Facebook’s patents show a commitment to collecting personal information • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by bitL » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 7:08 AM UTC

xtrapolate wrote: post #127

bitL wrote: post #37

I have to give it to FB - it's impressive how does their personal information collection and inference work. I was recently called by their recruiter - despite me being off FB for a few years, with inactive LinkedIn profile and keeping my current career info offline, they were perfectly informed what I am up to. Google messaged me as well. It's pretty amazing they could figure it out, even if I didn't really hide any…

Not refuting your theory, but in all probability, you (like most others in the industry) have friends ("friends"?) that simply relay info to recruiters from these two companies. Poaching is often done that way. Also, at least in my case, both Google and Facebook periodically reach out, years after our last formal interaction. Had a recruiter working for one of my clients for a few years. They later left the company a…

They specifically had info only my accountant had and I wasn't disclosing it to anyone outside closest family. They also contacted me within 10 minutes of each other which made it even more unusual. I guess somewhere in some system some of my info appeared and triggered both of them.

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

#132

Post by tqkxzugoaupvwqr » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 7:22 AM UTC

windows_tips wrote: post #79

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?

A patent on fast Fourier transform would essentially do nothing, as no one appears to be selling the algorithm outright.

A patent on FFT would stop anyone from using it in their products. A patent does not solely mean you can’t sell the patented thing, it means you are prohibited from commercially using the patented thing in any way.

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

#133

Post by GraemeD » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 7:22 AM UTC

The Patent system would be fairer if it had a graded protection system. For example, 12 months protection for a minor insight, 15 years protection for a major breakthrough with years of documented research.

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

#134

Post by akerro » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 7:31 AM UTC

bitL wrote: post #37

I have to give it to FB - it's impressive how does their personal information collection and inference work. I was recently called by their recruiter - despite me being off FB for a few years, with inactive LinkedIn profile and keeping my current career info offline, they were perfectly informed what I am up to. Google messaged me as well. It's pretty amazing they could figure it out, even if I didn't really hide any…

>informed what I am up to. Google messaged me as well.

Your recruiter is leaking your data, same happens in the UK. If you pass 3rd stage interview in Google, suddenly you get calls from Oracle, IBM, Amazon, MS and more. I never asked them to call me, never applied there, they just "somehow now" and want to rush with interviews with you.

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

#135

Post by beefield » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 7:44 AM UTC

rjtrickett wrote: post #122

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…

Has the idea of a patent tax ever been explored? Basically, increasing the cost of filing patents incrementally to regulate excessive patenting and encourage companies to be more selective.

I have thought of a scheme where the first couple of years of IP are free and after that heavily progressively taxed over time ( e.g 1000 usd on third year and doubling each year after that. Once the ip holder does not pay the tax, IP becomes automatically public domain.

Unfortunately Berne convention has been written in a way that basically does not allow any kind of taxation of IP in arts and literary works. Which, of course, is amazing, mindboggling power grab by IP industry, done already in 18th century.

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

#136

Post by beefield » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 7:56 AM UTC

citilife wrote: post #51

hellllllllooo wrote: post #4

It's crazy how the large companies file so many patents for any idea their employees can think of. We used to have a lawyer come to our desks once a month and they would try patent any idea you could come up with even off the top of your head. Not sure how small companies can compete when larger companies can buy up all the IP in a space without having to do any work. The smaller companies I've worked for have to be…

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…

> The processes are unique, very difficult to replicate, and should be offered some protection (if we agree that motor designs should be protected).

Just to clarify the discussion. Patents do not exist for protection of innovations or to guarantee income for innovators. Patents exists so that the society would get more innovations. And that is the only measure that patents should be judged against: Do we generally get so much more innovations (within motor designs kn this case) with the patent scheme that the welfare loss caused by monopolizing the IP is covered?

Interestingly enough, it is widely agreed that monopolies are bad, so one could imagine that the proof pf burden here would be on the ones who support monopolization of IP. And I have seen very little proof of benefits of patents that do not reduce to assuming that patents are benficial as per the measure I described above.

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

#137

Post by ascar » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 8:06 AM UTC

beefield wrote: post #135

rjtrickett wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has the idea of a patent tax ever been explored? Basically, increasing the cost of filing patents incrementally to regulate excessive patenting and encourage companies to be more selective.

I have thought of a scheme where the first couple of years of IP are free and after that heavily progressively taxed over time ( e.g 1000 usd on third year and doubling each year after that. Once the ip holder does not pay the tax, IP becomes automatically public domain. Unfortunately Berne convention has been written in a way that basically does not allow any kind of taxation of IP in arts and literary works. Which,…

Art and literature and patents are a fundamentally different law construct with different background and purpose.

Generalizing patents and copyright as IP is a fallacy and leads to wrong conclusions.

I recommend reading this article by Richard Stallmann on this topic https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

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

#138

Post by dTal » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 8:23 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #120

quadrangle wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents take money from the poor by denying them the prosperity at low-cost that would happen if there were no patents. Patents are government-enforced monopolies. They enable all of what anyone would expect with monopolies, namely high prices for consumers.

Reasonably time limited patents are a necessary component of incentivizing innovation, without which consumers would not realize new goods and services based off of those innovations.

There was plenty of innovation before patents. The purpose of patents was never to incentivize innovation. The purpose was to incentivize disclosure, to allow the progress of society by revealing trade secrets (in exchange for which they would be protected from competitors for a time).

If you've ever tried to read a patent, you'll know this system has failed. In almost no cases can you meaningfully replicate an invention from a patent. Quite apart from which, a huge number of things under patent protection today are public knowledge anyway, or can be considered 'obvious'.

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

#139

Post by dTal » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 8:25 AM UTC

aglavine wrote: post #121

quadrangle wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents take money from the poor by denying them the prosperity at low-cost that would happen if there were no patents. Patents are government-enforced monopolies. They enable all of what anyone would expect with monopolies, namely high prices for consumers.

I am as against patents as anybody else, but I wish that people talk more about the original idea behind it: if next-door wealthy guy can copy everything you invent, then there is few incentive if any to create anything new.

That was never the purpose. See my comment above.

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

#140

Post by setr » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 8:31 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #120

quadrangle wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents take money from the poor by denying them the prosperity at low-cost that would happen if there were no patents. Patents are government-enforced monopolies. They enable all of what anyone would expect with monopolies, namely high prices for consumers.

Reasonably time limited patents are a necessary component of incentivizing innovation, without which consumers would not realize new goods and services based off of those innovations.

>Reasonably time limited patents are a necessary component of incentivizing innovation

Ive never been satisfied with this necessity; its not like innovation would just seize without patents: innovation in processes is still incentivized, because falling behind would mean higher prices than competition, and lost market share, so you still need to r&d to at least match the competition, let alone best it. Innovation in consumer products is still incentivized, by first movers effect, though perhaps the easiest copied things are lost (ie plastic lids might be too easy to copy design updates). Innovation in software obviously wont stop, and shenzhen succeeds in electronics with lax (absent?) patent/copyright law.

The primary innovation patents might be necessary for is a small company taking on a larger one, and needing to protect its design while it gets itself going.... but in practice, it proposed hinders innovation there more than it helps.

Patents, I think, are about essentially open-sourcing the design of things, and the incentive to do so is a temporary, gov-enforced monopoly. If theres any idea about innovation, its in the long-term, as 5,10,20 years from now, we can read up on these ideas and build on top of them, instead of seeing them lost in time with the company's demise.