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

Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

manytricks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 141 posts

Re: Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

#61

Post by dragandj »

_asummers wrote: post #48
ivanbakel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's difficult to say where the fault lies. I would rather live in a world of patents than not, if we insist on sticking to the idea of not forcing research and discoveries into the public domain. What would have prevented this particular case?

This is an obvious feature for just about any user, making it nonpatentable by the criteria of USPTO, as far as I understand it. This is also not novel, though it is very useful (for the other 2 criteria).

The problem with that in the USA is that you are burdened to prove that in court as a defendant, and you also have to pay your legal costs (lawyers etc.) even if you win the case. The costs are huge, so only the big guys have to afford defending themselves!

Re: Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

#62

Post by driverdan »

jakobegger wrote: post #19

I was about to complain loudly about bullshit patents, but then I took some time to read the actual patent (make sure to look at the images too!), and it turns out that this patent describes a method that is very similar to what Moom does (judging by screenshots). This is not a case of the overly broad patents that we usually complain about, this is a very precise patent.

It's an obvious software patent, therefore bullshit.

Re: Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

#63

Post by appleflaxen »

ivanbakel wrote: post #32
altern8tif wrote: post #4

There's something fundamentally broken about the patent system.

It's difficult to say where the fault lies. I would rather live in a world of patents than not, if we insist on sticking to the idea of not forcing research and discoveries into the public domain. What would have prevented this particular case?

you've created a false dichotomy. the question isn't whether patents could create net public good... depending on the implementation they could.

but the current system in the US, which it forces on the rest of us via trade agreements, is completely bonkers.

this is the fact: the public in countries where copyrights and patents are granted have voluntarily given up their prerogative to copy or implement a work or an invention in return for the public good of dissemination of those ideas (which might otherwise be "locked up").

As with everything else in the US, big corporations have co-opted the system using lobbyists, and public good is harmed by actions such as this.

And in the era of the internet, is dissemination and publication as valuable as it was in the past? I would argue that it is not.

it would be fascinating to hit the reset switch: delete all IP, patent, and copyright code from the legal system, and see the real effects it's having on the economy. having said that, it's probably too drastic of an action to take all at once given the far-reaching effects it would have. but it's the right direction to move in, for sure.

Re: Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

#64

Post by appleflaxen »

jakobegger wrote: post #19

I was about to complain loudly about bullshit patents, but then I took some time to read the actual patent (make sure to look at the images too!), and it turns out that this patent describes a method that is very similar to what Moom does (judging by screenshots). This is not a case of the overly broad patents that we usually complain about, this is a very precise patent.

but it was completely not novel at the time of the patent

Re: Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

#66

Post by altern8tif »

endorphone wrote: post #42
jakobegger wrote: post #19

I was about to complain loudly about bullshit patents, but then I took some time to read the actual patent (make sure to look at the images too!), and it turns out that this patent describes a method that is very similar to what Moom does (judging by screenshots). This is not a case of the overly broad patents that we usually complain about, this is a very precise patent.

Being similar doesn't justify it as a patent. A core foundation of patents is that the invention be novel and non-obvious to a practitioner. If countless people independently -- without learning from the claims -- derive exactly the same "invention", it is an invalid patent. Of course then you have to actually get it invalidated, at great time and expense. It is completely a bullshit patent. The patent office got the…

My main beef with patents (from a layperson's perspective) is that due consideration isn't adequately given to the effort taken by the patent owner to provide some sort of value to society in general.

What use is a novel invention if the patent owner does nothing with it. I would argue that Moom or other apps have provided more value to society at-large as compared to the patent owner.

Re: Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

#67

Post by kefka »

endorphone wrote: post #59
kefka wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only a bullshit patent if you have pockets deep enough to take them to court over a patent issue. And, the patent holder is considered "Right" until otherwise proved.

From a qualitative perspective it's a bullshit patent, full-stop. But yes, the legal process is prohibitive, but if you demonstrate prior art to the USPTO you can request a re-examination that allows them to save face. If this patent were filed in 1988 it might have a hope of standing. It was remarkably filed in 2008, years after countless grid-based Windows manager had come and gone. It stands no hope, and the EFF w…

I'm not giving any assessment of said patent. It appears to be bullshit from other commentors here.

I am approaching this as, "You had better be rich, and prepared to throw 500K at lawyers to defend or attack a patent lawsuit. And even then, has no guarantee of any good results.

Re: Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

#68

Post by PeterisP »

ivanbakel wrote: post #32
altern8tif wrote: post #4

There's something fundamentally broken about the patent system.

It's difficult to say where the fault lies. I would rather live in a world of patents than not, if we insist on sticking to the idea of not forcing research and discoveries into the public domain. What would have prevented this particular case?

For example, the EU patent principles (which don't grant software patents at all) would have worked fine in this case and work quite well in other cases as well.

You definitely could argue that for pure software features copyright and trademarks is enough, and granting patents on them doesn't facilitate innovation but likely slows it down.

Re: Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

#70

Post by justintoon »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #2

Oh dear. I guess Spectacle (the app I use that does a similar thing) will be on a pretty long list of those to follow.

I've been using Magnet for a while now. It seems much more stable and efficient than Spectacle. Hopefully it will not end up on this chopping block as well. http://magnet.crowdcafe.com/
Post reply on HN