make a profit if just one fucking idiot spends $20.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 1:22 pm
by TheCatt
Well, the $20 example was for mesothelioma. So if 100 people click-through, and 1 person is a viable lawsuit candidate, that law firm just made thousands of $.
Click-throughs tend to be more effective because you are only paying if someone demonstrates interest (clicks through) and they can be very narrowly targeted (based on search keywords). 5000 people could do a search and see your ad, but if only 10 click, you only pay for those 10.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 2:57 pm
by GORDON
So we can kill some lawyers with a massive "google mesothelioma/click through/but don't buy anything" campaign?
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 2:59 pm
by thibodeaux
Nah, they'd sue you for click fraud.