Live data from Hacker News

IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

seekingalpha.com

121–130 of 240 posts

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#121
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Framers were skeptical of enabling government to give out patent and copyright monopoly grants. Jefferson wrote: Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than…

It's true some of the founders were skeptical, I never said otherwise and I never said it was "uncontested. What I said was that it's inclusion in the Constitution is for a clear reason, whether or not the reasoning is valid is a different debate. As I pointed out, the constitution grants congress the EXPLICIT AUTHORIZATION you refer to, for the very purpose of promoting the PROGRESS of the arts and sciences. I guess…

"Framers" is more correct. Not all the Founding Fathers participated in authoring the constitution.

Secondly, an explicit reason implies a condition: Is current patent law actually fit for the stated purpose?

Lastly, another comment here refers to the language of "amendments," presumably the Bill of Rights. The Copyright Clause is a clause, not an amendment, and not part of the BoR.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#122
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's the truth. There's literally rentals on there, right now, in the town I'm currently living in, that are illegal according to local laws. Airbnb doesn't de-list them, they just pretend they don't know.

Laws pushed by large companies so that others can't compete against them and they are able to price gouge the customer. There is a large supply of housing that is available to customers that want to purchase it. The idea that two people can't make a consensual exchange of value is antithetical to a free society.

No one's saying that two people can't make a "consensual exchange of value" of legal actions. I can't make a "consensual exchange of value" by paying a mob hitman to kill someone that I don't like.

This is a good thing, and this is not antithetical to a free society.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but the fact that it says nothing about an obligation (I don't even believe it's implied, but I'm not a historical legal scholar) leads me to believe you're inserting your own bias.

One thought would be, if there was no duty implied in the specific enumeration of this power and it's implied goal, then why wouldn't it just be part of the necessary and proper clause?

I think a much more obvious question is why wouldn't they just write down what they meant instead of obfuscating their intentions?

You are literally looking for something that isn't there, because it is not written down.

I would love for a lawyer to chime in, because admittedly this is not my wheelhouse.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You could give us a reason why

not that I'm agreeing, but doesn't the burden of truth lie with the one who made the original claim about AirBnb not caring about laws historically?

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#126
post #73
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The problem is so many software patents just cover "do a thing on a computer," which becomes so broad nobody else can ever do that thing without infringing on the patent. Even if I have an objectively different, even better, way of doing it, software patents are used far too broadly because they tend to protect the act of doing a thing as opposed to specifically how to do the thing. This is in contrast to something l…

Also, some things are commonly recommended to do someone could have the patent to. There was a virtual world I was into a lot in the past and would follow the news on it, and some company was suing them and like 4 or 5 other companies for password hashing. So a method for retrieving a user's account and hashing their password comparing to a stored password hash... Can't find much on it though as was probably about 10 years ago.

Sounds like even patents on implementing two factors or blocking common/weak passwords... Even password resets through email...

Seems like you are likely to step on someone's patent without even reading it or just importing some open source code... unknowingly too. I guess not a huge risk until you are big enough where they'd get a good stream of income from licensing or you fight them off. Like Cloudflare had to deal with a patent troll. Some of these patents are so vague and I noticed some patent trolls use patents that are expiring in a few years since they get traded around. Then some company I heard sued a few companies before their patent expired by only a day or two since I guess even though the patent is expired they couldn't sue new projects using it, but existing stuff filed before it expired in court can still be litigated I guess. Well I guess not suing for current use then, but more the prior use of it infringing over a certain number of years might be another way to put it?

I know some companies tell employees to not read patents, but even if you don't read them might end up getting a patent owner who thinks their patent covers your functions to go after you. I think even someone has a patent on shopping sites where you can select from multiple colors for a shirt or phone, storage options, etc.

Maybe you start a company, get a patent to use to try to protect yourself but not actively going after companies. Then maybe your company isn't doing so well so the investors want you to sell off assets. So maybe a patent troll or shell company buys it up when you never planned on using the patent in that way.

Plus big companies like patents as it's like insurance, I guess there's the nuclear option. So if Apple sued Google over a feature of Android, Google could take a closer look at Apple Maps and say it infringes. So a large patent portfolio could discourage others from suing you. Not sure if that works in all industries but Google and Apple is a good example since a lot of overlapping stuff. I guess Microsoft could also be a good example, if they wanted to sue Google over Google Docs being similar to Microsoft Office maybe over a certain feature they believe they have a patent to then Google could turn around and say Bing infringes on something possibly. Then I think some tech companies rather sue OEMs like HTC and Samsung maybe instead of directly going after each other.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#127
post #29

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…

> 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. The very first patent was to duplicate an existing process (the loom) and have a monopoly to produce it. I keep hearing this argument from patent proponents, but patents have never in their history been ostensibly for good.

The first US patent was for a method of making potash, for fertilizer.

The early US loom patents are particularly ironic as they were “stolen” from the British design rather than actually invented, in violation of British law. The same thing applied to a whole bunch of other early technologies - the patents existed to encourage stealing other peoples ideas and hard work then claiming it as your own.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#128
AirBNB is already facing a severe shock from pandemic and economic disruptions to travel. I can't say I'm going to be sad if the short-term rental market collapses after what they've done to the housing situation in so many cities.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#129
post #51

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

Does their royalty free license have any guarantees that the license stays royalty free? If not, it could be an potential trap..

Not a lawyer but I'd imagine depends on the way they wrote the license. Like with software if someone open sourced something and then wanted to make it closed source, if they own the copyright 100% and you didn't violate the license you could keep using the current version but their new private changes you wouldn't get.

So I'd imagine something similar unless the license expires after X time but that doesn't make sense in open source as haven't seen that other than in commercial closed source programs, and even then some programs still work but you won't get updates unless you pay to upgrade or a yearly maintenance fee.

However you might want to document these things, heard once some copyright troll put images out under a free license and then changed their mind so went after websites using it.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> But it’s better than no ownership framework.

That hardly follows. "IP" has very different properties than land, and "no ownership framework" is hardly the only alternative under consideration.

Even to the extent that land ownership and idea ownership can be analogized, using the former to justify the later is a poor argument on account of the enormous known systematic problems with the former. In particular, there's a reason why economists borrowed the term "rent" to mean "benefit received for non-produced input."

> The thing to do now is understand it.

That doesn't justify anything either. Did organized crime just take over your neighborhood? Understanding their priorities will help you deal with the problem, but it doesn't make them good and it doesn't make them worth protecting.

Post reply on HN