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

131–140 of 193 posts

Re: Enough Is Enough

#131

Post by shad0wfax »

DrJokepu wrote: post #67
shad0wfax wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I imagine we would, simply because we can; we're a commercial entity after all. Personally (and I'm not representing my company here) I don't think that's a good thing; if they could prove that they independently reached the same results without using any of our research or work (or we couldn't prove the contrary), they should be protected. That's not the case though at the moment unfortunately.

I agree, its not the same case. The problem might be in 15 years from now, your algorithm might just become a very natural way to solve that specific problem and at that point how your company plays this out matters. My guess is the companies that are in the business of making, creating, producing and then selling software themselves, will be ok with it. These trolls like Lodsys try to neither produce nor create. A very important rule for the any type of patent should enforce "active" product in use/development. Sadly, it might never happen.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#132

Post by scott_s »

Joeri wrote: post #109
scott_s wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it does matter, because it means certain behavior is more likely. Companies that create patents are more likely to invest their time, money and effort into actually making things that will eventually be sold (in whatever fashion). This activity adds value to the economy. While it is possible for such companies to aggressively pursue their patents in the way that Lodsys has, they don't need to do it to survive…

Patent trolls do add some value to the economy. The value they add is in the purchasing of the patent, leaving the original patent holder with a pile of cash they can use to build another product. Then again, they take way more value out of the market, so it ends up being a negative.

I think that patent trolls typically acquire them from dying companies, not healthy ones. So while they're parasites on the economy, they're vultures to companies. That probably provides some liquidity to the economy, but I doubt it's significant.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#133

Post by gyardley »

tedjdziuba wrote: post #71

Alright, Fred. We all agree with you here, the people you need to convince are the ones writing the laws. You're a wealthy and powerful person, who is good friends with other wealthy and powerful people, so why not leverage that? Hire a lobbying firm, get actively involved in the cause. Whatever you do, don't count on Reddit and Hacker News to do it for you, that's just slacktivism.

What makes you think he's not?

I have no idea what USV is up to today, but back when my company was in their portfolio, I got the impression that they were no strangers to lobbying.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#134

Post by mfn »

Just wondering, would these still apply if the app developer was in a country other than the US, but the apps were being downloaded from an app store by US citizens?

Re: Enough Is Enough

#135

Post by carussell »

tlrobinson wrote: post #98

In a previous discussion someone suggested forming a reverse patent troll organization that accepted donations of patents from open source developers and whoever, and used them to counter sue patents trolls. The obvious problems are it's expensive to file for patents and lawsuits, and it doesn't protect against "pure" trolls. Another idea: a simple community that accepts and publishes every random software idea anyon…

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Legal:Prior_Art

Re: Enough Is Enough

#136

Post by wslh »

wslh wrote: post #122
sp332 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More likely, institutions would license the patents and the field would move still move forward, just with more friction.

I don't see it that way. The comp sci field moved forward because of the democratization of the personal computer where you have the freedom to develop what you want and distribute it yourself. For example one of the mini revolutions was Turbo Pascal from Borland offering the compiler for few bucks when compilers were more expensive, with patents all prices go high and that means few people or companies can spend mon…

I just added an historical note about Turbo Pascal as a post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2608304

Re: Enough Is Enough

#137

Post by bad_user »

rubinelli wrote: post #112
arethuza wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think ownership of copyright isn't transferable?

I think the point mluiten is making is that you have to actually create the content (or pay someone to create it) to have copyright, whereas you don't have to implement anything to have a patent granted. Since content creation is much more expensive than content distribution, there would be no economic incentives for "copyright trolls."

Actually there are lots of copyright trolls, especially in the cases where the content is cheap to make (as in time invested) and cheap to distribute -- like news articles, music or photography.

Say you've got a popular photo, you can transfer the litigious rights of it to a copyright troll and that troll will then sue everyone using it.

Kind of like what RIAA is doing.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#138

Post by qq66 »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #93
DrJokepu wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your question assumes two things that I haven't said, implied and are simply untrue. I'm not sure if that's due to a misunderstanding on your part or a lack of clarity on my part. First, it assumes that we want to be protected against "others independently developing a similar algorithm". Second, it assumes that I "believe that my company deserves to be protected" from such other people. We're not concerned about oth…

I was asking this question because protection against others independently developing a similar algorithm is what the patent system provides, and that's why many people, including myself, are opposed to it. I wasn't assuming that you personally or even your employer actually wanted that kind of protection. So my rather rhetorical question was intended to highlight that discrepancy. You want to prevent others from cop…

What about this is unique to software patents?

I don't understand the "destroy software patents" crusade. "Destroy all patents" makes sense, and "improve all patents" makes sense, but why are software patents any different than device or chemical patents?

Re: Enough Is Enough

#139

Post by rapind »

jpadvo wrote: post #127
noonespecial wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately those of you who really deserve patents will not be able to make them rise above the noise of this lunacy. We're eventually going to have to go with "no software patents at all" to fix this. As a society, we just haven't outgrown the greedy thuggery that could allow us to respect each others work without gaming the system into tragedy of the commons territory. A classic case of "see, this is why we can'…

I don't think that is inevitable. There is not an inherent reason why the Patent Office needs to award trivial patents. If they tighten up (or apply) their standards, the problem would be tremendously reduced.

Coming up with relevant criteria to determine the triviality of a software patent application doesn't seem simple at all. This means you need to hire experts in the field. This is where it gets interesting.

In most regulatory organizations where a high amount of expertise is required (like economics) you see a lot of corruption where companies hire out of and into these organizations specifically for the benefits of having representation on the inside. I.e. Henry Paulson.

So unless you have a good way of preventing these employees from ever working for Microsoft / Facebook / Apple / Google etc. then it's really not going to work out as intended.

IMO, just get rid of software patents. Sure it'll suck for some, but overall it's probably healthier for the industry. Plus it's nice and simple and doesn't employ a whole mess of lawyers.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#140

Post by seats »

edanm wrote: post #89
naner wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're much more concerned about the very real problem that people (e.g. competitors) will use our research and work. How is that plausible? Aren't these trade secrets? Is your research/work publicly visible?

Seriously? They sell the product to customers, other people spend a small amount of time reverse-engineering how it was done, and copy it.

I bet he assumed a product as a service, where the code isn't in the hands of the customer.
Post reply on HN