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

61–70 of 285 posts

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

#61

Post by oskarth »

dangrossman wrote: post #50
oskarth wrote: post #42

> So-called non-practicing entities — or holders of a patent for a process or product that they don’t plan to develop — often use them to sue companies that would sooner settle rather than pay what can add up to $1 million by the time a case reaches a courtroom. Why on earth aren't non-practicing entity patent lawsuits outlawed? Seems like a no-brainer, and I can't imagine these firms being big enough to have any ser…

> Why on earth aren't non-practicing entity patent lawsuits outlawed? The NPE category includes universities and researchers. Many inventions can't be brought to market without significant capital, and not all inventors are interested in commercializing their inventions themselves. Just because you're not personally going to build a billion dollar chip fabrication facility to implement the new silicon etching process…

> The NPE category includes universities and researchers.

Good point. Aren't they more likely to develop patents rather than buy them, though? Or are there more edge cases missing?

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

#63

Post by k__ »

rictic wrote: post #58
siliconc0w wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the companies only hoard these to defend themselves when they go under their patents get picked up by NPEs. It's like nuclear weapons, MAD kinda works but then a state fails and now you have terrorists with nukes. The answer is disarmament. If you want to enlist the help of the community you should have to pull a Tesla and open your patents or at the very least advocate for the abolishment of software and pro…

Just so we're clear though, the disarmament that we should aim for is to change physics so that nuclear weapons don't work at all, right? Because that's an option, we could change how the patent system works.

Wat?

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

#64

Post by [deleted] »

oskarth wrote: post #61
dangrossman wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why on earth aren't non-practicing entity patent lawsuits outlawed? The NPE category includes universities and researchers. Many inventions can't be brought to market without significant capital, and not all inventors are interested in commercializing their inventions themselves. Just because you're not personally going to build a billion dollar chip fabrication facility to implement the new silicon etching process…

> The NPE category includes universities and researchers. Good point. Aren't they more likely to develop patents rather than buy them, though? Or are there more edge cases missing?

[deleted]

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

#65

Post by tracker1 »

I think that this is absolutely brilliant. I've been against the patent of generalistic ideas, and basic processes for a very long time. Anything in software should not really be patentable, unless there is a concrete implementation of an invention, it's not an invention, it's a set of instructions.

Let software work under trade secrets, but not patents. Anyone can implement something they think through. It's usually a clear example of a need. That said, I think the types of patent trolling law firms such as this deserve every bit of backlash against them that they get.

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

#66

Post by criddell »

adekok wrote: post #43
mabbo wrote: post #38

> “[Is Blackbird] doing anything thing that is illegal or unethical?” continues Cheng. “For the most part, it’s unethical. But it’s probably not illegal.” If it's not illegal, more work needs to be done to make it illegal. Inventors always have avenues, moreso today than ever before.

While I agree it should likely be illegal, the solution to bad laws isn't more laws. A better solution would be to * do better examination of patents so that BS ones don't get issued * allow third-parties to invalidate patents by showing prior art to the patent office for a nominal fee * punish patent applicants who know about, or should have known about prior art * if a patent is invalidated, force them to return al…

> allow third-parties to invalidate patents by showing prior art to the patent office for a nominal fee

I think there should be a punitive part to this as well. If you apply for a patent that is later invalidated, then those that licensed the patent should be made repaid. And yes there should be a fee for trying to invalidate a patent, but there should also be a reward if they are successful.

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

#67

Post by raverbashing »

dangrossman wrote: post #50
oskarth wrote: post #42

> So-called non-practicing entities — or holders of a patent for a process or product that they don’t plan to develop — often use them to sue companies that would sooner settle rather than pay what can add up to $1 million by the time a case reaches a courtroom. Why on earth aren't non-practicing entity patent lawsuits outlawed? Seems like a no-brainer, and I can't imagine these firms being big enough to have any ser…

> Why on earth aren't non-practicing entity patent lawsuits outlawed? The NPE category includes universities and researchers. Many inventions can't be brought to market without significant capital, and not all inventors are interested in commercializing their inventions themselves. Just because you're not personally going to build a billion dollar chip fabrication facility to implement the new silicon etching process…

But an exception could be made for these

Or another idea, make patents non transferrable.

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

#68

Post by _rpd »

oskarth wrote: post #61
dangrossman wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why on earth aren't non-practicing entity patent lawsuits outlawed? The NPE category includes universities and researchers. Many inventions can't be brought to market without significant capital, and not all inventors are interested in commercializing their inventions themselves. Just because you're not personally going to build a billion dollar chip fabrication facility to implement the new silicon etching process…

> The NPE category includes universities and researchers. Good point. Aren't they more likely to develop patents rather than buy them, though? Or are there more edge cases missing?

The patents have no value if the ultimate owners are unable to enforce them. Once the patent exists, it is a tradable asset like copyright.

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

#69

Post by CamperBob2 »

rictic wrote: post #58
siliconc0w wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the companies only hoard these to defend themselves when they go under their patents get picked up by NPEs. It's like nuclear weapons, MAD kinda works but then a state fails and now you have terrorists with nukes. The answer is disarmament. If you want to enlist the help of the community you should have to pull a Tesla and open your patents or at the very least advocate for the abolishment of software and pro…

Just so we're clear though, the disarmament that we should aim for is to change physics so that nuclear weapons don't work at all, right? Because that's an option, we could change how the patent system works.

Land mines are a much better metaphor for patents than nuclear weapons are. Say what you will about the evils of nuclear warfare, but we haven't seen any world wars lately, and nuclear weapons are to thank for that state of affairs.

Patents (and land mines) are a lot less useful to society.

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

#70

Post by int_19h »

sqeaky wrote: post #7
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…

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…

It's not clear to me why such a hard distinction is drawn between software and hardware patents.

The usual argument for this separation is that "software patents are just math", but then aren't hardware patents are just physics (which, ultimately, is also just math)?

It feels like there's no clear line here, and whatever benefits, if any, are to be derived from patents, they apply equally to either side of it. Basically, either it's a net benefit to society, and then both kinds are valid; or it's a net drain on society, and then we should just get rid of them altogether. Or maybe set the bar for what is patentable much higher wrt to novelty and value (but, again whether it's hardware or software feels irrelevant).

Post reply on HN