Live data from Hacker News

The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

eff.org

121–130 of 145 posts

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#121
I'm in my 70s and I've seen a complete change of atmosphere since the 1950s when I first interacted with tecnology.

In 1950, apart from a small number of ready-made products, if you wanted something out of the ordinary, you designed and built it (I was a ham radio operator at the age of 13). I would build my radio gear out of the salvaged parts from neighbors' discarded TV sets (which in those days were very short-lived).

Decades later I saw people lose interest in either understanding technology or building/repairing their own. I found this change discouraging, but I failed to see where that was headed.

Now corporations are using the political/legal system to forbid people from closely examining their technical purchases or changing them to suit new needs. For most people the level of required knowledge is quite beyond imagining, so it may not seem much of a burden, but for a shrinking minority with technical skill, it nips creativity in the bud.

It's a variation on the classic Time Machine plot (H. G. Wells) -- the minority Eloi live on the surface, designing and building IPods for the troglodytic Morlocks.

To me personally, the real tragedy will be when people can't even imagine understanding, repairing or building their own equipment.

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#122
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's arguable that Lexmark is misapplying patent protection in defense of its stupid business model. I mean, it's pretty obvious. And yet, if Lexmark were successful here, what would stop competitors from using that against them? As in, "Only fools buy Lexmark printers."

I think the question is what would competitors find more lucrative, calling out Lexmark through marketing, or using the precedent set to do the same thing. Unfortunately, I suspect it's the latter.

Good point. So do you think that it's just legal uncertainty that's stopped them?

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is there are printers without the stupid on the market. So the EFF is wrong, patents haven't savaged the printer marketplace, there are nice printers available that are not expensive. And it's wrong that the market will punish shitty products, Lexmark is one of the few survivors in the printer business.

It is almost impossible for new competition to enter the printer market because it is so patent encumbered. That's why you can only buy a printer from Canon (inc. HP brand), Epson, Lexmark (inc. Dell brand), Samsung, and Brother. Anyone trying to start a new printer company will get sued into the ground or blocked by a US court from even importing their printers. That's why countries without strong patent protections…

That hasn't been true for years. HP's original Inkjet patents are long expired. That technology was a major breakthrough. They had to do fluid simulations on a supercomputer to get the ink control to work right. Someone involved once told me that intuition totally fails on that problem - fluid behavior on that scale is not at all like what one might expect.

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#124
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm personally against patents, but even if I were to assume they do provide the common good used to justify them, the #1 problem with patents is that the people who grant them appear to be either completely unqualified, or under too great a workload. Or both.

Even if they did do a better job of reviewing patents in certain countries, people would just shop around until they found the most lenient international patent office and file there. The US Patent office in particular decided many years ago that they simply weren't qualified to review all patents and just left it to the courts to deal with the fallout. Realistically a patent examiner cannot be qualified in all areas…

A patent examiner cannot be qualified in all areas

Which is why the USPTO has a large number of specialist patent units.

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#125
post #59
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm personally against patents, but even if I were to assume they do provide the common good used to justify them, the #1 problem with patents is that the people who grant them appear to be either completely unqualified, or under too great a workload. Or both.

I think I'd prefer it if filing for a patent would cost like $500, or even less, but then the USPTO would reject most applications by default, instead of accepting most applications by default, as they do now. I'd prefer a rejection bias over an acceptance one. And I think a patent costing however many thousands of dollars it does now puts some pressure on USPTO employees to accept most patents.

>> I think a patent costing however many thousands of dollars it does now puts some pressure on USPTO employees to accept most patents.

Why? Fear of lawsuit?

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#126
post #9

The EFF chose a very bad / misleading title compared to what the article is actually about. A better one would be: > Supreme Court to Rule on Whether Patent-Holders Can Control What You Do With Your Stuff or something like that.

The title is a play on the phrase "this is why we can't have nice things." To me, this reminds us that the things we have, we might not own. "Control what you do with your stuff" sounds like the concept of ownership. Yes patents do other things but according to Lexmark their patent means you don't get to do the things you traditionally get to do with the printer you bought.

To me, the phrase has always referred to a scenario where someone misuses a privilege, which is then taken away from everyone. And I don't see what that has to do with this circumstance.

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#127
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think some regulation is needed though. I can't look at a generic white pill and tell whether it's oxycodone or acetaminophen. Also, I don't want to take your acetaminophen if it hasn't been proven that whatever is in it won't cause other more serious issues or that I've at least been adequately informed of those side-effects on the front-end. R&D is also in-part expensive because of the success rate of drug trials…

This problem can be solved with a voluntary certification, just don't buy pills, that are not certified by government or some organization you trust.

Do you really think that sick people are in a position to look up who certified the drug they're taking?

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say typos so I assume you are referring to software, which has an automatic copyright on creation, and can be enforced much easier and faster than a patent.

There were multiple paths we pursued in consultation with our lawyers. If you want me to take your advice over Fish & Richardson, okay.

They're a law firm that specializes in _patents_. When all you have is a hammer....

Also, presumably you failed to register your software with the copyright office before the infringement began. In such a case you're less likely to get a fat damages award. Which is actually a good reason to pursue a patent claim, but if we're being cynical it's also a good reason for a firm to _prefer_ a patent claim.

The fact of the matter is that if the case was a slam dunk as you say, you should have been able to get an injunction fairly quickly, depending on when this occurred. Step one to seeking an injunction would have been to register your software (or a component of the software, if you didn't want to divulge the whole thing) with the Copyright Office. Currently their e-filing website says it'd take 6-10 months. It used to be much shorter than that. A few years ago, IIRC, I received a certificate in less than 90 days. In any event, that's much shorter than 2 years.

It's also a good lesson: always register at least some component of your software with the Copyright Office; a component that an infringer would necessarily have to copy. To get through the courthouse doors you need a certificate from the Copyright Office, but it doesn't have to cover the entire, larger work. It's more of a procedural hurdle of the copyright statute that courts construe very liberally, so you needn't be afraid of having to publish all your source code just to get a certificate.

The nice thing about copyright is that it's simple enough that you don't really need to involve a lawyer. Of course, you don't do this to the exclusion of any patent filings, but it's a smart move that is almost zero cost. Paste your software into a TeX document, generate a PDF, and upload it to the Copyright Office website. Easy peasey.

NOTE: IANAL

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just need shorter patents. For example drug companies spend far more on marketing than they do on R&D and a substantial amount of the research that generates new drugs comes from government funded research (>50%). Also, it's been demonstrated that taxpayer funded research drives private R&D up. So if I was dictator, I'd make it illegal to advertise drugs on tv/radio/web, double the current government budget for dr…

> We just need shorter patents. This is nuts. By the time a major drug is ready for market, out of a 20 year patent there are usually only 5 years left. How much shorter do you think it should be? When they are operating under that kind of deadline, they don't have time for word-of-mouth marketing. For software, sure, I'm really willing to hear arguments that 20 years is too long. But drug patents lifetimes are alrea…

I think it would probably work out better to have a 15% excise tax on all pharmaceutical chemicals and preparations, charged on the wholesale price, collected at the shipping dock of the manufacturer or at the port of entry. This would go exclusively to fund a "research royalty" to the individuals who conduct drug research into utility, safety, and efficacy.

I don't have any specifics as to how that would be distributed, but it should likely emphasize the importance of replication and value purity of the methods over whether the results are positive or negative.

Right now, there are significant financial incentive that may bias research studies towards positive results. The patent system is magnifying those incentives.

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't Gillette did the same thing with Dollar Shave Club? https://www.wsj.com/articles/p-gs-gillette-sues-dollar-shave... I would guess that this influenced their decision to sell to P&G, thus protecting the razor duopoly.

Anyone know if Harry's is owned by P&G or Unilever?

The company, HF Global, Inc., is privately held, and as far as I can tell with a Google search, no other razor company owns a majority of the stock, or any stock at all.

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.as...

Post reply on HN