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

When Bad Patents Hurt Good People: Patent Threat Shuts Down Flight Planning Site

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: When Bad Patents Hurt Good People: Patent Threat Shuts Down Flight Planning Site

#31

Post by forgottenpaswrd »

wazoox wrote: post #26
nphase wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting a patent for something isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Doing harm with those patents is. Many companies get patents to protect themselves from situations just like this one.

When companies must have patents to defend themselves against patent trolls, the only possible winners are lawyers. Software patents are completely wrong. As a side note, pg said that if software patents are wrong, then all patents are wrong. BTW I'm confident that most of current IP environment (both patents and copyright) hurts people and the economy.

Software patents are wrong but all are not. There is one difference: When you make a real patent you give a nation the knowledge(plans, diagrams, materials and explanation) to make something and IN EXCHANGE you receive from this nation a monopoly over this particular method for some years.

Software patents are being used as a way of buying monopolies over generic ideas, not particular but broad methods so the powerful could destroy competition, without exposing the proprietary code(not giving the knowledge at all).

The companies that grew and become powerful and rich without patents like MS and Apple want to use this money to buy them eternal prosperity against new comers.

As Dr.Friedman said, the same companies that rise with free market want the free market destroyed. The same person that as a little guy opposed software patents as the boss of a big company tries to enforce it: "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." Bill Gates

Re: When Bad Patents Hurt Good People: Patent Threat Shuts Down Flight Planning Site

#32

Post by dctoedt »

dhimes wrote: post #29
redthrowaway wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you really need to re-examine 1 & 2. Increasing the speed and quality of patent review may lead to more patent applications, but would reduce the number of baseless patents granted. As for price, the USPTO was never supposed to be self-sufficient. Doing it properly means the taxpayer picks up the tab. That's just something you have to accept in exchange for living in a highly developed economy. IBM's patents,…

Probably due to the fact that IANAL, I never understood why you need an actual patent to defend yourself. Why doesn't just having prior art suffice? Seems like if it's publicly reachable you should be safe.

> I never understood why you need an actual patent to defend yourself. Why doesn't just having prior art suffice?

Only having an actual patent gives you a weapon for a counterclaim. And it's a weapon only if the company suing you for infringement is itself infringing your patent.

Re: When Bad Patents Hurt Good People: Patent Threat Shuts Down Flight Planning Site

#33

Post by alain94040 »

Natsu wrote: post #25
alain94040 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but that patent does not cover linked lists. It covers the merging to two lists using linked lists so that there are multiple ways to loop though a list of items. Fairly obvious? I would say so. But not the sensational claim that "linked lists are patented". By making such bogus claims, you actually hurt the cause of people who want real patent reform. This opinion coming from someone who had to go through the…

Would it make you feel better if he'd said that it covers doubly linked lists? Because those appear to satisfy every element of claim #1 that I can find. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's the same as being patented. Specifically, we have a "plurality" of objects in a doubly-linked list because it's a list and we have a primary and auxiliary pointer that lets the computer go through all the items without resorting the…

Agreed. I'm all for a wall of shame. In 2002, if you didn't know that double linked lists exist, you deserve to have your name and picture on every billboard in Silicon Valley.

Will a generous sponsor (EFF, FSF), spend the $2,000 to get a banner on highway 101?

Re: When Bad Patents Hurt Good People: Patent Threat Shuts Down Flight Planning Site

#34

Post by alex_c »

nickpinkston wrote: post #9
redthrowaway wrote: post #5

Why is nobody talking about the real issue here: the slashed budget of the USPTO that has made them unable to properly vet patent applications for a decade? The problem isn't the trolls, it's the fact that these bullshit patent requests are being granted in the first place. The USPTO can't afford to have experts review patent applications, and this is the result.

I'd argue that: 1.) There are bad feedback loops between speed / quality / price of patent examination and the amount of ridiculous patents issued. 2.) Increasing the budget to improve screening and throughput will lead to an increase in patents submitted - will this increase at a higher / lower rate than their budget? I.e. will new patent submissions bloat the office even more than now? 3.) We could try to increase…

Simple solution: change fees on a sliding scale based on number of applications per year. The little guys who might file for one patent in their lifetime won't be affected. The IBMs won't be affected, because they expect an actual return on those patents. The shotgun-approach patent trolls will be affected, especially if frivolous patents are rejected.

Re: When Bad Patents Hurt Good People: Patent Threat Shuts Down Flight Planning Site

#35

Post by fuzzythinker »

cookiecaper wrote: post #24
fuzzythinker wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

until they get brought by a slightly eviler co.

It doesn't always have to work that way. If patents are secured, they can effectively be released into public domain, at least as far as I understand. Take a look at Xiph and Ogg; my understanding is that they publicly relinquished any rights to pursue infringement claims on their Vorbis-related (?) patents. IANAL. Someone may also take a more creative route and attempt to make the point that software patents are ter…

Yes, both of these scenarios are what we hope, especially the latter since I don't envision the USPTO to just stop software patents without such catalyst. But as you know, obtaining patents to open to public domain isn't the norm. I would guess that change of leadership (or even change of heart of the leader) to ones who don't believe in the original defensive intent of the patent happens more frequently.

Re: When Bad Patents Hurt Good People: Patent Threat Shuts Down Flight Planning Site

#36

Post by Natsu »

alain94040 wrote: post #33
Natsu wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it make you feel better if he'd said that it covers doubly linked lists? Because those appear to satisfy every element of claim #1 that I can find. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's the same as being patented. Specifically, we have a "plurality" of objects in a doubly-linked list because it's a list and we have a primary and auxiliary pointer that lets the computer go through all the items without resorting the…

Agreed. I'm all for a wall of shame. In 2002, if you didn't know that double linked lists exist, you deserve to have your name and picture on every billboard in Silicon Valley. Will a generous sponsor (EFF, FSF), spend the $2,000 to get a banner on highway 101?

I think they prefer to get reexaminations to get rid of the patent and have a "Patent Busting Project" to that effect.

While a wall of shame is an interesting idea, killing the patent outright is likely a more effective use of their funds. Some of the entities in question aren't really known for their shame and only programmers are likely to appreciate the absurdity of patenting a doubly-linked list in this day and age.

Re: When Bad Patents Hurt Good People: Patent Threat Shuts Down Flight Planning Site

#37

Post by dhimes »

dctoedt wrote: post #32
dhimes wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably due to the fact that IANAL, I never understood why you need an actual patent to defend yourself. Why doesn't just having prior art suffice? Seems like if it's publicly reachable you should be safe.

> I never understood why you need an actual patent to defend yourself. Why doesn't just having prior art suffice? Only having an actual patent gives you a weapon for a counterclaim. And it's a weapon only if the company suing you for infringement is itself infringing your patent.

OK- so you don't need one to protect yourself, only if you want to sue in retaliation. Am I understanding that right? Seems if you can invalidate a patent by showing prior art that would be a powerful deterrent to someone wanting to sue you.

Re: When Bad Patents Hurt Good People: Patent Threat Shuts Down Flight Planning Site

#38

Post by dctoedt »

dhimes wrote: post #37
dctoedt wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never understood why you need an actual patent to defend yourself. Why doesn't just having prior art suffice? Only having an actual patent gives you a weapon for a counterclaim. And it's a weapon only if the company suing you for infringement is itself infringing your patent.

OK- so you don't need one to protect yourself, only if you want to sue in retaliation. Am I understanding that right? Seems if you can invalidate a patent by showing prior art that would be a powerful deterrent to someone wanting to sue you.

> Seems if you can invalidate a patent by showing prior art that would be a powerful deterrent to someone wanting to sue you.

Sometimes, yes, but not always. It once worked out that way for one of my clients. The client got a letter from another company's lawyer, saying, "you may be interested in this patent." That's code for a threat to sue. The other company was a legitimate company that actually made stuff; it wasn't a troll, er, non-practicing entity.

My client had solid evidence that it had come up with the invention several years before, and that it had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed the invention. This put the client in a position to make a powerful invalidity argument, one that can be especially persuasive to a jury -- even assuming this invention was patentable, we'd have been the ones entitled to the patent, not them.

I sent a letter to the patent owner's lawyer (whom I knew), saying, almost in so many words: I've reviewed some prior art not cited by the patent examiner, and my client is not the least bit interested in discussing your client's patent. The lawyer asked if I'd send him a copy of the prior art. I said, if you file a lawsuit, you'll get the prior art in the ordinary course of discovery. The lawyer evidently got the message - we never heard from them again, at least not on that subject.

(As usual, YMMV, and don't rely on this anecdote as a substitute for legal advice. Knowingly infringing a patent without clear and convincing evidence of invalidity could result in being held liable for willful infringement. That in turn could mean having to pay treble damages and the patent owner's attorneys' fees, which will almost always be considerable.)

Re: When Bad Patents Hurt Good People: Patent Threat Shuts Down Flight Planning Site

#39

Post by dhimes »

dctoedt wrote: post #38
dhimes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK- so you don't need one to protect yourself, only if you want to sue in retaliation. Am I understanding that right? Seems if you can invalidate a patent by showing prior art that would be a powerful deterrent to someone wanting to sue you.

> Seems if you can invalidate a patent by showing prior art that would be a powerful deterrent to someone wanting to sue you. Sometimes, yes, but not always. It once worked out that way for one of my clients. The client got a letter from another company's lawyer, saying, "you may be interested in this patent." That's code for a threat to sue. The other company was a legitimate company that actually made stuff; it was…

Thank you; I sure appreciate the insight. It's heartening to know that if you try to do the right thing and mind your own business (as long as you document) then you stand a reasonable chance of being safe (so the system's not completely broken).
Post reply on HN