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

When Patents Attack

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 135 posts

Re: When Patents Attack

#21

Post by loup-vaillant »

andreyf wrote: post #16

In the audio version, they mention several times that patent law is founded in the constitution. I wish they would actually read it though, as it's not very complicated: The Congress shall have Power To [...] promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Oddly enough, that is not enough to make patent law mandatory by the constitution: the text you cite has the structure "The congress shall have Power To […] promote X by using the mean Y".

First, it is not written that the congress has to exercise that power.

Second, what if Y does not promote X? What if it hinders X? It is written that the congress is allowed to promote X (through Y), not doing nothing about X (through Y) and certainly not hinder X (through Y).

I understand how one might assume that a patent system is a good (best? only?) way to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, especially back then. Nevertheless, I think this was a mistake: they wrote the mean in the same stone they did the goal. (Of course, goals themselves can turn out to be means to higher purposes, but in this case it is quite obvious from the beginning.)

Re: When Patents Attack

#22

Post by mpk »

almightygod wrote: post #3

I get anxious every time I read another patent troll story wondering when my weekend creations will end up costing me $ when they accidentally infringe on a patent because I roll out some seemingly ubiquitous feature. I'm deeply saddened by this mess and doubt it will ever be resolved. There is far to much money at stake now to revert things - money = lobbying.

    > [...] they accidentally infringe on a patent
I hate to break it to you, but chances are that you infringe on hundreds, if not more, patents in the US. Nobody can tell you what or even how many patents you infringe on, though. Nobody has read all the patents and every single one is subject to interpretation. An interpretation, I might add, that has to be validated by a legal system that really doesn't care about correctness, technical validation or even fairness.

Patents in the software industry were historically held for defensive purposes. If you get large enough you start building a patent portfolio so other companies can't sue you because you'll sue them back. Everybody infringes on everybody else's absurd patents so suing is a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario (neither party wins and the lawyers take all the money that you could have invested in something worthwhile).

Companies like Lodsys and Intellectual Ventures are different. They only have patents and they have no product. So if they sue you for patent infringement you can't sue back even if you have patents because they don't have a product and by definition can't infringe on your patents (if you have them).

Patent fights between corporations are ugly enough, but are generally on a more-or-less level playing field. They happen in the courts between very well funded armies of lawyers.

Suits between, say, Lodsys (money + patents + lawyers + no product) and independent developers (no money + no patents + no lawyers + product) are so vastly uneven and unfair that most developers will just give up before this ever comes before a court. Even if you want to do it on principle it'll bankrupt your life. Just giving up and finding safer markets with (maybe) lower profit margins seems like the obvious way to go for anybody.

Re: When Patents Attack

#23

Post by kenjackson »

cbetz wrote: post #19
kenjackson wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I never ever think about patents. Ever (except when reading HN). It's just not a real day to day issue.

The biggest part of the problem is that companies (and founders) are forbidden from speaking up after licensing deals are made. Perhaps you could post anonymously, but you'd still be violating the NDA in spirit and you'd be punished if discovered. In other words, if three companies down the block signed millions away to Intellectual Ventures, you would have no idea. Maybe the risk is overblown. Unfortunately we have…

You'd know it if it happpened. Management may not do a PR, but people talk. Remember the lawsuit and NDA agreement are proceeded by talks. At the very least you'd know they were approached and then suddenly went silent on the matter.

If it did work it would be the greatest conspiracy ever pulled off. A company extracting a billion hostile dollars and people not even posting on anonymous sites? So not likely.

The genius of IV's NDAs isn't that they have millions of companies paying them, but that they can create the mythology that they might. And you might be next.

I'm literally about 100x more worried that my architect gets hit by a bus than I am of being sued over patents.

Re: When Patents Attack

#24

Post by loup-vaillant »

lukejduncan wrote: post #18

Intellectual Ventures recently posted a rebuttal http://intven.com/newsroom/insights/11-07-25/Disruption_Invi... They like to say things like "ideas have value" and that they are "disruptive." Are there examples where the patents they own and monetize actually represent valuable "ideas" and not after the fact claims of invention? I'm guessing not, but open to being proven wrong. And who, or what, do they think they a…

> We at Intellectual Ventures fundamentally disagree with [the notion that patents have a negative impact on innovation], which flies in the face of centuries of evidence.

I know of a rather serious source that says patents are a net evil, baked up by… centuries of evidence: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

About the values of ideas, it is quite evident that most patents' ideas are extremely valuable. The more obvious the idea, the more valuable it is. The artificial scarcity created by the patent system merely shows how valuables simple ideas actually are. Imagine for instance that breathable air becomes scarce. How much would you be willing to pay for it if it meant your life?

Re: When Patents Attack

#25

Post by lukesandberg »

lukejduncan wrote: post #20
lukejduncan wrote: post #18

Intellectual Ventures recently posted a rebuttal http://intven.com/newsroom/insights/11-07-25/Disruption_Invi... They like to say things like "ideas have value" and that they are "disruptive." Are there examples where the patents they own and monetize actually represent valuable "ideas" and not after the fact claims of invention? I'm guessing not, but open to being proven wrong. And who, or what, do they think they a…

it took me a minute to find it, but here is the "ideas have value" quote http://www.geekwire.com/2011/intellectual-ventures-responds-...

heres a quote: "Many of the world’s leading technology companies are beginning to recognize that patents are a strategic asset worth billions of dollars. "

At least in the technology companies ive worked for, the strategic value of patents comes purely from the fact that having them can keep frivolous lawsuits at bay.

Re: When Patents Attack

#26

Post by pkulak »

lukejduncan wrote: post #18

Intellectual Ventures recently posted a rebuttal http://intven.com/newsroom/insights/11-07-25/Disruption_Invi... They like to say things like "ideas have value" and that they are "disruptive." Are there examples where the patents they own and monetize actually represent valuable "ideas" and not after the fact claims of invention? I'm guessing not, but open to being proven wrong. And who, or what, do they think they a…

That entire article rests on the assumption that software patents have some value outside of the ability to sue someone else with them or to ward of lawsuits by someone else. They want you to think of a software patent like it's a piece of music or a motion picture. They're just like Netflix or Spotify for patents! I don't know how anyone working for that company can sleep at night.

Re: When Patents Attack

#27

Post by vacri »

Admittedly I stopped reading the article when I got to "IV isn't a patent troll, we're simply just a big patent market connecting suppliers to consumers"

No, you're not simply a 'market'. A market doesn't come and sue you for buying your milk somewhere else.

Re: When Patents Attack

#28

Post by dsimms »

mpk wrote: post #22
almightygod wrote: post #3

I get anxious every time I read another patent troll story wondering when my weekend creations will end up costing me $ when they accidentally infringe on a patent because I roll out some seemingly ubiquitous feature. I'm deeply saddened by this mess and doubt it will ever be resolved. There is far to much money at stake now to revert things - money = lobbying.

> [...] they accidentally infringe on a patent I hate to break it to you, but chances are that you infringe on hundreds, if not more, patents in the US. Nobody can tell you what or even how many patents you infringe on, though. Nobody has read all the patents and every single one is subject to interpretation. An interpretation, I might add, that has to be validated by a legal system that really doesn't care about cor…

Also, there's value in sticking your head in the sand since if you know a patent exists but don't think you're infringing but then lose an infringement case, you're liable for treble damages (IIRC, IANAL, etc).

Every employee handbook I've seen that has mention of patents has said ``thou shalt not go patent surfing, and if you do, only ever talk to your patent attorney. Oh, but do file lots of patent applications!''

Re: When Patents Attack

#29

Post by zinkem »

vacri wrote: post #27

Admittedly I stopped reading the article when I got to "IV isn't a patent troll, we're simply just a big patent market connecting suppliers to consumers" No, you're not simply a 'market'. A market doesn't come and sue you for buying your milk somewhere else.

You might want to finish the article.

Re: When Patents Attack

#30

Post by rje »

kenjackson wrote: post #13
preinheimer wrote: post #6

As a co-founder of a startup, my most worrying thoughts are not finding customers or improving the product. They're "when will I get a scary legal letter that asks for millions over a patent I've never heard of".

Really? I never ever think about patents. Ever (except when reading HN). It's just not a real day to day issue.

I think all the indie devs that are getting letters from lodsys would tend to disagree with you about whether or not it's a 'real' issue.
Post reply on HN