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

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

#141

Post by setr » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 8:36 AM UTC

plokiju wrote: post #129

aglavine wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 argument has always felt like it came out of economics 101. Maybe in a world where everyone is a rational economic actor motivated only by maximizing profits, people wouldn't make anything new without a patent. In the real world, open source and open research communities have no shortage of innovation, even without being able to place artificial blocks on the competition. It turns out, creator's motivations are…

Even with rational actors, it doesn't really hold. You still have to innovate, because if you go stagnant and the competition does innovate, you're fucked. At the very least, you have to be capable of constantly updating your copies to match the competition, and you'd at best reach parity (unless the cost of original r&d was enormous, and time/cost to copy was minimal), which won't maximize profit.

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

#142

Post by icantdrive55 » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:40 AM UTC

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 a society, we need to tie fees/fines (especially patent) in All areas of life.

And yes--a big company might just have to pay 2 million for their 100th Patent.

And yes--a rich guy breezing through a red light would get a $20000 fine.

"Oh no, but I might be a big Player one day?". The odds are against you breaking into the club in America. Those days are pretty much gone.

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

#143

Post by davidhyde » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 10:29 AM UTC

My problem with patents is that they all have the same expiry. Some industries move faster than others. A 5 year software patent would be less stifling to innovation but would give the inventor enough of a head start to get going.

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

#144

Post by bad_user » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 10:54 AM UTC

setr wrote: post #140

toomuchtodo wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

One argument is that small companies can't out-compete big companies in efficiency due to lack of resources, therefore patents give them the necessary time to bring their products to market.

However I never found that argument to be believable. Big companies have such a vast patents portfolio that it's impossible for small companies that try to create a product to not infringe on anything. So what happens many times in practice are actually cross-licensing deals.

Therefore small companies developing some innovative algorithm or technology are better off keeping it a trade secret until launch.

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

#145

Post by peter_retief » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 11:02 AM UTC

qsdevacc wrote: post #85

Facebooks entire business revolves around collecting personal information. Their business model is entirely inconsistent with personal privacy and everyone needs to know that.

I removed fb from my phone a while back but have now removed my profile. The whole concept is based on deception

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

#146

Post by hellbanner » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 11:22 AM UTC

joering2 wrote: post #49

hellbanner wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just had a company want to enforce http://limegreenip.hoganlovells.com/article/104/patents-law-... -- for a contract gig!

They can because 1) patens expire in ten years mostly, and 2) patenting ridiciolous stuff doesnt hold water with judges. I think there was recently a company that got patent on “clicks in your email messages” and sued everyone relevant to shake out $$, and got laughted at by judge. (Im on mobile so can find relevant article atm)

If it doesn't matter, then the language shouldn't be there. IANAL; you might want to review your contracts carefully.

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

#147

Post by wepple » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 11:42 AM UTC

ameyv wrote: post #115

This is really disturbing. I daily use and consume instagram and whatsapp. I need to find a way to get out of these social apps. :(

When you say “find a way”, what makes it so hard to just delete Instagram?

Whatsapp is difficult, it’s the defector way to communicate for most people I know

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

#148

Post by taejo » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 11:47 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,…

> 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.

It's not free at the beginning, and the fees are less than you suggest, but that's mostly what we do have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_fee_(patent)

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

#149

Post by listentojohan » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 11:49 AM UTC

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…

It's preposterous. I don't think there should be any patents. At all. Maybe copyright.

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

#150

Post by bogomipz » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 11:56 AM UTC

kodablah wrote: post #109

bogomipz wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Yet another New York Times hit piece against Facebook." The very first word on this page is "Opinion", making it very clear that this piece is in no way reflects the editorial polices of The New York Times. Opinion pieces by their very nature make no claims of objectivity. The "Ed-Op" section has long been a mainstay of daily news organizations in the US. In your list of citations you've mixed both objective journa…

Policies of an outlet can be determined by volume and slant, even op-eds. Opinion pieces help drive a narrative that regular stories do as well. It's not like, to view NYT's ads, you knew the article you were visiting. They're next to each other in search engine results. This isn't on a site named nytimesopinion.com. The sheer volume of articles now, regardless of whether you tell people they are in different forms,…

>"Policies of an outlet can be determined by volume and slant, even op-eds"

No, op-ed pieces by there very nature are not subject to editorial review. Anyone is free to right one. And it is quite common to have editorials with opposing views published opposite each other in the Ed Op section. Saying that ed-op pieces have a "slant" is absurd. The entire purpose of an editorial is to express the views of an individual.

>"This is not the print days of old."

No the New York Times actually a physical news paper that you can buy at a newsstand. I did so yesterday. It is also a newspaper of record.

>"The news cycle is driving the dialog at this point, not responding to it."

The Cambridge Analytica scandal came to light because Christopher Wylie blew the whistle and began speaking about it. I would very much consider that a human driving a dialog.