Again, I think it’s fascinating how in commenting on a post about google trying to file patents that would completely control the most important new field in CS, someone who correctly points out that Google is not #1 in funding academic researchers is branded as calling Google “non-existent on the academic front”.
This is precisely the sort of unproductive back and forth argument that the HN software is designed to discourage and punish, so I’m going to try to back off here and say hopefully we can agree to disagree, particularly since it doesn’t sound to me like we actually disagree.
> someone who correctly points out that Google is not #1 in funding academic researchers
This type of wording is unnecessary. You are declaring that you are correct, while at the same time not providing supporting evidence when requested.
> This is precisely the sort of unproductive back and forth argument that the HN software is designed to discourage and punish
Welp. I am sorry this had such a negative effect on you. We can certainly agree to disagree. Cheers.
But Microsoft getting patents to use for royalties or as a weapon to me is not as good as the Google approach.
Google does not use patents to get royalties but instead gives away tons of IP to help everyone or the entire industry move forward.
Obviously there's nothing wrong with saying nice or critical things about $Bigco on Hacker News, be it Google or anyone else. But when it becomes both predictable and proliferating, it stops serving intellectual curiosity and that violates the purpose of this site. You crossed that line a long time ago, unfortunately.