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

Facebook’s patents show a commitment to collecting personal information

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 173 posts

Re: Facebook’s patents show a commitment to collecting personal information

#61

Post by detaro »

jedberg wrote: post #59
brian-armstrong wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

150 patents?! Dear god, you are part of the problem. You clearly know it’s wrong but you do it anyway.

It's like mutually assured distruction. Almost no one involved with software patents think they are a good idea, but until everyone backs down at the same time, you gotta keep doing it or that one evil player will destroy everyone. I don't think software patents should exist, but I've worked on a bunch (and have a few myself). Not a single person I've worked with in that process, including the lawyers, thinks softwar…

> But if you don't have a big inventory of patents, then the company that does won't want a cross licensing deal.

Of course the size of the other party's portfolio shouldn't matter if you're only interested in defensive use.

Re: Facebook’s patents show a commitment to collecting personal information

#63

Post by lettergram »

zethraeus wrote: post #21

N.B. Patents are a lagging indicator of what a company is doing. They're made public more than a year after submission.

That actually depends, often patents can be fast tracked (for a few grand). This means they will be reviewed and accepted within months not years.

Re: Facebook’s patents show a commitment to collecting personal information

#64

Post by janoc »

Someone wrote: post #29
QML wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we allow for algorithms to be patented though? To reserve something so abstract would be near equal to claiming a mathematical formula for oneself. If IBM had patented the fast Fourier transform, where would signal processing be?

Patents on mp3 and RSA didn’t prevent them from being used everywhere. I guess a patent on FFT (which, by the way, was considered at the time, according to Wikipedia) wouldn’t have stopped its adoption either. Also, IMO, a formula , which tells you what to compute, is essentially different from an algorithm , which tells you how . FFT would be patentable because it is non-obvious, even when given the formula for doin…

Sorry, a formula and an algorithm are not at all different.

A mathematical formula is just a symbolic expression of an abstract concept, with the procedure (algorithm) how to use it being implicit (= obvious to the person skilled in the art).

A computer algorithm can be trivially converted into purely mathematical/logic representation ("formulas" if you want), e.g. using things like lambda calculus. And vice-versa - an abstract mathematical problem formulation can be converted into an algorithm (assuming the solution is known).

If you start patenting algorithms, you are patenting math.

Re: Facebook’s patents show a commitment to collecting personal information

#65

Post by janoc »

amelius wrote: post #24
QML wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we allow for algorithms to be patented though? To reserve something so abstract would be near equal to claiming a mathematical formula for oneself. If IBM had patented the fast Fourier transform, where would signal processing be?

If someone can patent, say, the magsafe connector, then I don't see why someone couldn't patent the FFT. Whether it's a good thing that patents exist is another matter, though.

I think the idea behind patents was that you can't patent natural phenomena and things that derive from them. Algorithms are just another way of expressing mathematics and logic so that is what gives the rise to the idea that these things shouldn't be patentable. Mathematics and logic describe laws of nature (such as waves in the case of a Fourier transform) which exist without us "inventing" them.

Magsafe connector is an engineering invention that doesn't exist or derive from anything in the nature.

Re: Facebook’s patents show a commitment to collecting personal information

#66

Post by maym86 »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #54
citilife wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has multiple issued patents from large companies.. It's a pretty complex issue. I personally think software patents should be outlawed, as I don't know a better solution. On the one hand, I have several patents for project(s) that took years to develop. The processes are unique, very difficult to replicate, and should be offered some protection (if we agree that motor designs should be protected). The…

150 patents?! Dear god, you are part of the problem. You clearly know it’s wrong but you do it anyway.

If you work in a tech company you don't really have a choice. The company will patent your work whatever you think and this is part of the job. Giving them ideas to patent that you haven't implemented and are unrelated of your actual work is the only optional part.

Re: Facebook’s patents show a commitment to collecting personal information

#67

Post by white-flame »

dzonga wrote: post #62

Public Company shows a commitment to making money and serving it's shareholders. Facebook isn't broken the business model is.

There's nothing wrong with making money within legal and ethical bounds. Getting as close as possible to the former, or bulldozing over the latter with no concern, will certainly draw public ire. That can lead to market changes, as well as the possibility of legal changes.

Re: Facebook’s patents show a commitment to collecting personal information

#68

Post by chmaynard »

The internet portal business is a house of cards, ripe for disruption at any time. I predict that within five years Facebook will have morphed into a different company. They probably don't know for sure what their new business model will be, but cranking out lots of software patents may turn out to be helpful.

Re: Facebook’s patents show a commitment to collecting personal information

#69

Post by brian-armstrong »

jedberg wrote: post #59
brian-armstrong wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

150 patents?! Dear god, you are part of the problem. You clearly know it’s wrong but you do it anyway.

It's like mutually assured distruction. Almost no one involved with software patents think they are a good idea, but until everyone backs down at the same time, you gotta keep doing it or that one evil player will destroy everyone. I don't think software patents should exist, but I've worked on a bunch (and have a few myself). Not a single person I've worked with in that process, including the lawyers, thinks softwar…

There’s a lot of cognitive dissonance in this post. Notably, you’re leaving out that smaller companies often don’t (and can’t) file patents, which means this system just further entrenches existing large companies.

Also, large patent collections don’t protect you from patent trolls since they aren’t exposed to counter suing anyway - they don’t make or sell anything!

But whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night, right?

Re: Facebook’s patents show a commitment to collecting personal information

#70

Post by lgregg »

ve55 wrote: post #17

Stop finding excuses to stay on Facebook. Be strong and do what is right. You can convince your friends to use other things if they are truly your friends.

I don't really get facebook outside of being able to see vaguely what is going on with family. I call, text, and email my actual friends if we're not in person.
Post reply on HN