Google and Open Innovation: A Tiny Ripple, the Flap of a Butterfly Wing?
January 7, 2020
The US government is rethinking its approach to commercial artificial intelligence or to application programming interfaces nature. “The Case for Open Innovation” is interesting.
The write up, allegedly written by a senior vice president and legal eagle at Google, states:
Software programs work better when they work together. Open software interfaces let smartphone apps and other services connect across devices and operating systems. And interoperability—the ability of different software systems to exchange information—lets people mix and match great features, and helps developers create new products that work across platforms. The result? Consumers get more choices for how they use software tools; developers and startups can challenge bigger incumbents; and businesses can move data from one platform to another without missing a beat. This kind of open and collaborative innovation, from scientific peer-reviewed papers to open-source software, has been key to America’s achievements in science and technology.
The Googler emphasizes that Google is fighting Oracle’s claim that the online ad company improperly used Oracle’s intellectual property.
The write up claims:
That’s why today we filed our opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle’s lawsuit against us. We’re asking the Court to reaffirm the importance of the software interoperability that has allowed millions of developers to write millions of applications that work on billions of devices.
After reading this, I jotted down factors which have facilitated information exchange:
- Technical experts from other countries working for US companies in the US
- Desire to reduce costs
- Need to piggyback to avoid reinventing the wheel
- Presence of staff who worked on a technology when it was developed at a different company
- Importance of an acquiring firm to maximize the financial return of its purchase of a company and technology; for example, Sun Microsystems and Java.
Also, the ideas of openness and interoperability are interesting, particularly when articulated by commercial firms eager to establish revenue, user, and customer locks. The context of the actions taken by the US government to address export of smart software may be sucked into this particular legal dispute. Export controls seem to be different from the intent of open innovation.
The timing is important. In this particular case of Google versus Oracle, timing play a significant role. The court’s decision or non decision might unsettle today’s context of commerce and politics.
Stephen E Arnold, January 7, 2020
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
