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

IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

seekingalpha.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 240 posts

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#101

Post by freejazz »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #100
freejazz wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The software patents you described are consistently knocked-out on §101 eligibility grounds for being an "abstract concept". IMO people who advocate scrapping software patents are disingenuous - look at what Google is trying to do software copyright at the same time. Essentially, if you take Google up on software patents and copyright, there will be no protection left for software.

> Essentially, if you take Google up on software patents and copyright, there will be no protection left for software. ... and this is a bad thing?

I was not commenting on that, simply informing the poster about the issue.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#102

Post by LeoTinnitus »

verdverm wrote: post #31

It would be great if more companies handled patents like Tesla. They obtain patents and then let others use them royalty free

I thought the reason behind that was because they wanted to make uniform charging ports so companies like GM didn't make proprietary ports you couldn't charge teslas with and vice versa.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#104

Post by freejazz »

jbay808 wrote: post #68
Spivak wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the idea "battery powered coffee grinder" is patentable but why shouldn't the unique details of the implementation be covered? Assuming that patents were actually useful as method of sharing useful designs with the world wouldn't you want to know how to overcome the engineering challenges?

I agree it probably isn't patentable. It's an analogy that a lot of software tech companies these days can make a good business by putting some frameworks together with a database and solve real problems that used to be solved by other tools, and make good money and valuable products in the process. But depending on your opinion of battery powered coffee grinders, it's not necessarily new technology.

I'd love to see a patent as you describe that has not been found invalid in a PTAB or Art. III court proceeding

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#105

Post by patentatt »

abridgett wrote: post #97

I remember when I worked at IBM Hursley research labs 20 years ago. The lab director told us all "patents are very important to IBM". I expected him to tell us that IBM made billions from licensing them. He didn't say that though. I don't think he even _mentioned_ that. Instead he stated: "It raises the entry barrier for the competition". Patents were (narrowly) created to _encourage_ the spread of knowledge. Instead…

To be fair to IBM, what your director may have been saying is that their use was primarily defensive, which it is and was for IBM. It’s not wrong for them to patent as much as they are able to, it serves an important disclosure function. When I worked at the USPTO, we used several patent databases. The US, of course, Japan, Europe, and IBM. IBM had their own database because of how significant their IP was. So while it’s unfortunate that they’ve taken the offensive in this case, historically IBM has been an important and relatively benign player in the IP landscape.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#106

Post by riazrizvi »

jjoonathan wrote: post #96
riazrizvi wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is working exactly as intended. The point of the USPTO is to provide a mechanism for carving up the universe of ideas into plots of land where ownership is clear and backed up by the force of the state. You can charge rent on it, you can develop it yourself, you can leave it idle, it’s yours. Software innovators are a bit like wholesome farmers who just want to labor in the fields, beat the elements and gr…

> in a country without property law big mean farming operations with security staff will just come and park themselves where you were farming. That's exactly what is happening in a country that does have the corresponding IP law and the IP law is enabling the practice rather than fighting it. In other news: war is peace, ignorance is strength, and freedom is slavery. Carry on!

When property laws were introduced to the US, parties with an information advantage were able to exploit loopholes, trick ignorant people into signing agreements that they didn’t understand etc. Lots of people fell foul to the new system and I’m sure it was written initially to favor certain parties. But it’s better than no ownership framework. The thing to do now is understand it.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#107

Post by patentatt »

brenden2 wrote: post #12

The whole US patent system needs to either be scrapped or rebuilt. The purpose it was originally intended to be used for doesn't make sense in a world where most new technology is just software, and software is incredibly easy to copy and duplicate. Getting a software patent is mostly a matter of sneaking past the people at the USPTO, and making sure you're the first to file. These patent factories could just write c…

Why is a software engineer’s work product any less important than a mechanical engineer’s or an electrical engineer’s?

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#108

Post by snarf21 »

mattrp wrote: post #55
snarf21 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, they would rather license. 2018 was $1.2B+ in revenue just for the patents they already have. Our patent system really needs fixed.

If someone invests resources inventing something, why shouldn't that entity be entitled to participate in the on-going monetization of that invention? If we presume the prior statement is simply a straw man, do you agree partially with this statement and it simply needs reform or would you propose to throw it out altogether? If the former, how would you propose to reform it?

I think software patents are okay but should have shorter lengths, like 3 years. They also shouldn't be transferrable. IBM could license it from Jane Inventor but not roll it up as a weapon. We also need to have trained people in the USTPO so that we can have patents researched and not just rubber stamped. I also think that patent enforcement should force a review of prior art.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#109

Post by bvandewalle »

brenden2 wrote: post #26
JackFr wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time AirBNB has history, that is to say, a business model, based on ignoring laws they don't care for.

As a former employee, I don't agree with that. I know it's the prevailing sentiment on HN, but it's not the truth.

Typical case of "It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It".

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#110

Post by vikramkr »

choward wrote: post #89
edge17 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM files a lot of patent because (at least when I was there many years ago), employees and their management chain have strong economic incentives to file anything. Even interns were encouraged to file patents, and as a student it's a great way to beef up your resume. Ironically, even between technology professionals, the patents one files at IBM are great marketing material on the resume. IBM marketing itself as 'th…

> as a student it's a great way to beef up your resume Really? I wouldn't view that as a positive unless we're talking about law students I guess.

Law students wouldn't necessarily be filing for patent protection for their inventions? It wouldn't be relevant for them.
Post reply on HN