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

171–180 of 240 posts

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#171

Post by ska »

freejazz wrote: post #144
thayne wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as it suits them. I think the bigger reason is that in many civil cases (not just IP) it ultimately comes down to who is willing to pay more for lawyers and legal fees.

As a litigator I do not think that is true. Facts, more than anything, dictate outcomes, generally. Though I will say that patent cases are prohibitively expensive. Though, contrary to what I would think many here assume, leaves the inventor with the short end of the stick as opposed to large IP-owning organizations like Google (that simultaneously advocate for lesser patent-rights).

Facts alone don't help you if you can't afford to play long enough. These things are rarely clear cut, and anyone with deeper pockets than you can use that to their advantage quite easily. In a way it's best to get into an IP disagreement with someone having roughly the same resources as you, as you can both see the path that only makes lawyers happy and agree to avoid it.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#172

Post by ska »

randoramax wrote: post #156
freejazz wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a litigator I do not think that is true. Facts, more than anything, dictate outcomes, generally. Though I will say that patent cases are prohibitively expensive. Though, contrary to what I would think many here assume, leaves the inventor with the short end of the stick as opposed to large IP-owning organizations like Google (that simultaneously advocate for lesser patent-rights).

As a non-litigator, i call BS. Facts don't matter much when it comes to justice. Try suing a small businesses LLC for some wrong doing: they'll file bankruptcy and you'll never see your money.

That's sort of the point of an LLC, though, so you can't really fault it. True, if it's a one-person shop the friction to fold it up isn't very high but you should factor that into your deal analysis.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#173

Post by ska »

unlinked_dll wrote: post #76
ALurchyBeast wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the 'fat lines' patent you mentioned: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6930686 . It's more about efficiency of drawing a line than connecting four dots.

What the patent says it's about and what your lawyers say it's about are two different things

That's not true. If a patent doesn't say what it's about in a fairly prescribed way, it is easily defeated.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#174

Post by jariel »

Grimm1 wrote: post #95
jbay808 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you justify the claim that Amazon is mostly software? Is it because they hire a lot of well-paid software developers? Microsoft produces a lot of value from software, but how much new technology are they producing? Some for sure, but how much? I don't think your metrics prove the claim... Facebook has developed a software product, and earned a lot of value from advertising. They've also developed several new tech…

Not OP but, it is my understanding Amazon Web Services is their biggest money maker, that's where I think that claim comes from.

'Market cap' is not the best choice of metrics here, it's really a measure of investor surpluses, ignore the rest of the equation.

Wallmart, Exxon, Amazon retail revenues completely dwarf the 'tech sector' - it's just that their margins are more narrow, in most cases, surpluses to consumers are vast.

Honestly 'profit to investors' should be one of the last metrics most of us care about. Most individuals should be far more concerned about surpluses they receive through lower prices or higher wages, as they'll nary get any real material lift via investment income.

In this way, it's kind of odd how 'market cap' is so widely used and perceived as some kind of great measure. It's good for investors, and unless you're an investor, it's bad for you. Every dollar that goes into the pocket of Amazon's investors should be a dollar in your pocket in the form of lower prices or better products/services.

Have a look at the biggest companies by revenue [1]

The only 'tech' companies on there are Apple and Amazon.

Amazon makes the hardware, and most of Amazon's revenue is retail goods.

There are not mostly software companies on that list.

Actually, a lot of HNer discussions tend to veer into this magical surplus world as well, I'd encourage anyone to have a look at 'big revenue companies' because it gives a much clearer picture of how the world works outside our bubble.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_r...

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#175

Post by ghayes »

freejazz wrote: post #85
MegaButts wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Constitution requires that Congress setup laws for both copyright and patent No it doesn't, it grants them the power but it doesn't specify they have to do it. “The Congress shall have Power To…promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries….” There is a big difference between having a power…

I don't think that's a great reading of congress' enumerated powers. The shall refers to the powers being powers that can be used when appropriate, to achieve the intended goal of the power. Must language, here, would imply a constant duty to use each power. My reading is that Congress has an OBLIGATION to promote the arts and sciences, and has the power to use copyright and patent law to achieve those goals as congr…

By your very logic, does that mean the second enumerated power "2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States;" means that we are also obligated to be in debt? Would it be unconstitutional to pay down the debt of the nation?

Additionally, even if Congress had an obligation to grant intellectual property rights, couldn't they simply grant patents for a term of 24 hours? or 15 seconds?

From what I've read (c.f. Clinton v. City of New York 1998), Congress can decline to use a power, but it cannot grant that power to another branch of government.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#176

Post by ksec »

triceratops wrote: post #168
ksec wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For starters, Amazon derives most of its profits from AWS. Amazon has over $200B of revenue from e-commerce, $1 Profits. AWS Generate ~$25B revenue, $1M Profits. Here is the headline. AWS ( Its Cloud Division ) Generating 1 Million times more profits than Amazon Retail!. Or AWS Generate more profits than all of other Amazon Department combined! What this mean is that Amazon is a vertically integrated Retail company…

> Forgot to mention AWS is actually lots of hardware, land cost for DC, etc. i.e Not Software. Cool, yeah, so you're saying if I go buy a bunch of servers and land I too can compete with AWS? It doesn't matter what software it runs? The hardware and datacenter stuff is commodity. Table-stakes. Everyone has to have it. That's why they don't even manufacture the servers themselves. Software is where the value add is. T…

That reasoning could be used for everything and hence Apple is not a Hardware company. And it doesn't change the fact majority of Amazon revenue does not derive from Software. And should not be valued as such.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#177

Post by jlokier »

patentatt wrote: post #107
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?

It's not less important.

It is important.

That's why software engineers want to be allowed to do their work without a silly patent system blocking their work.

Software is a medium in which patentable "inventions" come naturally to software engineers at a very high rate, often the same ideas as each other in response to the same problems.

(This suggests they aren't really rare insights at all and shouldn't be patentable, but the standard is too low for that.)

Sometimes tens or hundreds of patent-grade "inventions" a week for a great software engineer.

It isn't even possible for a great software engineer to know if what they are writing infringes on patents, existing or pending. It's just too difficult because of the high rate of duplicate "inventions" that come naturally.

Mechanical and electrical engineers also have great ideas and are blocked by patents. But the rate at which new, patentable ideas come to individuals in those fields seems to be lower, perhaps because it takes longer to actually make things, perhaps other reasons. Maybe even just because there are so many software engineers that duplication is unavoidable.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#179

Post by triceratops »

ksec wrote: post #176
triceratops wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Forgot to mention AWS is actually lots of hardware, land cost for DC, etc. i.e Not Software. Cool, yeah, so you're saying if I go buy a bunch of servers and land I too can compete with AWS? It doesn't matter what software it runs? The hardware and datacenter stuff is commodity. Table-stakes. Everyone has to have it. That's why they don't even manufacture the servers themselves. Software is where the value add is. T…

That reasoning could be used for everything and hence Apple is not a Hardware company. And it doesn't change the fact majority of Amazon revenue does not derive from Software. And should not be valued as such.

Apple designs and manufactures (albeit through contracting) their products from the silicon up. People who buy Apple products care about the hardware as well as the software. Nevertheless I agree with you, Apple isn't a pure-hardware company and the market doesn't value them like that. Their P/E ratio is 20-22, roughly in the same ballpark as Google or Microsoft (higher 20s)

People who use AWS don't care about the metal that it runs on, as long as it does the job.

> Amazon revenue does not derive from Software. And should not be valued as such.

Ok. But it is (I think - I don't know that much about valuations). If you're certain that's wrong, you shouldn't be arguing with strangers over the Internet, you should be off making money from that insight.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#180

Post by Morpholemew »

freejazz wrote: post #104
jbay808 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"Battery powered coffee grinder" but worse: "battery powered drill, but with Li instead of NiMH" Milwaukee Tool v. Snap On (lots of commentary, here's one example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9CLvU5-FRo )

On the software side, AFAIK the infamous "One Click" patent was never held up in court, but companies had to spend significant money defending against lawsuits based on it (and therefore the only possible victory was pyrrhic).

Post reply on HN