The Patent Pledge • Hacker News Board

Re: The Patent Pledge

#91

Post by ghshephard » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 9:48 PM UTC

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.

The problem with that worldview, is that Patents play a number of very important defensive and value creating roles in a small company, that is not related, whatsoever, to their use in an offensive (in both senses of the word) manner.

See: http://paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html

In particular:

"We do advise the companies we fund to apply for patents, but not so they can sue competitors. Successful startups either get bought or grow into big companies. If a startup wants to grow into a big company, they should apply for patents to build up the patent portfolio they'll need to maintain an armed truce with other big companies. If they want to get bought, they should apply for patents because patents are part of the mating dance with acquirers."

Re: The Patent Pledge

#92

Post by arikrak » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 9:48 PM UTC

Why should small companies deserve special protection? If the current patent system is just, let them sue anyone big or small. If the system is broken, they shouldn't be suing big companies either. How about a pledge not use ridiculous patents to sue anyone? That may be way too vague, but that would make more sense.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#93

Post by dethstarr » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 9:49 PM UTC

I think this is a good idea in theory, but the patent trolls are ruthless as ever. Their primary motivator is making money, and I doubt they'll stop their actions.

On the flipside, if this can garner public pressure against the trolls-- and perhaps some real action in changing the laws, I think the world would be a better place.

Keep it up Y Combinator!

Re: The Patent Pledge

#94

Post by beagle3 » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 9:51 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #47

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…

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?

To clarify: the declared value puts a _maximum_ on awarded damages, but does not make it in any way automatic (even if the product is found infringing).

My proposal is that it is set retroactively one year back: when you file your 2011 taxes (on April 2012 at the latest), you would assign a value for it for 2011, and pay it at that point.

If you sue (or even threat to sue) someone in 2011 before paying the tax, that is an admission of tax liability - if you declare less at the end of the year, that's grounds for the IRS to audit you and assume your highest estimate during the year (as shown in the threat to sue) sets your tax, and anything else is automatic assumption of tax evasion.

A future-looking only assessment is also possible; but in that case, you have to be able to set the value (and pay the tax) on a monthly basis -- otherwise, it calls for anyone who is willfully infringing to wait until 1-jan, ask for the IP value, and if it is less than they expected to pay, have a year of "free" use.

My proposal is an attempt to sort-of balance the existing state of affairs -- if at the end of the year, you didn't manage to license it to anyone, you shouldn't be taxed for what you thought it is worth.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#95

Post by haberman » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 9:53 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #59

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 ut…

What is a good example of something that would have turned out worse if there hadn't been software patents? (I know you've argued before that software patents aren't fundamentally different than patents on anything else, but to a lot of people software patents have more obviously negative consequences).

Re: The Patent Pledge

#96

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 9:54 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: The Patent Pledge

#97

Post by beagle3 » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 9:55 PM UTC

veyron wrote: post #58

defen wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Until _before_ a patent case. The taxes are what gives you the ability to sue (and a limit to the damage you can be awarded), and there is no guarantee you will win your case of that your patent will not be invalidated.

Again, you have to pay the tax _before_ you can sue, and then you can only sue for the value reflected by the tax for that year, no more (and you are still subject to invalidation, etc).

Re: The Patent Pledge

#98

Post by macrael » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 9:57 PM UTC

ScottBurson wrote: post #89

Here's another proposal that doesn't rest on social pressure, the effectiveness of which I fear Paul overestimates. Start a non-profit coalition with the following rules: (1) All patent disputes between members will be resolved by binding arbitration. The arbiters are a panel of domain experts (not lawyers!). There is no presumption that an issued patent is valid. (2) If a member of the coalition is sued by a non-mem…

It is my understanding that this was pretty much exactly the pitch for Intellectual Ventures, and now they have sunk to aiding and abetting trolls.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#99

Post by evgen » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 9:59 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #64

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.

The pure research funded by taxpayers via the NIH or university research represents a tiny fraction of the cost of getting a new treatment to market. The patents cover the risk of taking raw research through testing and development stages that can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and still not deliver a viable product at the end of the process.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#100

Post by zdw » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 10:03 PM UTC

The number thing is abusable. Witness facebook still operating under the SEC's 500-person limit:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/facebook-and-the-500-...

I'm not aware of any measurement method that any moderately smart rules lawyer (aka anyone who's played more than 5 hours of a strategy video game or pen and paper RPG) couldn't figure out a way around.