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

The Patent Pledge

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 204 posts

Re: The Patent Pledge

#51

Post by defen »

veyron wrote: post #29
beagle3 wrote: post #21

I 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…

Everyone will game the IP tax by valuing it at pennies -- after all, they may not directly be using it may not have a fair market value before they take someone to court. As a real-life example of people gaming these types of taxes, people buy expensive (>100K USD) cars in europe directly (i.e. taking delivery in stuttgart) to save on the sales tax: driving it around for a bit ensures that the car is technically "use…

I haven't thought through OP's proposal, but your objection is covered - by valuing a patent at pennies, a company would cause compulsory licenses/willful infringment penalties to also be worth pennies.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#52

Post by SoftwarePatent »

artursapek wrote: post #44
nailer wrote: post #32

Patent 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.

This is exactly right. Tragically, it is cheaper to settle a baseless lawsuit than to win it. It makes business sense to give trolls money.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#53

Post by randallsquared »

SoftwarePatent wrote: post #48
tc wrote: post #31

It'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.

I believe "use" means "bring suit or threatening same", here, not "apply for a patent".

Re: The Patent Pledge

#54

Post by tzs »

tlb wrote: post #45
samgro wrote: post #11

I 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.

> It solves the chilling effect of patents on startups

How?

Re: The Patent Pledge

#55

Post by Adaptive »

This is a "spirit of the law" with no "law".

PG's solution, while elegant and functional for individuals, will fail for corporations.

We have a spirit-of-the-law in America with regards to being a citizen: you pay taxes and receive benefits of living here. Corporate persons are, one would imagine, also party to this spirit of the law, yet they not only ignore the spirit, they find ways around the tax laws on a regular basis.

Even if companies were forced to comply with this by law, they'd just find away around it. Sub-25 person shell companies making up large corporations. Who knows.

The fundamental problem is the same as with the rest of corporate personhood: we have given corporations the rights of individuals but they lack the implicit ethics and social peer pressures which result in moral behavior.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#56

Post by SoftwarePatent »

guelo wrote: post #34

My personal pledge is that as a programmer I refuse to work for any company that goes on the attack with software patents, this obviously includes Apple and Microsoft. I also refuse to participate if asked by my company to help create a patent, I am willing to be fired over this. Since good programmers are a scarce resource if enough of us took this pledge it could really start having an effect.

When I was writing software patents for a living, programmers hated talking to me. They considered it a total waste of time at best. That's part of the reason I decided to switch sides and do a startup instead ;)

Re: The Patent Pledge

#58

Post by veyron »

defen wrote: post #51
veyron wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone will game the IP tax by valuing it at pennies -- after all, they may not directly be using it may not have a fair market value before they take someone to court. As a real-life example of people gaming these types of taxes, people buy expensive (>100K USD) cars in europe directly (i.e. taking delivery in stuttgart) to save on the sales tax: driving it around for a bit ensures that the car is technically "use…

I haven't thought through OP's proposal, but your objection is covered - by valuing a patent at pennies, a company would cause compulsory licenses/willful infringment penalties to also be worth pennies.

No but the taxes would have to be paid only after a successful patent case. The point is that the patent has no real market price until the first successful willful infringement penalty. Until that point, the price is arbitrary.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#59

Post by pg »

tc wrote: post #31

It'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…

If you want to start a movement, you can't aim too high initially, or you just stall. The patent pledge in its current form is at least fairly easy to swallow. If it sticks, it will have the effect of making patent suits against competitors seem more dubious, which would in turn prepare people for more exacting versions.

How far ultimately would you want to push it? I honestly don't know yet. Patents may have some utility. It's a very complicated question. I've read a lot about the history of technology, and I can't say for sure whether things would have gone better or worse without patents. The topic seems to be one of those where on average the strength of people's opinions is inversely proportional to how much they've studied the problem.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#60

Post by bfe »

This might usefully and reasonably be expanded to cover an individual or a non-profit of any size including universities, as well as a small company, in parallel with the Patent Office's definition of a "small entity" for reduced fees.[1] Companies suing universities for patent infringement for doing research is similarly problematic for innovation.

And, I think the intent would be served equally well by getting rid of the restriction to software patents.

[1] Although the small entity rules define a small company as a maximum of 500 employees, rather than 25.

Post reply on HN