Speaking of patents, (although this is a month old now) I recommend everyone listen to the show This American Life did covering patent trolling: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w...
The Patent Pledge
41–50 of 204 posts
Re: The Patent Pledge
#42It's not immediately clear to me whether this solves any part of the current problem. But on reflection, I believe I understand the motivation here. Big companies that use patents as a revenue stream (MSFT, IBM, etc.) typically bide their time and bring a patent lawsuit once a new company is established and there is blood to drain. It's the threat of such a lawsuit in the future that can negatively impact investment…
> Most of us, I believe, would prefer to see companies make a stronger commitment: "No first use of software patents" [period].
I don't think PG agrees with this. He seems to be much less anti-patent than the general HN (commenting) community.
Re: The Patent Pledge
#43One line from this essay has me a little worried...
"A clumsy parasite may occasionally kill the host, but that's not its goal"
This came up in a previous discussion on HN where I made essentially the same point. As someone pointed out in response, a parasite can get away with killing off the host as long as there's somewhere else to go next. In fact, a parasite could wipe out an entire species as long as it can make the jump to something more resilient.
it was just a short aside, but here's a link the the thread...
Re: The Patent Pledge
#44Patent trolling big companies is just as unethical as trolling small ones. PG: Red Hat, a multibillion dollar business, already has a working patent pledge - they won't use patents except defensively against people who attack them first. Copy that and use it.
I disagree. Patent trolls often just aim for a comparatively meager payout for licensing from their victims, who are usually too small to be able to afford the much more expensive option of taking it to court (and perhaps winning). Therefore a loophole in justice.
Re: The Patent Pledge
#45I have a PG question for PG: what problem does this solve? I see 2 problems currently. 1. Microsoft suing Android makers, and other similar examples, where large companies burn billions of dollars of our economy over something pointless. 2. Patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures and their shell companies suing startups. How does this solve either of these problems? Who really needs this?
It solves the chilling effect of patents on startups. Many startups have avoided entire domains because of patents. Large enough companies can negotiate reasonable license terms or fight patents in court, but small startups cannot afford the risk of a dispute.
Re: The Patent Pledge
#46 This pledge boils down to "shine light on bad actors", but I doubt it will change any behavior. Only rent-seekers [1] want software patents to exist, and you can't decrease their reputation any more, it's already 0.
The S. Ct. already had their big chance in Bilski to dial back software patentability, and they blew it. Our only hope is Congress. (/me shudders hopelessly)
And to anyone suggesting we abolish patents completely: they increase societal utility in many sectors, most notably pharmaceuticals.
[1] lawyers and trolls.
Re: The Patent Pledge
#47I disagree that this will help, because the established companies the pledge would apply to are a secondary problem and mostly seem to fight each other (has Microsoft asserted patents against a startup? has IBM? has AT&T? when they asserted patents it was against multi-million dollar businesses!). The primary problem is patent trolls (see e.g. lodsys / intellectual ventures) for whom this pledge could be considered s…
To clarify: they can't adjust the value retroactively, right? If you find out someone is profiting from your patent in 2011 which you valued at zero the beginning of that year, you have to wait until 2012 to re-value (and potentially sue them), correct?
Re: The Patent Pledge
#48It's not immediately clear to me whether this solves any part of the current problem. But on reflection, I believe I understand the motivation here. Big companies that use patents as a revenue stream (MSFT, IBM, etc.) typically bide their time and bring a patent lawsuit once a new company is established and there is blood to drain. It's the threat of such a lawsuit in the future that can negatively impact investment…
'Most of us, I believe, would prefer to see companies make a stronger commitment: "No first use of software patents" [period].'
Good idea, but it can't work. If the PTO is willing to grant a patent on a software idea, someone is going to get the patent. If Google stands down, some troll will get it instead, to the detriment of society.
Re: The Patent Pledge
#49From the http://thepatentpledge.org/ website - --- These companies have agreed to be the first to publicly renounce aggressive use of software patents on small companies. Please join them! A Thinking Ape, Airbnb, Bump, CarWoo, DailyBooth, Disqus, DotCloud, Greplin, Hipmunk, Justin.tv, Loopt, Songkick, Stripe, Weebly, Wepay ---- I think the whole YC gang is going to promote this aggressively, which means a strong netw…
Do any of these companies have patents that they could use aggressively?
Re: The Patent Pledge
#50PG, was this pledge created in response to litigation you have experienced with YC companies?
There doesn't seem to be much evidence companies with fewer than 25 employees are getting sued unless there's something left unspoken here.
I think it would be more constructive to begin the discussion of what patent reform should resemble so that companies and individuals can show support for it. Some kind of software patent working group that can put forward a vision that everyone can get behind. If enough people and companies come to support a way of thinking then it will slowly affect current behavior and ultimately shape the legal framework of the future.
Even if it was a problem that companies smaller than 25 were being sued for patent infringement, I'm not sure the legal litmus test should be how many employees are at the company.