Live data from Hacker News

Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents

online.wsj.com

61–70 of 77 posts

Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents

#61
post #15
post #3

That's got to be the mother of all patent lawsuits to date. I hope that it will now become clear to the world at large that a patent without any intention to produce a product is simply a waste of time and money. I'd much prefer it if all these patent filing clowns would keep their 'research' locked up in their vaults and called them trade secrets, that would give nobodies like me a chance at just getting on with our…

The optimistic side of me hopes that people are seeing the writing on the wall for software patents, and are hoping to extract value before the landscape changes.

I have a question: what makes software different from other disciplines/domains with regards to patents? Why are "software patents" more often pointed out as pointless than other kinds of patents?

Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents

#62
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The optimistic side of me hopes that people are seeing the writing on the wall for software patents, and are hoping to extract value before the landscape changes.

I have a question: what makes software different from other disciplines/domains with regards to patents? Why are "software patents" more often pointed out as pointless than other kinds of patents?

More people on the internet both

    - write software, and
    - don't stand to benefit directly from software patents.
Kind of troll, kind of serious. Consider the source and all that. I also think software patents are dumb, but then again I also don't stand to benefit from them and I write software.

Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents

#63

You know what I think we should do? Institute a law where you can't sue a company for patent infringement unless you do so before they introduce and make a substantial amount of money off that product. Say, 1 million in revenue or something.

Even marketing a product (or service) employing the patent I would be happy with.

Fuck, even implementing the patent I would be happy with.

Requiring some minimum revenue before the patent counts for you is a great way to have your patents wantonly violated by larger firms before you can get started. Software startups are too agile for patents to matter much, but that's not as true for other industries.

Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents

#64
post #4

So he's suing Apple, Google, AOL, eBay, Facebook, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo and YouTube.

Why waiting so long ? There should be a prescription on this type of claims. This technology is used in a very visible way for years now. So they could not ignore it and thus implicitly permitted to use it.

If they didn't knew they had these patents, how could the other company know ?

This type of pattent 'mines' will have the consequence to scare to death companies. Foreign companies will stay away of US just to avoid the risk to step on such mine. And US companies may move their business in countries with much less risks (i.e. europe, Asia).

Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents

#66
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The optimistic side of me hopes that people are seeing the writing on the wall for software patents, and are hoping to extract value before the landscape changes.

I have a question: what makes software different from other disciplines/domains with regards to patents? Why are "software patents" more often pointed out as pointless than other kinds of patents?

Software patents have a strong tendency to be both vague and obvious. Although these are supposed to make something unpatentable, this doesn't happen in practice with software patents (possibly due to the relative novelty of software and lack of understanding among non-technical people).

Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents

#67
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sad to see him become a Patent troll. Yes, quite. Paul Allen had an excellent reputation up to this point. He always struck me as the one with the interesting projects, such as backing Burt Rutan. > Some of them will surely fight back. all of them will fight back.

Maybe he is trying to destroy the patent system. If you have valid patents that read on various valuable products, and you can bank roll a credible law suit asking for injunctions and not accepting any other kind of relief , that might create enough chaos to get the attention of law makers.

Reminds me of the BlackBerry patent case a couple of years ago. The Department of Defense had to come in and say something like "hey, guys, the government uses so many BlackBerrys that if you slam an injunction on them and shut their US operations down, we're in deep trouble."

Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents

#68
Some background info from a /. comment: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1768970&cid=3340...

This is amusing. Here's some history on the company. Interval Research was an R&D outfit that Paul Allen founded back in the 1990's. You've never heard of it, because they were incredibly secretive. So hush-hush that when they went belly-up no one outside of the company knew about it. Literally. It took months before the Press finally got wind of it.

The place was a great place to be if you were doing research. Literally "let a thousand roses bloom". Unfortunately, they were horribly mismanaged. Allen blew hundreds of millions of dollars, mostly over budget, before he finally realized that he wasn't getting anything out it. They wanted to be the next version of SRI. Unfortunately, that didn't turn out.

Top management was, at best, incompetent. At worse, downright crooks. They hired some people on certain terms, and then shortly afterwards said "Opps - we really meant to hire you at a lower level". Truly a boneheaded move. Fortunately it didn't happen to me, but the look on people's faces when they found out was unforgettable.

Interval did some really amazing stuff; years ahead of its time. But they could never get the products out to market (though they tried), mostly due to amazing incompetence on the part of the lead engineers. You know the type. Big egos and no talent. Perhaps there was an exception to that rule, but I don't recall it.

I'm not surprised that Paul Allen has turned into a Patent Troll; it will be the only way he can get his money back. The only thing surprising is that it took him so long. But he never impressed me as being the sharpest knife in the drawer. As for other history, they had a number of big names there, from many fields. In tech, you may have heard of Lee Felsenstein if you're familiar with history. Their office was in the Research area of Palo Alto. Near Stanford, down the street from the Wall Street Journal, between Page Mill and Hillview

Despite that unfortunate ending, I still look back fondly on Interval. They paid well, too. I made lots of money off of Paul Allen. Thanks, Paul!

Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Fashion and food were traditionally not protected by patents because to make a cake or a dress, one only needed an oven or a sowing machine. " Is that really true? I don't know I am just asking. I personally don't think capital investment should have anything to do with the patent. It's like giving no value to the innovative technologies made by people in garage. Just doesn't make sense to me. On a side note, do you…

> Is that really true? Yes. Or more precisely because clothes and food are too "utilitarian". "Lessons from fashion's free culture" http://ca.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion... "Copyright law's grip on film, music and software barely touches the fashion industry ... and fashion benefits in both innovation and sales, says Johanna Blakley."

So then music, software, books, etc. - all requiring low capital, should be in the same realm of fashion - right? If you don't believe that's true: please compare capital of an industrial bakery to a software company of the same revenue/profit.
Post reply on HN