Live data from Hacker News

Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

arstechnica.com

141–150 of 156 posts

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#141

I have actually reviewed this man's supposedly vigilante's submission to the USPTO and it is clear that this story is not what it seems. The document is a highly professional 95+ page document of complex legal argumentation that only a law firm with a small team of lawyers with a lot of prior experience doing this could have put together. It contains lots of lawyer speak and contemporary argumentation that a lay pers…

It is really funny that a conspiracy theory posted by an anonymous person with no backing evidence whatsoever is sitting at the top of this thread.

It's really funny that you assume an article is objectively true

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A quick review of the budget and supporting Commerce Department Appendix suggests the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has received everything it requested ($3,586,193,000), and will not suffer the indignity of fee diversion... https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/05/23/uspto-3-6-billion-pres... more about the fee diversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Patent_and_Trade... The USPTO isn't…

USPTO processed >600K patent applications in 2015 [1]. I assume more recent years are similar. Looking over their fee schedule they probably bring in around ~$1-2K per patent application. I'll be generous at $2K. So they have ~3.5B + 1.2B in revenue. This allocates on avg So an examiner has on avg ~25 hours to evaluate a possibly lengthy, complex, specialized document that often took a team many months to prepare. Th…

Wouldn't $150K/year in total compensation be $75/hour - thus changing it to ~ 100 hours to review the document?

I think you still make a valid point. The deluge of patent applications and the relatively specialized knowledge base of certain patents makes it a challenge.

If anything $150,000/examiner seems a bit low if we are trying to tie in building overhead, administration, and benefits to a per person figure.

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#143
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elsewhere it's mentioned that Swildens was on the receiving end of a 3 year battle over patent infringement, where he was a founder and so intimately involved. After an apprenticeship like that it would be unsurprising if he could emulate a team of lawyers.

"Our marketing person sat in the room with engineers for 3 years. It's no wonder they can now emulate a team of engineers" The amount by which engineering egos are inflated is amazing. Guess what - being a lawyer takes a bit more work than being on a legal case for three years. Why, as opposed to engineers, there's actually a bar they are held to.

You can take the legal documentation from the previous patent battle to see how to frame arguments. It's not uncommon for intellectual property and patent attorneys to dabble in their area of expertise to better understand both the exceptions raised by experts and form arguments that experts understand. My wife asks for advice all the time on how to phrase key points because at the end of the day they are trying to make compelling arguments.

Do you really think it's impossible a founder and engineer who went through a three year battle over patents could form a similar document? You'd only have to understand the assertions and have an attorney review your work. There are tons of legal reviews which end up with only one person being listed while the others are not given attribution to the document.

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#144
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. It's "engineers" themselves who have degraded the term (once a profession nearly as stringently accredited as doctors or lawyers) by applying it to anyone who can copy/paste stack overflow answers into a text editor.

It's not the engineers doing that. A software developer is an engineer the same way a janitor is a sanitation engineer.

I have friends in IT who get really angry when I refer to them as computer-janitors.

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#145

Although some engineers may disagree, this is one of the reasons I believe engineering should NOT be a protected industry/profession. Fine if the title was but not the action of doing it. I read a story about someone showing flaws in a USA traffic light system and he was subsequently fined for "illegal engineering" which is the most idiotic thing ever. Going on current USA progression it won't be long before you get…

I believe that the PE in Industrial engineering works that way (ie., as a professional title designation). I don't think there's anything you can do with a PE in Industrial Engineering that you wouldn't be allowed to do as an "Operations Research Analyst". I read this a while back and tried to search around for it and wasn't successful, so sorry, I'm saying this with no cite (and not a lot of certainty). I suppose software engineering could work the same, but I seriously doubt anyone of the 200K+ salaried software engineers at top tech companies would bother getting it if it were just a title designation. Nor do the better paid supply chain analysts and other types who are essentially doing IE seem to bother with the PE designation.

The problem here is that we have sound engineers and special effects engineers, and I truly don't think there's a huge problem with the dilution of the term.

I personally don't like the term software engineering much, mainly because I think it's better to acknowledge that something very new has emerged, and that it really isn't a branch of engineering. I think that it shares a set of great grand parents with many engineering disciplines and a few other fields (the math department), but I think software is about as closely related to engineering as actuarial science or statistics, or maybe even quantitative economics. We have our own thing here. If we want to make it more rigorously licensed, ok, that's not a bad discussion to have, but I'd personally rather see it kept well away from engineering. I'm suspicious of degree requirements, but if we had one, a degree in math might even make more sense than than engineering.

I see a lot of this as an engineering land grab. There's all this talk about how software "engineering" is diluting the term engineering, and yeah, when you can read a book on PHP and MySql (or just the first few pages) and call yourself an engineer, that tends to happen.

But come on now, folks, let's not be excessively modest here. Incredible things are happening in software. PageRank is a work of math, not a work of engineering.

Before it strikes you as excessively paranoid, keep in mind that the patent bar specifically excludes mathematics as coursework that qualifies you to become a patent agent or lawyer. This surprises a lot of people, but yeah, someone with a degree in civil engineering can qualify to evaluate whether a new development infringes on page rank, where as someone with a BA, MA, and PhD in math? Nope, math isn't relevant to the patent bar.

The low, low quality of patent review in this field is pretty evident, and we actually go out of our way to specifically exclude people who probably have the strongest background.

Trust me, engineers will totally screw up software if they get control of licensing, and I assure you, they will absolutely exclude people with math degrees from licensing. Look, if they want to do that with structural engineering, go ahead, but they need to keep their mitts off software.

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this story does an injustice by calling him an 'engineer'. He cofounded Speedera Networks, which was acquired for $130m by Akamai after a 3-year patent battle, a battle he was on the front-line of and learnt a lot about patent infringement. Yes, he's an engineer, but he's also an engineer who knows more than the average engineer about patents and complex legal argumentation. Source: https://www.wired.com/stor…

It is not a deservice. Its indicative of how poorly we view our own profession that everyone with other skills must be more than engineer, merely by applying them. A lawyer who becomes mayor is still a lawyer. A doctor who runs a phamacology company is still a doctor. And yes, and engineer who founds a company still retains the core skills and prestige of their hardwon profession. Or at least, I think they should.

It's not a disservice or an injustice, but it does paint a very incomplete picture. Like talking about Harvard lawyer and law professor Barack Obama.

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#147
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elsewhere it's mentioned that Swildens was on the receiving end of a 3 year battle over patent infringement, where he was a founder and so intimately involved. After an apprenticeship like that it would be unsurprising if he could emulate a team of lawyers.

"Our marketing person sat in the room with engineers for 3 years. It's no wonder they can now emulate a team of engineers" The amount by which engineering egos are inflated is amazing. Guess what - being a lawyer takes a bit more work than being on a legal case for three years. Why, as opposed to engineers, there's actually a bar they are held to.

Interestingly, sitting with lawyers 5 days a week for 3 years can earn you a JD degree and for many is sufficient preparation to pass the bar.

If your purpose is to pass the bar, you probably want to direct the topics of those 3 years of meeting with lawyers. If you want to specialize in patent law without concern for passing the bar, 3 years could be overkill. So you may only need to spend 1-2 days a week for 3 years meeting with patent lawyers.

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#149
post #93

If the US patent office did their job, then there would be no need for "vigilante" engineers. Maybe the reporting of the patent situation is a bit biased but from what I've heard over the years it appears to me that every second patent should be invalid and has prior art.

That would require someone to pay the US patent office to do their jobs. I believe paying for government services is considered a contentious issue in the USA.

If they can't do their job than maybe they shouldn't be in business..

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument was implicit: he called it a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy [...] without credible evidence . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

That's not an argument. You should look at the example in the wikipedia article I posted. The poster formed an opinion based on observations and gave his reasons for doing so. If you disagree with his observations, the best way to do so is to provide your reasons for disagreeing with his analysis.

What analysis? OP basically said "these words are big" and from that determined it was written by others.
Post reply on HN