Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#31

Post by anaphoric »

bayareaguy wrote: post #28
anaphoric wrote: post #25

Yawn... First of all it's not PG's patent. Its Yahoo's. Second, if anyone ever goes after you on a software patent, celebrate! It means you are a success. It means you have deep enough pockets to be considered worth the trouble. Third, as much as software patents are a joke, see them for what they are: A little side show for the lawyers and MBAs to leach off the big boys and feel like they are holding important cards…

Patents may be a joke to hackers but they aren't to the investors who fund them. Of course if you don't need investors for what you're doing in order to be successful then more power to you.

Sure, it's OK to pretend that they mean something... If you feel it helps make you look stronger, apply/get patents. Just try not to pay through the nose to do it... be careful with those lawyers.

Just don't worry about stepping on the other guy's patents. They are just paper really.

And as we know in this economy there is a lot of phony paper out there that people just want to call valuable/meaningful.

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#32

Post by davidw »

systems wrote: post #18
garbowza wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if you're against software patents, you're against patents in general." http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html Btw, your writer analogy is a poor one, since prior art exists for that story line and thus it would not be patentable. There are also industries that would collapse without patents (pharmaceuticals for one).

Because who would pay for RnD if you can't go exclusive at least for a dozen or so years! Well I hope that someone would, that the human social structure have evolved enough to create all what's necessary for it's survival and that the pharmaceuticals industry wouldn't collapse, it would just restructure and medicines will be cheaper! The sad truth is, I really believe this would what would've happened!

"evolving human social structures" is just hand waving. What would the economics of your patent-less pharma world look like? Research dollars are a scarce resource - how will they be allocated and by who?

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#33

Post by rincewind »

derefr wrote: post #23
nickb wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of keyboard do you use that has an actual apostrophe on it? Or do you go out of your way to use Markdown (or something) to clean your input before submitting? Just curious...

I'm scared to think, but there might be a Firefox extension that embeds Word into text fields...

there is, its called "its all text". It works for any text editor, actually.

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#34

Post by yummyfajitas »

foonamefoo wrote: post #22
garbowza wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if you're against software patents, you're against patents in general." http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html Btw, your writer analogy is a poor one, since prior art exists for that story line and thus it would not be patentable. There are also industries that would collapse without patents (pharmaceuticals for one).

Phamaceuticals wouldn't collapse; half of their current expenditures go into advertising, half into research. But that only accounts for half of the actual research costs: the rest mainly comes from the NSF. We could just have the NSF give them a 100% handout and cover all the research.

"Advertising" includes training doctors, not just "ask your doctor about erectinol" commercials.

Hiring doctors to travel the country, give lectures explaining how it works, renting conference centers, providing lunch, etc adds up. Learning how to use a new drug is not easy like learning software; trial and error doesn't work.

A drug is worthless if your doctor doesn't know what it does.

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#35

Post by scw »

marcus wrote: post #26
foonamefoo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phamaceuticals wouldn't collapse; half of their current expenditures go into advertising, half into research. But that only accounts for half of the actual research costs: the rest mainly comes from the NSF. We could just have the NSF give them a 100% handout and cover all the research.

Get your stats right, do your research before you comment. Pharmaceutical research in the US 2005 34.8B USD federal funds 41M USD. Thats less than 0.12%. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf07335/

The NSF isn't the primary fund granting organization for medical research, the NIH is -- with a funding level (28.7B) that eclipses the NSF (5.9B). In 2003, NIH is estimated to have funded 28% of the overall medical investigation costs: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/...

Pharmaceutical research in all likelyhood includes the cost of bringing drugs to market, currently around $800M per drug. Because of this high barrier, much of the Pharma energy goes into 'me too' drugs of a higher risk/reward ratio, again inflating the true spending on new research: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/what-dont-w...

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#36

Post by wallflower »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #34
foonamefoo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phamaceuticals wouldn't collapse; half of their current expenditures go into advertising, half into research. But that only accounts for half of the actual research costs: the rest mainly comes from the NSF. We could just have the NSF give them a 100% handout and cover all the research.

"Advertising" includes training doctors, not just "ask your doctor about erectinol" commercials. Hiring doctors to travel the country, give lectures explaining how it works, renting conference centers, providing lunch, etc adds up. Learning how to use a new drug is not easy like learning software; trial and error doesn't work. A drug is worthless if your doctor doesn't know what it does.

I know some pharmaceutical reps - they say without irony - that they push (in the drug dealer sense) whatever drug their company wants them to.

America is the one of the only countries that allows pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers. http://tinyurl.com/27y5df

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#37

Post by davidw »

wallflower wrote: post #36
yummyfajitas wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Advertising" includes training doctors, not just "ask your doctor about erectinol" commercials. Hiring doctors to travel the country, give lectures explaining how it works, renting conference centers, providing lunch, etc adds up. Learning how to use a new drug is not easy like learning software; trial and error doesn't work. A drug is worthless if your doctor doesn't know what it does.

I know some pharmaceutical reps - they say without irony - that they push (in the drug dealer sense) whatever drug their company wants them to. America is the one of the only countries that allows pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers. http://tinyurl.com/27y5df

So in other countries, they simply spend the same money trying to bribe doctors instead of consumers.

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#38

Post by Xichekolas »

mooneater wrote: post #14
bayareaguy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claims 4, 6, 8 and 9 are pretty specific and from a cursory examination of the current challenge solutions none of them work that way. Could it be that at the moment the only system to worry about a lawsuit is Arc? Yahoo (not pg) is the patent holder.

And soon it may be held by the Beast.

... and on the First Day of the Second Month of the Year of our Lord Two Thousand and Eight, the Beast issued forth from his Vile Abode and laid Charge to the Land of Light, burying their Heros with irresistible Seductions and Temptations of False Fame and Glory. The Heros of the Land of Light did hold council, and after many a deliberation decreed that the Battle was to be met with full conviction and the aid of Macro Expansions. And the Battle was fought for twenty and three days and on the morning of the twenty and fourth day, the Beast was slain by a mighty hero of the Light, whose Karma was without parallel - Sir Paul Graham, Marshal of the Closure, General of His Magesty's Symbol Tables, Diviner of the Continuation, and all other Titles held and to be granted by Our Lord Almighty - Lisp - and His Son Who Walked On Earth - Arc. And so ended an Age of Heros and Villians, the likes of which shall never walk the Net again.

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#39

Post by byrneseyeview »

wallflower wrote: post #36
yummyfajitas wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Advertising" includes training doctors, not just "ask your doctor about erectinol" commercials. Hiring doctors to travel the country, give lectures explaining how it works, renting conference centers, providing lunch, etc adds up. Learning how to use a new drug is not easy like learning software; trial and error doesn't work. A drug is worthless if your doctor doesn't know what it does.

I know some pharmaceutical reps - they say without irony - that they push (in the drug dealer sense) whatever drug their company wants them to. America is the one of the only countries that allows pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers. http://tinyurl.com/27y5df

Considering how arrogant doctors are, and how powerful the placebo effect is, it might make us healthier if we had more advertising directly to consumers and less to doctors.

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#40

Post by marcus »

scw wrote: post #35
marcus wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get your stats right, do your research before you comment. Pharmaceutical research in the US 2005 34.8B USD federal funds 41M USD. Thats less than 0.12%. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf07335/

The NSF isn't the primary fund granting organization for medical research, the NIH is -- with a funding level (28.7B) that eclipses the NSF (5.9B). In 2003, NIH is estimated to have funded 28% of the overall medical investigation costs: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/... Pharmaceutical research in all likelyhood includes the cost of bringing drugs to market, currently around $800M per dru…

Yes the NIH is a major source of funding for pharma, although not as big as you think, medical investigation includes a lot that is not pharmaceutical research

The me-too phenomena is a problem but only because of two factors, pressure by pharma reps and the fact that the US is the only country I ever heard of that allows advertising of non over-the-counter meds.

Post reply on HN