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

171–180 of 193 posts

Re: Enough Is Enough

#171

Post by 9999 »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #129
huherto wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it seems easy to fake. Can you just put a product, or do you need a number of users or income?

Yeah, you're probably right. Ideally it would make it more expensive for a troll to do their work, but they could just throw up a web page for their "product" and not attempt to sell it.

Exactly, it would cost a company like Lodsys only a few thousand dollars to hire a couple of devs and build an iPhone application that makes use of the patent currently under consideration. That would not be a considerable additional burden when you consider that legal fees for acquiring a patent already stretch into the tens of thousands of dollars.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#172

Post by ChuckMcM »

dpcan wrote: post #113
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.

Exactly. We all sit around here and preach to the choir. I don't know that anyone really knows how or what to do here. How does a non-mainstream issue like this get into the public eye in such a way that anyone but our niche gives a crap? Lastly, we have to ask why they REALLY exist. What is REALLY going on. Where is the money in all this, who's making the most? If Big Software Corp A wants patents to stick around, a…

Just out of curiosity, when is the last time you talked with your representative in Congress? (I know, I'm assuming you are based in the USA)

I ask because I find a high correlation between this particular point of view : "entity 'x' whom is unassailable, is corrupting the politician I voted in to represent me." And people who have neither voted, nor talked with any representative who was either elected or was trying to be elected.

Here is my idea on 'what to do' here, let me know if it sounds reasonable or not.

My idea is that a group of technologists work with Congress and the Patent and Trademark office to take a look at the existing processes and goals and then put together a program for moving the existing patent law into something that makes sense and serves the needs of inventors without creating opportunities for commercial extortion.

Worth a shot?

Re: Enough Is Enough

#173

Post by hnsmurf »

What we need is a trade association to address this issue. One specifically focused on software startups would be nice. It'd probably have to be funded more by investors and recently successful startups. Maybe Fred should give it a shot.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#174

Post by nitrogen »

DrJokepu wrote: post #63
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

If your algorithm is non-trivial, wouldn't it be better protected by trade secret law? Patent law ostensibly requires you to disclose the algorithm (though patent attorneys seem to be very good at avoiding that), which would allow your competitors to develop competitive, but non-infringing algorithms. If your algorithm is so far ahead of everybody else, they don't stand a chance if you just keep it to yourselves, right?

Re: Enough Is Enough

#175

Post by Vivtek »

anamax wrote: post #156
Vivtek wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this has no bearing on the law, I've always thought that works of software that represent an actual effort of development comparable to physical invention should enjoy the benefit of patents. This is precisely what the patent system was designed to do - protect large research investments. The abuse of the system for things that really don't require research and development is at issue here. I think proposals to…

> I've always thought that works of software that represent an actual effort of development comparable to physical invention should enjoy the benefit of patents. There is no "effort" requirement for patents on physical inventions. There's also no "it was done by experts" requirement.

Yes. That's true. That's why I said it has no bearing on the law.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#176

Post by fredwilson »

georgemcbay wrote: post #147
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…

I'm OK with the idea of software patents in theory just like I'm OK with the idea of the death penalty for extreme crimes in theory. Because we live in an imperfect world made up of imperfect people, I don't support either in practice. Perfect software patent system > no software patent system > broke software patent system, but I believe the perfect system is impossible, so I'd rather see the software patent system…

i love this analogy and i am with you on both

Re: Enough Is Enough

#177

Post by fredwilson »

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.

true. we are doing some stuff on this front and we will do more. but getting our thoughts out there is never bad. this post got over 50,000 visits today alone. that's not a small number

Re: Enough Is Enough

#178

Post by tlb »

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.

It is inevitable. No government can hire thousands of employees who can evaluate high levels of novelty or cleverness. People who can do so make more money and have more fun in the private sector.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#179

Post by zarify »

Why not simply remove the ability to sell the patent to someone else?

Sunset the validity of the patent like the original scope of copyright, and limit the transferral to being able to license it for use so that the only financial benefit goes to the original R&D crowd. That way it still promotes research but limits the possibility of patent trolls since they'd have to actually do the research themselves.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#180

Post by tellurion »

brettnak wrote: post #160
seats wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USPTO is overwhelmed and understaffed, so I can understand why they have poor QC on patents, particularly when they require technical knowledge to determine triviality. What I don't get though is why it seems to be such a challenge to prove the invalidity of these crap patents in court. The google loss to bedrock (the linux kernel troll) is a high profile example of this. Maybe the standards that need to be looke…

What I frequently wonder is why an overwhelmed and understaffed organization can approve so many patents. If I were in their position, my default would be to deny almost everything. Are they being told that approving patents is in the best interest of America? Is this a case of patriotism-gone-bad?

That's because of the way patent law is worded. I don't remember the exact wording (and i'm to lazy to look it up) but it's close to "a patent shall be granted except..." Basically, they have to grant the patent if they can't come up with a good reason not to. Perhaps changing the law to be worded "a patent shall not be granted except". Then require the applicants to show how their patent fits the requirements.
Post reply on HN