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

231–240 of 240 posts

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#231

Post by freejazz »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #213
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 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). The problem is that patent case…

Seeing as you thought this out, surely you thought out the alternative that is somehow better for inventors? I'd like to know what conclusion you came to regarding that

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#232

Post by freejazz »

MegaButts wrote: post #229
ta1234567890 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sorry, you are asking why is someone so greedy as to make a creditor's claim for money owed to them in a bankruptcy proceeding? That's the entire point of bankruptcy, you declare it, the creditors line up, the court doles out your money in the "fairest" way possible.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#233

Post by freejazz »

anotherman554 wrote: post #159
freejazz wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you think the necessary and proper clause can be read to authorize patents, you probably have a very different idea of how to interpret the constitution than the drafters of the constitution.

That's not what I wrote!

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#234

Post by freejazz »

npsomaratna wrote: post #222
kelnos wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ex…

You get it

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#235

Post by freejazz »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #224
freejazz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's weird that we expect the law to be perfect yet we don't expect that of other things. I think you make a lot of valid points. However, I think you miss the forest for the trees. The point is, if you don't like this system, another one would need to be put in its stead. Short of any ideas how that would work, I'm skeptical of the claim that these laws are illegitimate. I guess you don't think we should respect criminal law either? Should we not put any white collar criminals away at all because so many go free? It's an absurd argument that you are making, ultimately.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#236

Post by freejazz »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #212
kelnos wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Don't forget "To declare War" -- seems pretty unreasonable to read that as an intention to prohibit peace.

That's not the reading I'm arguing for. The reading I'm arguing for is that it requires Congress to declare war when it is appropriate for Congress to do so

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#237

Post by freejazz »

yourapostasy wrote: post #164

Can someone with patent law domain expertise please describe the "novel" patent criteria to laypeople here for software patents? To my simple lay mind, I apply a "not-novel" test criteria to patents. If I can describe a software patent in non-software terms, and apply a "...then a light-speed fast homunculus does this all...", then I'm already skeptical of the novelty of the software patent. In this specific instance…

You might be surprised that it is fairly complicated and there is not a clear standard on what "novel" means for every single instance of possible novelty

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#238

Post by freejazz »

therealx wrote: post #181
freejazz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, you can seek a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, or institute an IPR at the PTAB to get a patent knocked-out. As a patent litigator, I believe most people don't understand patents, the patent system, nor what it tries to achieve.

What else do you think people don't know? I'd love to hear from someone knowledgeable.

I think people misunderstand the patent system. It's not perfect, but to expect it to be so is entirely absurd. People do not realize it is a set of laws that is supposed to categorize and provide structure... to the unknown. If people realized this is the starting point from which all patent laws must be developed, it would create the context to understand why everything else happens. It's kind of absurd, even amongst the quite intelligent folks here, that this goes without notice. To say software patents shouldn't exist outright is to say that no one could invent anything in software that is novel and beneficial to society. I'm not sure how people come to that conclusion!

I think people also fundamentally misunderstand that the "patent troll" is kinda like the "jaywalker" a term made up by an industry attacking the very concept. The car companies made up jaywalking once they got cities to switch off streetcars and to free the roads up for individual's motor vehicles. Similarly, patent troll is something used by large corporations owning vast troves of IP that get attacked by a smaller company that owns less IP. Is every patent litigation great? No! But our legal system already prefers to let a guilty man free rather than put an innocent man in jail... yet there is some absurd belief that the patent system should be more perfect than this. And lets be fair, it's a lot easier to say "killing people is wrong and deserves XYZ punishment" than it is to determine every unknown thing in the world. Patent trolls aren't really trolls, they are the inventors. Most of the time, if you invent a patent, you still can't find the funds to take on a big corporation infringing your patent. At least if "trolls" exist, the founder can sell his patent right to an entity that specializes in enforcing it. This is the market working.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#239

Post by freejazz »

ska wrote: post #171
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).

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.

That is all true, but money cannot change facts. If there is no factual basis for a claim, you lose on the first motion. I'm not sure what about that you don't get. Expensive lawyers can do many things, but they cannot change the factual basis of a litigation and whether or not it supports a claim.

Re: IBM sues Airbnb for patent royalties

#240

Post by kelnos »

npsomaratna wrote: post #222
kelnos wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ex…

That cuts both ways, though. It would be pretty easy to argue that it is not the "appropriate course of action" to implement the copyright or patent system in the way we have, and that, indeed, the "appropriate course of action" is to have minimal -- or even no -- protections.
Post reply on HN