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

181–190 of 285 posts

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

#181

Post by CodeWriter23 »

ivanbakel wrote: post #3

I don't see anything game-changing about their approach. Fighting instead of settling should definitely be praised, but the only differences between this legal challenge and any of the previous ones are the result of recent changes in the law or the judiciary, which are beyond Cloudflare's control. Nothing suggests that patent-trolling itself as a "game" is going to shift or go away after this, and until that is made…

The novel approach here will become apparent when CloudFlare makes it crystal clear that Blackbird inadvertently volunteered to be Prenda Law 2.0 with their dissembling contracts ($1 plus "other consideration") intended to skirt the letter of the law/ethical regulations. That being that attorneys can't seek to acquire causes of action.

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

#182

Post by zephyrppt »

URSpider94 wrote: post #178
slaymaker1907 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that algorithms and math are explicitly forbidden from being patented. This is why most software patents include some sort of clause specifying that the work is done using a computer. The patent office has simply done a lousy job when it comes to software patents.

I don't believe you are correct. You can't patent math, but you can patent algorithms. This is analogous to the material world, where you can't patent physics, but you can patent engineering. An algorithm isn't math, it's a series of instructions. That is something that is patentable, as long as it involves an inventive step. A more efficient sorting algorithm that is non-obvious would almost certainly be patentable.

You're partially correct. Algorithms can't be patented. However, in practice, patent drafters work around this by adding phrases such as "A memory with computer readable instructions to [Insert Algorithm]" to turn the algorithm into an invented product. The bottom line is that the invention is the memory and the processor system whose novelty is that it includes instructions which implement the particular steps of the algorithm. This practically covers all implementations of the algorithm on Von Neumann machines, in effect covering all current implementations of the algorithm.

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

#183

Post by jacobolus »

URSpider94 wrote: post #178
slaymaker1907 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that algorithms and math are explicitly forbidden from being patented. This is why most software patents include some sort of clause specifying that the work is done using a computer. The patent office has simply done a lousy job when it comes to software patents.

I don't believe you are correct. You can't patent math, but you can patent algorithms. This is analogous to the material world, where you can't patent physics, but you can patent engineering. An algorithm isn't math, it's a series of instructions. That is something that is patentable, as long as it involves an inventive step. A more efficient sorting algorithm that is non-obvious would almost certainly be patentable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._Flook

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos

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

#184

Post by URSpider94 »

jacobolus wrote: post #183
URSpider94 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe you are correct. You can't patent math, but you can patent algorithms. This is analogous to the material world, where you can't patent physics, but you can patent engineering. An algorithm isn't math, it's a series of instructions. That is something that is patentable, as long as it involves an inventive step. A more efficient sorting algorithm that is non-obvious would almost certainly be patentable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._Flook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos

https://www.google.com/patents/US4558302

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

#185

Post by vkou »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #77
eridius wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's fair to say that nuclear weapons are why we don't have world wars anymore. I believe it has a lot more to do with globalization and the fact that most countries now recognize that it's a lot more profitable to trade with other countries than to go to war with them.

I used to think that was the case, too, and then someone pointed out how incredibly well-connected and economically interdependent the world was in the years leading up to WWI. Global trade back then was like our modern dot-com boom, but with real money and merchandise. People were sure it would change everything. Turned out not so much. As long as the lives of the old men who ran the world weren't personally at risk…

You may want to change your mind again, given that there is a trivial fallacy in "We haven't had a world war yet, so clearly nuclear weapons prevent one from happening."

It is, in fact, the poster child for survivorship bias!

We have also come extremely close to having nuclear war, on multiple occasions.

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

#186

Post by chrisbennet »

saagarjha wrote: post #169
acobster wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of using the name Jango is probably patented.

Possibly, but that doesn't mean they can't spell it correctly in an image caption. Indiana Jones is right below it, and it's correct.

I think that was a joke.

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

#187

Post by pnw_hazor »

mgleason_3 wrote: post #155

We need to get rid of software patents. Patents were created to encourage innovation. Software patents simply rewarding the first person who patents what is almost always an obvious next step. That's not innovation.

Baloney.

Innovation is also driven by people trying to work around patents or otherwise discover alternative ways to solve problems.

I didn't notice the Amazon One-Click patent slowing innovation down while it was still valid.

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

#188

Post by jacobolus »

URSpider94 wrote: post #184
jacobolus wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._Flook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos

https://www.google.com/patents/US4558302

As you can see, that is a patent for an “apparatus and method”, not an algorithm per se.

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

#189

Post by pnw_hazor »

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…

copyright protects what you do. patents protect how you do it.

You copyright your source code. You patent your engineering innovations.

The ease of duplicating software based inventions is an argument why patents are important for such inventions.

Many tech startup companies that would have been steam rolled by IBM, and friends, have been protected by their patent portfolios.

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

#190

Post by yxhuvud »

sqeaky wrote: post #118
int_19h wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Basica…

I think I covered one major distinction well. Copy software has 0 cost, copying matter has some. This is just a re-wording and perspective change on "software patents are just math" angle. Some people feel that since there is no copying cost, software favors the little guy more than with physical goods, so normal patent protection doesn't provide an benefit. These people claim that a big big evil corporation could st…

They are currently necessary for the payment structure in the medical industry. I'm not saying they couldn't be replaced for that somehow, but simply removing patents without having something in place would be very disruptive there.
Post reply on HN