Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by pnw_hazor » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 7:13 AM UTC

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…

Your distinction doesn't make any sense. Besides, you can patent a gadget without ever building one. In other words you can patent a CAD diagram. Then you could use your gadget patent to prevent anyone from legally building your gadget (in the US assuming a US patent)

I am aware of actual evidence that patents help, if enabling small companies to withstand pressure from behemoth companies is considered help.

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

#192

Post by pnw_hazor » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 7:17 AM UTC

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.

A US Patent has jurisdiction in the US. You can bar foreign companies from legally importing your patented inventions. US customs will seize such goods at the port or elsewhere if they are aware of them.

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

#193

Post by pnw_hazor » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 7:25 AM UTC

sqeaky wrote: post #37

felipeko wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a nitpick, by definition what does not have protection is not IP.

Trade secrets. As long as they remain secret they have protection, but the very act of outing them makes them not secret. I am aware of very few successful suits defending trade secrets.

Plenty of trade secrets are defended successfully.

Trade secrets cases are lost when the owner is claiming something is a trade secret when it doesn't meet the legal definition of a trade secret.

Trade secrets are useful for long-lived secrets like the formula for Coca-cola. But if someone independently develops the same thing you are trying to keep secret too bad.

Also, if the secret accidentally gets out (w/o theft) the trade secret enters the public domain.

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

#194

Post by pnw_hazor » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 7:39 AM UTC

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…

All US patents have the same standard. Among other things, they must enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the claimed invention without undue experimentation.

For SW patents, if your invention uses machine learning but is not inventing a new kind of machine learning, there is no need to describe how the ML package works. It is a black box.

Similarly, a gadget patent does not need to describe the metallurgy necessary to make aluminum sheet metal or how to make plastic.

The same standard applies to biotech patents. Though, some biotech patents require proof or disclosure of experimental results (e.g., gene sequence listings, etc.) this is because some bio inventions would be very difficult to reproduce without the extra information.

Trade secrets are not protected from independent discovery. Reverse engineering is generally fine, though it may violate your license or the DCMA depending on the details.

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

#195

Post by moomin » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 7:41 AM UTC

Hermel wrote: post #99

MatthewWilkes wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright covers implementations, not ideas. I have no moral objection to truly novel inventions in computer science being protected by patents. An innovative search algorithm, a compression scheme, etc. Its shit when MP3s and GIFs were encumbered, but they were genuine inventions whose sharing publicly genuinely advanced the public good. The kind the patent trolls use are not innovative in the same way. We need a st…

I'm pretty sure that if you rewrote Harry Potter from scratch with new names and wording (redoing the implementation) and published that, you would still get in trouble. So copyright is somewhat broader than you think.

Oh, I don't know. JK Rowling rewrote Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and added wizards and no-one's complained. :p

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

#196

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 7:49 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #185

CamperBob2 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#197

Post by arkh » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 7:50 AM UTC

mendelk wrote: post #151

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems a bit naive, then, to assume that the people you're litigating against will civilly keep their anger in Lawyer-Land and never hold a grudge in real life.

I talked to an Oracle lawyer a few months ago, and told him their lawsuit just makes Oracle look bad. The lawyer was dismissive, and tried to explain how it's silly how people take lawsuits personally, and talked about how layers _understand_ that lawsuits aren't personal, and that they are still friends outside the court. I'm sure a lawyer can "understand" how lawsuits aren't actually something personal at all, but…

> “The personal, as everyone’s so fucking fond of saying, is political. So if some idiot politician, some power player, tries to execute policies that harm you or those you care about, take it personally. Get angry. The Machinery of Justice will not serve you here – it is slow and cold, and it is theirs, hardware and soft-. Only the little people suffer at the hands of Justice; the creatures of power slide from under it with a wink and a grin. If you want justice, you will have to claw it from them. Make it personal. Do as much damage as you can. Get your message across. That way, you stand a better chance of being taken seriously next time. Of being considered dangerous. And make no mistake about this: being taken seriously, being considered dangerous marks the difference - the only difference in their eyes - between players and little people. Players they will make deals with. Little people they liquidate. And time and again they cream your liquidation, your displacement, your torture and brutal execution with the ultimate insult that it’s just business, it’s politics, it’s the way of the world, it’s a tough life and that it’s nothing personal. Well, fuck them. Make it personal.”

― Richard K. Morgan, Altered Carbon

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

#198

Post by Scea91 » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 7:51 AM UTC

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.

Do you feel that there is a difference in innovation between software and other fields?

The obvious next steps you are talking about are usually only obvious in hindsight.

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

#199

Post by pnw_hazor » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 7:53 AM UTC

fhrow4484 wrote: post #114

What is the state of "anti-patent trolls" laws in different state? I know for instance Washington state has a law like this effective since July 2015 [1][2]. What is it like in other states, specifically California? [1] http://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/attorney-general-s-... [2] http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.350&full=true

The bad faith element is almost impossible to prove. It certainly isn't met in the Cloudflare case.

Certainly, experienced patent litigators are very unlikely to file a case that would be considered in bad faith.

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

#200

Post by reitzensteinm » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 7:55 AM UTC

jacques_chester wrote: post #141

criddell wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> If you apply for a patent that is later invalidated, then those that licensed the patent should be made repaid. I feel that this effectively says that nobody should be able to license their patent: they would need to hold all of their license fees in reserve against a lawsuit that could happen at any time between the patent grant and the end of the legal system. That or buy insurance which will, no doubt be priced…

The worst case is that the money has to be repaid - how would insuring against that be prohibitive? If there's a 20% chance of invalidation, inventors take a 20% haircut.

But the invalidation chance will not be uniform, and the risk assessment done by insurance companies will bring the right kind of market forces to bear against frivolous patents.

And even aside from the economic impact, it's quite simply the right thing to do. If you shake people down with a government enforced monopoly that turns out to never have legitimately existed, keeping that money is immoral.