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

61–70 of 204 posts

Re: The Patent Pledge

#61

Post by SoftwarePatent »

randallsquared wrote: post #53
SoftwarePatent wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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".

OK, if so, who is going to pay the $10k+ in costs to get each of these patents? Whoever pays to get a patent and not enforce it does society a service, but bears the cost themselves.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#62

Post by lhnn »

>Already most technology companies wouldn't sink to using patents on startups. You don't see Google or Facebook suing startups for patent infringement.

You would, however, see Facebook sue startups for using the word "book" in their website name.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#63

Post by scott_s »

SoftwarePatent wrote: post #61
randallsquared wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

OK, if so, who is going to pay the $10k+ in costs to get each of these patents? Whoever pays to get a patent and not enforce it does society a service, but bears the cost themselves.

They also do it defensively, to protect against someone else getting that patent and using it against them.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#64

Post by guelo »

SoftwarePatent wrote: post #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 co…

I'm not so sure pharmaceuticals are an example of good patents. Most of the patented research is actually paid for by taxpayers through the NIH, and then paid for again by patients through exorbitant prices for 15 years. Then there is the problem of people in the third world dying because of the high prices charged by patent monopolies.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#65

Post by artursapek »

SoftwarePatent wrote: post #61
randallsquared wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

OK, if so, who is going to pay the $10k+ in costs to get each of these patents? Whoever pays to get a patent and not enforce it does society a service, but bears the cost themselves.

The idea is own the patent for defensive purposes, not aggressive. "Patent pacifism," if you will.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#66

Post by graiz »

1. Large companies aren't on this list and are unlikely to put themselves on the list. There is no competitive advantage to be there.

2. There's a presupposition that small companies are somehow better then large companies. I can say that a company like Lodysys is likely under 25 people. You don't want to put yourself in a position where you have agreed not to be agressive with any company based on their size. Many of the Inc. 500 are under 25 people.

I'd rather see a simpler pledge.

> We will use our patens defensively, not offensively. > (Optionally) > We will license our patents only to others who will use them defensively.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#67

Post by brianlash »

Because it's one line and because its implications are that important:

For quantities you can count (windows, money, people...), the word is "fewer." For quantities you can't, the word is "less"

The pledge should read: No first use of software patents against companies with fewer than 25 people.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#68

Post by pg »

ansy wrote: post #50

PG, 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 paten…

IIRC none have actually been sued, but one has been sent a letter saying they're violating a competitor's patent. What made me start thinking about this idea was a combination of that letter, this story:

http://k9ventures.com/blog/2011/04/27/modista/

and the fear that YC applicants working on education software have of the notoriously litigious Blackboard.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#69

Post by genieyclo »

ayanb wrote: post #28

From 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…

Well, Stripe is not YC, but your argument makes sense. I don't know how others are supposed to take this pledge "officially" other than by posting a blog post and emailing pg however. Maybe there's a secret cabal that of startup people use as a channel to converse anyways though ;)
Post reply on HN