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

111–120 of 135 posts

Re: When Patents Attack

#111

Post by shmulkey18 »

Two very interesting Econtalk podcasts on IP issues and economics, both of which argue that innovative industries can thrive in legal regimes which offer very limited IP protections:

Boldrin on Intellectual Property http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/boldrin_on_inte.htm...

Blakley on Fashion and Intellectual Property http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/06/blakely_on_fash.htm...

pg groupies may also want to check out the Econtalk interview with Paul Graham. Finding it is left as an excercise for the reader, primarily to encourage people to check out this amazing resource.

Re: When Patents Attack

#112

Post by Produce »

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-...

I guess they've never heard the phrase - "ideas are a dime a dozen".

Re: When Patents Attack

#113

Post by danvideo »

rysulliv wrote: post #49
kenjackson wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For every indie dev getting a letter from Lodsys, there has been 100 indie devs that have failed for reasons unrelated to patents. I'm not saying that lawsuits don't happen, but they're rare.

I agree they are rare and there are 100 potential pitfals before patents would become a concern for a startup, but they are still starting to scare a lot of people with the current press they are getting. It is a tricky issue for me to decide on. On one hand I fully understand the need for patents, there would be a lot more horror stories of the little guys getting squashed without them. On the other hand I hate the…

I doubt there would be "a lot more horror stories of the little guys getting squashed without them."

The reason google, facebook, etc... would rather buy startups that are breaking new ground is because it's faster and cheaper than just copying/cloning an idea and building it from scratch - especially these days, when innovation happens much quicker.

Re: When Patents Attack

#114

Post by jterce »

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 this would be much more appropriate.

15 years in technology is a lifetime. Enforcing a monopoly for so long ensures that there will be no real innovation/progress in that area. How can we, as a society, afford to be held back like this?

In so many areas progress would happen much faster if not hindered by legal threat.

Re: When Patents Attack

#115

Post by intended »

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…

"As usual, the only way to rectify the software patent situation is to hit the big guys where it hurts."

I do understand where you are coming form; I'd like to add my $0.2: The best way to fix patents is to get a better funded patent office so that they can process patents faster, updating laws and basically following the due process required to update the current system.

Accepting that things will change only if large corporate interests are hurt, is to be ruled by a broken, unjust and unfair system, one which will never value be 'fair' only to those with enough money to buy their way to power.

Re: When Patents Attack

#116

Post by pixcavator »

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 wonder how Google would have looked at this idea 10 years ago, or even now: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-4-big-problems-with-googl....

Re: When Patents Attack

#117

Post by AdamTReineke »

dodo53 wrote: post #104
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.

Crazier idea - what if the patent pool (for some domain maybe?) was fixed? (ie. there can only exist 10k patents?) Then the cost of patent search isn't ever increasing as long as rate of patenting is higher than rate of expiry. And possible it could provide a mechanism for removing frivolous patents (like - you could buy a patent 'slot' off an existing holder - so you'd be incentivised to find the most stupid patent…

I don't think it would work. The big corps would own all 10k slots and nobody else could file one because they would recycle patents internally.

Re: When Patents Attack

#118

Post by brlewis »

MartinCron wrote: post #71
mckoss wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Honestly, if the patent office would just do their job and not grant bogus patents based on obvious inventions or inventions with prior art, that would probably be enough. Software patents aren't the problem, bad software patents are the problem.

The job of the patent office is impossible in the field of software patents.

It is not realistic to expect anyone to judge novelty and non-obviousness in a field this wide and active. Imagine trying to evaluate mechanical engineering patent applications if millions of people carried machine shops around in their backpacks.

The only solution is to end software patents. Obama could do this today by directing the patent office to respect the Supreme Court's Flook decision, which they reiterated as good precedent in Diehr and in Bilski.

Re: When Patents Attack

#119

Post by cma »

danshapiro wrote: post #73

Did anyone else click the "someone patented toast" link and actually read the claims? It's for toasting bread at 2,500-4,500 degrees, with specialized infrared ovens.

2500-4500 degrees sounds impressive, I can't believe how NPR manipulated me!

Wait... http://www.vendian.org/mncharity/dir3/blackbody/

Pretty sure a standard household toaster is well into that range.

Re: When Patents Attack

#120

Post by druswick »

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.

That would also require the patent office to grant patents in well less than a year. It wouldn't help the little guys too much if you found out you were granted the patent 6 months or more after its expired.
Post reply on HN