£31m loss in FY22.
Cybergibbons has also done a very good critique on how unsafe it is. See here: https://cybergibbons.com/security-2/why-what3words-is-not-su...
They are also very litigious towards people that call them out.
That's the plan all along. The end-game is to become the ultimate rent-seeker on the whole concept of addresses, so that any device capable of looking up or resolving an address is obligated to pay rent to them.
Sounds like it's been a great "success" for the people who did the burning.
"The algorithm is patented in several countries, preventing anyone from implementing a compatible algorithm or developing anything like it as a competing standard. Notably the patent is not restricted to schemes which use three words, so a hypothetical "what4words" would potentially also violate the patent.
The wordlist necessary for encoding/decoding what3words locations is copyrighted, and is stored in an encrypted form in the what3words mobile apps (so decrypting the wordlist would likely trigger "anti-circumvention" laws such as DMCA §1201)."
I really don't like patents.
But that doesn’t stop companies (especially those with a weak technical moat) from abusing the system.
IMO, if we are to have patents at all, the patent offices should be robust, well-funded systems which make sure that no patent that's not genuinely a novel implementation of an idea gets granted. In reality, it seems like patent offices more or less accept anything that's written in dense enough lawyerese, and it's up to the legal system to slowly invalidate the bad patents after they've done a ton of harm.
The fault here doesn't lie with the companies, but with the whole patent system where governments are way too quick to give out a state-backed monopoly of an idea. I find the whole practice despicable.
Here's the What3Words patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2909524A1/en
The first claim of the patent is:
> 1. A computer implemented method of producing a location identifier comprising:
> receiving at a processor geographical coordinates of a location;
> at said processor performing the steps of:
> converting the geographical coordinates into a single unique value n;
> converting the single unique value n into a unique group of a plurality of
> values; and converting the plurality of values into an equal plurality of
> respective words; and making the plurality of words available as a location
> identifier.
It's hard to imagine anything remotely based around the idea to "convert a location to a set of words" which doesn't infringe on that claim.Patents as currently implemented are a problem. Too many are granted for too-vague ideas; patent trolls buy those vague ideas and then milk them for rent; companies game the system to get far more than the specified twenty years of exclusivity.
So, it's a mixed bag.