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

81–90 of 135 posts

Re: When Patents Attack

#81

Post by kanetrain »

pkulak wrote: post #26
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.

I personally believe that (unless something is done to change the system), generic software patents will ensure the slow grinding halt of entrepreneurial innovation in the U.S. Intellectual Ventures is the worst thing to happen to small web businesses and developers... ever.

Re: When Patents Attack

#82

Post by dredmorbius »

mckoss wrote: post #62
moultano wrote: post #61

Throwing an idea out there: Software patents should last no more than 1 year. If you come up with something worth patenting, you get a year lead on competitors. That's it.

I think a better solution is a mandatory licensing process. The threat of absolute exclusion is too damaging to the industry. AND, the patent office needs to start DOING THEIR JOB and stop granting patents for obvious inventions.

Those are both pretty good suggestions.

There are a host of arguments as to why it can't happen, of course.

For the first: the idea of a patent is to grant a monopoly. That should be on a "use it or lose it" basis -- if you're not selling a product (or taking demonstrable efforts to do so) within some t time of having submitted (or been awarded) a patent grant, you lose the exclusive use right. Afterward, you can get some mechanical royalty, perhaps. That still raises issues in the place of software where there are potentially _thousands_ of infringements in a single product. And moreso for free software: is the mechanical royalty some percentage of purchase price (a competitor could sink your market by dumping), is it a fixed per-unit fee (and how is that determined, assessed, and collected)?

Confounding that is the point mentioned in the story: the value of patents is their aggregated use. It's like the Lilliputians tying down Gulliver. Each thread on its own is tiny, but enough of them are sufficient to be immobilizing.

The real problem is that the patent office can literally create property rights out of thin air / whole cloth. The mandate of several recent directors of the US Patent Office has been to "increase production" -- to grant more patents. If the NPR story is accurate (and reading patents is an obscure art, which itself may invalidate the directive of "obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art") and Crawford's '5771354 patent was one of 5000 identical inventions issued at the time, then the patent office very simply isn't doing what it's supposed to do.

The problem (wait, have I used that tuple before in this response) is that there's no one party authorized and/or able to bring about that reform. I've watched the spectre of software patents emerge and grow over the industry for nearly two decades. Richard Stallman's been railing against this since the early 1990s (the man is seriously prescient). Numerous tech companies, including Red Hat and Oracle, are or were part of an anti-patent league. For a time, Microsoft fared very poorly in patent fights (it had a small portfolio of its ownn, hence, a weak defensive position). It's hardly surprising that Myrvold spun out and started IV. So we're kind of stuck. Unless Congress can get convinced to take action.

I'd love to see that. I'm not hopeful.

Re: When Patents Attack

#83

Post by kanetrain »

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…

They can't be serious with that rebuttal. Intellectual Ventures is a parasite who's allowed to thrive on the innovation and hard-work of others simply because they have identified a loop-hole in an archaic system that was never built for or intended for the abusive nature in which they are exploiting it.

Re: When Patents Attack

#84

Post by dredmorbius »

cookiecaper wrote: post #72
mpk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] 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…

As usual, the only way to rectify the software patent situation is to hit the big guys where it hurts. If we want to software patents go away, we need to see that Microsoft, Apple, and other big players are sued and lose for patent infringement on a regular, expensive basis. If we can hit the big projects frequently enough they will give up, decide the patent regime costs more than it's worth, and get their cronies i…

If we want to software patents go away, we need to see that Microsoft, Apple, and other big players are sued and lose for patent infringement on a regular, expensive basis.

That's pretty much what happened to Microsoft. It got sued and creamed repeatedly in the late 1990s and early aughts. Myrvold's venture is a very obvious outcome. Earlier foreshadowings included Microsoft's pressuring Wang to sue Netscape: http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/1943376/wang-loses-lawsuit-ne... http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-04-17/business/1995107...

(One of many reasons those with long memories have little trust or love of the former Redmond giant).

(Edit: fixed italics on quoted text.)

Re: When Patents Attack

#85

Post by dredmorbius »

firebones wrote: post #68
mpk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] 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…

I wonder if there will be a "Finlandization" of software development (concept courtesy of Chris Crawford's classic "Balance of Power" game) where small devs and dev shops align with larger, protective entities that provide defensive protection in exchange for association with the aura of small, indy developers. Think (evilly): Myrhvold's IV Labs or Apple or Microsoft or IBM offers a "Friends of IV/Apple/MSFT/IBM" pro…

You mean ... like IBM's endorsement of Linux, and in partnership with Intel and others, forming the Linux Foundation?

Having the free guilds be sworn to some liege for protection while providing useful arts is hardly a new concept.

Re: When Patents Attack

#86

Post by dredmorbius »

monochromatic wrote: post #9
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.

If it's any consolation, hearing from a patent troll means you've built a successful product.

More like: you look like you've got enough resources to pay out, but not enough to put up a good fight.

One of the problems with patent enforcement: the patent holder has the right, but not the obligation, to pursue infringement. Or in plain English: they can pick their fights.

If IBM, Mac's Komputer Shoppe, and Western States Services, Inc. all infringe, odds are good that the PatTrollCo will skip IBM (able to defend) and Mac (no assets) but nail WSS (big enough to have assets, not big enough to have attorneys on retainer or a significant patent portfolio).

Re: When Patents Attack

#87

Post by dredmorbius »

thedragon4453 wrote: post #40
daimyoyo wrote: post #37

There is a simple solution to this problem. Make maintenance fees payable yearly, and make a requirement of getting the patent renewed proof that you're actually using it. People filing patents only to sit and wait until someone else infringes is a cancer on American innovation.

Definitely like the second part. It would seem that if you aren't actually using your patent, the patent's purpose is lost. I also think there should be oversight on the patents that are granted. Right now you can patent something that has 20 years of prior art with relative ease. That's silly.

There _is_ the doctrine of laches, a defense in the case of suits brought after a long period of non-enforcement. As with most defenses, this entails lawyering up and going to court, part of what makes this process so expensive.

There were also reforms in the 1990s which extended the life of a patent (from 17 years to 20), but started the clock at filing time, not grant. This was due to a slew of patents issued to Jerome Lemelson which he kept appealing to the patent office. These were eventually granted, a practice termed "submarine patents". Lemelson (and his heirs) were awarded over $1.3 billion in royalties (he's also got a wing of the Smithsonian named after him).

But the system's still pretty messed up.

Re: When Patents Attack

#88

Post by gruseom »

spenrose wrote: post #52

Can someone please tell me what Myrvolhd actually DID when he was leading MS Research? I remember no innovations from MS in that era.

He wrote long memos and famously pooh-poohed the internet.

http://www.kenauletta.com/themicrosoftprovocateur.html

Correction: this was before he was sent (banished, the article makes it seem) to Microsoft Research.

Re: When Patents Attack

#89

Post by dredmorbius »

MartinCron wrote: post #70
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…

I am surprised that the rebuttal didn't attempt to refute any of the facts in the piece. I know the folks at TAL/NPR take their reporting and fact checking seriously, but I would expect IV to take some weaker part of the piece and try to discredit them. Instead they are creating a false dichotomy of "patents can be good for inventors, so we can't be doing anything wrong"

"I am surprised".

Yes, shocked, shocked ....

Re: When Patents Attack

#90

Post by dredmorbius »

dolphenstein wrote: post #59
pkulak wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In movies you can't have a patent for action cop movies with a surprise plot twist. That would be absurd. Just like generic software patents.

There are business method patents (Google "State Street Bank").

Michael Jackson attempted to patent some of his dance moves.

There's been discussion of patenting specific sports plays.

There are also discussions and stories looking at fields which work well without (or by ignoring) IP protections: comedians, fashion designers, jazz musicians. Even this bunch of hippie freaks doing something they call "free software", but I don't think that will ever amount to anything.

Post reply on HN