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

221–230 of 240 posts

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#221

Post by Giorgi »

freejazz wrote: post #137
holtalanm wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Right, but given that AirBnB listed illegal hotels and fought local governments in taking them down, it is fair to say they do not have regard for the law. Further, it is clear that a significant portion of their business relied upon such listings.

>fought local governments in taking them down

Good. If law is stupid company must defend it's interest and at the same time - hard earning hosts too. I don't see which law is being broken if those are fought in court.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#222

Post by npsomaratna »

kelnos wrote: post #208
npsomaratna wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree with this. In administrative law (the principles of which apply here) certain words have technical interpretations that are very different from the colloquial meaning. "Shall" is one of those words - and I too would interpret this as an obligation.

But it doesn't say that "Congress shall promote the progress..." it says "Congress shall have the power to promote the progress..." If the framers wanted to require that Congress do this stuff, why insert "have the power to" unnecessarily? There's no need for that phrase. As another point against this being an obligation, if you look at the list of enumerated powers[0], you'll see some that are clearly not obligation…

This area of law is very tricky. As I've stated above, the technical (i.e., legal) interpretation can be quite different from how a layperson would understand the same words.

The basic idea here is that an authority (e.g., Congress) that has been given a specific power (e.g., declaring war) is obligated to exercise that power where appropriate.

Do note the specific phrasing above: if there is a situation in which exercising that power is the appropriate course of action, then that power must be exercised. The authority cannot choose not to exercise the power in such a situation.

So, Congress doesn't have to declare war for the sake of declaring war. However, if there is an existential military threat to the USA (e.g., aggression by the Japanese Empire in WW2) you could argue that Congress is obligated to declare war, as this would be an appropriate situation to exercise that power.

Of course, the above explanation is very simplistic. There can be specific wordings that clarify how much discretion that authority has; there may be case law pertinent to that area; and whether a given situation mandates "appropriate" exercise of a given power is never a black-and-white decision.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#223

Post by matheusmoreira »

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…

The entire concept of intellectual property must be abolished. The notion that people can own information is incompatible with the 21st century.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#224

Post by matheusmoreira »

freejazz wrote: post #43
pslam wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Constitution requires that Congress setup laws for both copyright and patent, for the good of the nation. Patents were always intended for the overall wellbeing of the nation. That's not to say that is what has always been achieved by the patent system, but it's not some sort of conspiracy. If anything, in history, they were always OSTENSIBLY for good, but perhaps ACTUALLY bad. So I find your statement to be A) h…

The intellectual property system may have been intended as a force for good. However, it's gotten to the point where everyone knows how to abuse the system and get away with it. There is no reason for anyone to recognize it as a legitimate.

Companies file deliberately vague all-encompassing patents that are very hard to understand and pretty much useless for the purpose of educating the public and advancing the state of the art. Patents are merely weapons to be used against competitors. Companies file patents despite the existence of prior art and not only are they granted by the patent office but they're also allowed to stand uncontested due to the prohibitively expensive nature of patent litigation.

Disney and its copyright industry friends lobbied the government and successfully cheated the public out of its public domain rights by extending the duration of copyright to ludicrous lengths. If that's not criminal conspiracy, I don't know what is. YouTube and the copyright industry cheat people out of their fair use rights every single day.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#225

Post by JackFr »

zackees wrote: post #115
Mikeb85 wrote: 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.

> The idea that two people can't make a consensual exchange of value is antithetical to a free society.

If you rely on the power of the state to be the ultimate enforcer of contracts and property rights, the state has the right and duty to delineate which contracts it will enforce.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#226

Post by sporkland »

bubblethink wrote: post #209
ska wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are startups in this space, but there are also people who value the friction (and not all for selfish reasons).

> (and not all for selfish reasons) Can you elaborate?

Physical version of proof of work. It helps avoid spam by making it costlier.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#227

Post by ta1234567890 »

MegaButts wrote: post #205
ta1234567890 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has been personally sued after my company went bankrupt, I can tell you that it is not as simple as you paint it. Although I wish it was. Some more detail: during bankruptcy, anyone that had business with the company can either file an adversary proceeding (essentially a lawsuit within bankruptcy court), and/or can do depositions/discovery (2004 examinations). They can also buys assets of the defunct c…

> Some more detail: during bankruptcy, anyone that had business with the company can either file an adversary proceeding (essentially a lawsuit within bankruptcy court), and/or can do depositions/discovery (2004 examinations). They can also buys assets of the defunct company as well as legal claims to go after the company officers. Then after bankruptcy they can try to use whatever information, assets and claims they…

Not necessarily angry, but greedy maybe. Although at this point your guess is just as good as mine. Unfortunaty this guy has a lot of money and some sort of personal agenda against my cofounder and I. Hopefully we can sort it out. Otherwise we are looking at personal bankruptcy.

Make sure to stay away from assholes and never sign a contract that says you (your company), will cover the other party's legal expenses.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#228

Post by workingpatrick »

MegaButts wrote: post #205
ta1234567890 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has been personally sued after my company went bankrupt, I can tell you that it is not as simple as you paint it. Although I wish it was. Some more detail: during bankruptcy, anyone that had business with the company can either file an adversary proceeding (essentially a lawsuit within bankruptcy court), and/or can do depositions/discovery (2004 examinations). They can also buys assets of the defunct c…

> Some more detail: during bankruptcy, anyone that had business with the company can either file an adversary proceeding (essentially a lawsuit within bankruptcy court), and/or can do depositions/discovery (2004 examinations). They can also buys assets of the defunct company as well as legal claims to go after the company officers. Then after bankruptcy they can try to use whatever information, assets and claims they…

What on Earth could make someone so GREEDY to go through the hassle of doing this?

FTFY

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#229

Post by MegaButts »

ta1234567890 wrote: post #227
MegaButts wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some more detail: during bankruptcy, anyone that had business with the company can either file an adversary proceeding (essentially a lawsuit within bankruptcy court), and/or can do depositions/discovery (2004 examinations). They can also buys assets of the defunct company as well as legal claims to go after the company officers. Then after bankruptcy they can try to use whatever information, assets and claims they…

Not necessarily angry, but greedy maybe. Although at this point your guess is just as good as mine. Unfortunaty this guy has a lot of money and some sort of personal agenda against my cofounder and I. Hopefully we can sort it out. Otherwise we are looking at personal bankruptcy. Make sure to stay away from assholes and never sign a contract that says you (your company), will cover the other party's legal expenses.

I obviously don't know the situation as well as you, but this feels more like being vindictive than greedy.

Whatever the case, I wish you luck.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#230

Post by jariel »

Giorgi wrote: post #218
jariel wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws are laws, your insinuation of general corruption isn't really fair, the onus would be on you to prove that. Both Uber and AirBnB knowingly break the law as part of their business model. Zoning doesn't allow the kind of business that AirBnB has, they just don't care. One could very well argue that maybe the laws need reform (as I do) but that's another story; the inherent ethos of YC et. al. is to err on the side…

Shitty rules that don't serve people need to be broken. I want to see my property value go up, not down so some hipster developer can afford it.

"Shitty rules that don't serve people need to be broken."

Surely that's true, but nobody can agree on which exact rules need to be broken. :)

So you'll forgive me when I call the police because you're building favelas in your back yard and have 20 micro-rentals.

Post reply on HN