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

181–190 of 193 posts

Re: Enough Is Enough

#181

Post by bjelkeman-again »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #172
dpcan wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The question is if it is more effective to hack politics through the traditional way, ie lobbying and being involved in politics, or if you can do better by being a hacker/entrepreneur.

I mentioned this before in a discussion about how we change government policy by building software. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2479302

Re: Enough Is Enough

#182

Post by tttp »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #128
tttp wrote: post #120

I hope that avc, ycombinator, Andreessen Horowitz and a lot of known VC and business angels introduce a new simple rule on their agreement: To get funded, a company must not try to obtain software patent, and if they do have software patent(s), they will publicly say they will not try to license them and will not sue for infringement of one of their patent. Beside clearing up the landscape, it will send a clear messa…

If I'm a patent troll, I see this as a golden opportunity to patent the work of companies they invest in.

HI,

You can't patent something that has prior art (and if the patent office doesn't see it, it will invalidate the patent it has wrongly granted). Not sure I understood your point.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#183

Post by fauigerzigerk »

biafra wrote: post #168
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure about that. If the license prohibits reverse engineering and someone still does it, that's clearly a violation of the law. If a commercial company does it, it's going to be difficult for them to keep secret as some employees will surely know about it. I agree that part of what patents intend to do, protecting original invention from copycats, is legitimate. But if it's done in a way that punishes orig…

If the law allows reverse engineering (like here in Germany) your license can prohibit it as much as it wants. It's still legal and no violation of the law.

I believe even in Germany you cannot use the results of reverse engineering to copy the product and sell it commercially without violating some copyright law. But I'm not denying that patents can sometimes be helpful to protect against copycats.

I just think that prohibiting original independent invention in order to prevent copying is absurd because it punishes exactly the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of patents.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#184

Post by JoshTriplett »

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.

Most hackers already know this, and most of them agree; however, that doesn't mean everyone in business does, and this article has a broader target audience than just hackers. This issue doesn't have nearly enough exposure for non-hackers.

Not too long ago, I attended a large meeting of software business people. They needed to find or write appropriate collaboration software for a particular aspect of their community, and the discussion had pretty much taken it as a given that if they ended up developing the software it would get released as OSS. At one point, someone in the room (who had previously introduced themselves as a business founder) said something to the effect of "We're all trying to build businesses on software, so isn't Open Source undermining everything we do here?", with some further comments about the incompatibility of OSS and business. They got a pile of shocked glares, with expressions that plainly said "where have you been for the last decade?", and someone quickly and kindly preempted the dozen responses they were about to get with a brief "no, suffice it to say there are a lot of people building successful businesses on Open Source, and further explanations should wait until after this meeting".

Never assume that everyone understands something just because everyone you know understands it, even if everyone you know understands it to the point of not even needing to hear about it anymore.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#185

Post by JoshTriplett »

rbanffy wrote: post #3

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. It's relatively easy to say "enough is enough". Actually fighting back is harder and, at this point, almost impossible.

Unfortunately, patent trolls don't really have anything to crush. They don't have products to countersue over, so at best you might manage to invalidate some of their patents, which won't stop them.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#186

Post by brlewis »

pkteison wrote: post #33

I spent a week vacation with 2 friends who work at the patent office, so w e had time to discuss over beers. They don't believe there is a problem. They rely so heavily on prior art, and have trouble with the very concept that something was too obvious for the first 20 programmers to want to patent it, so prior art is very incomplete. I show them 1 click, they tell me that if it was that obvious someone would have pa…

They refuse to consider the "skilled in the art" obviousness test

The law includes an obviousness test for a reason. If Congress intended prior patent applications to be the sole test, they would have said so. The patent office is ignoring the law to the detriment of all of us.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#187

Post by handrake »

stusmith1977 wrote: post #58

I'm not a fan of sotware patents, but perhaps there's a halfway house towards getting rid of them: Make software patents only holdable by a real person (i.e. not a corporation), and not transferable. Any money received from a patent infringement lawsuit would be paid to that named person. That way, they can be used for their original purpose (to protect small inventors and allow them to build a larger business), but…

Well then, trolls would start 'hiring' these inventors (maybe as a contractor for just a period of legal battles) and keep pursuing their lucrative business.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#188

Post by lurker19 »

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.

Incorrect.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_...

Re: Enough Is Enough

#189

Post by ChuckMcM »

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #181
ChuckMcM wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The question is if it is more effective to hack politics through the traditional way, ie lobbying and being involved in politics, or if you can do better by being a hacker/entrepreneur. I mentioned this before in a discussion about how we change government policy by building software. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2479302

Excellent! That is another great way to help out. I tell people that democracy is a participation sport, it's so much more effective to do something about your concerns than to simply complain about them, and doing something isn't all that hard.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#190

Post by aridiculous »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #143
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…

Coca-cola has managed to deal with this for a hundred years. Google has managed it for 10 years. These things are called trade secrets. You protect them through NDAs, being intelligent with who has access to the information, and not open-sourcing the code.

In the case of Coca-cola, at least, the secret formula isn't even much of a concern anymore (I think it's been leaked a few times actually). Them protecting the formula is really just tradition and adds to their branding. What's important to them is keeping their brand power.
Post reply on HN