The Patent Pledge • Hacker News Board

Re: The Patent Pledge

#101

Post by doron » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 10:05 PM UTC

artursapek wrote: post #65

SoftwarePatent wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This line is repeated everywhere now, and it is hard to swallow. A deterrent is only useful if you employ it from time to time to demonstrate its power.

If you have offensive capacity you will be bound to use it.

Guns don't kill people, People kill people. Sure, but guns make it much easier, and by design, have the capacity for landing in the wrong hands.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#102

Post by guelo » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 10:06 PM UTC

ghshephard wrote: post #91

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…

That's the type of pragmatic individual reasoning that collectively just perpetuates and reinforces the current system. If we can't rely on government then the only way to change it is by being unreasonable.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#103

Post by jbooth » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 10:07 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…

Well, it stinks when you try to do something good and then catch a bunch of crap from people doing nothing, for not doing enough. So I don't want to do that.

But here's the thing - while this is good, the Intellectual Ventures of the world are actually wining and dining congressional aides and maxing donations. The financial industry got that patent carve-out a couple months ago that only applied to their industry. Until tech people get into the game, full-court press in DC and get actual job creators and moneymen in front of congressmen telling them that this stuff destroys jobs, they're not going to be represented.

You're not obligated to go on a personal crusade on this, and it sounds like a big hellish pain in the ass that would be a net loss for you personally and for YC by entangling you in politics. But until someone does, people in favor of patent reform are going to be unilaterally disarmed.

Maybe some sort of industry lobbying group for small tech biz that's not beholden to the big corps would be effective. A small amount kicked in by some of the major angels/VCs, and a limited lobbying mission of "stuff that everyone can agree to" which would certainly include abusive patent use.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#104

Post by kmavm » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 10:08 PM UTC

lhnn wrote: post #62

>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.

Just as you saw Google suing startups for naming themselves "oole" when they were search-related in any way. And as you see every competently run company, everywhere defend its trademarks.

Trademarks and patents are very different things.

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-tells-booble-to-ce...

Re: The Patent Pledge

#105

Post by beagle3 » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 10:09 PM UTC

SoftwarePatent wrote: post #33

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…

We can't get patent reform through Congress, so let's try to get a new tax through Congress? DOA.

You need a carrot for Congress. Right now, a patent reform (of the kind HN would generally like) will:

a) reduce government intake in the form of patent registration and maintenance fees b) get all the lobbyists employed by current patent holders (who spend billions of dollars on those patents) working against you.

Why on earth would congress do something like that? So that 0.05% of the population that actually has any idea how bad it is would rejoice? (If your answer is "to improve american competitiveness" or something like that -- well, you have no idea how congress works)

However, if you can get a new spending source, you just have the lobbyist problem to take care of.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#106

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

Volunteerism doesn't work when there is too much money at stake. How much has that green consumer really done for the environment without assistance from a carbon tax? Like calls for conservation, this is well-intended, but a distraction from the real problem, which is that the patent system is badly engineered for innovation.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#107

Post by A1kmm » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 10:10 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…

The biggest problem with the patent system is it discourages people from using patented ideas - the more patented ideas you use in your product (even if you independently discover them), the more you pay.

A good patent system would have the following properties: * Investment and risk taking in R&D and sharing the results is rewarded above the costs of that R&D, so there is no disincentive to share with competitors. * There is no disincentive to using and building on ideas shared by others.

I think the best system is a 'tax'-like system - alongside the existing patent system, businesses can elect to pay 10% of their revenues to a pool for immunity from all patents. Businesses using / reselling patented manufactured products are still liable even if the manufacturer pays the 10%, unless they also pay the 10%. Patent filers tell the pool the actual costs of R&D (and may be audited to prove it). The pool is distributed based to patent filers based on R&D costs (and maybe a per-industry factor for risk) - it might be better to somehow collect some rough metric of value of the each patent to their business from patent users, although there are risks of the system being gamed then.

This system would achieve the desired properties at 10% of all industry-wide research being spent on R&D - it would favour not disclosing R&D worth more than 10%, and if less than 10% was spent, it would be stacked in favour of companies doing R&D.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#108

Post by beagle3 » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 10:13 PM UTC

kirillzubovsky wrote: post #17

bpm140 wrote: post #2

PG suggests that this won't stop the trolls but it might deter more traditional companies. Does anyone have stats on who is doing the most damage to early companies? Given the press, it's easy to think that trolls are the biggest offenders by an order of magnitude. Is there data that suggests otherwise?

Indirectly, this pledge my also help to slow down the trolls. Trolls buy up patents in order to sue or resell. Startups have no money to pay up, so the only option is to resell. But, if a potential acquirer has pledged not to use patents against small companies, buying them off from trolls wouldn't make for a good public image. As a result, trolls won't press on the patent holders, at least until they are acquired by…

... thereby making it cheaper for trolls acquiring patents, like Intellectual Ventures, as there is less market for the patents -- but not slowing them down.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#109

Post by jessriedel » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 10:15 PM UTC

beagle3 wrote: post #94

jessriedel wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't get it then. If my company holds a huge portfolio of patents, and we sue for $X damages on some subset of them in a given year, we will simply value those patents at $X and the rest at zero. Then we recover $X in damages, and pay 1% of X in taxes.

In other words, doesn't this just reduce to a 1% tax on patent damages?

(Even if we think we'll only recover on average p% of our claims, we still only pay 1% of X in taxes to get p% of X in damages. Assuming p% is closer to 50% than 1%, not much changes.)

Re: The Patent Pledge

#110

Post by ghshephard » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 10:15 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #102

ghshephard wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's the type of pragmatic individual reasoning that collectively just perpetuates and reinforces the current system. If we can't rely on government then the only way to change it is by being unreasonable.

The thing about being a leader, or a bellwether, is that you need to walk outside the mainstream, be just a little bit crazier than your colleagues, but not so crazy our out of the mainstream that you leave everyone behind.

PG's position is clearly not in the mainstream of the business world (though, one might argue that, if anything, he's more conservative than his hacker audience) - but he's close enough to their interests that he may encourage followers. Or not. That's always the risk of being a leader - you may step out, and people may not follow.

He does speak to their interests which is, "If you want to hire great developers, you should align your corporate ethos with the best and brightest that you want to attract" - and, in general, large companies virtually never, ever, sue _small_ companies for _software_ patents - so they have little to risk.