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

Enough Is Enough

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 193 posts

Re: Enough Is Enough

#41

Post by brudgers »

>"They [software patents] are a tax on innovation."

While I tend to agree in general, the Lodsys situation is not a particularly good example in support of the position from an intellectual standpoint, though it may be good for rallying the troops. This is because Apple's actions in regard to in app purchases (IAP's) have been explicitly anti-innovation, i.e. Apple has required a specific monetizable IAP protocol in lieu of allowing developers to innovate (one does not need to even get into questions regarding the innovation raised by Apple's patent portfolio regarding UX elements). Let us remember that developers are only vulnerable because they are complying with a technical mandate of their agreement with Apple and that this mandate is solely intended to produce uniformity within the IOS ecosystem. Given Apple's patent portfolio, they may have far more to gain in terms of IP protection by upholding Lodsys's position than by fighting it.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#42

Post by masklinn »

rbanffy wrote: post #32
masklinn wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, by choosing to license instead of crushing them early, companies like Google, Apple, IBM, Cisco and Accenture and government bodies like the IRS provided funding for the troll to grow and thrive. Reality is a bit more complex: none of those licensed from Lodsys, instead they have blanket licenses to all IP of Intellectual Ventures (the biggest patent troll in the world) as part of their initial inves…

Thanks for the clarification. In any case, Lodsys' site claims IBM, Cisco and Accenture to be clients. I assume those licensed directly from the troll.

I can not say for sure. According to a list of investors[0], Cisco is a licensing investor (same as Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nokia, Intel and a bunch of others) but IBM and Accenture are not.

[0] http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/05/intellectual-venture...

Re: Enough Is Enough

#43

Post by stcredzero »

The whole thing is nuts. I can't understand why our goverment [sic] allows this shit to go on

Because software and technology are like magic to a large part of the population, including a large segment of those involved in government and the judiciary.

Patents are just another specialized form of legalese. It's obvious we need better ways of challenging patents and filtering them in the first place.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#44

Post by stcredzero »

dstein wrote: post #23
DrJokepu wrote: post #13

I really don't think the problem is software patents, it seems to me the real problem is that most software patents seem to be ridiculously trivial. Here's an example: my employer, a rather small company has invested an enormous amount of resources in developing a specific algorithm. It took years of research and development, lots of money and brainpower, it's very far from being trivial (in fact it's so complicated…

Is there any reason the algorithm couldn't remain a trade secret? And is there any possible scenario where the long term good that comes from this patent will outweigh the long term good that will come from untethered innovation?

Is there any reason the algorithm couldn't remain a trade secret?

Reverse engineering.

And is there any possible scenario where the long term good that comes from this patent will outweigh the long term good that will come from untethered innovation?

Perhaps. In those situations where there would otherwise be no commercial development at all without the prospect of the monopoly a patent affords. In software, I would posit that there's more good that comes from the innovation.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#45

Post by masklinn »

Joakal wrote: post #34
jasonkester wrote: post #30

Maybe somebody needs to move this issue to someplace more visible. I'd like to introduce the concept of Movie Patents. I'd register a patent for the plot device of having the bad guy be the main character's best friend, with additional clauses for being his boss, advisor, or partner. I wouldn't ever make any movies. I'd just sit back and collect royalties from everybody who used my idea. The reason behind this is tha…

That's called a copyright. People have disputed the originality of movie ideas including Matrix [0] and Harry Potter [1]. [0] http://blogcritics.org/video/article/author-sues-matrix-writ... [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/entertainment/main...

But copyright is not about mere similarity: if two people reach the same plot device completely independently (or from a common source) there is no copyright infringement case. Whereas the same thing in the world of patents is a patent infringement case.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#46

Post by radu_floricica »

Posting in this kind of threads is always bringing karma points and leaving me vaguely unsatisfied.

Lots of people speak about the "stupidity" of it all. I see no stupidity here. Just the normal, to-be-expected lean of a big government toward protecting the incumbents.

Also I think people should speak more often about drastically shortening copyright and patent terms. They are both very useful, even in controversial domains like software or biotech (patenting genes). The problem is that the situation is waay skewed one way. If you want to bring it closer to normal, start asking for 1 year patent terms and 3 year copyright.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#47

Post by fauigerzigerk »

DrJokepu wrote: post #13

I really don't think the problem is software patents, it seems to me the real problem is that most software patents seem to be ridiculously trivial. Here's an example: my employer, a rather small company has invested an enormous amount of resources in developing a specific algorithm. It took years of research and development, lots of money and brainpower, it's very far from being trivial (in fact it's so complicated…

What makes you think your company deserves to be protected against others independently developing a similar algorithm?

Re: Enough Is Enough

#49

Post by shad0wfax »

DrJokepu wrote: post #13

I really don't think the problem is software patents, it seems to me the real problem is that most software patents seem to be ridiculously trivial. Here's an example: my employer, a rather small company has invested an enormous amount of resources in developing a specific algorithm. It took years of research and development, lots of money and brainpower, it's very far from being trivial (in fact it's so complicated…

What if your competitor came up with the same algorithm (or very similar) and performs as well both in time and space complexity... and all of this on their own, without actually taking a peek at your code. In that case would you go after them and sue them?

Re: Enough Is Enough

#50

Post by laujen »

An idea I will throw out there: I always wondered why anyone should be able to hold onto an idea (patent it) if they don't use it. I can't help but wonder if the best way to fix the patent system isn't to overhaul it -- which would be nearly impossible to do due to entrenched interests -- but instead invalidate all patents if they aren't used within a certain time period by the rights holder. In other words, use it or lose it.
Post reply on HN