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

Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 285 posts

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#21

Post by jgrahamc »

tracker1 wrote: post #18
siliconc0w wrote: post #8

I'm not a fan of the argument that if Blackbird weren't a NPE it'd be okay because Cloudflare could then aim it's 150 strong patent portfolio cannon back at them. It's basically saying incumbents like Cloudflare don't really want to fix the system, they want to keep the untenable 'cold war' status quo which protects them but burdens new entrants.

Frankly, if it weren't for the stupidity of the patent system, I don't know that Cloudflare would even have the patents. Has Cloudflare ever initiated patent litigation against anyone? The fact is that most patents for things that are "invented" but entirely virtually don't really deserve patent protection. Rarely is there significant research, expense or tooling to implement. Patents on software, processes and most…

Has Cloudflare ever initiated patent litigation against anyone?

No, we have not.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#22

Post by FussyZeus »

dboreham wrote: post #20
pedrocr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents are not about damages. A patent is a limited-time monopoly to an idea that you can then extract value from. Inventing something, patenting it, and then licensing it out is exactly the business model patents are supposed to enable. Companies that don't make anything are perfectly valid under this model. The real solution is to either make sure prior art and non-obviousness requirements are properly enforced or…

>The real solution is to either make sure prior art and non-obviousness requirements are properly enforced or just dismantle the whole thing as unworkable. Obviousness is the key issue for me. I suspect most people, even those who work in the technology fields, are not aware that it is considered essentially impossible to prove obviousness (source: I have worked as a consultant on several patent litigation cases). So…

Perhaps we need to establish some sort of obvious-evidence protocol? Some kind of common sense argument that can be presented in the court of law and weighed against other evidence?

Example: Someone steals an apple to feed their hungry child. Yes, it's a crime, but sending the parent to prison isn't a solution; the child is still hungry, and now both of them will to varying extents have to be cared for by the state, all over a 59 cent Apple.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#23

Post by detaro »

FussyZeus wrote: post #17
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say I invent something really useful but also very difficult for an individual to take advantage of, like a new kind of airplane nosecone that shaves 10% off fuel costs for very large airplanes. Now, I'm not in the airplane business, and getting into it would take many, many millions of dollars. Probably the only way for me to make money on this would be to go to Boeing or some similar company and license my pa…

I feel like this could be easily covered by an NDA though, and documenting the visit to Boeing. Plus, this is a physical product, I'm speaking more in terms of software patents where the friction to use is much, much lower. Perhaps my idea wouldn't work for general patents, but that's also not what I believe is horribly broken at the moment. Thanks for the insight either way, great thought.

Patents are public, so there wouldn't have to be a visit or any data under NDA?

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#25

Post by tedmiston »

frenchie4111 wrote: post #12
sqeaky wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think many do conflate the two, I think most people just don't see value in software patents. Software is great because it has no cost to copy, so when someone creates a new algorithm it can be put in use everywhere applicable rapidly. This pace of advancement is so awesomely powerful that many do not appreciate how much positive change it can bring or how different the world was just a few years ago. An adva…

I agree. Even "hardware" patents are too hard to defend to really be worth it most of the time (ex: fidget cube and other chinese kickstarter clones). You can't rely on patents to ensure defensibility to your business model, so they really just end up being money-sinks.

Not sure about how the Chinese patent system works but isn't it the case that these companies having U.S. patents doesn't really matter in China?

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#27

Post by CalChris »

kuschku wrote: post #15
ovi256 wrote: post #2

I've noticed a Techcrunch comment that makes this fight about software patents and states that forbiding them would be a good solution. I think that's a very wrong view to take. The software patent fight is worth fighting, but do not conflate the two issues. Abuse by patent trolls or non-practicing entities can happen even without software patents. The law patch that shuts down patent trolls will have no effect on so…

Software patents should have the same requirements as real patents: you have to provide the full knowledge required to create the concept that is patented in them. You want to patent sticky scrolling? Then put the entire source code required for it into the patent. You want to patent your AI tech? Then put the entire code into the patent. Additionally, we should make sure that trade secrets are not protected in any w…

> Then put the entire source code required for it into the patent

Some do. But patents already have an enablement requirement. This means that they must teach in sufficient detail for a person skilled in the art to carry out the claimed invention. That's what the whole Detailed description of the invention section is. Skip the claims and read the description. You might want the code; me, I want the design doc. That section should be clear and if it isn't, chances are it isn't enabling.

If you don't enable, you'll probably get an office action (rejection) and if you don't (lazy examiner), you'll definitely lose when the patent gets challenged.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#28

Post by woah »

CalChris wrote: post #27
kuschku wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software patents should have the same requirements as real patents: you have to provide the full knowledge required to create the concept that is patented in them. You want to patent sticky scrolling? Then put the entire source code required for it into the patent. You want to patent your AI tech? Then put the entire code into the patent. Additionally, we should make sure that trade secrets are not protected in any w…

> Then put the entire source code required for it into the patent Some do. But patents already have an enablement requirement. This means that they must teach in sufficient detail for a person skilled in the art to carry out the claimed invention. That's what the whole Detailed description of the invention section is. Skip the claims and read the description. You might want the code; me, I want the design doc. That s…

That's a nice thought, but most software patents are written to be as broadly applicable as possible, not to be a good guide to implementation.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#29

Post by gozur88 »

dboreham wrote: post #20
pedrocr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents are not about damages. A patent is a limited-time monopoly to an idea that you can then extract value from. Inventing something, patenting it, and then licensing it out is exactly the business model patents are supposed to enable. Companies that don't make anything are perfectly valid under this model. The real solution is to either make sure prior art and non-obviousness requirements are properly enforced or…

>The real solution is to either make sure prior art and non-obviousness requirements are properly enforced or just dismantle the whole thing as unworkable. Obviousness is the key issue for me. I suspect most people, even those who work in the technology fields, are not aware that it is considered essentially impossible to prove obviousness (source: I have worked as a consultant on several patent litigation cases). So…

This has always bothered me. The standard is supposed to be "non-obvious to an expert in the field" and yet they hand out patents like candy for things that are obvious to the most casual observer.

My solution is to cap the number of patents granted every year to, say, 1000. Patents would be ranked from least to most obvious and actual prior art investigation would take place (because the number is manageable). The ones below the cap would be unpatentable.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#30

Post by dsfyu404ed »

Picture in your mind the following two scenarios:

1) Underwear models wrestling in an inflatable pool of lube

2) A biker gang and some dudes from ISIS getting in a brawl at a Superfund site.

The first represents a normal b2b lawsuits. The second represents cloudflare and a patent troll fighting it out in Massachusetts.

Post reply on HN